138
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
human and animal contact from the reservoirs and their gathering grounds.
Hence the public generally had been excluded.
Gradually this was changed and it was thought that the old attitude need not be applied too rigidly where subsequent water treatment was adequate. The issue of public access became a matter of degree rather than whether or not to prohibit all access. Now the view is that where water supplies derived from rivers are subjected to comprehensive treatment, recreational activities in and around regulating and compensatory water reservoirs discharging solely to these rivers are unlikely to constitute a significant pollution hazard. Decision on public access will be guided more by considerations of public safety and amenity than by water quality and hygiene.
I found all this most interesting and relevant to the situation in Hong Kong. Here we have numerous reservoirs nearly all of which are reasonably accessible. Thus, we have reservoirs capable of being put to recreational use, but which we have not as yet been made use of. We are now in the process of developing the Wong Nei Chung Reservoir into just such a facility. Boating will be available. There will be a boating pavilion with a snack bar, a refreshment kiosk and refreshment area. There will also be a car park associated with it. I am sure this facility will be greatly welcomed by the public.
However, the only reason we have been able to build it is that the reservoir itself is no longer connected with the water supply system. In other words, the Water Supplies Department need no longer worry about contamination here. If that is the sole criterion then it means that all our other reservoirs will still remain unavailable.
To-day, I am trying to persuade the Water Supplies Department to modify this attitude so as to allow other reservoirs to be used as well. Water-borne diseases are no longer the threat they were. The incidence of Cholera and typhoid in Hong Kong is very low. At the same time, methods of water treatment have improved and are far more sophisticated and effective than they used to be.
For these reasons I think the time is ripe for the Water Supplies Department to change their attitude. Without real risk they can take a little pace forward and allow reservoirs and their associated land areas to be put to recreational use. Already the land adjacent to reservoirs are open to the public. Indeed some of them are country parks. So far as I am aware, no serious threat to health has resulted.
Of course I am not suggesting that all the reservoirs should suddenly be thrown open to indiscriminate use. What I am suggesting is that one or two carefully selected reservoirs most suitable for the purpose should be chosen. They should then be adapted and developed along the lines of the Wong Nei Chung Reservoir. That development could be a pilot scheme. Any deficiency found there could be put right in the development of the other reservoirs which will be on a much larger scale.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 91 of 142
139
I am sure this will be a great boon to the public who enjoy out-door pursuits. At the same time it should pose no threat to Hong Kong's water supply. I strongly urge the Water Supplies Department to take this step.
Turning to the local scene, it is the policy of the Council to provide one swimming pool complex for every district of approximately 250,000 people in Urban Hong Kong. We now have a total of ten such complexes with several more under planning. Our objective has not yet been fully attained. However, I think everyone in Hong Kong who wants to use a swimming pool is within easy access of one or more.
Up to now, the pools we have built are standard swimming or diving pools. So far we have not built any recreational or fun pools, and I believe it is now time to do so.
The department is now planning the provision of recreational pools within the swimming pool complex of the Hammer Hill Road Sports Ground. A wave pool and slides are being considered. I saw a number of such pools in London last year, and I am sure they will be very popular in Hong Kong.
In addition to swimming pools, all our gazetted beaches are increasingly popular, none more so than Repulse Bay. Here we have talked about a comprehensive plan for development for some years. I am afraid not much progress has been made. The Council for its part has been doing its best to push things along. Two beach buildings have been built and a third is planned. However, it is not sufficient to provide facilities at the beach. People have to get there and in large numbers. The Aberdeen Tunnel has played a part in easing traffic congestion. On the other hand, in Repulse Bay itself, nothing has been done so far as regards traffic improvement.
There is a long-term plan for a radical improvement of the main road on the south side of the island. This is very long-term indeed and will certainly take many years to be completed. In the meantime, something can and should be done. There is a short-term plan to provide a simple bus terminal at the western end of the beach, with one-way traffic flow from west to east along Beach Road for buses and permitted vehicles only. No other traffic will be allowed to use this road. This plan should be put in hand as soon as possible. Continuation of the present situation whereby buses which stop at Repulse Bay have to turn around with great difficulty across the stream of traffic must not be allowed to continue.
The Council's aim to provide more recreational facilities is continually hampered by lack of land suitable for the purpose. For this reason, we take what we can. Already the roofs of some covered service reservoirs have been developed for amenity or recreational use.
Hitherto all service reservoirs have been designed only to suit Water Supplies Department use. They are only able to take a limited load. Because of this, active recreational facilities and amenity planting are not always possible.
Page 91 of 14