Revision as of 11:26, 25 July 2024 edit Wnholmes (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,600 edits →Bibliography: item added ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:03, 25 July 2024 edit undo Haploidavey (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 49,381 edits →Farming: redundant, ungrammatical Next edit →
Line 139: [[File:Illustration from Views in the Ottoman Dominions by Luigi Mayer, digitally enhanced by rawpixel-com 6.jpg\|thumb\|Aqueduct arcade near Belgrade in [[Ottoman Serbia]], painted by [[Luigi Mayer]]]] Farmland without a reliable summer water-source was virtually worthless. During the growing season, ~~the water demand of~~ a "modest local" irrigation system might consume as much water as the city of Rome; and the livestock whose manure fertilised the fields must be fed and watered all year round. At least some Roman landowners and farmers relied in part or whole on aqueduct water to raise crops as their primary or sole source of income but the fraction of aqueduct water involved can only be guessed at. More certainly, the creation of municipal and city aqueducts brought a growth in the intensive and efficient suburban market-farming of fragile, perishable commodities such as flowers (for perfumes, and for festival garlands), grapes, vegetables and orchard fruits; and of small livestock such as pigs and chickens, close to the municipal and urban markets.<ref>Bannon, ''Gardens and Neighbors'', 2009, pp. 5−10; citing Hodge, ''Roman Aqueducts'', pp. 246–247 for estimate on water consumption by irrigation.</ref> A licensed right to use aqueduct water on farmland could lead to increased productivity, a cash income through the sale of surplus foodstuffs, and an increase in the value of the land itself. In the countryside, permissions to draw aqueduct water for irrigation were particularly hard to get; the exercise and abuse of such rights were subject to various known legal disputes and judgements, and at least one political campaign; in 184 BC [[Cato the Elder\|Cato]] tried to block all unlawful rural outlets, especially those owned by the landed elite. This may be connected to Cato's diatribe as [[Roman censor\|censor]] against the ex-consul [[Lucius Furius Purpureo]]: "Look how much he bought the land for, where he is channeling the water!"<ref>Bannon, Cynthia, ''Fresh Water in Roman Law: Rights and Policy'', Cambridge University Press, p. 219: 18 August 2017</ref> Cato's attempted reform proved impermanent at best. Though illegal tapping could be punished by seizure of assets, including the illegally watered land and its produce, this law seems never to have been used, and was probably impracticable; while water thefts profited farmers, they could also create food surpluses and keep food prices low. Grain shortages in particular could lead to famine and social unrest. Any practical solution must strike a balance between the water-needs of urban populations and grain producers, tax the latter's profits, and secure sufficient grain at reasonable cost for the Roman poor ([[Grain supply to the city of Rome\|the so-called "corn dole"]]) and the army. Rather than seek to impose unproductive and probably unenforcable bans, the authorities issued individual water grants and licenses, and regulated water outlets though with variable success. In the 1st century AD, [[Pliny the Elder]], like Cato, could fulminate against grain producers who continued to wax fat on profits from public water and public land.<ref>Bannon, ''Gardens and Neighbors'', 2009, pp. 5−10; citing Hodge, ''Roman Aqueducts'', pp. 246−247 for estimate on water consumption by irrigation; p. 219 for Cato's legislation on misuse of water: the quotation is a fragment from Cato's speech against [[Lucius Furius Purpureo]], who was consul in 196 BC.</ref>

Roman aqueduct: Difference between revisions