Draining for Profit, and Draining for Health

by George E. Waring

"That deep and distant drains, where a sufficient fall can be obtained, are by far the most profitable, by affording to the roots of the plants a greater range for food."

Of course, where the soil is underlaid by rock, less than four feet from the surface; and where an outlet at that depth cannot be obtained, we must, per force, drain less[pg 073] deeply, but where there exists no such obstacle, drains should be laid at a general depth of four-feet,—general, not uniform, because the drain should have a uniform inclination, which the surface of the land rarely has.

The Distance between the Drains.—Concerning this, there is less unanimity of opinion among engineers, than prevails with regard to the question of depth.

In tolerably porous soils, it is generally conceded that 40 or even 50 feet is sufficiently near for 4-foot drains, but, for the more retentive clays, all distances from 18 feet to 50 feet are recommended, though those who belong to the more narrow school are, as a rule, extending the limit, as they see, in practice, the complete manner in which drains at wider intervals perform their work. A careful consideration of the experience of the past twenty years, and of the arguments of writers on drainage, leads to the belief that there are few soils, which need draining at all, on which it will be safe to place 4-foot drains at much wider intervals than 40 feet. In the lighter loams there are many instances of the successful application of Professor Mapes' rule, that "3-foot drains should be placed 20 feet apart, and for each additional foot in depth the distance may be doubled; for instance, 4-foot drains should be 40 feet apart, and 5-foot drains 80 feet apart." But, with reference to the greater distance, (80 feet,) it is not to be recommended in stiff clays, for any depth of drain. Where it is necessary, by reason of insufficient fall, or of underground rock, to go only three feet deep, the drains should be as near together as 20 feet.

At first thought, it may seem akin to quackery to recommend a uniform depth and distance, without reference to the character of the land to be drained; and it is unquestionably true that an exact adaptation of the work to the varying requirements of different soils would be beneficial, though no system can be adopted which will make[pg 074] clay drain as freely as sand. The fact is, that the adjustment of the distances between drains is very far from partaking of the nature of an exact science, and there is really very little known, by any one, of the principles on which it should be based, or of the manner in which the bearing of those principles, in any particular case, is affected by several circumstances which vary with each change of soil, inclination and exposure.

In the essays on drainage which have been thus far published, there is a vagueness in the arguments on this branch of the subject, which betrays a want of definite conviction in the minds of the writers; and which tends quite as much to muddle as to enlighten the ideas of the reader. In so far as the directions are given, whether fortified by argument or not, they are clearly empirical, and are usually very much qualified by considerations which weigh with unequal force in different cases.

In laying out work, any skillful drainer will be guided, in deciding the distance between the lines, by a judgment which has grown out of his former experience; and which will enable him to adapt the work, measurably, to the requirements of the particular soil under consideration; but he would probably find it impossible to so state the reasons for his decision, that they would be of any general value to others.

Probably it will be a long time before rules on this subject, based on well sustained theory, can be laid down with distinctness, and, in the mean time, we must be guided by the results of practice, and must confine ourselves to a distance which repeated trial, in various soils, has proven to be safe for all agricultural land. In the drainage of the Central Park, after a mature consideration of all that had been published on the subject, and of a considerable previous observation and experience, it was decided to adopt a general depth of four feet, and to adhere as closely as possible to a uniform distance of forty feet. No instance[pg 075] was known of a failure to produce good results by draining at that distance, and several cases were recalled where drains at fifty and sixty feet had proved so inefficient that intermediate lines became necessary. After from seven to ten years' trial, the Central Park drainage, by its results, has shown that,—although some of the land is of a very retentive character,—this distance is not too great; and it is adopted here for recommendation to all who have no especial reason for supposing that greater distances will be fully effective in their more porous soils.

As has been before stated, drains at that distance, (or at any distance,) will not remove all of the water of saturation from heavy clays so rapidly as from more porous soil; but, although, in some cases, the drainage may be insufficient during the first year, and not absolutely perfect during the second and third years, the increased porosity which drainage causes, (as the summer droughts make fissures in the earth, as decayed roots and other organic deposits make these fissures permanent, and as chemical action in the aërated soil changes its character,) will finally bring clay soils to as perfect a condition as they are capable of attaining, and will invariably render them excellent for cultivation.

The Direction of the Laterals should be right up and down the slope of the land, in the line of steepest descent. For a long time after the general adoption of thorough-draining, there was much discussion of this subject, and much variation in practice. The influence of the old rules for making surface or "catch-water" drains lasted for a long time, and there was a general tendency to make tile drains follow the same directions. An important requirement of these was that they should not take so steep an inclination as to have their bottoms cut out and their banks undermined by the rapid flow of water, and that they should arrest and carry away the water flowing down over the surface of hill sides. The arguments for the[pg 076] line of steepest descent were, however, so clear, and drains laid on that line were so universally successful in practice, that it was long ago adopted by all,—save those novices who preferred to gain their education in draining in the expensive school of their own experience.