[Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:08 PM Joseph Eisenberg
<joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> The usage of the word "aqueduct" in American English is broader than
> the meaning of the word in British English.

Perhaps, but note that the Roman aqueducts were long projects of
tunnels, covered ditches, and inverted syphons as well as bridges.
Would British English not call the Aqua Anio Vetus, Aqua Anio Novus,
Aqua Claudia or Aqua Marcia 'aqueducts'?  They are in keeping with the
Cambridge definition:

> Cambridge dictionaries defines the noun as "a structure for carrying
> water across land, especially one like a high bridge with many arches
> that carries pipes or a canal across a valley" -
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aqueduct

except for the 'especially' clause, which describes an indicative
condition, not a necessary one.

> But in the USA the word is always used for long canals and tunnels
> designed to carry water to a city or for irrigation:
> Merriam-Webster (one of the better-researched American English dictionaries):
> 1 a: a conduit for water
> especially : one for carrying a large quantity of flowing water
> b : a structure for conveying a canal over a river or hollow

That's not true.  The Rexford Aqueduct existed to carry the Erie Canal
across the Mohawk River for transportation, not to move water, but to
move boats; likewise, the Roebling Aqueduct carried canal boats on the
Delaware & Hudson Canal across the Delaware River. The New York City
aqueduct system uses not only long tunnels, but also exploits natural
watercourses: a good part of its Schoharie Aqueduct is, for instance,
an artificial raising of the water flow in the Esopus Creek - the long
tunnel from the Schoharie Reservoir discharges into the Shandaken
Outlet, and the natural course of the Esopus carries it to the Ashokan
Reservoir.

The only necessary condition is: a conduit for water - although
ordinarily the quantity will be large.

> Is there a better word than "aqueduct" that could be used to tag an
> artificial waterway that transports useful water from one place to
> another for irrigation, drinking water, or industrial usage, but is
> not constructed like a canal or pipeline?

> I still feel uncomfortable using the word "canal" for small waterways:
> the basic meaning of the word "canal" seems to imply a navigable
> waterway, just as a "river" is wide enough for a small boat, in
> contrast with a stream, but perhaps this is specific to my dialect?

Some of the Salt River Project canals in Arizona, which are built to
carry irrigation water, are quite tiny indeed - surely not navigable.

Where I am, the use of "river" versus other names varies all over the
place. The Bronx River is a shallow and sluggish creek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx_River#/media/File:Bronx_River_Bronxville_jeh.JPG.
The Schoharie Creek is a substantial river
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/519eeb34-6bfa-4ca7-92a4-2cc9a4f7e862.jpeg.