THE PANAMA CANAL 



347 



showed that the first ones were in error. 

 Notwithstanding this, and in spite of the 

 many evidences of the tightness of the 

 earth covering, the possibility of a flow 

 through the hills was advanced and was 

 seized upon as another argument against 

 the lock type. 



A SEA-LEVEL CANAL WOULD PROBABLY 

 cost twice: AS MUCH AS THE 

 LOCK CANAL 



The Board of Consulting Engineers 

 estimated the cost of the lock type of 

 canal at $139,705,200 and of the sea- 

 level canal at $247,021,000, excluding the 

 cost of sanitation, civil government, the 

 purchase price, and interest on the in- 

 vestment. These sums were for con- 

 struction purposes only. 



I ventured a guess that the construc- 

 tion of the lock type of canal would ap- 

 proach $300,000,000, and without stop- 

 ping to consider that the same causes 

 which led to an increase in cost over the 

 original estimates for the lock canal must 

 affect equally the sea-level type, the ad- 

 vocates of the latter argued that the ex- 

 cess of the new estimates was an addi- 

 tional reason why the lock type should 

 be abandoned in favor of the sea-level 

 canal. 



The estimated cost by the present com- 

 mission for completing the adopted 

 project, excluding the items let out by 

 the Board of Consulting Engineers, is 

 placed at $297,766,000. If to this be 

 added the estimated cost of sanitation 

 and civil government until the comple- 

 tion of the work, and the $50,000,000 

 purchase price, the total cost to the 

 United States of the lock type of canal 

 will amount to $375,201,000. In the 

 preparation of these estimates there are 

 no unknown factors. 



The estimated cost of the sea-level 

 canal for construction alone sums up to 

 $477,601,000, and if to this be added the 

 cost of sanitation and civil government 

 up to the time of the completion of the 

 canal, which will be at least six years 

 later than the lock canal, and the pur- 

 chase price, the total cost to the United 



States will aggregate $563,000,000. In 

 this case, however, parts of the estimate 

 are more or less conjectural — such as the 

 cost of diverting the Chagres to permit 

 the building of the Gamboa dam and the 

 cost of constructing the dam itself. 

 Much has been said of the disadvantage 

 of the seamy rock in connection with 

 some experiments made at Spillway Hill 

 test pit and of the so-called "indurated 

 clay," yet these same disadvantages apply 

 to the foundation at Gamboa, and the 

 same class of material must be dealt 

 with. The cost of constructing and 

 maintaining a channel through the 

 swamps of the lower Chagres is an un- 

 known factor, and no schemes have been 

 developed for controlling the various 

 streams that are encountered and that 

 must be reckoned with along the route 

 of the canal. So that the sea-level esti- 

 mates have not the accuracy of those for 

 the lock type. 



The majority of the Board of Consult- 

 ing Engineers estimated that from ten 

 to thirteen years would be required for 

 the completion of the sea-level canal. 

 The Isthmian Canal Commission and the 

 then Chief Engineer fixed the time from 

 eighteen to twenty years. It will take 

 at least six years to complete the dam at 

 Gamboa, and until the control of the 

 Chagres River is assured, little if any 

 excavation can be carried lower than 40 

 to 50 feet above sea-level ; so that, in the 

 absence of anything more definite, the 

 time needed to construct the Gamboa 

 dam is assumed as the additional period 

 needed for completing the sea-level type. 



THE COST OF THE CANAL EXCEEDS THE 

 ORIGINAL ESTIMATES BECAUSE OF 

 UNFORESEEN CONTINGENCIES 



Much criticism has resulted because of 

 the excess of the present estimates over 

 those originally proposed, arising largely 

 from a failure to analyze the two esti- 

 mates or to appreciate fully the actual 

 conditions. 



The estimates prepared and accompa- 

 nying the report of the consulting engi- 

 neers were based on data less complete 



