Water was the most important source of inanimate power for industry in the Northeastern United States for much of the nineteenth century, and Lowell represented the highest development of that technology. Hence a clear, well-researched summary of the Lowell waterpower system is welcome. Patrick Malone has supplied such an account. In this volume of the Johns Hopkins Introductory Studies in the History of Technology, Malone puts to good use his mastery of the secondary literature and his own primary research, including extensive studies of Lowell firm records and his own construction of a full-sized water wheel. His able descriptions of waterpower's origins, organization, expansion, technology, and environmental and social effects makes Waterpower in Lowell the best single source on this lesser-known Lowell revolution. As part of the study, the book well portrays the professional life of James Francis, the imaginative, systematic engineer and organizer of Lowell's waterpower distribution.

The book is organized chronologically except for a chapter on hydraulic engineering, but the core themes span the periods. Textile production at Lowell resulted from the great success of Francis Lowell and his fellow Boston merchants at Waltham, Massachusetts. Their expansion plans required water power far greater than Waltham's capabilities. Their pursuit of other waterpower sites led them to East Chelmsford (later renamed Lowell). They purchased sites, bought an earlier transportation canal company, the Proprietors of Locks and Canals, organized a textile firm, and used Waltham water power knowledge. But to use waterpower estimated at sixty times that of Waltham, they had to solve complex technical and organizational problems.

Like the textile firms, Locks and Canals initially was a distinct for-profit firm that leased the use of water power and built machinery, though linked to other firms by overlapping ownership. Prompted in part by potential conflicts over water allocation, Locks and Canals sold its machinery interests to the Lowell Machine Shop and was taken over by the mills and the machine shop in proportion to their shares of water power. Led by James Francis, the new Locks and Canals had the responsibility of administering and increasing the efficiency of the water supply, subject to the approval of its directors. In effect, Locks and Canals acted in the collective interests of its owners, and this interest included extensive expenditure to monitor and improve water power usage.

As the first successful mill opened, Locks and Canals drew up plans to expand the number of mills and the water at their disposal. To do so, it increased the height of its dam, extended the canal system to new mills, and acted to improve the efficiency of water utilization. James Francis, who brought his considerable experience on waterworks and railroads to Lowell in 1834, provided the strongest leadership. The expansion took has several aspects. First, to maintain water flow throughout the year, the Lowell and related Lawrence interests bought up and managed water rights in New Hampshire lakes that fed the Merrimack. Second, Lowell firms financed a larger, more efficient canal and agreed to shut down plants to allow water to build up at night. The final step employed systematic experimentation to measure water power sent to mills, protect from floods, and design and introduce water turbines that increased the efficiency of waterpower utilization. In addition, Francis and others at Locks and Canals developed firefighting methods, landscaped the canals for public usage, and sold land to the city to establish parks. On the other hand, their dam reduced the flow of fish, and Francis opposed the town's efforts to form a municipal water system.

Altogether, Malone effectively depicts what Thomas Hughes called a technological system. Hughes noted that electric light and power requiring the coordination of organizations and technologies over long distances, in contrast to the steam engine, which supplied power locally. Water power had a similarly complex character because Locks and Canals controlled water flow from distant sources, solved coordination problems among organizations, and innovated to more effectively deliver, measure, and utilize power. The two systems differed because waterpower at Lowell was organizationally centralized; Lowell firms—and related Lawrence and Manchester concerns—internalized most of the decisions. The systems also differed because the water power at Lowell was limited in quantity and found supplementary support by steam power. Hydroelectric power ultimately brought water power within the electrical system.

Given its purpose, the book rightly sticks closely to water power in Lowell. But it does raise broader issues of interpretation and importance. One is linked to its centralized organization. The ownership of Locks and Canals by waterpower-using firms created a collective interest in extensive, organized research, which benefited each firm in proportion to its water usage. This organization overcame free rider problems and minimized litigation. As such, it is an interesting solution to the appropriability problem. It readily shared its knowledge; Locks and Canals did not patent its inventions, and Francis's publications were widely disseminated. However innovators such as Uriah Boyden, who had worked at Locks and Canals, did patent his turbines, which he licensed to Locks and Canals and to others.

In addition, the choice between steam and water power could be further examined. Around 1850 Charles James, a leader in the steam mill movement, argued that steam power offered superior regularity of motion needed in higher-quality textiles, and the Corliss engine augmented this advantage. How did the power source affect the quality of the product? Finally, a fuller discussion of the lines of communication linking Lowell to the wider waterpower system could be illuminating. Malone does a good job situating Francis's work in the European and American context, but his provocative claim that Francis's experiments “had lasting impact not only on the field of hydraulics but also on American research and development in general” (p. 142) is surely worth exploring.