Irrigation works : $b the principles on which their design and working should be based, with special details relating to Indian canals and some proposed improvementsBellasis, E. S. (Edward Skelton)
Science
Irrigation works : $b the principles on which their design and working should be based, with special details relating to Indian canals and some proposed improvements
Bellasis, E. S. (Edward Skelton)
Canals; Irrigation
A minor distributary has been defined (CHAPTER II., Art. 3) as being one
discharging not more than 40 c. ft. per second, but the term has come to
be used to designate a branch of a major distributary, and in that sense
it will be used in this article. When the shape of the area commanded by
a distributary is such that watercourses exceeding 2 miles in length
would otherwise be required, one or more minors are often added.
Frequently it is a question whether to let some of the watercourses be
more than two miles long, or to construct a minor and thus shorten the
watercourses to perhaps only one mile. Which method is best has not been
definitely settled. It is known that the loss of water in watercourses
is heavy, but if a minor is added the loss in it has to be considered.
The loss must be high in any channel in which the ratio of wet border to
sectional area is small. The minor also costs money in construction and
in maintenance. On the whole the matter, as far as concerns cost and
loss of water, is, perhaps, almost evenly balanced, but as regards
distribution of the supply a system without minors is preferable. The
off-take of a minor is generally far from the canal, i.e., in a more or
less out-of-the-way place, and it is impossible to see that the
regulation is properly carried out. Irregularities and corruption are
sure to arise. Even if the supply is fairly distributed as between the
minor and the distributary it is almost certain that the regulator, if a
double one, will be manipulated for the illegal benefit of outlets in
the distributary upstream of the bifurcation. There are sure to be some
such outlets not very far distant. In any case each minor adds one, if
not two, to the already very large number of gauges which have to be
entered daily in the sub-divisional officer’s register (CHAPTER III.,
Art. 3), and adds also to the mileage of channel to be inspected and
maintained. These considerations should, in many cases, though of course
not in all, turn the scale against the construction of a minor. At one
time it became usual to construct minors even when watercourses more
than two miles long would not otherwise have resulted. This custom was
condemned some years ago, and is not likely to be re-established. Most
of the difficulties just mentioned can, in the case of a minor which is
not too large, either absolutely or relatively to the main distributary
downstream of the off-take, be got over by making the minor head like a
watercourse outlet, building it up to the proper size, removing the
regulating apparatus and abolishing the reading of the gauge, but in
this case the minor is not likely to be bigger than a large watercourse.
Such minors should not be constructed, and any existing ones should,
after the head has been treated as above, be made over to the people and
considered as watercourses.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account