The close channel or culvert, composed essentially of masonry seemed to possess all the requisite advantages for conducting the water in a pure state and keeping it beyond the influence of frost or any interruption which would be liable to occur to an open channel. In point of stability this plan had a decided preference over either of the other plans proposed, and the only objection offered was the cost of the work constructed in this way. To avoid too great expense it was proposed to make use of a mixed construction, using the close channel or culvert in situations where deep excavations occurred and it would be desirable to fill in the earth

again to the natural form, also where the line of Aqueduct

intersected villages, and using the open channel with slope walls for the residue of the distance. In regard to iron pipes for conducting the water, it was found that a sufficient number of them to give the same sectional area as would be adopted by either of the other plans would be more expensive, and considering the great distance and the undulating surface over which they would

extend, other disadvantages were presented which added to the objections, and the plan was considered inexpedient. Could a line be graded so as to give a regular inclination from the Fountain Reservoir to one at the city, then the expense of laying iron pipes for conducting the proposed quantity of water, would be greater than for constructing a channel-way of masonry ; and when laid, the pipes were thought to be less durable. Should the pipes follow the natural undulations of the ground, there would be so much resistance offered to the flow of water that the discharge would be diminished in a very great degree. The close channel or conduit of masonry was adopted as the plan best calculated to answer all the purposes of conducting the water to the city.