106 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 The previous reports by the Army special board and the Public Works
Administration were for a lock canal which was selected on account of cer-
tain ground-water conditions. The board of review, after further investiga-
tion, is of the opinion that these conditions are not controlling and for the
following additional reasons prefers the sea-level canal: (1) because of slightly
lower first cost and much lower operating and maintenance cost; (2) because it
has greater ship capacity; (3) because of the lesser difficulties in construction.
 We further submit for purposes of comparison the following estimates of
cost of sea-level and lock canals of different depths without and with interest
during the period of construction--- years:

 Interest rates

 0 percent 4 percent

Cost of Sea Level Canal:
 30-foot depth----...--..........---...-------- .......-----~.-----. $142.709,000 $15, 834,000
 35-foot depth-....................------- ----- ..-- ..---.. ----..-- .. 172,000,000 192,700,000
Cost of lock canal:
 30-foot depth..---...........................-----------......--.--- 148,621,000 166, 45, 000
 35-foot depth....................................-------------------.. ------ 174,0000 195,42,000

 These estimates assume that all rights-of-way, flowage damages, and dredg-
 ing disposal areas will be paid for by local interests.
 In addition to the differences shown above, a further advantage of about
 $20,000,000 in favor of the sea-level canal results from capitalizing at 4 percent
 the excess annual operating cost of a lock canal over that of a sea-level canal
 The foregoing estimates were made, using the plans of the War Department's
 special board, but with the following changes: (a) The straightening of the
 river at Palatka is to be deferred until warranted by shipping; (b) the berm
 between the top of the canal and the bottom of the spoil banks is reduced
 from 200 to 100 feet; (c) less expensive bridges.
 The estimates are further based upon present-day costs and upon the assump-
 tion that funds will be made available to the Army engineers at a rate to per-
 mit the project to be completed in 6 years.
 The board of review wishes to acknowledge the complete and excellent data
 contained in the report of the War Department's special board which made
 this report possible at this time. The board also wishes to state that the
 estimates of cost prepared by the War Department's special board and the
 Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works are not comparable be-
 cause they were based upon different designs and the Public Works' estimates
 were made prior to complete investigation of the site and prior to the recent
 increases in construction costs.
 This board was not instructed to estimate the benefits accruing from the
 construction and operation of this canal. However, if it be assumed that the
 economic study made by the special board of Army engineers for a lock canal
 is sound and, considering the cost of a canal, which would be justified at 4
 percent interest, would be:
 Sea-level canal:
 30-foot depth -------------------------- -------- $160,000,000
 35-foot depth_---------------------------------- -177,000,000
 Lock canal:
 30-foot depth ------------------------------------ 141,000,000
 35-foot depth --------------------------------------- 157,000,000
 Unanimously submitted.
 WALTER J. DOUGLAs, Chairman.
 PuEmc WORKS ADMINISTATION :
 CLARENCE MCDONOUGH,
 Director of Engineering.
 FREDERICK H. FowLER,
 Member, Board of Review.
 WAx DIzARTMZNT:
 WARREN T. HANNUM,
 Colonel, Corps of Engineers.
 BREHON SOMERVELL,
 Major, Corps of Engineers.