Rural Hygiene Part 8

More simply it may be made by digging a trench along the hillside at the same level as the spring, or into the spring if necessary to find the water, and then laying draintile surrounded by coa.r.s.e gravel or broken stone in the trench.

In the western part of the country much knowledge has been gained by investigating and experimenting on this kind of spring water development, only there the springs have been made artificially by digging down to meet the underground flow of water. For example, in the Arkansas River Valley, California, where it was suspected that water was flowing underground, a trench was dug transversely across the valley, and at a depth of six feet sufficient water was found to amount to 200,000 gallons per day for each one hundred feet of trench. On the South Platte River, near Denver, much the same thing has been done, and in a trench eighteen feet deep, water is collected at the rate of a million and a quarter gallons per day for each one hundred feet of trench. Other examples of the same sort might be given.

For a single house, the spring need usually only be extended by means of a short trench, and three-inch terra-cotta tile should be laid in the trench and surrounded by gravel and then covered over. The spring receiving water from these tiles should be inclosed, as will be described in a later chapter.

_Supply from brooks._

Whenever a spring is not available and at the same time a supply of running water by gravity is determined on for a house, recourse is generally had to brooks which may find their way down the hillsides in the vicinity. In many instances the water in such brooks is practically spring water and is the overflow of actual springs. Where the brook is not subject to contamination between the spring and the point at which the supply is taken, the latter is as truly spring water as the former, and if a long length of pipe is saved, there can be no objection to the brook supply. On the other hand, it is suggestive, at least, of misrepresentation for a summer hotel or boarding house to advertise that their water-supply comes from springs when really it comes from an open brook miles away from the spring which may be indeed the origin of the brook, but with so many intervening opportunities for contamination that the pure original source is unrecognizable.

There are two obvious drawbacks to the use of brooks: (1) that the quality of the water is, in many cases, objectionable, and (2) that brooks are very apt to dry up in summer on account of their limited watersheds. The discussion on the first point will be postponed to a later chapter, and we have now to consider the question of quant.i.ty only.

The wisest plan before deciding on a brook supply is to measure the volume of water which flows in the brook at the time when it is lowest, probably about the middle of August. The actual volume of water needed for the household is not large, although its required rate of flow may be high and, as already pointed out, a stream which furnishes water at the rate of one quart in five minutes is sufficient for a family of three persons, a rate which is almost a drop-by-drop supply. Such a stream would require a reservoir somewhere in order to supply the faucets at the proper rate, and for a single family a small cistern or even a barrel sunk in the ground would be sufficient for this purpose.

An objection to the utilization of so small a flow in connection with the smaller storage is that the temperature of the water in summer is so raised that vegetation and animal growths take place easily and freely, so that the taste and smell of such water is most disagreeable. These consequences can be avoided even with the low flow by increasing the storage, since the larger quant.i.ty of water has been found to resist the bad effects of the low flow and high temperature. Figure 35 shows a small reservoir actually in use to supply water for a single house.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 35.--A reservoir for home use.]

_Storage reservoirs._

But even if the stream actually dries up for two or three months, it is still possible to use it for water-supply, provided a suitable location for a dam and pond can be found where storage, as described in the preceding chapter, can be secured. For this reason as well as for the greater benefit to the quality of the water, brooks flowing through rough, wooded, and uninhabited country are to be preferred as a source of water-supply to brooks flowing through flat agricultural land, and in many cases, where their flow is largely due to springs, the brooks themselves may compare favorably with springs in quality.

_Ponds or lakes._

Water may be properly taken from ponds or lakes whenever the danger from pollution is negligible. No better source of supply can be imagined than a pond in the midst of woods, far away from human habitation, presumably furnis.h.i.+ng an unlimited supply of pure soft water. Sometimes water from such ponds contains large amounts of vegetable matter, the result of decomposition of swampy or peaty material, as, for instance, from the ponds in the Dismal Swamp of Virginia, so that the water has a yellow, coffee-colored appearance. The appearance of such water is suspicious, but it need not be feared unless something more pernicious than the coloring matter is present.

As the country becomes more settled, ponds are more and more likely to become contaminated and hence unfit for a water-supply, and this possibility must be taken into account in planning for a water-supply.

It would be most shortsighted to carry a long line of pipe from a house to a pond several miles away, only to have the pond made unfit for use within a few years by the growth of the community around the pond. The possibility of cooperation ought not to be overlooked, however. It is quite possible that half a dozen householders might be so located with respect to each other and to a pond that an arrangement could be made whereby the owner of a small pond would agree to fence it around and dedicate it to the purposes of a water-supply, doing this as his share.

The others might then well afford to pipe the water to one house after another, including that of the owner of the pond.

Water from a pond or lake has one great advantage over water from a brook, namely, that contaminating substances in the pond settle out, so that pond water, especially if the pond is deep, is always of much better quality than running water. For this same reason, water taken from a reservoir on a stream is much better water than that in the stream above the reservoir indicates, and pollution is much less to be feared where the reservoir exists.

_Pressure for water-supplies._

The value of a high pressure in the water-pipes of a house has been much overestimated. For a number of years the water-supply in the writer's residence came from a tank in the attic, the pressure in the bath-room being not more than ten feet, and while the water flowing through a three fourths inch pipe was noticeably slow, it was not so slow as to discredit the supply.

A height or head of twenty feet above the highest fixture in the house would be better and ought to be secured whenever possible. This head is obtained by having the source of supply higher than the highest fixture, not merely the twenty feet mentioned, but also an additional height necessary to offset the frictional losses caused by the running water.

The loss from this source in case of fire supply has already been referred to, but for purely domestic supplies the loss is appreciable.

The maximum rate as already indicated is not more than 7000 gallons per day, whereas the fire rate both for single houses and for a small hamlet is about a million gallons a day. For the lower rate, as well as for rates one half and twice this rate, the friction loss in vertical feet per 100 feet run in small pipes is shown in the following table:--

TABLE X. SHOWING LOSS OF HEAD BY FRICTION, FOR DIFFERENT QUANt.i.tIES OF FLOW, AND IN DIFFERENT SIZES OF PIPES

======================================================================== Rate of Flow in Gallons Per Day 1/2" Pipe 5/8" Pipe 3/4" Pipe 1" Pipe 1-1/4" Pipe -------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+------------- 3500 13.95 4.81 2.35 0.66 0.25 7000 47.17 17.30 7.45 2.04 0.74 14000 163.09 57.8 25.00 6.64 2.41 ========================================================================

The table shows how much additional elevation is needed over the 20 feet already referred to. For example, suppose it is decided that a rate of 1 quart in 10 seconds is to be maintained from three faucets or a rate of 7000 gallons per day. Suppose that a pond 4000 feet away is found to be 50 feet above the highest faucet in the house, and it is a question what size pipe ought to be used. By the table a 1-inch pipe loses 2.6 feet per 100 feet or 104 feet in the 4000 feet, an impossible amount when only 50 feet are available, although the size would be entirely proper if the difference of level was 124 feet or anything greater. A 1-1/4-inch pipe, however, loses only 0.74 foot in 100 or 39 feet per mile, so that the 1-1/4-inch pipe would be necessary, although that size would answer even if the pond were a mile and a quarter away.

When water from a well is pumped to an elevated tank there is the same necessity of providing about 20 feet difference in level between the tank and the highest fixture, but the length of pipe involved being small, the friction losses are not great. It should be noted even here that too small a pipe may reduce the pressure, a 1/2-inch pipe causing a loss of 47 feet in a 100-foot pipe line. If a tower is built by the side of the house, the distance down to the ground, across to the house, and up to the second floor would hardly be less than 50 feet, and this is a loss of 23-1/2 feet, which means that the tank would have to be set higher in the air by this amount. With a 3/4-inch pipe, it should go 3.7 feet, and with a 1-inch pipe but a foot higher than the level necessary to make the water flow out of the faucet at the rate already specified.

CHAPTER VII

_QUALITY OF WATER_

A pure water-supply has always been regarded as desirable and its value can hardly be overrated, from the standpoint of health, happiness, or economy. From the earliest history, no crime has been so despicable as that of deliberately poisoning a well from which the public supply was obtained, and in the past no charge more quickly could stir the populace to riot. In Stra.s.sburg in 1348 two thousand Jews were burned for this crime charged against them; and as late as 1832 the Parisian mob, frantic on account of the many deaths, insisted that the water-carriers who distributed water from the Seine, shockingly polluted with sewage as it was, had poisoned the water, and many of the carriers were murdered on this charge.

Yet no water, as used for drinking purposes, is absolutely pure, according to the standards of chemistry. Distilled water is the nearest approach to pure water obtainable, and it is said by physicians that such water is not desirable as a habitual and constant beverage. The human body requires certain mineral salts particularly for the bones and muscles, and while these salts are provided in a large measure by food, a number are also furnished by drinking water. On the other hand, a wonderful natural process is accomplished by distilled or approximately pure water in that the water tends to dissolve, to add to itself, and to carry away whatever excess of solids may exist in the body. For certain kidney diseases, for example, pure water is prescribed, not merely as a means of preventing further accretions, but for the purpose of dissolving and removing the undesirable acc.u.mulations already existing.

Practically, considerable lat.i.tude is possible in the matter of the purity of drinking water, and no particular harm is to be apprehended by the constant use of either a water containing as little as ten parts per million of total solids or of water containing as much as three hundred parts per million of total solids. The human body, in this as in so many other ways, is so const.i.tuted as to be able to adjust itself to varying conditions of food, and, until an excessive amount of ingredients are absorbed, no great harm is done. There are, however, certain definite substances--animal, vegetable, and mineral--which, when found in water, are decidedly objectionable, and it is not the amount of foreign matter in a water-supply, but its character, which is of importance in a water to be used for drinking.

_Mineral matter in water._

The mineral matter is the least objectionable as it is also the most common, since all water is forced to partake, more or less, of the nature of the rocks and soil over which it pa.s.ses. Good waters contain from twenty to one hundred grains per gallon of mineral salts; that is, of various chemical substances which are able to be dissolved by water.

If the amount is much in excess of one hundred parts, the water is noticeably "hard," and this may increase to a point where the water cannot be used. For example, the writer once superintended the locating and drilling of a well which pa.s.sed through a bed of sodium sulphate or gypsum, just before reaching the water, so that as the latter rose in the well it dissolved and carried with itself a large amount of this salt, so much that the water was useless. Water containing more than one hundred grains per gallon of such salts as magnesium sulphate or sodium phosphate is a mineral water rather than a good drinking water, and while an occasional gla.s.s may do no harm or may even have desirable medicinal effects, such a water is not fit for constant drinking.

It is worth noting that many attempts have been made to show the relative effect of various hard waters on the health. A French commissioner reported that apparently people in hard-water districts had a better physique than in soft-water districts. A Vienna commissioner also reported in favor of a moderately hard water for the same reason.

It is to-day believed by many that children ought to have lime in water; that is, ought to drink hard water to prevent or ward off "rickets" or softening of the bones. An English commissioner, on the other hand, has concluded that, other things being equal, the rate of mortality is practically uninfluenced by the softness or hardness of the water-supply. This same commissioner has also shown that in the British Isles the tallest and most stalwart men were found in c.u.mberland and in the Scotch Highlands, where the water used is almost invariably very soft (Thresh's "Water-supplies").

It has been a.s.serted that certain diseases, not necessarily causing death, are caused by hard water, as calculus, cancer, goiter, and cretinism; but, as already pointed out in Chapter II, no satisfactory proof has ever been established. One must conclude that within reasonable limits there is little to choose between a hard and soft water for drinking purposes, although a change from a soft water to a hard, or _vice versa_, usually produces temporary derangements.

_Loss of soap._

For was.h.i.+ng purposes the value of a soft water is more marked. When a hard water is used, a certain amount of soap is required to neutralize the hardness before the soap is effective, and this takes place at the rate of about 2 ounces of soap to 100 gallons of water for each part of calcium carbonate per gallon, or about 3 ounces of soap to 10,000 gallons for each part per million increase in hardness.

The village of Canisteo, New York, has a hard spring water, the hardness being recorded by the State Department of Health as 162.8 parts calcium carbonate in a million parts of water. Clifton Springs water has a hardness of 208. Catskill, New York, which gets its water from a stream running down from the hillside, has a hardness of 22.1 or 140.7 parts less than Canisteo. Mr. G. C. Whipple says ("Value of Pure Water") he has found that 1 pound of soap is needed to soften 167 gallons of water when that water has a hardness of 20 parts per million, and that each additional part requires 200 pounds of soap to soften a million gallons.

If Clifton Springs and Catskill should each use 100,000 gallons per day, the additional cost of the hard water, at five cents a pound for soap, would be 20 140.7 0.05 = $140.70, provided all the village water were neutralized with soap. Probably not over one fiftieth part of the water is so neutralized, so that the added cost of soap is actually about $2.80 a day. Whipple expresses this cost as _H_/100 = _D_, where H is the hardness in parts per million and _D_ is the cost in cents for every 1000 gallons used for all purposes. Thus Canisteo water costs 162.8/100 = 1.6 cents per 1000 gallons used, while Catskill costs only 22.1/100 or 0.2 cent on account of soap.

This discussion is intended to suggest a comparison between a well of hard water and a surface supply of soft water, when both are available.

It should arouse an interest in securing a soft water as well as a clear water, and the advantages of the softer water, in so far as soap consumption alone is concerned, are seen to be not inconsiderable.

_Vegetable pollution._

The vegetable and animal matter is organic in its origin and nature, and their effect on water may be taken up together.

Vegetable pollution is generally the result of decayed leaves, roots, bark, and such other vegetable tissue as would be likely to be found where the water-supply flows through a swamp or acc.u.mulates in hollows and depressions. This sort of water is likely to have a brownish or yellowish brown color, to have a slightly sweetish taste, and to be soft, that is, free from mineral solids. Usually such water can be used for drinking purposes without serious consequences. aesthetically, it is objectionable because of its color, and the city of Boston has expended many thousands dollars in building channels around swamps and in providing artificial outlets for swamps, so that the color of the water collected on the watershed shall not show the color induced thereby.

Water from the Dismal Swamp of Virginia is so discolored as to look like coffee, and yet, in the vicinity, it is much prized for drinking, and formerly great pains were taken to fill casks with this water when in preparation for a long sea voyage.

Such matter always has a marked influence on a chemical a.n.a.lysis of the water, shows large amounts of nitrogenous matter, and apparently indicates a polluted supply; but, if the reason for this apparent pollution lies in the presence of a swamp, no danger to health therefrom is to be apprehended. Such water also is less subject to decay or putrefaction, and if a water-supply for a house is to be taken from a small pond, a gathering ground containing swamps is likely to furnish a more satisfactory water, color alone excepted, than one free from such swamps.

_Pollution of water by animals._

Animal pollution usually comes from the presence on the watershed of domestic animals, that is, cows, sheep, and horses, or from manure spread on fields draining into the brook, or from barns or barnyards close by the water. It is the presence of this sort of pollution that furnishes the other kind of organic matter not to be distinguished by chemical a.n.a.lysis from the organic matter just referred to, but vastly more objectionable.

Drainage from houses and barns is responsible for the same kind of animal pollution, and while it is difficult to prove by statistics that such pollution is always dangerous to health, it is sufficiently repulsive from an aesthetic standpoint to be done away with whenever possible. Such pollution applies only to surface water, such as brooks or lakes, and the best method of detecting and evaluating this pollution is to make a careful inspection of the watershed.

If it is proposed to use the water from a certain stream for drinking purposes, the first step should be to examine carefully the area draining into the stream, to detect, if possible, all opportunities for animal wastes to find their way directly into the stream and to note whether fields sloping rapidly to the streams are manured; to see whether the stream flows through pasture land in which cows are kept, and especially to note whether houses with their accompanying outbuildings are near enough the brook so that water may at any time wash impurities down into the stream. Whenever a brook flows through woodland free from all animal pollution and not subject to pollution before entering the wood, the water is probably as pure as that in any spring or well.

On the contrary, when the water in a brook flows through a meadow used for pasture or through gullies, the sides of which are manured, or in the vicinity of houses and barns, the water is probably unfit for drinking purposes. This can be realized by standing at the edge of a barnyard and watching the rain falling first on the roof of the barn, then in larger quant.i.ties from the eaves on to the manure pile into the yard below, then acc.u.mulating in pools of reddish black concentrated liquid, until the volume is sufficient to form small rills which gradually a.s.semble into a fair-sized stream. Similarly, the pig-pen drainage is washed out from under or even through the building, and, after combining with the barnyard drain, is carried into the stream near by. The very idea of drinking such filth is nauseating in the extreme.