352 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORDA CANAL

 which the proposed waterway would provide a shorter route, to calculate the
 saving that the vessels so recorded could have made by using the proposed
 canal, and then to credit to the tonnage of probable canal traffic the tonnage
 that would result from shifting to the canal route such vessel movements as
 could be made more safely and more economically via the canal. It may be
 safely assumed that companies owning vessels will have them operated by
 the most advantageous and economical route.'
 "In addition to the above, there is the affirmative evidence of the use of the
 canal by shipping contained in the formal findings of the Corps of Engineers,
 the Public Works Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the board
 of review.
 "There remains the consideration as to the possible effect which the con-
 struction of a sea-level canal along the route selected might have upon the
 underground fresh-water supply of Florida. Questions involved in this con-
 sideration are highly technical and highly-specific. It should be borne in mind
 that there is no record of any specific survey or Investigation of this problem
 by any competent individual or group, except a group of experts which have
 been and are conducting this inquiry under the direction of the Chief of
 Engineers
 "There has apparently arisen in the minds of many people an impression that
 the Florida State Geological Survey or the Federal Geological Survey has made
 special surveys of this phase of the project and has rendered reports upon the
 same.
 "The facts are that a careful 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 pos-
 sible lowering of water in wells adjacent to the route of the canal; and that
 agriculture will be entirely unaffeeted.
 "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 unpub-
 lished data gathered by itself, the Geological Survey, and others.
 "In its report of June 28, 1964, 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 TO 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. Coach-
 man, restates his attitude in the following words. I quote:
 "'It was not my purpose to condemn a sea-level canal, provided the con-
 struction plans are adequate to maintain the adjacent ground-water level at
 approximately 40 feet above sea.'
 "Under date of August 26, 1935, the personal assistant to the Secretary of
 the Interior, Mr. Harry Slattery, in a letter to Hon. J. Hardin Peterson, stated
 that in the opinion of the Geological Survey:
 "'There appears to be no reasonable doubt that serious adverse effects
would be produced upon the Important underground-water supplies of the Ocala
limestone in a wide zone extending outward from the canal line by the con-
struction of a sea-level canal along 13-B.