DRAINAGE OF HIGH LANDS--WHAT LANDS REQUIRE DRAINAGE.
What is High Land?--Accidents to Crops from Water.--Do Lands need
Drainage in America?--Springs.--Theory of Moisture, with
Illustrations.--Water of Pressure.--Legal Rights as to Draining our
Neighbor's Wells and Land.--What Lands require Drainage?--Horace
Greeley's Opinion.--Drainage more Necessary in America than in
England; Indications of too much Moisture.--Will Drainage Pay?
By "high land," is meant land, the surface of which is not overflowed,
as distinguished from swamps, marshes, and the like low lands. How great
a proportion of such lands would be benefitted by draining, it is
impossible to estimate.
The Committee on Draining, in their Report to the State Agricultural
Society of New York, in 1848, assert that, "There is not one farm out of
every seventy-five in this State, but needs draining--yes, much
draining--to bring it into high cultivation. Nay, we may venture to say,
that every wheat-field would produce a larger and finer crop if properly
drained." The committee further say: "It will be conceded, that no
farmer ever raised a good crop of grain on wet ground, or on a field
where pools of water become masses of ice in the Winter. In such cases,
the grain plants are generally frozen out and perish; or, if any
survive, they never arrive at maturity, nor produce a well-developed
seed. In fact, every observing farmer knows that stagnant water, whether
on the surface of his soil, or within reach of the roots of his plants,
always does them injury."
The late Mr. Delafield, one of the most distinguished agriculturists of
New York, said in a public address:
"We all well know that wheat and other grains, as well as grasses,
are never fully developed, and never produce good seed, when the
roots are soaked in moisture. No man ever raised good wheat from a
wet or moist subsoil. Now, the farms of this country, though at
times during the Summer they appear dry, and crack open on the
surface, are not, in fact, dry farms, for reasons already named. On
the contrary, for nine months out of twelve, they are moist or wet;
and we need no better evidence of the fact, than the annual
freezing out of the plants, and consequent poverty of many crops."
If we listen to the answers of farmers, when asked as to the success of
their labors, we shall be surprised, perhaps, to observe how much of
their want of success is attributed to _accidents_, and how uniformly
these accidents result from causes which thorough draining would remove.
The wheat-crop of one would have been abundant, had it not been badly
frozen out in the Fall; while another has lost nearly the whole of his,
by a season too wet for his land. A farmer at the West has planted his
corn early, and late rains have rotted the seed in the ground; while one
at the East has been compelled, by the same rains, to wait so long
before planting, that the season has been too short. Another has worked
his _clayey_ farm so wet, because he had not time to wait for it to dry,
that it could not be properly tilled. And so their crops have wholly or
partially failed, and all because of too much cold water in the soil. It
would seem, by the remarks of those who till the earth, as if there were
never a season just right--as if Providence had bidden us labor for
bread, and yet sent down the rains of heaven so plentifully as always to
blight our harvests. It is rare that we do not have a most remarkable
season, with respect to moisture, especially. Our potatoes are rotted by
the Summer showers, or cut off by a Summer drought; and when, as in the
season of 1856, in New England, they are neither seriously diseased nor
dried up, we find at harvest-time that the promise has belied the
fulfillment; that, after all the fine show above ground, the season has
been too wet, and the crop is light. We frequently hear complaint that
the season was too _cold_ for Indian corn, and that the ears did not
fill; or that a sharp drought, following a wet Spring, has cut short the
crop. We hear no man say, that he lacked skill to cultivate his crop.
Seldom does a farmer attribute his failure to the poverty of his soil.
He has planted and cultivated in such a way, that, in a _favorable
season_, he would have reaped a fair reward for his toil; but the season
has been too wet or too dry; and, with full faith that farming will pay
in the long run, he resolves to plant the same land in the same manner,
hoping in future for better luck.
_Too much cold water_ is at the bottom of most of these complaints of
unpropitious seasons, as well as of most of our soils; and it is in our
power to remove the cause of these complaints and of our want of
success.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves."
We must underdrain all the land we cultivate, that Nature has not
already underdrained, and we shall cease complaints of the seasons. The
advice of Cromwell to his soldiers: "Trust God, and keep your powder
dry," affords a good lesson of faith and works to the farmer. We shall
seldom have a season, upon properly drained land, that is too wet, or
too cold, or even too dry; for thorough draining is almost as sure a
remedy for a drought, as for a flood.
_Do lands need under draining in America?_ It is a common error to
suppose that, because the sun shines more brightly upon this country
than upon England, and because almost every Summer brings such a drought
here as is unknown there, her system of thorough drainage can have no
place in agriculture on this side of the Atlantic. It is true that we
have a clearer sky and a drier climate than are experienced in England;
but it is also true that, although we have a far less number of showers
and of rainy days, we have a greater quantity of rain in the year.
The necessity of drainage, however, does not depend so much upon the
quantity of water which falls or flows upon land, nor upon the power of
the sun to carry it off by evaporation, as upon _the character of the
subsoil_. The vast quantity of water which Nature pours upon every acre
of soil annually, were it all to be removed by evaporation alone, would
render the whole country barren; but Nature herself has kindly done the
work of draining upon a large proportion of our land, so that only a
healthful proportion of the water which falls on the earth, passes off
at the surface by the influence of the sun.
If the subsoil is of sand or gravel, or of other porous earth, that
portion of the water not evaporated, passes off below by natural
drainage. If the subsoil be of clay, rock, or other impervious
substances, the downward course of the water is checked, and it remains
stagnant, or bursts out upon the surface in the form of springs.
As the primary object of drainage is to remove surplus water, it may be
well to consider with some care
THE SOURCES OF MOISTURE.
_Springs._--These are, as has been suggested, merely the water of rain
and snow, impeded in its downward percolation, and collected and poured
forth in a perennial flow at a lower level.
The water which falls in the form of rain and snow upon the soil of the
whole territory of the United States, east of the Rocky Mountains, each
year, is sufficient to cover it to the depth of more than 3 feet. It
comes upon the earth, not daily in gentle dews to water the plants, but
at long, unequal intervals, often in storms, tempests, and showers,
pouring out, sometimes, in a single day, more than usually falls in a
whole month.
What becomes of all this moisture, is an inquiry especially interesting
to the agriculturist, upon whose fruitful fields this flood of water
annually descends, and whose labor in seed-time would be destroyed by a
single Summer shower, were not Nature more thoughtful than he, of his
welfare. Of the water which thus falls upon cultivated fields, a part
runs away into the streams, either upon the surface, or by percolation
through the soil; a part is taken up into the air by evaporation, while
a very small proportion enters into the constitution of vegetation. The
proportion which passes off by percolation varies according to the
nature of the soil in the locality where it falls.
Usually, we find the crust of the earth in our cultivated fields, in
strata, or layers: first, a surface-soil of a few inches of a loamy
nature, in which clay or sand predominates; and then, it may be, a layer
of sand or gravel, freely admitting the passage of water; and, perhaps,
next, and within two or three feet of the surface, a stratum of clay, or
of sand or gravel cemented with some oxyd of iron, through which water
passes very slowly, or not at all. These strata are sometimes regular,
extending at an equal depth over large tracts, and having a uniform dip,
or inclination. Oftener, however, in hilly regions especially, they are
quite irregular--the impervious stratum frequently having depressions of
greater or less extent, and holding water, like a bowl. Not
unfrequently, as we cut a ditch upon a declivity, we find that the dip
of the strata below has no correspondence with the visible surface of
the field, but that the different strata lie nearly level, or are much
broken, while the surface has a regular inclination.
Underlying all soils, at greater or less depth, is found some bed of
rock, or clay, impervious to water, usually at but few feet below the
surface--the descending water meeting with obstacles to its regular
descent. The tendency of the rain-water which falls upon the earth, is
to sink directly downward by gravitation. Turned aside, however, by the
many obstacles referred to, it often passes obliquely, or almost
horizontally, through the soil. The drop which falls upon the hill-top
sinks, perhaps, a few inches, meets with a bed of clay, glides along
upon it for many days, and is at last borne out to be drunk up by the
sun on some far-off slope; another, falling upon the sand-plain, sinks
at once to the "water-line," or line of level water, which rests on clay
beneath, and, slowly creeping along, helps to form a swamp or bog in the
valley.
Sometimes, the rain which falls upon the high land is collected together
by fissures in the rocks, or by seams or ruptures in the impervious
strata below the surface, and finds vent in a gushing spring on the
hill-side.
We feel confident that no better illustration of the theory of springs,
as connected with our subject, can be found, than that of Mr. Girdwood,
in the Cyclopedia of Agriculture--a work from which we quote the more
liberally, because it is very expensive and rare in America:
"When rain falls on a tract of country, part of it flows over the
surface, and makes its escape by the numerous natural and
artificial courses which may exist, while another portion is
absorbed by the soil and the porous strata which lie under it.
"Let the following diagram represent such a tract of country, and
let the dark portions represent clay or other impervious strata,
while the lighter portions represent layers of gravel, sand, or
chalk, permitting a free passage to water.
[Illustration: Fig. 5.]
"When rain falls in such a district, after sinking through the
surface-layer (represented in the diagram by a narrow band), it
reaches the stratified layers beneath. Through these it still
further sinks, if they are porous, until it reaches some impervious
stratum, which arrests its directly-downward course, and compels it
to find its way along its upper surface. Thus, the rain which falls
on the space represented between B and D, is compelled, by the
impervious strata, to flow towards C. Here it is at once absorbed,
but is again immediately arrested by the impervious layer E; it is,
therefore, compelled to pass through the porous stratum C, along
the surface of E to A, where it pours forth in a fountain, or forms
a morass or swamp, proportionate in size or extent to the tract of
country between B and D, or the quantity of rain which falls upon
it. In such a case as is here represented, it will be obvious that
the spring may often be at a great distance from the district from
which it derives its supplies; and this accounts for the fact, that
drainage-works on a large scale sometimes materially lessen the
supply of water at places remote from the scene of operations.
"In the instance given above, the water forming the spring is
represented as gaining access to the porous stratum, at a point
where it crops out from beneath an impervious one, and as passing
along to its point of discharge at a considerable depth, and under
several layers of various characters. Sometimes, in an undulating
country, large tracts may rest immediately upon some highly-porous
stratum--as from B to C, in the following diagram--rendering the
necessity for draining less apparent; while the country from A to
B, and from C to D, may be full of springs and marshes--arising,
partly, from the rain itself, which falls in these latter
districts, being unable to find a way of escape, and partly from
the natural drainage of the more porous soils adjoining being
discharged upon it.
[Illustration: Fig. 6.]
"Again: the rocks lying under the surface are sometimes so full of
fissures, that, although they themselves are impervious to water,
yet, so completely do these fissures carry off rain, that, in some
parts of the county of Durham, they render the sinking of wells
useless, and make it necessary for the farmers to drive their
cattle many miles for water. It sometimes happens that these
fissures, or cracks, penetrate to enormous depths, and are of great
width, and filled with sand or clay. These are termed _faults_ by
miners; and some, which we lately examined, at distances of from
three to four hundred yards from the surface, were from five to
fifteen yards in width. These faults, when of clay, are generally
the cause of springs appearing at the surface: they arrest the
progress of the water in some of the porous strata, and compel it
to find an exit, by passing to the surface between the clay and the
faces of the ruptured strata. When the fault is of sand or gravel,
the opposite effect takes place, if it communicates with any porous
stratum; and water, which may have been flowing over the surface,
on reaching it, is at once absorbed. In the following diagram, let
us suppose that B represents such a clay-fault as has been
described, and that A represents a sandy one, and that C and D
represent porous strata charged with water. On the water reaching
the fault at B, it will be compelled to find its way to the
surface--there forming a spring, and rendering the retentive soil,
from B to A, wet; but, as soon as it reaches the sandy-fault at A,
it is immediately absorbed, and again reaches the porous strata,
along which it had traveled before being forced to the surface at
B. It will be observed, that the strata at the points of
dislocation are not represented as in a line with the portions from
which they have been dissevered. This is termed the upthrow of the
fault, as at B; and the downthrow, as at A. For the sake of the
illustration, the displacement is here shown as very slight; but,
in some cases, these elevations and depressions of the strata
extend to many hundreds of feet--as, for instance, at the mines of
the British Iron Company, at Cefn-Mawre, in North Wales, where the
downthrow of the fault is 360 feet.
[Illustration: Fig. 7.]
"Sometimes the strata are disposed in the form of a basin. In this
case, the water percolating through the more elevated ground--near
what may be called the rim--collects in the lower parts of the
strata towards the centre, there forcing its way to the surface, if
the upper impervious beds be thin; or, if otherwise, remaining a
concealed reservoir, ready to yield its supplies to the shaft or
boring-rod of the well-sinker, and sometimes forming a living
fountain capable of rising many feet above the surface. It is in
this way that what are called Artesian wells are formed. The
following diagram represents such a disposition of the strata as
has just been referred to. The rain which falls on the tracts of
country at A and B, gradually percolates towards the centre of the
basin, where it may be made to give rise to an Artesian well, as at
C, by boring through the superincumbent mass of clay; or it may
force itself to the surface through the thinner part of the layer
of clay, as at D--there forming a spring, or swamp.
[Illustration: Fig. 8.]
"Again: the higher parts of hilly ground are sometimes composed of
very porous and absorbent strata, while the lower portions are more
impervious--the soil and subsoil being of a very stiff and
retentive description. In this case, the water collected by the
porous layers is prevented from finding a ready exit, when it
reaches the impervious layers, by the stiff surface-soil. The water
is by this means dammed up in some measure, and acquires a
considerable degree of pressure; and, forcing itself to the day at
various places, it forms those extensive "weeping"-banks which have
such an injurious effect upon many of our mountain-pastures. This
was the form of spring, or swamp, to the removal of which Elkington
principally turned his attention; and the following diagram, taken
from a description of his system of draining, will explain the
stratification and springs referred to, more clearly.
[Illustration: Fig. 9.]
"In some districts, where clay forms the staple of the soil, a bed
of sand or gravel, completely saturated with water, occurs at the
depth of a few feet from the surface, following all the undulations
of the country, and maintaining its position, in relation to the
surface, over considerable tracts, here and there pouring forth its
waters in a spring, or denoting its proximity, by the subaquatic
nature of the herbage. Such a configuration is represented in the
following diagram, where A represents the surface-soil; B, the
impervious subsoil of clay; C, the bed of sandy-clay or gravel; and
D, the lower bed of clay, resting upon the rocky strata beneath.
[Illustration: Fig. 10.]
"Springs sometimes communicate with lakes or pools, at higher
levels. In such cases, the quantity of water discharged is
generally so great, as to form at once a brook or stream of some
magnitude. These, therefore, hardly come under the ordinary
cognizance of the land-drainer, and are, therefore, here merely
referred to."
THE WATER OF PRESSURE.
Water that issues from the land, either constantly, periodically, or
even intermittently, may, perhaps, be properly termed a _spring_. But
there is often much water in the soil which did not fall in rain upon
that particular field, and which does not issue from it in any defined
stream, but which is slowly passing through it by percolation from a
higher source, to ooze out into some stream, or to pass off by
evaporation; or, perhaps, farther on, to fall into crevices in the soil,
and eventually form springs. As we find it in our field, it is neither
rain-water, which has there fallen, nor spring-water, in any sense. It
has been appropriately termed the _water of pressure_, to distinguish it
from both rain and spring-water; and the recognition of this term will
certainly be found convenient to all who are engaged in the discussion
of drainage.
The distinction is important in a legal point of view, as relating to
the right of the land-owner to divert the sources of supply to
mill-streams, or to adjacent lower lands. It often happens that an owner
of land on a slope may desire to drain his field, while the adjacent
owner below, may not only refuse to join in the drainage, but may
believe that he derives an advantage from the surface-washing or the
percolation from his higher neighbor. He may believe that, by deep
drainage above, his land will be dried up and rendered worthless; or, he
may desire to collect the water which thus percolates, into his land,
and use it for irrigation, or for a water-ram, or for the supply of his
barn-yard. May the upper owner legally proceed with the drainage of his
own land, if he thus interfere with the interests of the man below?
Again: wherever drains have been opened, we already hear complaints of
their effects upon wells. In our good town of Exeter, there seems to be
a general impression on one street, that the drainage of a swamp,
formerly owned by the author, has drawn down the wells on that street,
situated many rods distant from the drains. Those wells are upon a sandy
plain, with underlying clay, and the drains are cut down upon the clay,
and into it, and may possibly draw off the water a foot or two lower
through the whole village--if we can regard the water line running
through it as the surface of a pond, and the swamp as a dam across its
outlet.
The rights of land-owners, as to running water over their premises, have
been fruitful of litigation, but are now well defined. In general, in
the language of Judge Story,
"Every proprietor upon each bank of a river, is entitled to the
land covered with water in front of his bank to the middle thread
of the stream, &c. In virtue of this ownership, he has a right to
the use of the water flowing over it in its natural current,
without diminution or obstruction. The consequence of this
principle is, that no proprietor has a right to use the water to
the prejudice of another. It is wholly immaterial whether the party
be a proprietor above or below, in the course of the river, the
right being common to all the proprietors _on_ the river. No one
has a right to diminish the quantity which will, according to the
natural current, flow to the proprietor below, or to throw it back
upon a proprietor above."
Chief Justice Richardson, of New Hampshire, thus briefly states the same
position:
"In general, every man has a right to the use of the water flowing
in a stream through his land, and if any one divert the water from
its natural channel, or throw it back, so as to deprive him of the
use of it, the law will give him redress. But one man may acquire,
by grant, a right to throw the water back upon the land of another,
and long usage may be evidence of such a grant. It is, however,
well settled that a man acquires no such right by merely being the
first to make use of the water."
We are not aware that it has ever been held by any court of law, or even
asserted, that a land-owner may not intercept the percolating water in
his soil for any purpose and at his pleasure; nor have we in mind any
case in which the draining out of water from a well, by drainage for
agricultural purposes, has subjected the owner of the land to
compensation.
It is believed that a land-owner has the right to follow the rules of
good husbandry in the drainage of his land, so far as the water of
pressure is concerned, without responsibility for remote consequences to
adjacent owners, to the owners of distant wells or springs that may be
affected, or to mill-owners.
In considering the effect of drainage on streams and rivers, it appears
that the results of such operations, so far as they can be appreciated,
are, to lessen the value of water powers, by increasing the flow of
water in times of freshets, and lessening it in times of drought. It is
supposed in this country, that clearing the land of timber has sensibly
affected the value of "mill privileges," by increasing evaporation, and
diminishing the streams. No mill-owner has been hardy enough to contend
that a land-owner may not legally cut down his own timber, whatever the
effect on the streams. So, we trust, no court will ever be found, which
will restrict the land-owner in the highest culture of his soil, because
his drainage may affect the capacity of a mill-stream to turn the
water-wheels.
To return from our digression. It is necessary, in order to a correct
apprehension of the work which our drains have to perform, to form a
correct opinion as to how much of the surplus moisture in our field is
due to each of the three causes to which we have referred--to wit,
rain-water, which falls upon it; springs, which burst up from below; and
water of pressure, stagnant in, or slowly percolating through it. The
rain-tables will give us information as to the first; but as to the
others, we must form our opinion from the structure of the earth around
us, and observation upon the field itself, by its natural phenomena and
by opening test-holes and experimental ditches. Having gained accurate
knowledge of the sources of moisture, we may then be able to form a
correct opinion whether our land requires drainage, and of the aid which
Nature requires to carry off the surplus water.
WHAT LANDS REQUIRE DRAINAGE?
The more one studies the subject of drainage, the less inclined will he
be to deal in general statements. "Do you think it is profitable to
underdrain land?" is a question a thousand times asked, and yet is a
question that admits of no direct general answer. Is it profitable to
fence land? is it profitable to plow land? are questions of much the
same character. The answers to them all depend upon circumstances.
There is land that may be profitably drained, and fenced, and plowed,
and there is a great deal that had better be let alone. Whether draining
is profitable or not, depends on the value and character of the land in
question, as well as on its condition as to water. Where good land is
worth one hundred dollars an acre, it might be profitably drained; when,
if the same land were worth but the Government price of $1.25 an acre,
it might be better to make a new purchase in the neighborhood, than to
expend ten times its value on a tract that cannot be worth the cost of
the operation. Drainage is an expensive operation, requiring much labor
and capital, and not to be thought of in a pioneer settlement by
individual emigrants. It comes after clearing, after the building of
log-houses and mills, and schoolhouses, and churches, and roads, when
capital and labor are abundant, and when the good lands, nature-drained,
have been all taken up.
And, again, whether drainage is profitable, depends not only on the
value, but on the character of the soil as to productiveness when
drained. There is much land that would be improved by drainage, that
cannot be profitably drained. It would improve almost any land in New
England to apply to it a hundred loads of stable manure to the acre; but
whether such application would be profitable, must depend upon the
returns to be derived from it. Horace Greeley, who has his perceptions
of common affairs, and especially of all that relates to progress, wide
awake, said, in an address at Peekskill, N. Y.:
"My deliberate judgment is, that all lands which are worth plowing,
which is not the case with all lands that are plowed, would _be
improved_ by draining; but I know that our farmers are neither able
nor ready to drain to that extent, nor do I insist that it would
pay while land is so cheap, and labor and tile so dear as at
present. Ultimately, I believe, we shall tile-drain nearly all our
level, or moderately sloping lands, that are worth cultivation."
Whether land would be _improved_ by drainage, is one question, and
whether the operation will _pay_, is quite another. The question whether
it will pay, depends on the value of the land before drainage, the cost
of the operation, and the value of the land when completed. And the cost
of the operation includes always, not only the money and labor expended
in it, but also the loss to other land of the owner, by diverting from
it the capital which would otherwise be applied to it. Where labor and
capital are limited so closely as they are in all our new States, it is
a question not only how can they be profitably applied, but how can they
be _most_ profitably applied. A proprietor, who has money to loan at six
per cent. interest, may well invest it in draining his land; when a
working man, who is paying twelve per cent. interest for all the capital
he employs, might ruin himself by making the same improvement.
DO ALL LANDS REQUIRE DRAINAGE?
Our opinion is, that a great deal of land does not in any sense require
drainage, and we should differ with Mr. Greeley, in the opinion that
_all_ lands worth ploughing, would be improved by drainage. Nature has
herself thoroughly drained a large proportion of the soil. There is a
great deal of finely-cultivated land in England, renting at from five to
ten dollars per acre, that is thought there to require no drainage.
In a published table of estimates by Mr. Denton, made in 1855, it is
supposed that Great Britain, including England, Scotland, and Wales,
contain 43,958,000 acres of land, cultivated and capable of cultivation;
of which he sets down as "wet land," or land requiring drainage,
22,890,004 acres, or about one half the whole quantity. His estimate is,
that only about 1,365,000 acres had then been permanently drained, and
that it would cost about 107 millions of pounds to complete the
operation, estimating the cost at about twenty shillings, or five
dollars per acre.
These estimates are valuable in various views of our subject. They
answer with some definiteness the question so often asked, whether all
lands require drainage, and they tend to correct the impression, which
is prevalent in this country, that there is something in the climate of
Great Britain that makes drainage there essential to good cultivation on
any land. The fact is not so. There, as in America, it depends upon the
condition and character of the soil, more than upon the quantity of
rain, or any condition of climate, whether drainage is required or not.
Generally, it will be found on investigation, that so far as climate,
including of course the quantity and regularity of the rain-fall, is
concerned, drainage is more necessary in America than in Great
Britain--the quantity of rain being in general greater in America, and
far less regular in its fall. This subject, however, will receive a more
careful consideration in another place.
If in America, as in Great Britain, one half the cultivable land require
drainage, or even if but a tenth of that half require it, the subject is
of vast importance, and it is no less important for us to apprehend
clearly what part of our land does _not_ require this expenditure, than
to learn how to treat properly that which does require it.
To resume the inquiry, what lands require drainage? it may be answered--
ALL LANDS OVERFLOWED IN SUMMER REQUIRE DRAINAGE.
Lands overflowed by the regular tides of the ocean require drainage,
whether they lie upon the sea-shore, or upon rivers or bays. But this
drainage involves embankments, and a peculiar mode of procedure, of
which it is not now proposed to treat.
Again, all lands overflowed by Summer freshets, as upon rivers and
smaller streams, require drainage. These, too, usually require
embankments, and excavations of channels or outlets, not within the
usual scope of what is termed thorough drainage. For a further answer to
the question--what lands require drainage? the reader is referred to the
chapters which treat of the effect of drainage upon the soil.
SWAMPS AND BOGS REQUIRE DRAINAGE.
No argument is necessary to convince rational men that the very
extensive tracts of land, which are usually known as swamps and bogs,
must, in some way, be relieved of their surplus water, before they can
be rendered fit for cultivation. The treatment of this class of wet
lands is so different from that applied to what we term upland, that it
will be found more convenient to pass the subject by with this allusion,
at present, and consider it more systematically under a separate head.
ALL HIGH LANDS THAT CONTAIN TOO MUCH WATER AT ANY SEASON, REQUIRE
DRAINAGE.
Draining has been defined, "The art of rendering land not only so free
of moisture as that no superfluous water shall remain in it, but that no
water shall remain in it so long as to injure, or even retard the
healthy growth of plants required for the use of man and beast."
Some plants grow in water. Some even spring from the bottom of ponds,
and have no other life than such a position affords. But most plants,
useful to man, are drowned by being overflowed even for a short time,
and are injured by any stagnant water about their roots. Why this is so,
it is not easy to explain. Most of our knowledge on these points, is
derived from observation. We know that fishes live in water, and if we
would propagate them, we prepare ponds and streams for the purpose. Our
domestic animals live on land, and we do not put them into fish-ponds to
pasture. There are useful plants which thrive best in water. Such is the
cranberry, notwithstanding all that has been said of its cultivation on
upland. And there are domestic fowls, such as ducks and geese, that
require pools of water; but we do not hence infer that our hens and
chickens would be better for daily immersion. All lands, then, require
drainage, that contain too much water, at any season _for the intended
crops_.
This will be found to be an important element in our rule. Land may
require drainage for Indian corn, that may not require it for grass.
Most of the cultivated grasses are improved in quality, and not lessened
in quantity, by the removal of stagnant water in Summer; but there are
reasons for drainage for hoed crops, which do not apply to our mowing
fields. In New England, we have for a few weeks a perfect race with
Nature, to get our seeds into the ground before it is too late. Drained
land may be plowed and planted several weeks earlier than land
undrained, and this additional time for preparation is of great value to
the farmer. Much of this same land would be, by the first of June, by
the time the ordinary planting season is past, sufficiently drained by
Nature, and a grass crop upon it would be, perhaps, not at all
benefitted by thorough-drainage; so that it is often an important
consideration with reference to this operation, whether a given portion
of our farm may not be most profitably kept in permanent grass, and
maintained in fertility by top-dressing, or by occasional plowing and
reseeding in Autumn. It is certainly convenient to have all our fields
adapted to our usual rotation, and it is for each man to balance for
himself this convenience against the cost of drainage in each particular
case.
What particular crops are most injured by stagnant water in the soil,
or by the too tardy percolation of rain-water, may be determined by
observation. How stagnant water injures plants, is not, as has been
suggested, easily understood in all its relations. It doubtless retards
the decomposition of the substances which supply their nutriment, and it
reduces the temperature of the soil. It has been suggested, that it
prevents or checks perspiration and introsusception, and it excludes the
air which is essential to the vegetation of most plants. Whatever the
theory, the fact is acknowledged, that stagnant water _in_ as well as
_on_ the soil, impedes the growth of all our valuable crops, and that
drainage soon cures the evil, by removing the effect with its cause. And
the remedy seems to be almost instantaneous; for, on most upland, it is
found that by the removal of stagnant water, the soil is in a single
season rendered fit for the growth of cultivated crops. In low meadows,
composed of peat and swamp mud, in many cases, exposure to the air for a
year or two after drainage, is often found to enhance the fertility of
the soil, which contains, frequently, acids which need correction.
INDICATIONS OF TOO MUCH MOISTURE.
It has already been suggested, that motives of convenience may induce us
to drain our lands--that we may have a longer season in which to work
them; and that there may be cases where the crop would flourish if
planted at precisely the right time, where yet we cannot well, without
drainage, seasonably prepare for the crop. Generally, however, lands too
wet seasonably to plant, will give indications, throughout the season,
of hidden water producing its ill effects.
If the land be in grass, we find that aquatic plants, like rushes or
water grasses, spring up with the seeds we have sown, and, in a few
years, have possession of the field, and we are soon compelled to plow
up the sod, and lay it again to grass. If it be in wheat or other
grain, we see the field spotted and uneven; here a portion on some
slight elevation, tall and dark colored, and healthy; and there a little
depression, sparsely covered with a low and sickly growth. An American
traveling in England in the growing season, will always be struck with
the perfect _evenness_ of the fields of grain upon the well-drained
soil. Journeying through a considerable portion of England and Wales
with intelligent English farmers, we were struck with their nice
perception on this point.
The slightest variation in the color of the wheat in the same or
different fields, attracted their instant attention.
"That field is not well-drained; the corn is too light-colored." "There
is cold water at the bottom there; the corn cannot grow;" were the
constant criticisms, as we passed across the country. Inequalities that,
in our more careless cultivation, we should pass by without observation,
were at once explained by reference to the condition of the land, as to
water.
The drill-sowing of wheat, and the careful weeding it with the horse-hoe
and by hand, are additional reasons why the English fields should
present a uniform appearance, and why any inequalities should be fairly
referable to the condition of the soil.
Upon a crop of Indian corn, the cold water lurking below soon places its
unmistakable mark. The blade comes up yellow and feeble. It takes
courage in a few days of bright sunshine in June, and tries to look
hopeful, but a shower or an east wind again checks it. It had already
more trouble than it could bear, and turns pale again. Tropical July and
August induce it to throw up a feeble stalk, and to attempt to spindle
and silk, like other corn. It goes through all the forms of vegetation,
and yields at last a single nubbin for the pig. Indian corn must have
land that is dry in Summer, or it cannot repay the labor of cultivation.
Careful attention to the subject will soon teach any farmer what parts
of his land are injured by too much water; and having determined that,
the next question should be, whether the improvement of it by drainage
will justify the cost of the operation.
WILL IT PAY?
Drainage is a permanent investment. It is not an operation like the
application of manure, which we should expect to see returned in the
form of salable crops in one or two years, or ten at most, nor like the
labor applied in cultivating an annual crop. The question is not whether
drainage will pay in one or two years, but will it pay in the long run?
Will it, when completed, return to the farmer a fair rate of interest
for the money expended? Will it be more profitable, on the whole, than
an investment in bank or railway shares, or the purchase of Western
lands? Or, to put the question in the form in which an English
land-owner would put it, will the rent of the land improved by drainage,
be permanently increased enough to pay a fair interest on the cost of
the improvement?
Let us bring out this idea clearly to the American farmer by a familiar
illustration. Your field is worth to you now one hundred dollars an
acre. It pays you, in a series of years, through a rotation of planting,
sowing, and grass, a nett profit of six dollars an acre, above all
expenses of cultivation and care.
Suppose, now, it will cost one-third of a hundred dollars an acre to
drain it, and you expend on each three acres one hundred dollars, what
must the increase of your crops be, to make this a fair investment? Had
you expended the hundred dollars in _labor_, to produce a crop of
cabbages, you ought to get your money all back, with a fair profit, the
first year. Had you expended it in guano or other special manures, whose
beneficial properties are exhausted in some two or three years, your
expenditure should be returned within that period. But the improvement
by drainage is permanent; it is done for all time to come. If,
therefore, your drained land shall pay you a fair rate of interest on
the cost of drainage, it is a good investment. Six per cent. is the most
common rate of interest, and if, therefore, each three acres of your
drained land shall pay you an increased annual income of six dollars,
your money is fairly invested. This is at the rate of two dollars an
acre. How much increase of crop will pay this two dollars? In the common
rotation of Indian corn, potatoes, oats, wheat, or barley, and grass,
two or three bushels of corn, five or six bushels of potatoes, as many
bushels of oats, a bushel or two of wheat, two or three bushels of
barley, will pay the two dollars. Who, that has been kept back in his
Spring's work by the wetness of his land, or has been compelled to
re-plant because his seed has rotted in the ground, or has experienced
any of the troubles incident to cold wet seasons, will not admit at
once, that any land which Nature has not herself thoroughly drained,
will, in this view, pay for such improvement?
But far more than this is claimed for drainage. In England, where such
operations have been reduced to a system, careful estimates have been
made, not only of the cost of drainage, but of the increase of crops by
reason of the operation.
In answer to questions proposed by a Board of Commissioners, in 1848, to
persons of the highest reputation for knowledge on this point, the
increase of crops by drainage was variously stated, but in no case at
less than a paying rate. One gentleman says: "A sixth of increase in
produce of grain crops may be taken as the very lowest estimate, and, in
actual result, it is seldom less than one-fourth. In very many cases,
after some following cultivation, the produce is doubled, whilst the
expense of working the land is much lessened." Another says: "In many
instances, a return of fully 25 per cent. on the expenditure is
realized, and in some even more." A third remarks, "My experience and
observation have chiefly been in heavy clay soils, where the result of
drainage is eminently beneficial, and where I should estimate the
increased crop at six to ten bushels (wheat) per statute acre."
These are estimates made upon lands that had already been under
cultivation. In addition to such lands as are merely rendered less
productive by surplus water, we have, even on our hard New England
farms--on side hills, where springs burst out, or at the foot of
declivities, where the land is flat, or in runs, which receive the
natural drainage of higher lands--many places which are absolutely unfit
for cultivation, and worse than useless, because they separate those
parts of the farm which can be cultivated. If, of these wet portions, we
make by draining, good, warm, arable land, it is not a mere question of
per centage or profit; it is simply the question whether the land, when
drained, is worth more than the cost of drainage. If it be, how much
more satisfactory, and how much more profitable it is, to expend money
in thus reclaiming the waste places of our farms, and so uniting the
detached fields into a compact, systematic whole, than to follow the
natural bent of American minds, and "annex" our neighbor's fields by
purchasing.
Any number of instances could be given of the increased value of lands
in England by drainage, but they are of little practical value. The
facts, that the Government has made large loans in aid of the process,
that private drainage companies are executing extensive works all over
the kingdom, and that large land-holders are draining at their own cost,
are conclusive evidence to any rational mind, that drainage in Great
Britain, at least, well repays the cost of the operation.
In another chapter may be found accurate statements of American farmers
of their drainage operations, in different States, from which the reader
will be able to form a correct opinion, whether draining in this country
is likely to prove a profitable operation.