DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL


 The CHAInMAN. I have read the Florida Geological Survey report,
and there is one thing that "sticks in my crop", if I may put it that
way.
Mr. BUCKxAN. Will you permit me to discuss that in a few
moments
 The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
 Mr. BUCKMAN. The facts are that a carefull and comprehensive
survey has been conducted by competent experts under the direction
of the Chief of Engineers, but by no others, and this group of experts
has rendered an opinion, approved by the Chief of Engineers, to the
effect that damage to the underground water supply which may be
caused by the canal will be local and will be limited to the possible
lowering of water in wells adjacent to the route of the canal; and that
agriculture will be entirely unaffected.
 The record appears to be as follows: The special board of survey
of the Corps of engineers made a careful study of this question and
concluded that the data and information gathered and studied by
them was inconclusive; and according to the statement of the Chief
of Engineers, they adopted a lock type of canal as a precautionary
measure.
 The board of review continued the studies initiated by the special
board of survey and reviewed all of the evidence, including both
published and unpublished data gathered by itself, the Geological
Survey, and others.
 In its report of June 28, 1934, the board of review found-I quote:
 Any possible damage to agriculture beyond the limits of the right-of-way to be
secured for the canal would be negligible, due to the fact that the water table
is now from 30 to 70 feet below the ground along the route of the canal and for
miles on either side of it. The damage to water supply would be small and would
consist only in lowering levels in nearby wells The possibility of salting the
water supply at high level would be eliminated.
 Under date of June 15, 1935, in a letter addressed to Mr. W. F.
Coachman, Jr., the Florida State geologist-this is the report, I think,
to which you refer-stated that if the ground-water table in central
Florida were to be lowered to a profound extent by a sea-level canal,
the consequences would very seriously affect the ground-water supply
of that part of Florida. It will be noted that the State geologist did
not say that the construction of a sea-level canal would lower the
water table profoundly, but confined his opinion as to the results
upon the underground water supply if the water table should be
profoundly lowered. The record does not show that at any time the
State geologist has expressed a formal opinion to the effect that a
sea-level canal would necessarily profoundly lower the water table in
central Florida.
 Under date of June 25, 1935, the State geologist, in a letter to Mr.
Coachman, restates his attitdue in the following words. I quote:
 It was not my purpose to condemn a sea-level canal, provided the construction
plans are adequate to maintain the adjacent ground-water level at approximately
40 feet above sea.
 The CHAIMAN. Just at that point, for fear of overlooking, how
would you maintain that water level at 40 feet above the sea?
 Mr. BucKMAN. Let me state first, or restate, Senator, before I
answer your question, if you please, that I do not think, although I


259