Difficulties in Constructing the Great Catskill Aqueduct Siphon

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It will be remembered that the plans of the Catskill aqueduct include the construction of a huge siphon for carrying the water below the Hudson River at a crossing near Storm King Mountain. The aqueduct reaches the western bank of the river at an elevation of several hundred feet above water level. The original plans contemplated the sinking of a vertical shaft from this level to a point about 400 or 500 feet below the river bed, where it was believed that solid rock, absolutely free from fissures, would be found. Through this rock a tunnel is to be driven horizontally, until the opposite shore is reached, where it is to meet a vertical shaft sunk from a level above the river, which would correspond to the established grade of the aqueduct. Geologists had predicted that solid rock would be encountered at a depth of 500 feet below the river, and borings were carried on through the past year to ascertain how far this estimate was correct. Much to the surprise of everybody concerned, no solid rock has yet been encountered, although the borings have been carried down to a depth of nearly 700 feet. Although the drills operated from scows in the river have been sunk for hundreds of feet below the river bed, nothing has been found thus far but mud, sand, and bowlders. In view of the fact that the pressure in the 14-foot circular tunnel will reach about 15 tons to the square foot, it is imperative that the tunnel be driven in absolutely sound rock; otherwise, under this pressure, there might be very serious leakage. Investigations of other possible points of crossing have shown there is no likelihood of finding a more satisfactory location than that at Storm King Mountain; for it is believed that the old bed of the river lies everywhere many hundreds of feet below the present bottom. Comparative estimates have been made of the cost of carrying the water across the river by means of steel pipes laid on the present bottom, or by an aqueduct built at high level; but the engineers of the Board have concluded that a deep tunnel through solid rock will, all things considered, prove to be the most satisfactory method of crossing. Apart from the fact that when such a tunnel is once built, there will be no subsequent expense for maintenance, a tunnel siphon would be absolutely safe from injury, a most important consideration where the health and safety of such a great city as New York is concerned.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 97 Issue 25This article was published with the title “Difficulties in Constructing the Great Catskill Aqueduct Siphon” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 97 No. 25 (), p. 454
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican12211907-454a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe