777
No.
40
1902
HONGKONG.
SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE OF HONGKONG.
Laid before the Legislative Council by Command of His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government.
SIR,
PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE, HONGKONG, 13th May, 1902.
50-25.8.02.
scope of this
1. Since the publication of a report dated 10th April, 1902, I have made As to the further enquiries concerning the Sewerage and Drainage of the City of Victoria, Report. which, on the whole, tend to confirm the remarks and observations which I have made in the aforesaid report. In this report I accepted full responsibility for the general system of sewerage. In criticising it I am, therefore, sitting in judgment on my own project. I shall endeavour to be impartial and I hope I shall succeed in being so, for I trust I am not yet so senile as to believe that I attained finality of knowledge, twelve years ago, or that my views have not undergone modification, in accordance with increasing experience.
Sewerage.
difficult to
2. The scarcity of water, which has prevailed during my visit, renders it most The prevail- ing drought difficult to judge as to the norinal condition of the sewers. No sewers could be renders it expected to work well with a consumption of water not exceeding 7 gallons per judge of the head per day for all purposes, and in many parts of the town, doubtless, less. This working of remark applies with even greater force to the House Sewers, which, I am sorry to say, are not so well constructed as they should be.
3. The prevailing drought is an argument in favour of the Separate System. The only arguments of any weight which have ever been brought forward against the Separate System are:-
(a.) That the sewers are not flushed by the rain-water.
(b.) That covered storm-water drains being required to carry off rain-
water, they may as well carry sewage also.
(e.) That the Separate System is not in use in London and many towns
in England.
As regards (u.), I beg to point out that no rain of importance has fallen since August last. Since that month had the sewers or drains been dependent on rain for flushing, their condition would now have been deplorable. Sewers, large enough to carry off rain-water would have only received during all these months the paltry quantity of sewage which now flows, an amount wholly inadequate to flush such large pipes or conduits.
As regards (6.), I would point out that covered storm-water drains should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. They are sure to be at least as great a nuisance as properly constructed sewers. Some must indeed be covered, but covered lengths should be reduced to a minimum. Certainly the condition of the drains whether as they exist or even when re-modelled would not be improved by allowing a mere dribble of sewage to flow through them during the prolonged dry season or even during the intervals between rain-storms. They would merely be vast magazines of sewage tainted air.
As regards (c.), I merely say that the climate of Hongkong is dissimilar to that of England; that most English sewers were made long ago, and that many towns have adopted the Separate System, at least so far as ancient custom and law permit them to do so.
the sewers.
The present an argument
drought is
in favour of the Separate System.
}