Part 15 (1/2)
”But again, even though it does reach these partings, as at C, a considerable portion of water will escape from the drain itself, and flow to the _lower level_ of its old point of discharge at D.
Whereas, a drain cut in the line of the slope, as from D to E, intersects all these partings, and furnishes an outlet to them at a lower level than their old ones.”
These reasons are, it is true, applicable only to land of peculiar structure; but there are reasons for selecting the line of greatest fall for the direction of drains which are applicable to all lands alike.
”The line of the greatest fall is the only line in which a drain is relatively lower than the land on either side of it.” Whether we regard the surplus water as having recently fallen upon the field, and as being stopped near the surface by an impervious stratum, or as brought down on these strata from above, we have it to be disposed of as it rests upon this stratum, and is borne out by it to the surface.
If there is a decided dip, or inclination, of this stratum outward down the slope, it is manifest that the water cannot pa.s.s backward to a cross drain higher up the slope. The course of the water must be downward upon the stratum on which it lies, and so all between two cross drains must pa.s.s to the lower one. The upper drain could take very little, if any, and the greater the inclination of this stratum, the less could flow backward.
But in such case a drain down the slope gives to the water borne up by these strata, an outlet of the depth of the drain. If the drain be four feet deep, it cuts the water-bearing strata each at that depth, and takes off the water.
In these cases, the different layers of clay or other impervious ”partings,” are like the steps of a huge stairway, with the soil filling them up to a regular grade. The ditch cuts through these steps, letting the water that rests on them fall off at the ends, instead of running over the edges. Drains across the slope have been significantly termed ”mere catch-waters.”
If we wish to use water to irrigate lands, we carefully conduct it along the surface across the slope, allowing it to flow over and to soak through the soil. If we desire to carry the same water off the field as speedily as possible, we should carry our surface ditch directly down the slope.
Now, looking at the operation of drains across the slope, and supposing that each drain is draining the breadth next above it, we will suppose the drain to be running full of water. What is there to prevent the water from pa.s.sing out of that drain in its progress, at every point of the tiles, and so saturating the breadth below it? Drainpipes afford the same facility for water to soak out at the lower side, as to enter on the upper, and there is the same law of gravitation to operate in each case. Mr. Denton gives instances in which he has observed, where drains were carried across the slope, in Warwicks.h.i.+re, lines of moisture at a regular distance below the drains. He could ascertain, he says, the depth of the drain itself, by taking the difference of height between the line of the drain at the surface, and that of the line of moisture beneath it. He says again:
”I recently had an opportunity, in Scotland, of gauging the quant.i.ty of water traveling along an important drain carried obliquely across the fall, when I ascertained with certainty, that, although the land through which it pa.s.sed was comparatively full of water, the drain actually lost more than it gained in a pa.s.sage of several chains through it.”
So far as authority goes, there seems, with the exception of some advocates of the Keythorpe system, of which an account has been given, to be very little difference of opinion. Mr. Denton says:
”With respect to the direction of drains, I believe very little difference of opinion exists. All the most successful drainers concur in the line of the steepest descent, as essential to effective and economical drainage. Certain exceptions are recognized in the West of England, but I believe it will be found, as practice extends in that quarter, that the exceptions have been allowed in error.”
In another place, he says:
”The very general concurrence in the adoption of the line of greatest descent, as the proper course for the minor drains in soils free from rock, would almost lead me to declare this as an incontrovertible principle.”
Allusion has been made to cases where we may have to defend ourselves from the flow of water from higher undrained lands of our neighbor. To arrest the flow of mere surface water, an open ditch, or catch-water, is the most effectual, as well as the most obvious mode. There are many instances in New England, where lands upon the lowest slopes of hills are overflowed by water which fell high up upon the hill, and, after pa.s.sing downward till arrested by rock formation, is borne out again to the surface, in such quant.i.ty as to produce, just at the foot of the hill, almost a swamp. This land is usually rich from the wash of the hills, but full of cold water.
To effect perfect drainage of a portion of this land, which we will suppose to be a gentle slope, the first object must be to cut off the flow of water upon or near the surface. An open ditch across the top would most certainly effect this object, and it may be doubtful whether any other drain would be sufficient. This would depend upon the quant.i.ty of water flowing down. If the quant.i.ty be very great at times, a part of it would be likely to flow across the top of an under-drain, from not having time to percolate downward into it.
In all cases, it is advised, where our work stops upon a slope, to introduce a cross-drain, connecting the tops of all the minor-drains.
This cross-drain is called a _header_. The object of it is to cut off the water that may be pa.s.sing along in the subsoil down the slope, and which would otherwise be likely to pa.s.s downward between the system of drains to a considerable distance before finding them. If we suppose the ground saturated with water, and our drains running up the slope and stopping at 4 feet depth, with no header connecting them, they, in effect, stop against 4 feet head of water, and in order to drain the land as far up as they go, must not only take their fair proportion of water which lies between them, but must draw down this 4 feet head beyond them. This they cannot do, because the water from a higher source, with the aid of capillary attraction, and the friction or resistance met with in percolation, will keep up this head of water far above the drained level.
In railway cuttings, and the like, we often see a slope of this kind cut through, without drying the land above the cutting; and if the slope be disposed in alternate layers of sand or gravel, and clay, the water will continue to flow out high up on the perpendicular bank. Even in porous soils of h.o.m.ogeneous character, it will be found that the _head_ of water, if we may use the expression, is affected but a short distance by a drain across its flow. Indeed, the whole theory as to the distance of drains apart, rests upon the idea, that the limit to which drains may be expected effectually to operate, is at most but two or three rods.
Whether, in a particular case, a header alone will be sufficient to cut off the flow of water from the higher land, or whether, in addition to the header, an open catch-water may be required, must depend upon the quant.i.ty of water likely to flow through or upon the land. An under-drain might be expected to absorb any moderate quant.i.ty of what may be termed drainage-water, but it cannot stop a river or mill-stream; and if the earth above the tiles be compact, even water flowing through the soil with rapidity, might pa.s.s across it. If there is reason to apprehend this, an open ditch might be added to the header; or, if this is not considered sufficiently scientific or in good taste, a tile-drain of sufficient capacity may be laid, with the ditch above it carefully packed with small stones to the top of the ground. Such a drain would be likely to receive sand and other obstructing substances, as well as a large amount of water, and should, for both reasons, be carried off independently of the small drains, which would thus be left to discharge their legitimate service.
Where it is thought best to connect an open, or surface drain, with a covered drain, it will add much to its security against silt and other obstructions, to interpose a trap or silt-basin at the junction, and thus allow the water to pa.s.s off comparatively clean. Where, however, there is a large flow of water into a basin, it will be kept so much in motion as to carry along with it a large amount of earth, and thus endanger the drain below, unless it be very large.
DISTANCES APART, OR FREQUENCY OF DRAINS.
The reader, who has studied carefully the rival systems of ”deep drainage” and ”thorough drainage,” has seen that the distance of drains apart, is closely connected with that controversy. The greatest variety of opinion is expressed by different writers as to the proper distances, ranging all the way from ten feet apart to seventy, or even more.
Many English writers have ranged themselves on one side or the other of some sharp controversy as to the merits of some peculiar system. Some distinguished geologist has discovered, or thinks he has, some new law of creation by which he can trace the underground currents of water; or some n.o.ble n.o.ble lord has ”patronized” into notice some caprice of an aspiring engineer, and straight-way the kingdom is convulsed with contests to set up or cast down these idols. By careful observation, it is said, we may find ”sermons in stones, and good in everything;” and, standing aloof from all exciting controversies, we may often profit, not only by the science and wisdom of our brethren, but also by their errors and excesses. If, by the help of the successes and failures of our English neighbors, we shall succeed in attaining to their present standard of perfection in agriculture, we shall certainly make great advances upon our present position.
As the distances of drains apart, depend manifestly on many circ.u.mstances, which may widely vary in the diversity of soil, climate, and cost of labor and materials to be found in the United States, it will be convenient to arrange our remarks on the subject under appropriate heads.