HYDROLOGY OF NEW YORK 



809 



ter, although both are very expensive and violate the modern view 

 that canals should be located in the thread of valleys rather than 

 along side hills and on high ground. One result of my study of 

 this matter so far as it has proceeded is to indicate another solu- 

 tion, which, however, is apparently barred out by the committee's 

 instructions to investigate a canal with a continuous descent from 

 Newark to west end of Rome level. 



The solution referred to will take about the following form : 

 Leave the present canal where it crosses under the New York 

 Central and Hudson River railway a few miles east of Clyde and 

 continue to Seneca river just north of where New York Central 

 railway crosses that stream. Thence along Seneca and Oneida 

 rivers and through Oneida lake, building a new stretch of canal 

 from east end of Oneida lake to Rome. This does not avoid the 

 lockage but gives the advantage of a broad, deep navigation for 

 about sixty-five to seventy miles. My studies on deep waterways 

 project indicate that an ample water supply for the Rome summit 

 can be obtained from the two Fish creeks and Salmon river. 



As regards carrying a water supply from Lake Erie east of 

 Seneca river, I may state that the high level, with continuous 

 descent from Newark to Rome level, will necessarily be laid on 

 open porous soils from which the percolation losses will be large; 

 and while I am not prepared to give a final opinion at this time, 

 the indications are that Seneca river is about the eastern limit 

 of effective feeding from Lake Erie. If this view is right, then 

 the alternative line for an enlarged canal via Seneca and Oneida 

 rivers and Oneida lake is the only solution. In making this latter 

 statement I take into account that there are extensive marl de- 

 posits along line of present canal between Xinemile creek and 

 Seneca river, which make a radical enlargement along the present 

 canal a very serious proposition. I mention these various points 

 in order that you may appreciate the broad scope of the study on 

 which I am engaged. 



In view of the possible outcome of the study of a continuously 

 descending high-level canal from Newark to Rome level, I would 

 be glad to know whether the committee's instructions were in- 

 tended to exclude study of such an alternative line as I have here 

 outlined. If so, then I will not devote any time to it. Otherwise, 

 I should feel impelled to give it attention. There are one or two 

 other alternative propositions which should be looked into, but 

 explanations of which I can not well go into in a letter for lack of 

 space. 



In regard to lines other than a continuously descending high- 

 level canal from Xewark to Rome level. I may point out that the 

 advantages to be gained are not necessarily to eliminate lockages 



