Arrangements are concluded, and new plans proposed, for an immense increase of the lands fertilized by irrigation in France and in Belgium, as well as in Spain and Italy, and there is every reason to believe that the artificially watered soil of the latter country will be doubled, that of France quadrupled, before the end of this century. There can be no doubt that by these operations man is exercising a powerful influence on the soil, on vegetable and animal life, and on climate, and hence that in this, as in many other fields of industry, he is truly a geographical agency. [Footnote: It belongs rather to agriculture than to geography to discuss the quality of the crops obtained by irrigation, or the permanent effects produced by it on the productiveness of the soil. There is no doubt, however, that all crops which can be raised without watering are superior in flavor and in nutritive power to those grown by the aid of irrigation. Garden vegetables, particularly, profusely watered, are so insipid as to be hardly eatable. Wherever irrigation is practised, there is an almost irresistible tendency, especially among ignorant cultivators, to carry it to excess; and in Piedmont and Lombardy, if the supply of water is abundant, it is so liberally applied as sometimes not only to injure the quality of the product, but to drown the plants and diminish the actual weight of the crop. Grass-lands are perhaps an exception to this remark, as it seems almost impossible to apply too much water to them, provided it be kept in motion and not allowed to stagnate on the surface. Protestor Liebig, in his Modern Agriculture, says: "There is not to be found in chemistry a more wonderful phenomenon, one which more confounds all human wisdom, than is presented by the soil of a garden or field. By the simplest experiment, any one may satisfy himself that rain-water filtered through field or garden soil does not dissolve out a trace of potash, silicic acid, ammonia, or phosphoric acid. The soil does not give up to the water one particle of the food of plants which it contains. The most continuous rains cannot remove from the field, except mechanically, any of the essential constituents of ite fertility." "The soil not only retains firmly all the food of plants which is actually in it, but its power to preserve all that may be useful to them extends much farther. If rain or other water holding in solution ammonia, potash, and phosphoric and silicic acids, be brought in contact with soil, these substances disappear almost immediately from the solution; the soil withdraws them from the water. Only such substances are completely withdrawn by the soil as are indispensable articles of food for plants; all others remain wholly or in part in solution."
These opinions were confirmed, soon after their promulgation, by the experimental researches of other chemists, but are now questioned, and they are not strictly in accordance with the alleged experience of agriculturists in those parts of Italy where irrigation is most successfully applied. They believe that the constituents of vegetable growth are washed out of the soil by excessive and long-continued watering. They consider it also established as a fact of observation, that water which has flowed through or over rich ground is more valuable for irrigation than water from the same source, which has not been impregnated with fertilizing substances by passing through soils containing them; and, on the other hand, that water, rich in the elements of vegetation, parts with them in serving to irrigate a poor soil, and is therefore less valuable as a fertilizer of lower grounds to which it may afterward be conducted. See Baird Smith, Italian Irrigation, i., p. 25; Scott Moncrieff, Irrigation in Southern Europe, pp. 34, 87, 89; Lombardini, Sulle Inondazioni etc., p. 73; Mangon, Les Irrigations, p. 48.
The practice of irrigation—except in mountainous countries where springs and rivulets are numerous—is attended with very serious economical, social, and political evils. The construction of canals and their immensely ramified branches, and the grading and scarping of the ground to be watered, are always expensive operations, and they very often require an amount of capital which can be commanded only by the state, by moneyed corporations, or by very wealthy proprietors; the capacity of the canals must be calculated with reference to the area intended to be irrigated, and when they and their branches are once constructed, it in very difficult to extend them, or to accommodate any of their original arrangements to changes in the condition of the soil, or in the modes or objects of cultivation; the flow of the water being limited by the abundance of the source or the capacity of the canals, the individual proprietor cannot be allowed to withdraw water at will, according to his own private interest or convenience, but both the time and the quantity of supply must be regulated by a general system applicable, as far as may be, to the whole area irrigated by the same canal, and every cultivator must conform his industry to a plan which may be quite at variance with his special objects or with his views of good husbandry. The clashing interests and the jealousies of proprietors depending on the same means of supply are a source of incessant contention and litigation, and the caprices or partialities of the officers who control, or of contractors who farm, the canals, lead not unfrequently to ruinous injustice towards individual landholders. These circumstances discourage the division of the soil into small properties, and there is a constant tendency to the accumulation of large estates of irrigated land in the hands of great capitalists, and consequently to the dispossession of the small cultivators, who pass from the condition of owners of the land to that of hireling tillers.
Though farmers are no longer yeomen, but peasants. Having no interest in the soil which composes their country, they are virtually expatriated, and the middle class, which ought to constitute the real physical and moral strength of the land, ceases to exist as a rural estate, and is found only among the professional, the mercantile, and the industrial population of the cities.—See, on the difficulty of regulating irrigation by law, Negri, Idea su una Legge in materia di Acqua, 1864; and Agmard, Irrigations du Midi de L'Europe' where curious and important remarks on the laws and usages of the Spanish Moors and the Spaniards, in respect to irrigation, will be found. The Moors were so careful in maintaining the details of their system, that they kept in publio offices bronze models of their dams and sluices, as guides for repairs and rebuilding. Some of these models are still preserved. —Ibidem, pp. 204, 205. For an account of recent irrigation works in Spain, see Spon, Dictionary of Engineering, article Irrigation. As near as can be ascertained, the amount of water applied to irrigated lands is scarcely anywhere less than the total precipitation during the season of vegetable growth, and in general it much exceeds that quantity. In grass-grounds and in field-culture it ranges from 27 or 28 to 60 inches, while in smaller crops, tilled by hand-labor, it is sometimes carried as high as 300 inches. [Footnote: Niel, Agriculture des Etata Sardes, p. 237. Lombardini's computation just given allows eighty-one cubic metres per day to the hectare [two hundred and sixty cubic yards to the acre], which, supposing the season of irrigation to be one hundred days, in equal to a precipitation of thirty-two inches. But in Lombardy, water in applied to some crops during a longer period than one hundred days; and in the marcite it flows over the ground even in winter. According to Boussingault (Economie Rurale, ii., p. 240), grass-grounds ought to receive, in Germany, twenty-one centimetres of water per week, and with less than half that quantity it is not advisable to incur the expense of supplying it. The ground is irrigated twenty-five or thirty times, and if the full quantity of twenty-one centimetres is applied, it receives more than two hundred inches of water, or six times the total amount of precipitation. Puvis, quoted by Boussingault, after much research comes to the conclusion that a proper quantity is twenty centimetres [eight inches] applied twenty-five or thirty times, which corresponds with the estimate just stated. Puvis adds—and, as our author thinks, with reason—that this amount might be doubled without disadvantage.—Ibidem, ii., p. 248, 249. In some parts of France this quantity is immensely exceeded, and it is very important to observe, with reference to the employment of irrigation in our Northern States, that water is most freely supplied in the COLDER provinces. Thus, in the Vosges, meadows are literally flooded for weeks together, and while in the department of Vancluse a meadow may receive, in five waterings of six and a half hours each, twenty-one inches of wnter, in the Vosges it might be deluged for twenty-four hundred hours in six applications, the enormous quantity of thirteen hundred feet of water flowing over it. See the important work of Herve Mangon, Sur l'emploi des eaux dans les Irrigations, chap. ix. Boussingault observes that rain-water is vastly more fertilizing than the water of irrigating canals, and therefore the supply of the latter must be greater. This is explained partly by the different character of the substances held in solution or suspension by the waters of the earth and of the sky, partly by the higher temperature of the latter, and, possibly, partly also by the mode of application—the rain being finely divided in its fall or by striking plants on the ground, river-water flowing in a continuous sheet.
The temperature of the water is thought even more important than its composition. The sources which irrigate the marcite of Lombardy—meadows so fertile that less than an acre furnishes grass for a cow the whole year—are very warm. The ground watered by them never freezes, and a first crop, for soiling, is cut from it in January or February. The Canal Cavour—which takes its supply chiefly from the Po at Chivasso, fourteen or fifteen miles below Turin—furnishes water of much higher fertilizing power than that derived from the Dora Baltea and the Sesia, both because it is warmer, and because it transports a more abundant and a richer sediment than the latter streams, which are fed by Alpine ice-fields and melting snows, and which flow, for long distances, in channels ground smooth and bare by ancient glaciers and not now contributing much vegetable mould or fine slime to their waters.]
The rice-grounds and the marcite of Lombardy are not included in these estimates of the amount of water applied. [Footnote: About one-seventh of the water which flows over the marcite is absorbed by the soil of those meadows or evaporated from their surface, and consequently six-sevenths of the supply remain for use on ground at lower levels.] The meteorological effect of irrigation on a large scale, which would seem prima facie most probable, would be an increase of precipitation in the region watered. [Footnote: On the pluviometric effect of irrigation, see Lombardini, Sulle Inondazioni, etc., p. 72, 74; the same author, Essai Hydrologique sur le Nil, p. 32; Messedaglia, Analisi dell' opera di Champion, pp. 96, 97, note; and Baird Smith, Italian Irrigation, i., pp. 189, 190.
In an article in Aus der Natur, vol. 57, p. 443, it is stated that the rain on the Isthmus of Suez has increased since the opening of the canal, and has enlarged the evaporable surface of the country; but this cannot be accepted as an established fact without further evidence.] Hitherto scientific observation has recorded no such increase, but in a question of so purely local a character, we must ascribe very great importance to a consideration which I have noticed elsewhere, but which, has been frequently overlooked by meteorologists, namely, that vapors exhaled in one district may very probably be condensed and precipitated in another very distant from their source. If then it were proved that an extension of irrigated soil was not followed by an increase of rain-fall in the same territory, the probability that the precipitation was augmented SOMEWHERE would not be in the least diminished.
But though we cannot show that in the irrigated portions of Italy the summer rain is more abundant than it was before irrigation was practised—for we know nothing of the meteorological conditions of that country at so remote a period—the fact that there is a very considerable precipitation in the summer months in Lombardy is a strong argument in favor of such increase. In the otherwise similar climate of Rumelia and of much of Asia Minor, irrigation is indeed practiced, but in a relatively small proportion. In those provinces there is little or no summer rain. Is it not highly probable that the difference between Italy and Turkey in this respect is to be ascribed, in part at least, to extensive irrigation in the former country, and the want of it in the latter It is true that, in its accessible strata, the atmosphere of Lombardy is extremely dry during the period of irrigation, but it receives an immense quantity of moisture by the evaporation from the watered soil, and the rapidity with which the aqueous vapor is carried up to higher regions—where, if not driven elsewhere by the wind, it would be condensed by the cold into drops of rain or at least visible clouds—is the reason why it is so little perceptible in the air near the ground. [Footnote: Is not the mottled appearance of the upper atmosphere in Italy, which I have already noticed, perhaps due in part to the condensation of the aqueous vapor exhaled by watered ground ]
But the question of an influence on temperature rests on a different ground; for though the condensation of vapor may not take place within days of time and degrees of distance from the hour and the place where it was exhaled from the surface, a local refrigeration must necessarily accompany a local evaporation. Hence, though the summer temperature of Lombardy is high, we are warranted in affirming that it must have been still higher before the introduction of irrigation, and would again become so if that practice were discontinued. [Footnote: I do not know that observations have been made on the thermometric influence of irrigation, but I have often noticed that, on the irrigated plains of Piedmont ten miles south of Turin, the morning temperature in summer was several degrees below that marked at the Observatory in the city.]
The quantity of water artificially withdrawn from running streams for the purpose of irrigation is such as very sensibly to affect their volume, and it is, therefore, an important element in the geography of rivers. Brooks of no trifling current are often wholly diverted from their natural channels to supply the canals, and their entire mass of water is completely absorbed or evaporated, so that only such proportion as is transmitted by infiltration reaches the river they originally fed. Irrigation, therefore, diminishes great rivers in warm countries by cutting off their sources of supply as well as by direct abstraction of water from their main channels. We have just seen that the system of irrigation in Lombardy deprives the Po of a quantity of water equal to the total delivery of the Seine at ordinary flood, or, in other words, of the equivalent of a tributary navigable for hundreds of miles by vessels of considerable burden.