"(3) That the average velocity of the current of air in the ventilating-column increases with the size of the sewer to which it is connected, averaging 2.4 feet per second with the 7-inch sewer, 3.6 feet per second with the 9-inch sewer, 3.7 feet per second with the 12-inch sewer, and 4.1 feet per second with the 15-inch sewer in these experiments.

"(4) That the draught in the column is very largely dependent on the wind, being at its minimum on a still day, and could therefore be readily increased by the use of a suitable cowl.

"(5) That the draught is very little affected by the sewer-gradients. It was expected that, in ventilating-columns placed in connection with the upper end of a sewer laid at a steep gradient, a strong draught would have been obtained. No direct connection, however, was traceable."

As the result of these experiments, Mr. Binnie rightly came to the conclusion that this system of ventilation was efficient.

Mr. Hammond antic.i.p.ates that the house connection trap system at Monterrey will lead to bad results, but the writer has seen the system at work in many widely different cities with excellent results. He believes that it is in accord with the best practice of the most eminent sanitarians during the last 20 years, and has no apology to make for introducing that system in Monterrey.

Regarding Mr. Hammond's summary of the advantages of concrete pipes for sewer construction, the writer is in entire agreement, and would willingly have introduced them throughout the whole of the Monterrey system, but for the fact that it was an exceedingly difficult matter to obtain suitable sand for their manufacture during the early days of construction, and considerable delays would have arisen if a complete network of such pipes had been used. His later experience at Monterrey, when the sand difficulty had been solved, clearly showed that concrete pipe could be laid down at much less expense than fire clay.

Both Mr. Pitkethly and Mr. Hammond refer to the system of liquefying tanks used at Monterrey preparatory to turning the sewage on the irrigation lands, and both express doubts as to their efficiency. The writer is now separated from his library and notes by many thousands of miles, and cannot quote "chapter and verse" as accurately as he would like, in order to support his views that the system adopted was adequate for dealing with a system such as that at Monterrey. It must be pointed out that not only was it intended to prevent the sewage from becoming a nuisance, but that the sewage flow plus a large quant.i.ty of surplus water was intended to be used profitably for irrigation purposes. With that object, the Company--or rather its allied Company, the Monterrey Railway, Light, and Power Company--obtained the control of 2,246 acres of the very finest arable land, with almost perfect natural drainage conditions, so that this land could be utilized to create a profitable revenue from the use of the sewage. The outfall sewer was accordingly designed to carry sufficient water and sewage to irrigate about 2,500 acres of land, which area could be considerably extended if necessary at any future time.

Most authorities now agree that before turning sewage upon land, a preliminary treatment is required to remove as much as possible of the suspended matter, and then reduce the latter by subsidence in liquefying or septic tanks, so that the quant.i.ty remaining in the effluent is so small and finely divided that it may be readily decomposed and oxidized by bacterial action without risk of clogging the surface or interstices of the land upon which it may discharge.[12]

[12] See Raikes, "Sewage Disposal Works," pages 97-98.

Mr. Pitkethly quotes Messrs. Watson and O'Shaughnessy as saying, in their evidence before the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal, that not more than 10% of the solids are digested in septic tanks, but it must be remembered that in many other places evidence was given before the same Commission showing that from 25 to 30% was actually obtained.

Mr. J. D. Watson, in his paper, "Birmingham Sewage-Disposal Works,"[13]

read in March, 1910, points out that:

[13] _Minutes of Proceedings_, Inst. C. E., Vol. CLx.x.xI, p. 259.

"The much-maligned sewage-farm still may be allowed (where the conditions are favourable) to rank as one of the best methods of sewage-disposal. Diverse opinions may be held as to what are favourable conditions, particularly as conditions are sure to vary widely with locality; but it may be a.s.sumed that where there is 1 acre of suitable land per 100 persons, as in Berlin and several other important cities, the efficiently-worked sewage-farm, when judged solely by the standard of the effluent produced, is still in the front rank. Effluents from such a farm are remarkable for their paucity of micro-organisms, their low alb.u.minoid ammonia, and their unvarying character."

a.s.suming that not more than 2,000 acres of the irrigated land at Monterrey were available for sewage purposes, this area would represent the sewage treatment of the present population of not more than 45 persons per acre, and on the basis of the design, that is, for a population of 200,000 persons, this represents not more than 100 persons per acre. In many sewage farms on the continent of Europe, the number treated per acre varies between 80 and 200 persons; for example, at Breslau it is 187, at Berlin 105, at Brunswick 88, and at Steglitz 185.

Regarding the crops to be grown on the land, very satisfactory results were obtained from growing Indian corn, and two excellent crops per annum were taken from an area of 500 acres during the period in which the writer was responsible for the works. It was also his intention to grow alfalfa, and turn a part of the land into a pecan grove, and, although he does not share the apprehensions of danger of either Mr. Pitkethly or Mr. Hammond as to growing root crops, he believes the growth of alfalfa, Indian corn, oats, barley, and pecan and fruit trees is eminently suitable for the land, which is a deep rich loam, from 4 to 8 ft. deep, overlying the "sillar" formation referred to in the paper. The writer has seen many sewage farms during the last 18 years, upon which root crops of excellent quality have been grown, and not the least suspicion has ever been raised regarding their use.

In reference to the adoption of the monolithic form for constructing the South Reservoir, the writer is so convinced as to its economy that had he to build this reservoir again, he would adopt the same method. Mr.

Binckley, in drawing attention to the method of construction, has overlooked the fact that the cost of forms for a reservoir 30 ft. deep was a very serious item, and warranted the adoption of this new method, not only on account of economy but because of rapidity of construction; while, in the case of the Obispado Reservoir, which is very much shallower, simpler forms could be and were adopted.

Mr. Saucedo's remarks regarding the repet.i.tion of the extraordinary floods of August, 1909, in September, 1910, are particularly interesting, and show how abnormal conditions are in so dry a section of Mexico as the State of Nuevo Leon. These two floods, the writer believes, are among the most instructive in North America, particularly when one remembers that prior to 1909 the average rainfall during a period of 15 years, was less than 22 in. per annum.