Talk:New River (London)

Pollution issue

Pollution of much of London's existing water supply by industries that had developed in the Lee's downstream reaches was the principal driver for its construction.

I removed this factual error. I'm not a usual wiki editor so I don't know if I'm following the rules. The Lea was not polluted in the early 17th century when the New River was completed (the New River did not take water from the Lea for the first few decades). Even in the 19th century, when the Lea became very polluted, the bigger problem was sewage from upriver communities, not industrial pollution, as most of the industry was built along the tidal back rivers in West Ham that which were not used by either the New River company or the East London Waterworks Company. I'll try and improve the article and provide all the references necessary to back up this information in the future. (Cljim22 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for taking the time. I would say that normally, where a reliable source states something, we accept it - however, looking at that ref, it didn't actually seem to support the claim.

I do know that industrial processes were taking place on the natural course of the Lee in the 16th-17th centuries - there was a gunpowder mill at Temple Mills and white lead grinding was taking place at mills on Temple Mills, Hackney Marshes and Three Mills. Possibly too far downstream to affect water extraction and maybe not within the medical knowledge of the time as a danger to health. I think that probably the reason chosen for where it is extracted, and the route it takes is purely topographical.

Certainly, the East London Waterworks Company is taking water from Lea Bridge and Old Ford, in 1806. Hackney Cut is not built until 1770.

HTH, and hope to see your improvements soon. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

When Edmund Colthurst first proposed the project that became the New River in 1602, he proposed to take only spring water and specifically ruled out taking water from the Lee as its uses were already legally controlled. . In essence, the owner of the land within which a spring rises can dispose of its water as she/he wishes, but a river's riparian landowners have limited rights over its water because so many others depend on it. Had Colthurst proposed drawing water from the Lee, there would probably have been an outcry from both the millers and boat owners who already had rights over it, as indeed there was when the New River did start taking water from it around 1620. Notwithstanding Colthurst's protestations, Queen Elizabeth I issued commissions 'ad quod damnum' to the counties of Middlesex and Hertfordshire which required them to report if anyone would suffer from Colthurst's capture of the spring water. They reported that none would as long as the channel was restricted to 6 feet wide. So the issue was not that its water was polluted, which it was not compared to Thames water, but that its uses were already controlled by a Commission of Sewers, an early version of the Lee Conservancy Board GrubbingEngineer (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References

'Terminus' of River

Article isn't very clear on exactly where the river ends. One line says Stoke Newington, another says it merely goes below ground here to reappear in Islington. The linked-to map shows it ending in Clerkenwell. A river cannot merely 'end', so perhaps a paragraph on what becomes of it? I'd guess either it enters the sewer system, goes underground until it empties in to the Thames, or else is entirely sucked up for drinking water? Grunners (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'Route' section does say the New River originally terminated near the Sadler's Wells theatre in Clerkenwell. The New River Head building (former headquarters of the Metropolitan Water Board), built in the early 20th century, includes elements of the original water house from the 1660s (see http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=1205431). The works here closed in 1947, and the water course now ends at the reservoir and filter beds at Stoke Newington (see http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A1054239-023F-414E-A85B-77DF71745E55/0/GAG_NewRiverHeadteachersPack.pdf). I have found a reference which dates the diversion to the East Reservoir to 1946, and have added this to the 'Route' section. Paul W (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The water flowing down the New River is now all discharged into the former East reservoir, now Woodberry Wetlands, from whence I believe it is piped to a treatment works in Walthamstow, and then from there into the water supply system. Several years ago, Thames Water claimed that the New River still supplied 8% of London's water. The stretch of the River from there to the New River Head was altered and then superseded at various dates, starting with the shortening of the Holloway loop by the construction of the 'Boarded River' between Wilberforce Road, Blackstock Road and Riversdale Road as early as 1618/9.

The New River Head is still in use for London's water supply; one of the access shafts and pumping stations for the London Ring Main is sited there, one of the buildings houses the pumps sending water up to the Claremont Square reservoir, and the ground beneath is riddled with pipes, some large and under high pressure. GrubbingEngineer (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Name of Islington mini-park?

Thanks to GrubbingEngineer for the recent edits. I was wondering: I think the recreated Islington bit (St Pauls Rd to Canonbury Rd, very nice) may be called New River Walk. Is it worth including this if it is verifiable? (If there is a sign I could walk there at lunchtime and take a photo!) I worry that it is a bit de minima and also that it risks causing confusion with the New River Path of which it is only a tiny part. I am not about to start fisticuffs over this but I did wonder what others think? Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed named 'New River Walk' and is part of the New River Path GrubbingEngineer (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)