DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 181

DOCUMENT NO. 108 (FILES OF HOUSE DOCUMENT ROOM), FEBRUARY
 10, 1936

WAR DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
 JUNE 30, 1937 (H. R. 11035, 74TH CoNG., 2D SESm.)

 The War Department budget for nonmilitary activities for the
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, as transmitted to Congress by the
 President, contained the following items which had been recom-
 mended by the Chief of Engineers and approved by the Director of
 the Budget:
 Projects authorized by provisions of the Emergency Appropriation Act of 1935,
 for which additional funds are required for continuation of work projects
 not utilizable in present condition
 The Atlantic-Gulf ship canal, Fla-------------------------- $12,000,000
 Sardis Reservoir, Miss ----------------------------- 2, 500,000
 Conchas Dam, N. Mex----------------------------------- 3,500,000
 Bluestone Reservoir, W. Va----------------------------- 2, 000,000
 Passamaquoddy tidal power project, Maine--------------------- 9,000,000
 Total ---------------------------------------------- 20,000,000
 The above items were omitted from the bill which was introduced
 into the House by the committee on February 10, 1936. The bill
 passed the House without inclusion of any of these items.

 DOCUMENT NO. 109 (FILES OF BOARD OF REVIEW), FEBRUARY 12,
 1936

 COMMUNICATION FROM LT. COL. B. B. SOMEiVELz, RECORDER, BOARD
 or REVIEW, TO SENATOR FLrCHER

 Under date of February 12, 1936, Lieutenant Colonel Somervell
 addressed the following communication to Senator Fletcher:
 WAs aNoToN, D. C., February 1i, 1.96.
 MY DE&A SnmAToR: I have your letter of February 10, 1936, in which you
 state that it is your understanding that the board of review appointed by the
 President to consider the Atlantic-Gulf ship canal found that the canal would
 be justified by the criteria ordinarily applied to river and harbor projects at a
 cost of $160,000,000. You also state that it is your understanding that the
 second report of the board had no reference to the board's first finding in
 this record.
 You undoubtedly have reference to the following statement in the first report
 of the board:
 "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 lower maintenance and operating costs of a sea-
 level canal the cost of a canal which would be justified at 4-percent interest,
 would be:
 "Sea-level canal: 30-foot, depth, $10,000,000."
 The second report of the board had to do with an investigation of tolls and
 had no reference to justification on the basis of total benefits.
 Sincerely yours,
 BezHON SOMzavXIL,
 Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
 Recorder.