The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-09-17
Water supply.
RICHMOND, September l6, 1869

RICHMOND, september 10, lob9.
To the Editors of the Richmond Dispatch ::
In my last letter to you | stated that in
order to give even limited, and not copi-
ous, supply of water for the necessities of
life, in three-inch main it would be ne
cessary to have 660 feet of head, and in
four-inch main l72 feet head. The exces-
sive head thus required would cause q
wasteful expenditure of power, and greater
outlay of money in its operation than would
attend less head with larger mains. An
excessive head is ever to be avoided, as it
increases the cost Of pipe, the difficulties in
making the joints required for the distribu-
ton of the water tight and durable, and
the liability of the pipes to burst in conse-
auence of too sudden or careless closing
of the stop-cocks, fre-plugs, valves, and
cocks. Hence it is in general cheaper to
lay larger mains than to increase the head.
The limits in the costs of each can only be
determined by the topography of the To-
cality and by computative comparisons.
By referring to the different reports of
Water Committees for the last fifteen or
twenty years you will find that the enlarge
ment of the mains has been constantly
urged on the Council. On examining the
report submitted in February, 1868, / find
that on Main street from Twenty-sevcnth
to Twcnty-fourth street we have an eight
inch main, while from the latter street to
Eighteenth we have only threc-inch main.
When the former eight-inch main was laid
it was intended to carry it some distance
further westward, and then to increase it
as it approached the Water Works. But at
present we have only the three-inch main
from Twenty-fourth street to Eighteenth, n
four-inch from Eighteenth to Thirteenth,
and then n six-inch main mp to First street.
Again, in 1852, while Cary street was
being paved, the Council was advised, be-
fore the new pavement was laid, to run a
lO-inch main from Eighteenth street to
Ninth, to be afterwards continued up Cary.
The Council refused to follow this advice.
and hence we have now on that portion of
Cary only 3-inch main, as | have stated
before.
Again, in 1858 the Council was urged to
lay an S-inch main down Eighth street from
Broad, across Grace, Franklin, Main, and
Cary, to Byrd, so as to connect the mains
on those streets with the l6-inch main on
Broad street. But this advice was also un-
needed. At present that portion of the city
south of the canal, where we have situated 50
much valuable property, is oaly supplied
by one 4-inch main.
Again, in 1860, on the introduction OF
steam fre-engines into the city, the Council
was informed that the mains throughout the
city wero too small, except at some few
points, ranging from three to four and six
inches in diameter; and inadequate, espe-
cially in the higher portions of the city, to
vent the quantity Of water sufficient for
such engines. TO remedy this difficulty
temporarily it was proposed to erect on the
higher points of the city several small re-
seryoirs or stand pipes. The same was
proposed, also, in Philadelphia in 1858, but
it was considered there better to correct the
evil thoroughly by laying large mains. The
Chief Engineer of the Philadelphia Water
Works, in his report Of 1866, says: Il" 1t has
been the practice of this and other cities tt
lay service mains of too small capacity
The demand for water has increased sc
much that at the present time the mains
are required 10 be at least three times the
size that would have been sufficient IL
$780,"
The cost of laying these larger mains
would not be SO great as might at first be
thought. I do not advocate altering all tho
mains at once, but simply commencing witt
our principal business streets, and thel
continuing as our means will allow. Ii lalc
in lengths of 5000 feet and over, the cos
will be (including everything as follows