This dissertation was completed and conferred in 2024 at the University of Western Australia under the supervision of Professor Andrea Gaynor (Principal), A/Professor Lionel Frost and A/Professor Ruth Morgan. It was funded by a Scholarship for International Research Fees and a Scholarship with stipend by the Australian Research Council (DP180100807 Water and the Making of Urban Australia: A History Since 1900). The full dissertation can be accessed through the University of Western Australia Research Repository. Melbourne and Hong Kong were founded in the early nineteenth century as British colonies. Both cities faced high water demand and constructed large-scale water supply systems. Through themes of colonial modernity, urban planning, colonial relations and the social history of technology, this dissertation examines and compares water management in the two cities. How and why did Melbourne and Hong Kong face high water demand? What measures did official water institutions take to manage water supply and usage? How were contestations among officials, experts and water users handled? How did the colonies' different political systems, geography and financial structure influence these issues? Through case studies using newspaper, archival, and parliamentary sources, this dissertation argues that the political and economic differences between Melbourne and Hong Kong affected the timeliness, but not the effectiveness of how officials responded to water crises. Melbourne, as a settler colony and property-owning democracy, enjoyed rapid verbal responses from officials. Hong Kong was an initial colonial outpost and its majority Chinese population held no power in the government. The colonial government largely dismissed Chinese grievances about inadequate water supply. Despite the difference in response time, both governments were unwilling to invest in expensive works to the water systems until they were certain that these works were indeed necessary and likely to bring about improvements. I also argue that the availability of resources in a city's hinterland does not necessitate accessibility nor the autonomy to plan and build infrastructure. Although Melbourne was geographically well placed to draw from Victoria's voluminous water sources, the waterworks constructions and management policies of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works MMBW and its predecessors' were hindered by state officials and inhabitants at the sites of water extraction. While Hong Kong held limited resources, the Public Works Department was a top branch of the colonial government with greater administrative agency than the MMBW. The Department's position allowed it to secure water supply as the city's priority. Moreover, whereas the MMBW had to raise money for waterworks, the Public Works Department budget was more flexible as it was funded by the government. Chapter Two to Chapter Four examine and compare how and why the two cities constructed large-scale waterworks. Chapter Two discusses how after constructing infrastructure to satisfy the initial water demand, the Melbourne and Hong Kong officials both suffered inertia in addressing the inadequacies of the supply systems. While Melbourne constructed in larger scale because it anticipated population growth and did not suffer severe water shortage as Hong Kong did, the water quality was poor. Threats to public health from water crises were essential in convincing the officials that further works were worth investing in. Chapter Three studies how the Melbourne and Hong Kong officials, facing water-related sanitation crises, were both reluctant to improve the water supply systems until recurring diseases convinced the authorities to follow recommendations by experts. Despite commissioning studies that pointed to the defective fire plugs as the source of typhoid, Melbourne officials blamed sewage instead. Hong Kong officials ignored sanitarian Osbert Chadwick's advice to improve water supply, instead discriminatively blamed the hygiene standard of Chinese citizens on the bubonic plague. Chapter Four compares the major private water suppliers and their relationships with the official water suppliers, whose long-term objectives and financial structures explain their cooperations and conflicts with the companies. The South Yarra Water Works Company in Melbourne was viewed by the official supplier first as a temporary solution, and then a threat to its income. The Hong Kong government was financially secure, but feared that granting private water rights to the Taikoo Sugar Refinery would be detrimental to the city's water security. Chapter Five examines the two cities' introduction and implementation of water laws. Melbourne, as a settler colony, based much of its laws on the British counterpart, focusing on both the rights and responsibilities of water institutions. Hong Kong's water laws were set up by decision-makers who enjoyed administrative and financial autonomy. They aimed to use the laws to reduce water use, especially among the disadvantaged Chinese population. Rather than setting up a fair legal framework, the water regulations in Hong Kong were an instrument of discriminatory control. The remaining three chapters explore difficulties encountered during the construction and operation of the water supply systems. Chapter Six compares how officials responded to systemic troubles. Melbourne's water pipes defects led to cases of lead poisoning. Hong Kong's drought and inadequate reservoirs resulted in severe water shortage. The manner and amount of resources that officials were willing to spend on solving crises depended on the government's democratic and financial structure, and how certain the officials were about the causes of the crises. When there were clearly identified causes, a representative government took more initiative in ensuring the issue was resolved. Chapter Seven compares the disputes between officials. The MMBW and the Victoria Forests Commission disagreed on how forests in the watershed should be protected. The Hong Kong and British officials argued about the amount of autonomy the city should have over waterworks construction. Owing to the greater geographic distance between Hong Kong and Britain, although Hong Kong was nominally subordinated to the British Empire, in practice it enjoyed greater autonomy than the MMBW, whose water infrastructure was on state land and therefore was accountable to state officials. Chapter Eight examines the disagreements between officials, experts, and water users. Comparing disputes over infrastructure ownership in Melbourne and discriminatory water distribution policies in Hong Kong, the chapter argues that even in a partial democracy, complaints alone were insufficient to bring about immediate policy changes. Facing limited resources, officials delayed relief for the citizens they were biased against. Citizens were able to leverage external pressure from experts to steer policies in their favour. Worldwide, as rainfall patterns become more erratic, how water is managed and what entities gain access to water sources become increasingly concerning issues. While the technology for large-scale waterworks exists, these projects might not provide ample water in time. Water-saving measures will be especially valuable when supply systems become inadequate. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Yin Hang Phoebe Tang (Tue,) studied this question.