Page 146 of 194
274
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. K. A. WATSON:--Mr. Chairman, Mr. MARDEN and others have mentioned that it was only eight months since our last debate. In spite of this I am afraid I can give you no comfort and my speech will be as long as ever, despite my best intention of keeping it short and sweet. This is due to the wide range of interests we have in this Council, a range which it has been proposed should be extended to include the New Territories Administration, the Social Welfare Department, the Medical Services, the Education Department and, I believe, if I heard correctly, the Marine Department. (Laughter). Now, I think that these flights of fantasy are enough for one day and I will try to keep strictly to the business in hand.
Mr. BERNACCHI has suggested that I would be talking about the slow development of the museum. I meant to do so at some length had I not this morning received a paper saying that Government had accepted in principle the need for a larger space for the museum at some future date and would welcome concrete plans. The Curator and the Manager have drawn up a paper which will be discussed at the Policy Committee meeting next week, so I will say no more this afternoon. Instead I would like to speak on a subject with which we are concerned, not only as individuals, but also in the fields of environmental hygiene, street cleansing, food and food premises, and in the use and control of wells—the somewhat dry subject of Water, a subject touched on briefly by Dr. LEE and the Honourable F. S. LI, not to mention Mr. CHEONG-LEEN. Let me begin by paying a tribute, as Mr. CHEONG-LEEN has done, to the cheerfulness, patience and resourcefulness of the people of Hong Kong in these unprecedented times.
We are now suffering more greatly from water shortage than in any previous year. But this is the extreme symptom of a deficiency which has plagued us for a very long time. I myself cannot remember any year when there has not been some rationing, though never as acute as at present. I am sure that Government, like the rest of us, has been wondering whether its present water policy is adequate. It is possible that not only do we need new sources of water such as reservoirs, distillation and pipelines, but we will also need a new theory of water distribution.
We are warned from a thousand posters that "Water is Precious", and urged to use as little as possible. But other than appeals to our public spirit, there are no teeth in Government's call to conserve water and avoid waste. I would prefer to pay more for it. These last few months have made us think of its true value in relation to other commodities, and what we would pay for it, if we could get it. Think how welcome it would be if we could get extra water in our homes for 1 cent a gallon. You could have a shower, any time you wished, for four cents, a full bath for ten cents. If it were available I doubt if anyone would object to paying as much as this, although it is ten times more than the present charge. An ample ration each day would cost about the same as your daily newspaper, and at this rate Government's income would be hundreds of millions of dollars a year. With this, it could push ahead with the Plover Cove scheme, flash distillation and all other ways of providing, not just a meagre, rationed driblet, but an ample supply constantly available at all times. It is because Government has considered that we were unwilling to pay an economic price for water that, as the Annual Report states, "the history of the Hong Kong Waterworks has been marked by a succession of crises caused by demand outstripping supply.”
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
275
If, however, we accept the fact that it is difficult and expensive to provide all the water we want, and are prepared to pay a more realistic price for it, Government will be encouraged to spend large sums of money well in advance of demand and we shall get away from the constant shortages.
It is, of course, essential that a complete system of metering must be adopted, but while this is a large and complicated task, it should be just as feasible as metering for electricity or for gas. This, combined with a variable scale of charges, would provide a much more flexible and equitable way of rationing than our present one. Prior to the present crisis there was nothing to prevent a man, when the water was on, using as much as he liked on watering his lawn, for the cost was negligible. There was no financial disincentive, although water was in short supply and being rationed. A more logical system would be to give a reasonable minimum per person at a low price, perhaps the same as at present. If more is required the cost would be higher, and would continue to rise. A man could still use mains water for his garden but would have to pay heavily for the privilege, and might be persuaded to find alternative sources. In times of surplus these charges could be reduced, and in shortages increased in order to reduce consumption, with financial pressure providing a more effective deterrent to waste than appeals to our better nature. There would be very much less waste, the pipes could be kept full and uncontaminated, and the spectre of waterless days would vanish. A man who used a lot of water would not be considered anti-social, for he would be paying for it, and what he paid would go to providing more water for others.
It is also necessary that the salt water supply system be extended as far as possible in the urban areas for fire-fighting, street cleaning and flushing, and the higher average water rate would help to pay for this.
Page 146 of 194
274
...
275
of 194
Page 146 of 194
274
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. K. A. WATSON:--Mr. Chairman, Mr. MARDEN and others have mentioned that it was only eight months since our last debate. In spite of this I am afraid I can give you no comfort and my speech will be as long as ever, despite my best intention of keeping it short and sweet. This is due to the wide range of interests we have in this Council, a range which it has been proposed should be extended to include the New Territories Administration, the Social Welfare Depart- ment, the Medical Services, the Education Department and, I believe, if I heard correctly, the Marine Department. (Laughter). Now, I think that these flights of fantasy are enough for one day and I will try to keep strictly to the business in hand.
Mr. BERNACCHI has suggested that I would be talking about the slow development of the museum. I meant to do so at some length had I not this morning received a paper saying that Government had accepted in principle the need for a larger space for the museum at some future date and would welcome concrete plans. The Curator and the Manager have drawn up a paper which will be discussed at the Policy Committee meeting next week, so I will say no more this afternoon. Instead I would like to speak on a subject with which we are concerned, not only as individuals, but also in the fields of environmental hygiene, street cleansing, food and food premises, and in the use and control of wells-the somewhat dry subject of Water, a subject touched on briefly by Dr. LEE and the Honourable F. S. LI, not to mention Mr. CHEONG-LEEN. Let me begin by paying a tribute, as Mr. CHEONG-LEEN has done, to the cheerfulness, patience and resourcefulness of the people of Hong Kong in these unprecedented times.
We are now suffering more greatly from water shortage than in any previous year. But this is the extreme symptom of a deficiency which has plagued us for a very long time. I myself cannot remember any year when there has not been some rationing, though never as acute as at present. I am sure that Government, like the rest of us, has been wondering whether its present water policy is adequate. It is possible that not only do we need new sources of water such as reservoirs, distillation and pipelines, but we will also need a new theory of water distribution.
We are warned from a thousand posters that "Water is Precious", and urged to use as little as possible. But other than appeals to our public spirit, there are no teeth in Government's call to conserve water and avoid waste. I would prefer to pay more for it. These last few months have made us think of its true value in relation to other com- modities, and what we would pay for it, if we could get it. Think how welcome it would be if we could get extra water in our homes for 1 cent a gallon. You could have a shower, any time you wished, for
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
275
four cents, a full bath for ten cents. If it were available I doubt if anyone would object to paying as much as this, although it is ten times more than the present charge. An ample ration each day would cost about the same as your daily newspaper, and at this rate Government's income would be hundreds of millions of dollars a year. With this, it could push ahead with the Plover Cove scheme, flash distillation and all other ways of providing, not just a meagre, rationed driblet, but an ample supply constantly available at all times. It is because Government has considered that we were unwilling to pay an economic price for water that, as the Annual Report states, "the history of the Hong Kong Waterworks has been marked by a succession of crises caused by demand outstripping supply.”
If, however, we accept the fact that it is difficult and expensive to provide all the water we want, and are prepared to pay a more realistic price for it, Government will be encouraged to spend large sums of money well in advance of demand and we shall get away from the constant shortages.
It is, of course, essential that a complete system of metering must be adopted, but while this is a large and complicated task, it should be just as feasible as metering for electricity or for gas. This, combined with a variable scale of charges, would provide a much more flexible and equitable way of rationing than our present one. Prior to the present crisis there was nothing to prevent a man, when the water was on, using as much as he liked on watering his lawn, for the cost was negligible. There was no financial disincentive, although water was in short supply and being rationed. A more logical system would be to give a reasonable minimum per person at a low price, perhaps the same as at present. If more is required the cost would be higher, and would continue to rise. A man could still use mains water for his garden but would have to pay heavily for the privilege, and might be persuaded to find alternative sources. In times of surplus these charges could be reduced, and in shortages increased in order to reduce con- sumption, with financial pressure providing a more effective deterrent to waste than appeals to our better nature. There would be very much less waste, the pipes could be kept full and uncontaminated, and the spectre of waterless days would vanish. A man who used a lot of water would not be considered anti-social, for he would be paying for it, and what he paid would go to providing more water for others.
It is also necessary that the salt water supply system be extended as far as possible in the urban areas for fire-fighting, street cleaning and flushing, and the higher average water rate would help to pay for this.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.