288 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL

 pleted. Provision could not be made, therefore, for certain conditions which,
 though suspected, had not yet been fully developed.
 Dimesemo of cael and number of locks.-Furthermore, though these esti-
 mates contemplated a canal along the same trace as later proposed by the
 special board of Army engineers, it was to be one with only two sets of locks
 instead of three, and only 80 feet in depth. The locks were also somewhat
 narrower than those provided in the later report and the provisions for ap-
 purtenant structures and control of underground water less extensive. It must
 be remembered also that there has been definite and substantial increase in
 construction costs since the compilation of the figures on which the estimates of
 the Public Works Administration were based.
 Those figures showed the estimated cost' for the smaller canal to be
 $106,00,000, exclusive of interest during the period of construction.

 nFIDNGS Or BOARD OF BXWmrv
 BEtimatee for look canal by board of review.-This board of review finds that
 by reducing the berms along the canal from 200 feet to 100 feet, by providing
 bridges less elaborate than those requested by the Florida Highway Depart-
 ment but still adequate and safe for prospective traffic, and by eliminating the
 cut-off below Palatka, that a 35-foot lock canal otherwise the same as that
 proposed by the special Army board can be built for $177,454,000.'
 A 30foot canal but with locks as for the 35-foot canal to provide for future
 enlargement can be built for $151394,000. Neither can be constructed for
 these sums in less than 6 years. The estimates are based on present-day costs
 and on the assumption that allotments of funds will be made regularly and
 continuously to the Army engineers so that the work can be prosecuted to the
 best advantage.
 The board of review desires to invite attention to the cost of operating the
 locls, estimated at $820,000 annually; to the possible shortage of lockage water
 previously discussed, which would further increase capital and operating costs
 for a lock canaL Pumping stations are estimated to cost at least $500,000 and
 operating charges' at $36,000 per year. Without considering the extra cost of
 lock construction or of sealing the canal prism to prevent excessive loss of
 water, both of which are unancertalnable, the capitalized cost of lock operation
 and pumping at rates of 4-percent interest would be over $20,000,000.
 sea-level canl.-These uncertainties and the substantial sums involved have
 led the board of review to consider the possibilities of a sea-level canal With
 such a canal the uncertainties as to water supply, seepage, and hazards of con-
 struction would be eliminated, as would the extra cost of operating the locks
 and pumping should the water supply be inadequate. The time of transit for
 ships passing through the canal would be reduced by the time for lockages and
 increased by the greater length of the 250-foot channel in the sea-level route.
 These differences practically offset each other.
 The sea-level route presents fewer hazards to shipping than does a lock canal,
 and might draw shipping to it at a faster rate than indicated for the lock canal
 The only possible disadvantage of a sea-level canal would be the possibility
 of overdralnage of an area contiguous to the canal with resulting damage to
 water supply due to lowering of the ground-water table.
 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 of only lowering levels in nearby wells. The possibility of
 salting the water supply at a high level would be eliminated.
 Estimates of board of review for sea-evel cnal.--All in all, damages result-
ing from a sea-level canal, if any, should not reach a very large figure. The
board of review therefore feels constrained to recommend a sea-level canal in
preference to a lock canal on account of lesser engineering difculties and
lesser cost. It is estimated that a sea-level canal 35 feet deep, with suitable
allowances for overdepth and bottom widths as selected by the special board
of Army engineers, can be built in 6 years for $175,548,000.'
 SFor detail see table 2 herewith.
 or details eed table 8 herewith.
 'For details wee table 4 herewith.
 SOperates rt time only.
 SFor details see table 5 herewith.