Herzberg Principle — Palmer 
185 
of sea water, but made no reference to An- 
drews’ thorough and invaluable development 
of that idea. This omission by Hitchcock may 
be taken to illustrate the unfortunately limited 
circulation of Andrews’ paper. 
We next go back to Long Island, where 
Spear in 1912 applied the Herzberg principle, 
I think for the first time in any American 
ground water study. He mentions some of the 
studies made in Europe, and gives a diagram- 
matic cross section of the lens under a simple 
island. He shows the derivation of the "40 to 
1” ratio where the specific gravity of sea water 
is 1.025, and also other ratios for other densi- 
ties of sea water. A diagrammatic cross section 
of Long Island is given, in which the base of 
the fresh water lens is truncated by a smooth 
basement of impermeable rock instead of 
making the full downward curve. The princi- 
ple was used by Spear in forecasting the 
behavior of wells in certain localities. 
Unfortunately for geologists, Spear’s work 
was published in an engineering report for 
the New York Board of Water Supply, which 
few geologists would be apt to read. 
In 1912 the first edition of Keilhack’s 
"Lehrbuch der Grundwasser- und Quellen- 
kunde” was published. It was followed in 
1917 by an enlarged and revised edition, 
pages 162 to 165 of which give an excellent 
presentation of the work of Badon Ghyben 
and Herzberg, and others. One cross section 
shows the conditions in an ideal, symmetrical, 
homogeneous, permeable, and rainy oceanic 
island. The University of Hawaii Library re- 
ceived a copy of the second edition as early 
as 1921, but it has been little used. 
Matson and Sanford in 1913 came close to 
the idea of a lens of fresh water under Florida. 
Florida, of course, differs greatly from Hawaii 
in its rock types, structure, shifts relative to 
sea level, and its hydrology. 
One earlier geologist had thought that the 
fact of finding fresh water in marine lime- 
stones to a depth of a thousand feet implied 
a former uplift of Florida by a thousand feet, 
but Matson and Sanford pointed out that the 
uplift need not have been more than enough 
to give a small hydrostatic pressure. Thus, 
they had come close to the Herzberg princi- 
ple, as is also shown by the following 
quotations. 
The rocks of Florida are all sedimentary and 
for the most part were deposited beneath the 
ocean. Such deposits are called marine and orig- 
inally included sea water, which may be called 
water of deposition. This included sea water 
may be gradually displaced by descending rain 
water — the rate of change depending on the 
freedom of drainage. Where the rocks are porous 
and the land high the water of deposition is 
soon removed, but a low altitude combined 
with dense rocks gives a very slow rate of es- 
cape. The process of removal may extend to 
some distance below sea level provided porous 
materials emerge on the bottom of the ocean. 
The exact depth will be controlled by the rela- 
tive weights of the columns of fresh water be- 
neath the land and the salt water at the point 
of emergence. 
The greater height of the column of fresh 
water is partly offset by the increase of weight 
of the sea water caused by its high mineral con- 
tent and by the friction of the water in the rocks. 
There must inevitably be a level where the op- 
posing forces counterbalance each other and the 
underground water becomes nearly static. Below 
this level the water of deposition is scarcely 
disturbed. 
This was certainly an approach toward the 
Herzberg principle. 
A well at Sumterville, far from the shore, 
found no salt water though it reached a total 
depth of nearly 2,000 feet. 
Another quotation from Matson and San- 
ford makes an approach to the idea of a 
lenticular body of fresh water, and is as 
follows: 
"In passing from the interior of the State 
toward the coast the depth to salt water di- 
minishes until in many places it may be en- 
countered within less than 500 feet of the 
surface, though the depth to the strong brines 
is usually somewhat greater.’’ This passage 
suggests the downward curve of the lower 
side of an ideal lens, but does not mention 
