Susan M. Ross

Steam or Water Power? Thomas C. Keefer and the Engineers Discuss the Montreal Waterworks in 1852

Thomas Coltrin Keefer's 1852 proposal for the Montreal waterworks transformed the city's aspiration to profit from its situation on the St. Lawrence River for both water supply and waterpower into a technological possibility. Keefer proposed the double use of a canal to secure an upstream source of pure water and provide the system with hydraulic power. His arguments against steam power made reference to the American experience with waterpower and built upon a local resistance to dependence on imported coal. Keefer's role, however, was more than the rationalization of an intuitive hope—his own convictions and ability to communicate helped make the project a collective vision. In addition to revealing a sympathetic exchange of technical experience between Canadian and American engineers, the analysis of his proposal and the discussion around it confirm that early Canadian engineering was driven by visions of social and economic progress, based on access to unlimited resources, and a belief that man could master the natural environment through science and technology.

Grâce à sa proposition de 1852 pour l'aqueduc de Montréal, Thomas Coltrin Keefer a rendu techniquement possibles les aspirations de la ville à tirer profit de son emplacement sur le fleuve Saint-Laurent pour s'approvisionner en eau et en énergie hydraulique. Keefer a suggéré un canal à double fonction pouvant fournir à la fois une source d'eau pure en amont et alimenter le système en énergie hydraulique. Son opposition à l'usage de la vapeur référait aux expériences américaines sur l'énergie hydraulique et sur la résistance locale à dépendre du charbon importé. Mais le rôle de Keefer est allé au-delà d'un espoir intuitif, puisque ses propres convictions et son habilitéà les communiquer ont transformé son projet en une ambition collective.

L'analyse de sa proposition et de la discussion qui l'entoure révèle d'une part les échanges d'expérience technique entre ingénieurs canadiens et américains. D'autre part, elle illustre comment les débuts du génie canadien se sont appuyés sur la notion de progrès social et économique fondée sur l'accès à des ressources naturelles illimitées et la volonté de maîtriser l'environnement naturel par la science et la technologie.

On 15 June 1852, Thomas Coltrin Keefer, civil engineer, received instructions from the City of Montreal to carry out a survey on the "practicability of bringing water from the head of the Lachine Rapids, for the purpose of affording—not only an ample supply for consumption, but also sufficient power to force this supply into the different wards of the City, and into suitable Reservoirs."¹

Thus began Keefer's long association with urban waterworks; from Montreal he would go on to design systems across Canada. While Keefer's waterworks in Hamilton and Ottawa have better endured as monuments to Canada's first waterworks engineer, Keefer was involved in the development of Montreal's water supply at a defining period in its history. The campaign to make use of available waterpower to power the city's water supply system marked Keefer's first experience in waterworks design and related the system's design to other critical areas in the development of Montreal at the time.

In Montreal, private waterworks companies had been experimenting with different sources of supply and power with poor success since 1800. By the time the city took over the water supply in 1845, a more durable solution was sought—one that would profit fully from the city's position on the abundant St. Lawrence River. Working just after the use of hydraulic power on the Lachine Canal had begun to transform the city's industrial potential, Keefer proposed a separate supply and power canal for the new waterworks.

Keefer's success in the development of the Montreal waterworks lay not only in his ideas but also in his ability to communicate them. The idea of using waterpower for the water supply system had been around since at least 1835. No documentation from these earlier deliberations has been located.² Thus Keefer's proposal and the discussion that surrounded it are the first deliberations that can be studied in detail. His proposal not only transformed the instinctive idea of using waterpower for water supply into a technical possibility but also expressed the advantages of this approach in a language that helped convince the city to invest in its first truly public works. The text of his proposal connected the mastery of the river's power to a much larger vision of social and economic progress.

In order to confirm the value of his proposal, Keefer sought the opinions of two major waterworks engineers of the time. Each engineer submitted a detailed analysis of Keefer's proposal, and Keefer responded with comments on their comments. In 1854 the city of Montreal published Keefer's proposal together with the comments from his colleagues, Keefer's response to their comments, and the minutes of the related meetings of the city of Montreal's Water Committee and City Council. As was common for important municipal reports at the time, it was translated into French and reproduced in 500 copies for public information and discussion.³ It is through this document, which we will refer to here as the Reports of the Engineers, that we can follow how consulting engineers discussed almost every element of Keefer's proposal and, in particular, the question of water or steam power.

H. V. Nelles's study of Keefer's essay on the Philosophy of Railroads has demonstrated Keefer's importance as a communicator in other areas of 19th-century engineering.⁴ Imbued with the visionary language of progress, Keefer's engineering texts and his skills as a communicator served an important role in the development of both his career and the engineering profession.⁵ Keefer's role in building railways was ultimately quite limited, but he did build waterworks.⁶ The principal studies of his technical contributions in this area focus on the surviving works at Hamilton and Ottawa.⁷ By analyzing the values embodied in his Montreal proposal and the technical developments it introduced, this article sheds light on Keefer's role as a communicator in municipal waterworks engineering as it first began to take shape across Canada.

Keefer's report is also a milestone record of the city's waterworks. It is both the first major document to record the objectives, means, and justification for the system's design, and the last such design documentation to be produced for Montreal by consulting engineers.⁸ Subsequent developments are principally recorded in the annual reports of the municipally employed engineers who would eventually be hired to manage the system. That consulting engineers designed the first municipally owned waterworks confirms the observations made by Dany Fougères, historian of Montreal's early waterworks, that while the city gradually took over responsibility for the system, transforming it into a fully public system took a long time.⁹

The possibility of using waterpower would remain a preoccupation with every engineer to become involved with the Montreal waterworks. Although the detailed analysis will show that there was less of a debate about water or steam power than a confirmation of the city's preference for waterpower, the documents from this period stand as the first record of the discussion of this ideal.

Background

In order to understand the context of Keefer's proposal, a few words should first be said about the physical, social, and economic context of Montreal in 1852; the city's experience in earlier private waterworks; contemporary precedents for the use of waterpower in water supply; the developing role of navigational canals as power canals; and Keefer's prior involvement with Canadian and American canal works.

Montreal: Burgeoning Metropolis on the St. Lawrence River

In 1852, Montreal was a relatively small but growing and constantly changing city with a population of close to 58,000, six times that of 1800. By 1875 the city's population would double again.¹⁰ While the expansion and increasing density of the city prompted the need for a collective supply of clean water, the decision to build a new municipal system was justified by the anticipated social advantages of domestic supply and street cleaning and the more commercial insurance and security concerns of firefighting; in the period of its transition from a private to a public endeavor, the development of the waterworks can also be related to the many other development schemes intended to keep Montreal competitive as Canada's economy shifted from commercial to industrial development.¹¹

Considering Montreal's much larger works like the Lachine Canal, the harbor, and the railway lines and bridges, it is perhaps not surprising that the more "mundane" waterworks have tended to be neglected in histories of 19th-century Montreal. The importance of the city's position on the St. Lawrence for commercial and industrial development has been recognized in more celebrated endeavors like the Lachine Canal. The canal's opening as a navigation canal in 1824 enabled Montreal to become a commercial hub. Bypassing the Lachine Rapids, the canal linked the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes and the interior of the continent. The canal's enlargement between 1843 and 1848 facilitated industrial development by providing opportunities for waterpower along the canal in a critical period for the city following the loss of British tariff protection.¹² It is perhaps not surprising that the city also hoped to profit from the river for a water-powered water supply system, based on a new canal, or aqueduct, roughly parallel to the existing one.

Montreal's incorporation in 1841 had given it greater powers to borrow and spend. In 1843, it began to discuss buying out the private waterworks, eventually doing so for £50,000 in 1845. In 1846 the city formed its first Water Committee and began to develop major expansion plans.¹³ The water supply system in 1845 only had 1,064 subscribers and supplied 93,000 gallons a day. By 1852 the city hoped to supply 5 million gallons per day. The scale of the project, perhaps exaggerated in relation to the size of the city, was justified by recent population growth, the sense that there was an unlimited and permanent supply to be had, and a belief that the provision of such public services would contribute to further growth.

In July 1852, shortly after Keefer was hired, a series of major fires occurred, destroying more than 1,200 houses and leaving more than 10,000 homeless in Montreal.¹⁴ This disaster surely added weight to the plans, underscoring the need to have enough water for firefighting to prevent loss of life and property and to reduce related insurance rates.

Water Power and Steam in Montreal's Earliest Waterworks

The private waterworks that the city purchased in 1845 were the third in a series of private undertakings. These provided experience in the use of steam and other forms of power and an appreciation of Montreal's particular advantages and disadvantages with regards to water supply.¹⁵

The first system (proprietor John Frobisher et al., 1799–1816) operated by gravity. It attempted to bring water from sources on Mount Royal to the small city by the river. This system was abandoned relatively quickly, due in all likelihood to a combination of inadequate sources, poorly laid and built pipes, and inherent difficulties in the city's topography.

The second system (proprietor Thomas Porteous, 1816–33) was the first to have its intake in the river itself, made possible by the introduction of a steam engine. Steam pumps raised the water up to the city, and reservoirs were built to store the excess water. Porteous brought the steam pumps from Scotland, along with an engineer and a plumber to help build the system. Little is known about the steam engine except that Porteous visited the Glasgow Water Works, designed by James Watt himself. The steam engine was only used for three hours a day. The rest of the day the engine ran a gristmill. This dual use of the machine did not, however, keep the company from financial troubles.

The third system (proprietor Moses Hays, 1833–45) maintained and improved the second, adding another pump and larger reservoirs. Hays suggested moving the intake west of the city, but these plans were never carried out. Problems worsened due to the cost of operating the engines, the small size of the pipes, and the irregular supply and poor quality of water obtained downstream from the city. By 1843 Hays proposed that the city buy him out.

When the city took over the system, it made some adjustments, adding a large reservoir above the city, but it was already quite conscious of the need to move the source upstream. Thus, at the time when the city was studying Keefer's proposal in 1852, it possessed a steam-based system that supplied insufficient water of a poor quality.

Philadelphia's Fairmount Waterworks, a Model for Waterpower

As the principal contemporary North American example of a water-powered system, Philadelphia's Fairmount Waterworks was an important reference. In 1852, Alderman Edwin Atwater, chairman of Montreal's Water Committee, visited Philadelphia, considered then "the Mecca of the hydraulic engineer."¹⁶

Philadelphia had dammed the Schuylkill River and obtained power from three 15-foot wooden waterwheels located in a pump house on the river's banks immediately adjacent to the dam. The lower cost of waterpower was long thought to more than compensate for the initial expense of the dam, originally built in 1819–22. By 1843, five iron wheels had been added, and the system supplied more than 5 million gallons per day. Between 1851 and 1872 Philadelphia's water department replaced the breast wheels with turbines, but ultimately the river became too polluted, and the city changed sources and systems and switched back to steam pumping.¹⁷

When Montreal first began to look seriously to the possibility of employing waterpower in the 1850s, the Fairmount Waterworks was already 30 years old. More contemporary to the Montreal project was the gravity-based Croton Aqueduct built to supply New York City, designed by John B. Jervis, one of the engineers invited to Montreal to look at Keefer's proposal.

The Croton River was dammed 40 miles (66 km) above the city of New York in the Catskills in order to supply the city with water by gravity. While gravity was considered "undoubtedly the best method where sufficient head and volume of water are attainable in a justifiable outlay," in Montreal such a solution was considered unfeasible.¹⁸ To the north, no source of water had a high enough elevation within a feasible distance and at least two navigable rivers would have to be crossed. To the south, the need to cross the St. Lawrence ruled out a gravity system.¹⁹ The only way gravity could be used was by positioning the intake above the rapids and the reservoirs on Mount Royal.

Lachine and Welland Canals: Models of Power Canals

Apart from contemporary waterworks, the use of navigational canals like the Lachine Canal for waterpower also served as important models for the Montreal Water Works. The expansion of the Lachine Canal in the 1840s also involved an expansion of the canal's function, turning the change in level obtained at three locks along the way into waterpower. The transformation of the canal's function had a dramatic impact on the city's development, leading to the creation of dozens of mills and factories and thousands of jobs. Hydraulic power began to transform the city of Montreal into an industrial center.²⁰ The Lachine Canal is thus the most obvious local precedent for the use of a water canal for power.

By 1847, the idea had been raised of using the Lachine Canal itself to either provide the power or the water for the city's supply. In the preamble to his proposal, Keefer objected to the use of the Lachine Canal because of the poor water quality of the heavily traveled waterway and the potential irregularity of its supply of power due to regular dewatering. Repairs that involved emptying the canal took place every August, in the lightest business month, but the heaviest period for water consumption. Moreover, the conditions of existing commercial leases of surplus water could not ensure the quantities required by the waterworks.²¹

While the canal served as a model for the dual use of canals—for transportation and waterpower—it was perhaps even more critical as an example of the performance of an open canal in the Montreal climate. Since Keefer and the other engineers invited to study his proposal would have been familiar with the use of canals for waterpower (at the Welland Canal, for instance), the Lachine Canal was perhaps more critical as evidence that an open canal with waterwheels or turbines could function in Montreal's climate.²² Keefer would, in fact, cite the Lachine Canal as proof of "the perfect practicability of maintaining a full supply of water, by an open channel, during the severest winters."²³ The Lachine Canal demonstrated how well waterwheels operated in Montreal's climate:

The use of waterwheels in so cold a climate as that of Montreal, may be objected to on the ground of the liability of their operations being suspended by the action of ice. The experience you have of the performance of the wheels upon the Lachine Canal will enable you to judge of the value of these objections.²⁴

Thomas Coltrin Keefer's Experience with Canal Works

Born in 1821, in Thorold, Upper Canada, Keefer was the son of the first president of the Welland Canal Company.²⁵ The original function of the Welland Canal, first built by William Hamilton Merritt between 1824 and 1829 and then rebuilt in 1842–1843, was to provide a transportation route up and down the Niagara escarpment. But waterpower was also eventually at work in the mills along the banks of the canal. Keefer would eventually serve as assistant engineer on the Welland Canal from 1840 to 1845. First he would go work on the Erie Canal after completing his schooling at age 17.

Keefer's connections with American canal engineers were first established on the Welland Canal, for Merritt hired American engineers Nathan Roberts and Alfred Barrett, who had worked on the Erie Canal, to superintend the project.²⁶ Barrett would become the chief engineer of the Lachine Canal enlargement in 1844–46.²⁷

Keefer's connection with Merritt served him well, as Merritt became the chief commissioner of public works in Bytown (now Ottawa).²⁸ From 1845 to 1848 Keefer was in charge of timber slides and river improvements on the Ottawa River for the Department of Public Works in Bytown.

In 1849 Keefer began working on St. Lawrence River improvements in Montreal, beginning his direct association with important Montreal projects and influential businessmen. As a consulting engineer on the city's harbor and shipping channel, Keefer produced pamphlets on river- and harbor-front improvements and prepared a site plan for a bridge to cross the St. Lawrence River near Montreal.²⁹

Keefer's arrival in Montreal coincided with the publication of his two promotional pamphlets on the Canals of Canada and the Philosophy of Railroads. Both of these essays were more economic than technical in nature. In this period following the loss of British tariff protection,³⁰ Keefer was preoccupied with defining a new relationship between Canada and the USA. His own continental experience surely strengthened his sense that Canadians should look to their more natural allies and build on Canada's natural advantages. The development of the hydraulic power of the Lachine Canal was proving to be critical to Montreal's industrial growth, suggesting it might solve the city's water supply problem as well.

When asked to submit a design for the waterworks, Keefer had no prior experience in this field, but he had a growing reputation as both an engineer and communicator and both Canadian and American experience with canals, including power canals.

When Keefer was hired in 1852, no other engineers' names were submitted, suggesting that his reputation and connections in Montreal continued to serve him well. At the same time, his suggestion that his plans be submitted for review to American engineers responsible for major municipal water-supply projects would have provided a sense that a broader consultation was taking place.

Steam or Water Power in the Montreal Waterworks

Keefer's 1852 Proposal

Keefer's basic proposal met the city's desire to bring river water from above the Lachine Rapids. The intention in going so far southwest of the city was to ensure that the water would be free from the impurities that had been a problem with sources located downstream and closer to the city. Even in the less developed areas between the rapids and the harbor, the river was too shallow to ensure its purity. The intake west of the Lachine Rapids was to be located at a point where consistent quantity and quality were assured (figure 1).

Figure 1. Overall plan for the Montreal Waterworks, 1854. The feeder canal for water coming to the new waterworks enters the map at the upper left and terminates at a settling basin shortly after the canal begins to parallel the Lachine Canal, roughly in the center of the map. Water-powered pumps then pumped water from this point to a service or storage reservoir located at the foot on the mountains overlooking Montreal. Drawing included in Keefer, Report on a Preliminary Survey for the Water Supply of the City of Montreal, 1854 (see n. 1).

Keefer proposed to bring the water along an open canal some 4.75 miles to Gregory's Farm, where it would meet the Lachine Canal and St. Pierre River. The canal was to be 8 feet deep at its deepest, with sloped sides, going from 20 feet in width at the bottom to 40 feet at the top. Although there was a difference of 37 feet in the river's level from the rapids to the harbor, the canal's slope was kept a minimal 1 foot. The difference in level obtained with respect to the river could thus be exploited by means of waterwheels in a 16-foot drop. (figures 2 and 3). The difference of 20 feet would serve as a security measure for the tailrace,which returned the overflow from the wheels back to the St. Lawrence via the St. Pierre River, in case of backup from the river.³¹ The proposed position of the tailrace shown in Figure 1 was revised once the position of the Victoria Bridge was determined, since the construction of the bridge would raise the river level at the tailrace, ostensibly reducing the drop that protected the system against the river backing up.³²

Figure 2. Section of wheelhouse and pump room, 1852. The pumps are in the center of the drawing; the two breast wheels on either side. Drawing included in Keefer, Report on a Preliminary Survey for the Water Supply of the City of Montreal, 1854 (see n. 1).

Figure 3. Section of wheelhouse, 1852. Drawing included in Keefer, Report on a Preliminary Survey for the Water Supply of the City of Montreal, 1854 (see n. 1).

Although Keefer thought that the canal could provide up to 300 hp, the initial system would use only 200, leaving room for expansion. Two 20-foot breast wheels of 100 hp each would operate pumps to raise around 5 million gallons a day of water through a 30-inch main conduit under the Lachine Canal and then up to the city. A high-level reservoir of 13 million gallons was to be built on the flanks of Mount Royal, 200 feet above the level of water in the harbor and 164 feet above the pumps.

The size and open form of the canal were justified on the basis of the quantities and fall of water required for the breast wheels. The reservoir was intended to assist in the distribution by gravity and serve as a backup in case of a fire.³³ The system was thus a combination of a pumped and gravitational system, profiting from the river's energy and the island's topography to reduce the need for mechanical power. Water was to be accumulated when demand was low and then distributed by gravity from the reservoirs as demand increased.

American and British Engineers and the 1852 Proposal

In order to confirm his design for the system, Keefer sought the opinion of two prominent American engineers: John B. Jervis, chief engineer of New York City's Croton waterworks, and William McAlpine, chief engineer of the Albany waterworks and the Brooklyn dry docks.³⁴ Through his earlier work on the Erie Canal and the Welland Canal under the supervision of American engineers, Keefer had been exposed to American ways of working and the work of prominent American engineers. He was thus in a good position to draw parallels to Canadian needs and opportunities and considered the American engineers part of his professional circle. A generation older than Keefer, Jervis had graduated from the "Erie School of Engineering." Like Keefer, he had worked on canals and railways before becoming associated with waterworks. As chief engineer of the Croton works, he planned the construction of the Croton dam and aqueduct, including a 40-mile-long closed conduit and the numerous bridges required to carry the aqueduct to Manhattan.³⁵

In addition, the English engineer Thomas Wicksteed was sent a copy of Keefer's proposal by way of Sir Francis Hincks, inspector general of Canada in Ottawa.³⁶ Wicksteed had recently completed work on the East London Water Works, where he introduced the Cornish system of steam pumping. Keefer resented the manner in which Wicksteed's opinion was sought, calling it "private disparagement from influential quarters" and provided no less than eight letters of reference from former employers as a rebuttal to any implied comment on his competence or authority.³⁷

The transmission of his proposal to Wicksteed without his knowledge clearly frustrated Keefer's sense of professional procedure, but he also objected to the involvement of this British engineer because he wished to discuss his concept with his colleagues in person. His preference for American over British engineers "was that they might personally and readily become acquainted with the features of the work; and because the climate, nature and value of building materials, consumption of water and habits of the people were not the same here as in Britain."³⁸ Moreover, in addition to criticizing Wicksteed's lack of knowledge of Montreal and of local conditions, Keefer also implied that Wicksteed's involvement in the manufacture of steam engines did not make him an impartial expert.

In contrast, Keefer had met in Montreal with Jervis and with McAlpine's associate William A. Perkins, where he was able to show them the physical context of the proposal.³⁹ Once they had seen Montreal's position on the river, they did not argue against waterpower; instead, they offered helpful arguments in favor of it. Presumably Keefer was also able to explain in person some of the more delicate aspects of the political and economic context that were not recorded on paper.

What they discussed in person is only speculation, but fortunately the Reports of the Engineers records the official position of each of these engineers. Although every aspect of the system was analyzed and alternatives suggested—including the merits of an open canal as opposed to a closed conduit; the position of the intake, pumps, and reservoirs; the size and number of pipes and reservoirs; and the estimated capital and operational costs—perhaps the most critical question in the mind of the consulting engineers was whether the system would be powered by steam or water.

Discussion of Steam or Waterpower

Although it appears that the city had in fact already decided on waterpower well before Keefer was hired, the only prior deliberation considered using the Lachine Canal to power the system. As in Philadelphia, the relatively early use of steam by private companies had exposed the city to problems and particularly to the high costs related to the earlier steam engines.⁴⁰ Keefer alludes to the inefficiency and extravagant cost of the city's existing steam system.⁴¹ With a rapidly expanding city and an increasing market, the city of Montreal now appeared to be eager to try more economic approaches—using waterpower instead of coal- or wood-fueled steam engines. The higher initial costs the waterpower system would involve for construction demanded justification, particularly once Wicksteed was invited to give his comments.

Wicksteed, whose comments are the first to be presented in the report, considered waterpower unacceptable, arguing that steam pumps could be located much closer to the city, thus eliminating the need for the lengthy canal. He anticipated arguments about water quality by referring to new types of sewage treatment that would soon be available that would return "the water into the river, in a state of as great purity as the water in the upper portions of the river before it is contaminated." No further details were supplied on how this was to be achieved. He objected to the comparison of waterwheels with the city's now outdated steam pumps, and he essentially recommended the use of the "Wicksteed steam engine" such as he had built for the East London Water Works in 1849.⁴²

Jervis also compared the higher operating costs of steam to the higher construction costs for canal construction, but he argued that an intake closer to the city would be unacceptable for reasons of water quality. He thus supported the basic argument that if the canal was to be built in any case, it should also be used to build up a head for waterpower. He further argued that since high water quality would also be required to operate the steam engines, the intake would have to be as far out for steam as for water.

McAlpine considered the comparative running costs of steam and water power, and he concluded that water would be more economical, adding to Keefer's arguments about fuel costs, information on the higher operating and repair costs of steam, as well as increased insurance costs. With direct reference to the Fairmount Works in Philadelphia as the "only valuable experience which has been had upon this continent in supplying water to Cities by water power," he suggested that a coal-generated steam system would cost four and one-half times more than that of a water-powered system. His calculations for the Montreal system included the annual interest to be paid on the higher construction costs of the power canal.⁴³

McAlpine suggested that the experience of waterwheels on the Lachine Canal be used to evaluate their feasibility in Montreal's cold climate, but he also recommended that turbines be considered, which he felt stood less danger of being stopped by ice or backwater.⁴⁴ He also suggested that the wheels and pumps should be duplicated to permit emergency operations, since failure of the machinery itself could be a cause of interrupted supply. McAlpine further believed that increasing the number and size of reservoirs should also be considered.

While acknowledging the disadvantages of waterwheels with regards to lower production levels and winter conditions, Keefer's defense of the waterpower scheme was primarily economic. Montreal had no local access to coal; the high price of coal in Montreal made a coal-fueled steam system particularly expensive. "Whatever objections there may be on the score of the expense to the employment of steam, these are heightened in the present case by the necessity for importing fuel, and its consequent high price here."⁴⁵ At the time, Keefer thought that Montreal's dependence on coal from elsewhere would be a major long-term cost that justified spending more in the short term to develop a water-powered system.

At the same time, Keefer linked the decision to build the expensive power canal to a more critical point, that of water quality. Since the city would have to go upstream to get pure water, he felt that it might as well use the difference in level from above the rapids down to the harbor to drive waterwheels.

The consideration which, in my judgment, is conclusive upon this head, and which in fact, is the leading principle of the proposed plan of supply is, that if it is necessary to go to the head of the Lachine Rapids to obtain a supply sufficiently pure for consumption, a slightly increased expenditure, while securing this supply, will bring in along with it, sufficient power to deliver that supply to our highest streets and tenements.⁴⁶

This was his strongest counter-argument against Wicksteed's proposal to move the intake closer to the city.

Beyond the discussion among these engineers, there is no record of a debate among the councilors or in the broader community. Keefer's report and those of the consulting engineers were adopted as a whole, so that one might suggest that ultimately there was no real debate about water or steam power. Instead, the city's instinctive preference was confirmed, solidified by economic and technical analysis of the options. Furthermore, Keefer spent nearly as many pages rebutting Hincks's interference as he did defending his ideas. The suggestions of the consulting engineers would have a more specific impact in other aspects. Both Jervis and McAlpine recommended doubling the single main conduit, replacing the single 30-inch pipe by two 24-inch pipes, a recommendation that was carried out and still marks the system today.

Water Quality, Local Resources and Experience, Progress and Engineering

Beyond the specific technical and economic factors raised in the discussion, the language used in these reports reveals the values embodied in these early projects.

Water Quality: For Public Health or for Healthy Pipes?

"One of the largest and purest rivers in the world flows at the very feet of your City—affording not only an illimitable supply for consumption, but the cheapest power for elevating this supply into the highest parts of the City."⁴⁷ References to water quality were surprisingly frequent in this discussion, justifying abandonment of the existing system, the position of the new intake, and the rejection of the Lachine Canal or any other intake position that would be to the detriment of water quality. These references are surprising because they appear unusual in this period of Montreal waterworks development. Ginette Gagnon demonstrated that in Montreal the focus on expansion and providing large quantities of water generally prevailed over measures to improve water quality until about 1910.⁴⁸ Martin V. Melosi suggests, "For many communities the lack of viable options for dealing with polluted water was the weakest link in the early system. The transformation of proto-systems into modern waterworks required methods for ensuring—or at least improving—water quality."⁴⁹

The 1852 project might therefore have been associated with this shift. When examined more carefully, however, it becomes clear that the concerns about water quality of the 1850s were not strictly related to public health. As an appendix to his report, Keefer provided a chemical analysis of the city's water at different positions: in the harbor, at the head of the Lachine Canal, and above the rapids from whence it was proposed to take the water. In discussing the results of this analysis, Keefer expresses greater concern with the known impact of different water compositions on lead and iron than on human constitutions, wanting above all to be sure that his conduits will not be affected by the quality of water.⁵⁰ The drive for water purity was here related to protecting the system's long-term health and not the populace being supplied.

Canadian Idea of Progress: Use of Local Resources and Experience

"It rarely happens that a city has advantages for the establishment of similar works to those enjoyed here."⁵¹ Keefer's principal argument against steam was economic, expressing a resistance to seeing Montreal become dependent on imported coal. A prevailing theme of his discourse is that of exploiting local advantages or natural resources, in this case the St. Lawrence River. Promoting Montreal's natural advantages as "unlimited" or "permanent" indicates a belief in unlimited progress based on access to resources. Nelles has suggested that Keefer's idea of progress is the unifying theme of all his written work and related to one interpretation of the Canadian ideas of progress, which held that "Canadians possessed the resources—physical, economic, social and human—to carry out successfully a sustained internal development, [and] ... through the use of science and the technology would master the new environment and place the secrets of Nature at the service of man."⁵²

The value given to local, including American, experience can be related to this understanding of what progress meant. The definite preference for American over British experience and expertise was related to the greater possibility of convincing American engineers by showing them Montreal's natural advantages. This tendency would only have been reinforced by the economic situation of the time, with the loss of British tariff protection and the development of a more continental trading context. Keefer's experiences in both Canadian and American works made him an ideal candidate for the promotion of this connection.

Establishing Engineering Authority and Promoting Public Works

Although obtaining the comments of his American colleagues and reacting so fervently to political interference in this process can be seen as a defense of Keefer's own credibility in the new context of waterworks design, it can also be related to his desire to help establish the credibility of his profession. His provision of letters of reference from his previous employers can be seen as an attempt to establish competence as the basis of authority. This can be linked to both the birth of the engineering profession as an exclusive field of action and the establishment of the municipal body as an authority with responsibility for its public works.

In these early days for both engineering as a profession in Canada and the city as a corporation, great importance was given to the experience and judgment of Keefer, other engineers, other cities, and even Montreal's own experience. With little experience in waterworks, Keefer sought recognition of his competence as an engineer in general. He would prove his competence by asking for advice or at least confirmation from his American colleagues.

At the same time, the young city was itself seeking to take more responsibility for the welfare of its citizens and to establish its competence in making decisions involving huge sums for the public good. The combination of the past failures of private companies and the limited public spending tradition was the context of the decision about which system to use. The financial risks required the development of more than just technical certitudes. As an undertaking of importance using public money, the waterworks project developed in the 1850s was a significant first step in the development of municipal public works.

Beyond the steam or waterpower debate, Keefer's arguments, and the discussion around them, can be related to the beginnings of a drive for water quality in the city's water supply, albeit one not yet based on real concern for public health. The emphasis on the use of local and natural advantages can be more directly related to an emerging Canadian idea of progress (of which Keefer was a committed evangelist) and connects his work on the waterworks to his well-known essays on railroads and canals. Finally, at this decisive time in Canada's trade context, Keefer's idea of North American exchange included the exchange of ideas with his American colleagues. His emphasis on consultation and his belief in the potential in Montreal's natural advantages helped establish the credibility of his profession and encouraged the city to initiate its first major public works.

Outcome, Consequences, and Surviving Artifacts

Commitment to Hydraulic Power: Waterwheels, Turbines, and Eventually Hydroelectricity

Ground was first broken on Gregory's Farm, at the head of the canal where the wheelhouse was to be located, on 20 May 1853. By 1856 the system was in operation, having cost some £280,236.53.⁵³ Keefer's waterpower-based design was carried out. But if Keefer preferred American advice, he chose British iron for the machinery and conduits. Keefer's original proposal called for two breast wheels 20 to 22 feet in diameter. In summer 1853 Keefer traveled to Britain and ordered two iron wheels of 110 hp each, at a price of £2,680 for both, from the well-known engineers Wm. Fairbairn and Sons in Manchester.⁵⁴ From there he went on to Glasgow to order the cast-iron pipe from Thos. Eddington and Sons. When the system was put into operation in fall 1856, each of the two breast wheels operated three pumps, initially producing the intended 5 million gallons of water per day (figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4. Montreal pumping works, 1873. The waterwheels were located in the building in the center of the photograph. Photograph by J. G. Parks included in Louis Lesage, Report on the Proposed Enlargement of the Montreal Water Works 1873 (see n. 58).

Figure 5. Photo of breast wheel used by Montreal Water Works, 1873. These wheels were located in the building shown in Fig. 4. Photograph included in Louis Lesage, Report on the Proposed Enlargement of the Montreal Water Works, 1873 (see n. 58).

The "high breast" wheels were operated upon the principle of suspension, with ventilated buckets. Power was taken off the periphery by an internal segmented gear working into a pinion placed directly under the point where the water was let onto the wheel. The 5.5-foot-diameter pinion drove a three-throw crank, working three pumps with a stroke of 4 feet. Each of the double acting "bucket and plunger" pumps was fed by an 18-inch feed pipe under a 24-foot head.⁵⁵

As construction proceeded, a number of changes in conditions affected the project, including the timing of the shipments from Britain, the availability of laborers, and the uncertain character of the excavations. But perhaps the most significant change was the construction of the Grand Trunk Railway (Victoria) Bridge in Point St. Charles, just to the east of the St. Pierre River's junction with the St. Lawrence, beginning in 1853. The initial plan of using the little river as a tailrace had to be revised, as the damming effect of the bridge aggravated flooding of the St. Pierre lowlands by the St. Lawrence. The tailrace had to be enlarged and repositioned to keep it independent of this.⁵⁶

Montreal also experienced problems with the waterworks canal due to natural factors such as lower levels of water in the summer, ice, and frazil in the winter.⁵⁷ Then, as the growth of population and relative consumption led to demands for increased power and quantities of water, pressures began to enlarge the system. By 1877, as part of a plan to increase the size and power of the canal, the intake was moved 4,800 feet further west.

Demands for increased efficiency led to the addition of a Jonval turbine in 1864, which worked two additional pumps, supplying an additional 4 million gallons per day. By the end of 1868, the first steam pump had been added to help the breast wheels in winter, and then in 1872 a second was added as a precautionary measure (figure 6).⁵⁸ Together these increased the possible production of water by 6 million gallons a day. Between 1886 and 1905 four more Worthington steam engines were added, but the system remained a mixture of hydraulic and steam, with about 60 percent of the water still raised by means of the hydraulic power of the turbines.⁵⁹

Figure 6. Turbine wheel, Montreal Water Works, 1873. The turbine's intake is in the background, just in front of the window. Photograph by J. G. Parks included in Louis Lesage, Report on the Proposed Enlargement of the Montreal Water Works, 1873 (see n. 58).

The first electrically powered pump was introduced in 1903 by chief engineer George Janin, who, on taking over the management of the department, was struck by "the anomaly of spending coal for the pumping instead of utilizing the important water power which could be developed by the difference in level of the river at the entrance of the aqueduct above the rapids and below the foot of the rapids at the tail race."⁶⁰ From then on the steam pumps acted as a backup.⁶¹ In 1909 and 1912 two turbines with Bellus-Marcum engines were added, and by 1913, the plan was to turn to another form of waterpower—all pumps were to function on hydroelectricity.

Following a proposal by Janin to enlarge the aqueduct (as the canal became known) in 1905, work began c. 1907 on a closed concrete conduit to run alongside the canal and serve to supply the system while the enlargement was carried out. Later, it was decided to maintain this conduit, since it offered a permanent protected source. The function of the canal itself was henceforth under discussion, and its enlargement related more to waterpower than to water supply.⁶²

Ongoing Belief in Waterpower

Despite the eventual partial recourse to steam engines, the possibility of using hydraulic power remained a preoccupation of every engineer involved with the Montreal waterworks. Reporting on the historic debate between steam and waterpower in his history of the Montreal Waterworks of 1913, F. Clifford Smith cites calculations from Louis Lesage and Walter Shanly showing that steam would be on the order of eight times more expensive than waterpower. Shanly had something of Keefer's skill in hyperbole: "In view of these figures, and in consideration of the fact that no city in the world is more munificently endowed with the means of water power than Montreal, I could not advise the use of a steam engine save as a temporary expedient."⁶³

In 1910, the American consulting engineers Hering & Fuller were asked to look at the possibility of improving the water supply of Montreal, including the feasibility of enlarging the aqueduct in order to supply greater power.⁶⁴ Like McAlpine and Jervis before them, they compared the annual coal costs for steam to the annual interest rates on the construction costs of enlarging the canal. Steam, or coal, would be 40 percent more expensive.

In this connection it is proper to point out that this conclusion at which we have arrived by our own examination and computations is in harmony with those of a long list of engineers who have examined into this question [sic] during the past half century; namely, Messrs. Keefer, Jervis, McAlpine, L. Lesage, Francis, Shanly, Vanier, Kennedy, Marceau, Janin and T.W. Lesage.

Further we desire to make it plain that the sound business basis for the enlarged aqueduct holds true regardless of whether the available waterpower is used by the city for generating electricity or other purposes, or marketed in other ways than its utilization for municipal requirements. This water power development is a sound practical business proposition on it own merits and there should be no concern felt on the part of taxpayers as to the wisdom of expenditures for this improvement.⁶⁵

In 2003, the pumps of the City of Montreal's water supply system are powered by hydroelectricity, albeit not generated directly on the St. Lawrence but elsewhere in the province's hydro network. Since the ice storm of 1998, gas generators have been added to serve as a backup in case waterpower should fail.

Waterworks "Power" Canal: A Physical Record of the Debate

Although Montreal had one of North America's earliest public water supply systems, little now survives of the aboveground equipment, buildings, and sites from these earliest times. Instead, the principal element of continuity has been the exploitation of the city's outstanding natural advantages with regard to water supply. Where other cities were forced to go further and further afield for a plentiful source of quality water, the St. Lawrence River, with its generally abundant supply from the Great Lakes, has remained the city's principal source of tap water for nearly 200 years.⁶⁶ The role the river played as a source of power in the system's early history is not well known but surely adds interest to the city's relationship with the river.

If the significance of Montreal's system is also partly in the story of change and evolution that allowed it to continue to function along the lines established by the 1850s, this has been to the detriment of the earliest works, since their sites would be rebuilt again and again, adapted as needs expanded and technology evolved. The site of the Atwater pumping station and filtration plant is a case in point. The station and plant's fine Italianate structures from the 1920s are still central functioning elements of the city's system, and they document Montreal's first important efforts to improve water quality. However, the earlier structures from the era when the site was known as Gregory's Farm, including the original canal, weir, wheelhouse, and tailrace from Keefer's project of 1852 to 1856, have since almost all disappeared.

The canal remains in its altered form, but it is concealed behind the pumping and filtration plant of the modern waterworks. It is the only element of the Atwater site that remains to recall the initial system built 150 years ago. Although the canal was originally much smaller and its function has completely changed, it is a singular record of the early use of waterpower in the city's waterworks. At odds now with the vast subterranean treatment and distribution reservoirs, it is a rare, visible, open water element in the city's water supply system.

Keefer's Role in Canadian Waterworks and North American Engineering

Keefer's waterworks in Montreal was his first in a long series. He would go on to prepare designs for the systems in Hamilton, Toronto, Quebec, Ottawa, London, Dartmouth, and elsewhere.⁶⁷ Looking at just two of these other cases, Hamilton (1860–1919 steam powered) and Ottawa (1875–90 water powered), one might suggest that the use of steam or waterpower remained a local issue. Although Keefer considered steam to be of revolutionary importance with regards to transportation, in water supply he only promoted steam if it was necessary. While both of these systems have survived better and provide more complete evidence of his work, it was in Montreal that his career in what was then a developing branch of engineering was established. Soon to become a major designer of municipal public works, Keefer helped what was then British North America's largest city to establish a professional and rational engineering approach to this indispensable service.

In Montreal, Keefer built upon a vision of continental integration, creating or developing alliances with his American counterparts. Considered a founder of the engineering profession in Canada, Keefer would become the first president of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering in 1887, and in 1888 he would serve a term as president of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He always maintained a strong interest in international exchange, as demonstrated by his participation in the organization of Canadian booths for international exhibitions.

Keefer placed great value on professional exchange and both public and professional education. The speaking and writing skills he employed are clearly recorded in the numerous project proposals, public lectures, and essays he published over the course of his career. Not as well known as his essays on railroads and canals, Keefer's proposal for the Montreal waterworks confirms the value of looking at his more technical work to help develop our understanding of how 19th-century engineering embodied a particular vision of progress.

By 1899, with hydroelectric development well underway, Keefer's basic belief in waterpower was vindicated, as he suggested in this statement before the Royal Society of Canada: "Within the last ten years high voltage electricity has been firmly established ... Water is thus represented by a power to which it can give birth, but which is superior to its own."⁶⁸

Notes

^1. Thomas Coltrin Keefer, Report on a Preliminary Survey for the Water Supply of the City of Montreal, in Report of the Water Committee Submitting the Reports of the Engineers on the New Water Works of Montreal (Montreal: John Lovell, 1854), 35.

^2. In 1847 the city's Special Committee on Hydraulics had proposed a premium for the best plan to pump St. Lawrence water by waterpower from the Lachine Canal. Apparently this competition produced no results, and the plans were abandoned. Dany Fougères, "Le public et le privé dans la gestion de l'eau potable à Montréal depuis le XIXe siècle" in L'eau, l'hygiène publique et les infrastructures, dir. Louise Pothier (Montréal: Groupe PGV-Diffusion de l'archéologie, Collection mémoires vives, 1996), 53, 62.

^3. Report of the Water Committee Submitting the Reports of the Engineers on the New Water Works of Montreal (Montreal: John Lovell, 1854) [hereafter Keefer/Wicksteed/McAlpine/Jervis, Reports of the Engineers]. This report contained Keefer's proposal; reports by the engineers Thomas Wicksteed, William McAlpine, and John B. Jervis; a separate report by Keefer in response to each of the engineers' reports; a report on a chemical analysis of the city's water and Keefer's comments on this report; a report from 1854 by Keefer on the progress of the work; eight letters of reference for Keefer by previous employers from 1840 to 1852; a series of related extracts from minutes of the City of Montreal Council from 1852; and related minutes from the meetings of the City of Montreal Water Committee from 1852 to 1854.

^4. T. C. Keefer, Philosophy of Railroads, ed. and with an introduction by H. V. Nelles (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1972) [originally published in 1849].

^5. Keefer produced some 49 essays, reports, and pamphlets. H. V. Nelles, "Keefer, Thomas Coltrin" in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. XIV, 1911–1920 (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1998), 555.

^6. Keefer's association with railway-related construction is limited to the Victoria Bridge in Montreal. His involvement in the bridge design, which included locating the site and designing the foundations, was later disputed.

^7. E. F. Bush, "Thomas Coltrin Keefer (1821–1915)," Agenda Paper 1974–3, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, Quebec [hereafter HSMBC]; Kelly Crossman and Leslie Maitland, "Hamilton Waterworks," Agenda Paper 1977–53, HSMBC; Sophie Drakich, "Hamilton Waterworks," Agenda Paper 1990–57, HSMBC; Diane Newell and Ralph Greenhill, Survivals, Aspects of Industrial Archaeology in Ontario (Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1989), 69–75. There is also a chapter on Keefer in William James and Evelyn M. James, A Sufficient Quantity of Pure and Wholesome Water: The Story of Hamilton's Old Pumphouse (London, Ont.: Phelps, 1978).

^8. In 1910 American engineers Herring and Fuller would be hired to review water quality issues, but ultimately the system designed as a result was the work of the city's own engineers.

^9. Dany Fougères, "Histoire de la mise en place d'un service urbain public: l'approvisionnement en eau potable à Montréal, 1796–1865" (doctoral diss., UQAM-INRS Urbanisation. Département d'études urbaines, Montreal, 2001) [later published as L'approvisionnement en eau potable à Montréal, du privé au public 1796–1865 (Sillery: Septentrion, 2004)].

^10. Jean-Claude Robert, Atlas Historique de Montréal (Montréal: Art Global/Libre Expressions 1994), 92.

^11. A full description of the brand new system was included in Montreal in 1856, A Sketch Prepared for the Celebration of the Opening of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada By A Sub-Committee of the Celebration Committee (Montreal: John Lovell, 1856), 16–18.

^12. The Canadian business community was shocked into developing or consolidating other alliances following the repeal of the British Corn Laws in 1846. The loss of British tariff protection encouraged many to look to what seemed to be their more natural American trading partner in expanding their markets. By 1854, the Canadian colonies had entered into a reciprocity treaty with the USA.

^13. The committee members in 1852 were Edwin Atwater (chair), Narcisse Valois, John Whitney, J. R. Brondson, F.R.S. Leclaire, John Whitlaw, R. Trudeau, Joseph Grenier, and Patrick Larkin.

^14. Robert, Atlas Historique, 113 (see n. 10).

^15. Most of the information on Montreal's early waterworks is found in Fougères, "Histoire de la mise," 271–302 (see n. 9), and Louise Pothier, "Réseaux d'eau potable et d'eaux usées, l'hygiène publique dans la société montréalaise (1642–1910)" in L'eau, l'hygiène publique et les infrastructures, dir. Louise Pothier (Montréal: Groupe PGV-Diffusion de l'archéologie, Collection mémoires vives, 1996), 32–39.

^16. Jane Mork Gibson, "The Fairmount Waterworks," Bulletin (Philadelphia Museum of Art) 84 (1988): 29.

^17. ibid., 17–21.

^18. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 35 (see n. 3).

^19. ibid.

^20. Larry McNally, Water Power on the Lachine Canal 1846–1900 (Ottawa: Parks Canada, Microfiche Report Series MF54, 1983), 107.

^21. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 38–39 (see n. 3).

^22. Keefer expresses his familiarity with the Welland Canal in The Canals of Canada: Their Prospects and Influence (Toronto: Andrew H. Armour, 1850); both waterwheels and turbines were probably used on the Lachine Canal. Only turbines could have been used efficiently in the shallower locks. McNally, Water Power, 98 (see n. 20).

^23. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 44 (see n. 3).

^24. McAlpine, Reports of the Engineers, 79 (see n. 3).

^25. The principal sources consulted on Keefer's career include Nelles, "Keefer, Thomas Coltrin," 552–55 (n. 5); Keefer, Philosophy of Railroads (n. 4); and Bush, "Thomas Coltrin Keefer" (n. 7). Keefer's career was marked by his belonging to a powerful business and professional family. His brother Samuel, who was also an engineer, was eventually chief engineer at the Department of Public Works in Ottawa. This was typical of the engineering profession in Upper Canada at the time, according to Richard White, "Canadian Civil Engineers Pre-1850: Professionals before Professionalization," in Scienta Canadensis 24, no. 52 (2000): 73–95. Refer also to Richard White, Gentlemen Engineers: The Working Lives of Frank and Walter Shanly (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1999).

^26. Robert Passfield, "Waterways," in Building Canada, A History of Public Works, ed. Norman R. Ball (Toronto: Toronto Univ. Press, 1988), 117.

^27. McNally, Water Power, 17 (see n. 20).

^28. In 1851 Merritt was replaced by Sir Francis Hincks (see n. 6).

^29. Nelles, "Keefer, Thomas Coltrin," 553 (see n. 5).

^30. See n. 12.

^31. Tailrace, or tail race, is the term employed throughout the report to refer to the discharge canal that would carry the excess of water bypassing the wheels back to the St. Lawrence River.

^32. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 13, 31 (see n. 3).

^33. The McTavish reservoir, as this reservoir is now called, was just the first of eight reservoirs to be built on the mountain; six of these still function although in a much altered form. The story of these reservoirs is told in Susan M. Ross, "Pure Water in the City, Covering the Reservoirs on Mount Royal" (master's thesis, Université de Montréal, Montréal, 2002).

^34. City of Montreal, Minutes of the City Council, 11 Feb. 1853, City of Montreal Archives, document series M001-VM47.51.

^35. Gerard T. Koeppel, Water for Gotham, A History (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2000), 187; Martin V. Melosi, The Sanitary City, Urban Infrastructure in America from Colonial Times to the Present (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2000), 83–84.

^36. Keefer's alliance with Merritt in Ottawa did not extend to his successor Hincks. The latter was responsible for hiring British contractors to build the Grand Trunk Railway, which excluded and greatly frustrated Keefer. Nelles explains this story in his Introduction in Keefer, Philosophy of Railroads, xli–xlvii (see n. 4).

^37. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 17 (see n. 3); the letters submitted were signed by A. Barrett, J. S. MacAuley, S. Power, Hamilton H. Killaly, W. B. Robinson, Thomas A. Begly, W. Hamilton Merritt, and John Young. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 17–22 (n. 3).

^38. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 25 (see n. 3).

^39. McAlpine's report suggests however that he had previously been to Montreal and was familiar with the situation. McAlpine, Reports of the Engineers, 74 (see n. 3).

^40. Gibson, "Fairmount Waterworks," 15 (see n. 16).

^41. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 22 (see n. 3).

^42. Wicksteed, Reports of the Engineers, 59 (see n. 3).

^43. McAlpine, Reports of the Engineers, 79 (see n. 3).

^44. Keefer argued in response that breast wheels required less gearing and that they were slower and safer for heavy work like pumping, obviating the adjustments and risk of friction associated with turbines. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 28 (see n. 3).

^45. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 37 (see n. 3).

^46. ibid.

^47. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 36 (see n. 3).

^48. Ginette Gagnon, "L'aqueduc de Montréal au tournant du siècle (1890–1914): l'établissement de la purification de l'eau potable" (master's thesis, Montréal: Université de Montréal, Département d'histoire, 1998), 165. The belief that the movement of the St. Lawrence cleaned it of upstream effluent remained common until as late as 1910, by which time the city was forced to begin looking at purification and filtration processes. See George Janin, "The Water Supply Problem of Montreal," The Canadian Engineer 18 (14 January 1910): 27.

^49. Melosi, Sanitary City, 84 (see n. 35).

^50. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 84–87 (see n. 3).

^51. Jervis, Reports of the Engineers, 10 (see n. 3).

^52. Nelles, Introduction, in Keefer, Philosophy of Railroads, xxxiv–xli (see n. 4).

^53. F. Clifford Smith, The Montreal Water Works, Its History Compiled from the Year 1800 to 1912 (Montreal: [n.p.] April 1913), 15.

^54. Fairbairn and Lillie, later Fairbairn alone, produced four major waterwheels in England, Scotland, and Turkey, cited in Terry S. Reynolds, Stronger than a Hundred Men: A History of the Vertical Water Wheel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1983), 312–13.

^55. The system as it was built is described in detail in Montreal in 1856, A Sketch Prepared for the Celebration of the Opening of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada by a Sub-Committee of the Celebration Committee (Montreal: John Lovell, 1856), 17.

^56. Keefer, Reports of the Engineers, 13–14 (see n. 3). Figure 1 appears to illustrate an earlier proposal for the tailrace to go much further upstream.

^57. Frazil refers to fine plates of ice suspended in water that are formed in supercooled turbulent conditions such as might be expected around waterwheels in northern winter rivers.

^58. Louis Lesage, Report on the Proposed Enlargement of the Montreal Water Works Together with an Historical sketch of the Works up to the Present Date (Montreal: J. Starke & Co., Printers, 1873), 12–14. Note that, according to Larry McNally, the illustration of the "turbine" in this report illustrates an unusual power transmission to the pump.

^59. George Janin, "The Montreal Water Works History and Description," The Canadian Municipal Journal 1, no. 10 (1905): 319.

^60. Janin, "Water Supply Problem," 27 (see n. 48).

^61. A. Généreux, "L'aqueduc de Montréal," Album Universel (15 juillet) 1905: 352.

^62. Smith, Montreal Water Works, 35–47 (see n. 53).

^63. ibid., 47.

^64. By this time, the supply was through a closed conduit, and the water quality issue had theoretically become more critical than water quantity.

^65. Rudolf Herring & George Warren Fuller Consulting Engineers, Report on an Improved Water Supply for the City of Montreal, 2 July 1910, p. 28, Bibliothèque Nationale du Québec, Édifice Saint Sulpice (Montréal), collection génerale, no. 628.10971428 H546ra1910.

^66. It is only the last few years that this "illimitable supply" has begun to seem limited, as diversion schemes raise concerns about the depletion of the Great Lakes.

^67. Letty Anderson, "Water Supply," in Building Canada: A History of Public Works, ed. Norman Ball (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1988), 206.

^68. T. C. Keefer, "Presidential Address," in Let Us Be Honest and Modest: Technology and Society in Canadian History, ed. Bruce Sinclair, Norman R. Ball, and James O. Peterson (Toronto: Univ. of Oxford Press, 1974), 214.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.