DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 353

 "'The particular dangers herein discussed apply to a sea-level canal only
and not to a lock canal so constructed as to avoid deep cuts in the Ocala lime-
stone and thus to leave undisturbed the present water level in this important
water-bearing formation.'
 "Under date of February 13, 1936, Senator Fletcher addressed a letter to
the Secretary of the Interior to which the Secretary of the Interior replied
under date of February 18, 1936. I quote both letters in full.
 "This is a letter dated February 13, 1936, from Senator Fletcher to the
Secretary of the Interior in reference to the letter of Mr. Slattery.
 FEBBUAY 13, 1936.
Hon. HAROLD L. ICKES,
 Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. 0.
 MY DAX M. SECBrTABY: In reference to the letter of Mr. Slattery dated
August 26, 1935, addressed to Representative J. Hardin Peterson, in which he
refers to an opinion of the Geological Survey to the effect that the construction
of a sea-level canal across Florida might seriously damage the underground
water supply of the State, the impression seems to obtain in the minds of
some people that the Geological Survey made a special survey and investigation
of this specific question and has issued a report giving its findings.
 So far as I am able to determine from an examination of the records of
the survey, no such specific survey was ever made by the Geological Survey,
nor was any final or formal report ever made by it on this question, and the
opinion referred to in Mr. Slattery's letter to Mr. Peterson was preliminary
and informal and based upon the general data on the geology and water supply
of Florida theretofore collected and cannot be considered as a final or formal
report of the survey.
 I also understand that the Geological Survey has made available to the War
Department its applicable data on this subject, both published and unpublished.
 I shall appreciate it if you will advise me as to whether my understanding
of this matter, as set forth above, is correct.
 Very respectfully and sincerely yours,
 DUNCAN U. FLETCHEB.
 "The Secretary of the Interior replied to that letter under date of February
18, 1936, as follows:
 "'Mi DA B SENATOs FLmoumm: I have your letter of February 13 in which
 in effect you request an interpretation of Mr. Slattery's letter of August 26, 1935,
 to Representative J. Hardin Peterson.
 "'The Geological Survey's information on the geology and underground waters
 of the peninsula of Florida is based on a series of studies made independently
 or in cooperation with the Florida State Geological Survey over a period of a
 quarter of a century. You have been supplied with copies of the later and more
 significant reports resulting from these studies.
 "'It is entirely true that the Survey has not specifically studied the particular
 question of the possible effects upon ground-water conditions of the trans-Florida
 canal. It is equally true, of course, that detailed studies of the geology of the
 State and of the relation of the ground waters to the geology throughout the
 State cannot fail to give a broad perspective on the whole problem, which affords
 a sound basis for at least certain general conclusions about the effects of any
 proposed alteration of natural conditions. The quotation of the Survey's opinion
 in Mr. Slattery's letter to Mr. Peterson had this basis and this basis only.
 "'It is also entirely true that the Survey has made freely available to the
 War Department all information it has, published and unpublished, bearing
 upon the problem for the solution of which the War Department is responsible.
 This material included a manuscript on the artesian waters in the Florida
 Peninsula, as yet unpublished. This manuscript constituted one of the reports
 in the series of six reports recently sent you. It is also clear from a reading
 of the preliminary report on the geological and ground-water conditions in
 Florida in their relation to the Atlantic-Gulf ship canal, issued by the War
 Department on December 18, 1935, that in the preparation of that report exten-
 sive use was made of this manuscript and of earlier reports by the United States
 Geological Survey and the Florida State Geological Survey.
 "'It would appear then that the understanding of the Geological Survey's rela-
 tion to this problem, set forth in your letter of February 13, is substantially cor-
 rect, except that it perhaps does not take full cognizance of the broad back-
 ground of experience with ground-water problems and of knowledge of condi-