DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA CANAL 369

thence down the Withalacoothee River out to the Gulf of Mexico. The main
cut is about 29 miles across the ridge of the State of Florida. That ridge, on
the average, is about 48 feet above sea level and the plan calls for a 30-foot
depth in the canal. It is estimated that that depth would take care of the traffic
from the Gulf of Mexico for a reasonable length of time in the future. That
would make the cut about 70 feet deep.
 Those figures are not engineering figures, but I am approximating them from
the reports I have read. From the reports I have read I would say that 70 feet
will be the approximate amount of soil and soft rock to be taken out.
 The CHAIRMAN. That would be the depth of the ditch.
 Mr. GREE. Yes, sir; and the length of the main cut, across the State, about
29 miles.
 To save your time and to make the facts a little more coherent, I have a
statement here that I will read to you. It was prepared by me and Hon.
H. H. Buckmnan, an eminent engineer, who is familiar with this project.
 (Mr. Green then read the statement of Henry H. Buckman, con-
sulting engineer, as it appears in Document No. 118, to which
reference should be had.)
 Mr. GaBm. The Board of Engineers, which was appointed by the President,
and a special board to iron out any differences which might exist between the
Public Works engineers' report and the Army engineers' tentative report, made
an exhaustive study of the project, and recommended that it was sound, that
it could be built, and that it would return more than 6-percent interest on the
investment in actual saving in the operation of ships. They recommended that
it could be and should be constructed and that it was in the public interest.
The way they scaled it was this: They figured that it would require $143,000,-
000 to construct it, and they figured that it would save to shipping, or in the
actual operation of ships, approximately $8,000,000 a year or a little more
than that. But say a saving of $8,000,000 a year, and that would be a return
of about 6 percent on the investment. The standard yardstick for the ma-
jority of river and harbor projects is about 4-percent return, so that the
return on this investment would be 33% percent greater than the usual stand-
ard set for rivers and harbors projects. So far as the percentage of saving
Is concerned, it is probably better than any project the Army engineers have
ever reported.
 AUTHORITY AND ESTIMATES FOB TH CANAL

 Mr. TA a There are two questions I would like to hear you discuss: In the
 first place, is there a Budget estimate for this?
 Mr. GREEN. Yes; there is a Budget estimate. The Bureau of the Budget has
 recently favorably recommended $12,000,000 appropriations by your committee
 to continue work this year.
 Mr. TAmm. In the second place, is it authorized by law; and if not, why do you
 not go to the committee that would have authority to report such a bill?
 Mr. GaEN. The Bureau of the Budget recommended to the Appropriations
 Committee of the House that funds be appropriated by this Congress in the
 amount of $12,000,00 for the continuation of this project; so I consider that as
 Budget approval. As for authorization by Congress, it was one of those projects
 that the engineers had agreed upon. They determined the feasibility of it and
 the desirability of it and the economic soundness of the project. By that I
 mean the Army engineers, or the Chief of Army Engineers. The board had
 never made a full report on it, and pending that report Congress passed the
 emergency relief bill last year, and in that bill they gave the President author-
 ity and direction, or, as I see it, an order to use this money for the relief of
 unemployment in America, and to embark upon such projects as he deemed to
 be in the public interest. Regarding it as a mandate, and it was a mandate,
 this was one of the projects he embarked upon.
 He began work on the canal last September and allocated to it from W. P. A.
 funds $5,000,000. Since that time another five or six hundred thousand dollars
 have likewise been allocated. He put it in charge of the Board of Army Engi-
 neers, and they have it now under actual construction, with about 6,500 men
 employed. This project has taken up the main portion of the unemployed in my
 State. They are getting more value in that respect than they could have received
 under any other plan, because they are paying P. W. A. wages. They are paying
 unskilled workmen, who are working on the project, I understand, $26 per month,