354 DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLOMIDA CANAL

 tons in Florida that underlay the informal Survey opinion presented in Mr.
 Slattery's letter.
 "'Sincerely yours,
 "'HABOLD L. ICKS, Secretary of the Interior.'
 "In September 1935, by direction of the Chief of Engineers, a special board of
 experts was constituted and appointed to continue the study of this question.
 "Under date of December 18, 1985, this board, after a most exhaustive reex-
 amination of all existing data, and development of much new data, confirmed
 the findings of the board of review to the effect that the damage to the under-
 ground water supply resulting from the construction of a sea-level canal would
 be negligible.
 "Under date of December 28, 1985, in a letter transmitting the above report
 to Senator Fletcher, the Acting Chief of Engineers states--I quote:
 "'The findings of the board at this time definitely indicate that no serious
 adverse effects on the underground water supply need be anticipated from the
 construction of a sea-level canaL'
 "Under date of January 17, 1986, the Chief of Engineers stated before this
 committee his opinion that the rather generally expressed fears in central and
 southern Florida with regard to extensive damage to the water supply are
 wholly without foundation.
 "The above Is a recitation of the record. Attention is again invited to the
 fact that no survey or special examination of this question has ever been under-
 taken by the Federal Geological Survey or by the Geological Survey of Florida
 or by any other public body except the special board of survey of the Corps of
 Engineers; the board of review, comprising Army engineers, engineers of the
 Public Works Administration, and an eminent engineer from private life; and a
 special board of experts designated exclusively to examine into this matter by
 the Chief of Engineers. There is no formal report nor any formal expression of
 opinion in the record from any competent source that the construction of this
 canal at sea level will seriously affect the ground-water supply of any portion of
 the State of Florida.
 "In fact, there is only one expression, formal or informal, to this effect, and
 that is an avowedly informal opinion emanating from the Geological Survey and
 based upon general data and not upon specific examination of this question. On
 the other hand, all agencies of the Federal Government which have made spe-
 cific studies of the matter are unanimous in their conclusions that construction
 of a canal at sea level would not be attended by any extensive damage to the
 water supply.
 "It may not be inappropriate to point out that the very history of this matter,
 as shown in the record recited here, indicates strikingly the inability of even
 expert geologists and engineers to form accurate conclusions from inadequate or
 general data on a highly technical and entirely specific problem such as that
 under discussion. The only competent opinion is that of duly qualified experts
 who were actually engaged in the examination and study of the specific physical
 situation involved. It would appear significant that all such competent opinion
 is unanimous in concluding that the construction of the canal at sea level cannot
 seriously adversely affect the underground water supply."

 JAcKsonvrzA F ., March 17, 1936.
 Hon. DUNTcA U. UFLwrOnx,
 Senate Offie Building:
 Be Senator Vandenberg's assertion yesterday no scintilla evidence economic
 justification, would advise P. W. A. special engineering board reported project
 constitutes public necessity, real social value, affording much employment, many
 classes labor; design accords with sound engineering practice and proj-
 ect economically sound. This board reported potential revenues equal 100
 percent construction costs for 30-foot depth; also reported many intangible
 benefits to shipping not susceptible evaluation or collection to apply against
 operating costs, fixed charges, and debt retirement. Special economic survey
 made by Federal Department of Commerce reported 9,573 potential ship transits
 1931, with total benefits shipping exceeding $6,137,000, and additional benefits
 barge tramc exceeding $1,190,000. Chief of Engineers, United States Army, has
 been quoted that economic benefits fully justify cost $160,000,000. Presidential
 board review reported project physically and economically sound. With aid
 Government Shipping Board and Department Commerce, my firm made complete
 unbiased survey commerce 1929, and found direct savings in vessel-operating
coats exceeding $5,615,000, with additional potential savings in fixed charges and