<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Frontispiece
 Main
 Index














Everglades Drainage District biennial report
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075731/00002
 Material Information
Title: Everglades Drainage District biennial report <to the Board of Commissioners>
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Publisher: T.J. Appleyard, Inc.
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla.
Creation Date: 1927
Frequency: biennial
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Environmental engineering -- Periodicals -- Florida -- Everglades   ( lcsh )
Drainage -- Periodicals -- Florida -- Everglades   ( lcsh )
Environmental conditions -- Periodicals -- Everglades (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre: Periodicals   ( lcsh )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: F.C. Elliot, Chief Drainage Engineer.
General Note: Description based on : 1925/1926; title from cover.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001729481
oclc - 31026881
notis - AJE2062
System ID: UF00075731:00002

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Frontispiece
        Frontispiece
    Main
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45a
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
    Index
        Page 87
        Page 88
Full Text










UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA
LIBRARY










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE
DISTRICT


BIENNIAL REPORT
1927-1928
TO THE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF

EVERGLADES
DRAINAGE
DISTRICT












F. C. ELLIOT
CHIEF DRAINAGE ENGINEER


.." ... "*. ..

;".'" : :.'. "" '.'
3..




*(Q7. 5









30 31 3E 33 34 35 3G 37 36 39 40 41 4a 43
37 I o r 37





40
.... 7.... ; 3:...






-- E OKEECHOBEE -- --
39 43




44 44


45 45


... -- -, j.. __
4 41

4-
4'4
48 1 I ;











0^5
55



3 33 34- 35 3 37 38 39 0 41 4 43











ACCOMPANYING THE
Si II ,
59
.. ., .......











a /
60 5j


32 33 3 35a 3G 37 38 .9 40 41 4a 43
MAP OF
EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT
SHOWING
LOCATION OF EXISTING CANALS ANyD LEVEES.
BIENNIAL REPORT I OFFICE OF THE: CHIEF DRAINAGE ENGINEER
v ., -* ,% '.







..*..
......
".f" !i
.: .. :. .: ..".::., .











Biennial Report to the Board of

Commissioners of Everglades

Drainage District


Tallahassee, Fla., Jan. 1, 1929.

Board of Commissioners of
Everglades Drainage District,

Honorable Doyle E. Carlton, Governor and Chairman.
Honorable Ernest Amos, Comptroller.
Honorable W. V. Knott, State Treasurer.
Honorable Fred II. Davis, Attorney General.
Honorable Nathan Mayo, Commissioner of Agricul-
ture.

Gentlemen:
SIt has been the practice of this office to transmit to the
Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District
every two years a report covering the work accomplished
in the Everglades during the two preceding years, to sub-
mit estimates for continuing the work, to make recom-
mendations for new work, and suggest such other subjects
as should come to the attention of the Board in reference to
the District not only relating to the work going on but
also from the standpoint of taxation, provision of money
for future work, and matters in general relating to the
District connected with drainage.
Previous reports have dealt with the subject principally
from the standpoints of engineering, of construction, of
estimates, costs and budgets for the years which they cover.
In June, 1927, the Board of Commissioners of Everglades
Drainage District instructed the Chief Drainage Engineer
to submit a report on Everglades Drainage District cover-
ing additional subjects not theretofore brought down or
compiled, which Resolution was in the following language:
"WHEREAS, the said Board deems it advisable
to have of record official statement in which shall be
incorporated a brief historical record of the District;










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


the operation of the District under Everglades Drain-
age District Laws; the work performed by said Dis-
trict; the general conditions of the District from time
to time; reference to taxes imposed and collected and
the general financing of the works; also reference to
the advancement of the District from time to time re-
sulting from drainage operations and statements re-
lating to such other subjects as may bear upon the Dis-
trict, its condition and status and the future develop-
ment of the same, now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Chief Drainage Engineer be and he is
hereby directed to prepare in as brief form as practic-
able, a report to Board of Commissioners of Ever-
glades Drainage District on subject as above and to
submit said report at an early date."

Pursuant to the above Resolution, a report covering
these subjects was submitted.
It is proposed in this Biennial Report to set forth sub-
jects not only from an engineering, construction, operat-
ing and maintenance standpoint, but also subjects referred
to in the above Resolution of the Board.
Respectfully,
F. C. ELLIOT,
Chief Drainage Engineer.










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


The Biennial Report for 1927 and 1928 is divided into
Part I and Part II. The first relates in a general way to
the work accomplished to date from an engineering and
construction standpoint. The second relates to subjects
other than those of an engineering nature.

PART I.

Part I deals in a general way with the work accomplished
to (late and in detail with such work for the past two
years. Estimates are submitted and recommendations made
for continuing the work and for undertaking new work.
Subjects are mentioned which should come to the atten-
tion of the Board in reference to the District, relating to
construction, colonization, the progressive advancement of
drainage through the selection of restricted areas, the rate
at which such progressive drainage may be undertaken,
and a discussion of engineering and other questions in-
volved.
Much of the subject matter described above as Part I
has been discussed in previous Biennial Reports and it does
not appear necessary to bring these discussions into a new
report.

REORGANIZATION

In 1928 the Board of Commissioners of Everglades
Drainage District undertook a reorganization of the work
carried out by that Board as evidenced by the following
from a Resolution of July 7th, 1928:

"Be IT RESOLVED, That for reasons stated above,
the Chief Drainage Engineer, F. C. Elliot, be re-
tained at the same compensation, and in addition to
his other duties be designated as Secretary to both
the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage
District and Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Fund, whose duty it shall be to act as Chief Drainage
Engineer and also Secretary of the Board of Commis-
sioners of Everglades Drainage District and of the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, effective
August 1, 1928, of all matters of the Trustees, includ-
ing that of taxes and lands, it being deemed highly es-
sential that those several duties relating to these Boards










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


be co-ordinated under one head, for economy and
efficiency."

Pursuant to the Resolution as above and to instructions
from Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage Dis-
trict, the Chief Drainage Engineer and Secretary divided
the work of Everglades Drainage District into the follow-
ing departments:

Engineering Department.-All work of an engineer-
ing nature relating to Everglades Drainage District,
construction works therefore, maintenance of work al-
ready provided, operation of those works, engineering
investigations and surveys, and the keeping of en-
gineering records of the foregoing and the distribu-
tions of costs and expenses relating thereto.
Tax Department.-The keeping of complete records
of Everglades Drainage District taxes, the lands
subject thereto, those delinquent thereunder, the sale
of such- lands, the accounting for all moneys derived'
from taxes, the distribution of the same to the proper
fund and their application to the purposes required.
Bond Department.-The keeping of complete records
of all bond transactions, the payment of bond interest,
payment of principal at maturity, the provision of
money from the tax fund and from the sinking fund
therefore, and the accounting of moneys received and
disbursed from the proceeds of bonds.
Accounting Department.-Keeping of books and the
auditing of all accounts of the Board of Commissioners
of Everglades Drainage District.
Secretary Department.-The taking and recording
of all Minutes, Resolutions and transactions of Board
of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District and
generally the work of the said Board of a secretarial
nature.

The above arrangement became effective as of August
1st, 1928. Simultaneously therewith a similar program
was worked out for the Trustees of the Internal Improve-
ment Fund. The work of the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund in some respects is related to and
affects Everglades Drainage District, but since they are
separate entities and their business is separately attended









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


to, no. reference is here made to the work of the Trustees
of the Internal Improvement Fund. Complete informa-
tion in reference to the Trustees may be found in the
"Minutes of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Fund of the State of Florida," printed volumes of which
are available to the public.

AUDIT OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EVER-
GLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT

The following audit of the business of the Board of Com-
missioners of Everglades Drainage District covering the
period July 1st, 1926, to June 30th, 1928, was made by
the State Auditor. The audit is reproduced in this report
exactly as submitted by the auditor.

STATE OF FLORIDA-AUDITING DEPARTMENT
W. S. MURROW, State Auditor

Tallahassee, Jan. 7th, 1929.
Hon. Fred C. Elliot,
Secretary Everglades Drainage District,
Capitol.
Dear Mr. Elliot:
1 am handing you herewith copy of report on examina-
tion of the records and accounts of the Board of Commis-
sioners of the Everglades Drainage District, by A. J.
Henry, as of June 30th, 1928, for your files.
Yours very truly,
W. S. MURROW,
State Auditor.
WSM/j

Hon. W. S. Murrow,
Acting State Auditor,
Tallahassee, Fla.
Dear Sir:
I beg to submit herewith report of an audit made by me,
pursuant to your instructions, of the accounts of the Board
of Commissioners of the Everglades Drainage District,
covering the period from July 1, 1926, to June 30, 1928.
The Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage
District consists of the following:


7










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


Hon. John W. Martin, Governor, Chairman.
Hon. Ernest Amos, Comptroller.
Hon. J. C. Luning, Treasurer.
Hon. Fred H. Davis, Attorney General.
Hon. Nathan Mayo, Commissioner of Agriculture,
members.
Hon. J. Stuart Lewis, Secretary.
The minutes of the Board appear to be incomplete. They
do not show all of the expenditures, and they do not show
all of the loans made from the Trustees of the Internal Im-
provement Fund. The warrant register is incomplete and
contains numerous errors. However, this condition ap-
pears to have been corrected since the period covered by
this audit, but before this audit actually was made, and
the accounts of the Board are now being handled accurately
and in a satisfactory manner.
The expenditures of the Board are shown with the dis-
tribution used by the former secretary. This distribution
is unsatisfactory, but is adopted for this report on account
of the great amount of time that would be necessary to go
over the bills and re-distribute them correctly. The ex-
penditures since the close of the period of this audit are
being distributed so as to reflect clearly the activities of
the Drainage Board.

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES


Excavation ..
Salaries .....
Office Expens
Gen. Expense
Subsistence ..
Miscellaneous


July 1, 1926
to
June 30, 1927
.$ 824,329.37
. 197,968.74
e 2,415.49
. 181,611.24
S 62,379.98
S 68,003.73


July 1, 1927
to
June 30, 1928
$ 217,088.18
109,249.38
2,724.95
75,780.29
16,738.36
41,444.64


Total
2 years
$1,041,417.55
307,218.12
.5,140.44
257,391.53
79,118.34
109,448.37


Total ......$1,336,708.55
Paid By:
Board Fund ..$ 927,936.68
Drain. Tax Fd. 342,347.40
One Mill T. Fd. 66,424.47

$1,336,708.55


$ 463,025.80 $1,799,734.35


$ 41,392.58
399,385.86
22,247.36


$ 969,329.26
741,733.26
88,671.83


$ 463,025.80 $1,799,734.35










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


In addition to above expenditures, the Board has incurred
indebtedness for excavation during the period covered by
this audit as follows:

Arundel Corporation, notes for
work ....................$1,713,608.44
For work not yet paid for by
notes .................... 391,227.96
Brown Co., notes for work
this period ............... 28,413.65


Total incurred for work during
period ...................
Paid through accounts by
check ................... $1,041,417.55
Paid by notes and accounts .. 2,133,250.05

Total for excavation .......
Total Expenditures ......... $1,799,734.35
Total Indebtedness .......... 2,133,250.05

Total work done ...........


$2,133,250.05




$3,174,667.60



$3,932,984.40


The expenditures shown above do not include repay-
ments of loans to the Internal Improvement Fund, or ex-
penses in connection with bonds issued, which are shown
later in this report.

INDEBTEDNESS OF AND TO TIE BOARD OF
DRAINAGE COMMISSIONERS, EXCEPT BONDS

In addition to current bills and payrolls which were
due July 1, 1928, and which are not taken into account,
the Board has the following notes and account outstanding:

To ARUNDEL CORPORATION


Date of Note Due
6/15/27 6/15/28
7/15/27 7/15/28
8/15/27 8/15/28
9/15/27 9/15/28
10/15/27 10/15/28
11/15/27 11/15/28


Amount
$ 70,771.49
70,350.21
67,480.56
75,008.31
67,874.84
71,169.17


Renewal Note
?
?
t
?
T
"










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


Date of Note Due
12/15/27 12/15/28
1/15/28 1/15/29
2/15/28 2/15/29
3/15/28 3/15/29
3/15/28 3/15/29
4/15/28 4/15/29
5/15/28 5/15/29
6/15/28 6/15/29


Amount
75,207.65
60,371.55
54,229.62
53,555.73
53,555.74
120,817.22
117,694.17
111,620.29


Renewal Note
J
)
J
?
?
?
J
;


Total of Renewal Notes $1,069,706.55


7/15/28
8/15/28
9/15/28
10/15/28
11/15/28
12/15/28
1/15/29
2/15/29
3/15/29
4/15/29


o $ 98,639.57
4o 95,709.25
o 88,694.39
o 92,628.51
4 54,773.91
4, 41,224.39
o 58,275.45
% 76,630.20
o 86,919.67
S 91,531.25


Total Current Notes $ 785,026.59

Total Notes to Arundel Corp....... $1,854,733.14
Indebtedness of Board Account of
estimates not yet paid by notes ... 391,227.96

Total Indebtedness to Arundel Corp. $2,245,961.10

To BROWN COMPANY


Date of Note Due
2/ 1/28 2/ 1/29
2/21/28 2/21/29
3/15/28 3/15/29
4/27/28 4/27/29


Int.
6%
6%
6%
6%


Amount
$ 5,343.65
8,580.00
7,762.50
6,727.50


Total .................. $28,413.65


No.
7-A
8-A
9-A
10-A
11-A
12-A
13-A
14-A


7/15/27
8/15/27
9/15/27
10/15/27
11/15/27
12/15/27
1/15/28
2/15/28
3/15/28
4/15/28


$28,413.65









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


To TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND


5/31/26
2/ 2/27
2/22/27
3/16/27
4/ 5/27
5/31/27
6/ 7/27


90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days


3% $
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%7


53,567.18
20,000.00
115,049.96
16,000.00
17,500.00
5,000.00
50,000.00


Total ............. $ 277,117.14
Total Notes of Board..$2,160,263.93
Indebtedness to Arun-
del Corp. not yet
paid by note....... 391,227.96

Total Indebtedness. .. .$2,551,491.89'


'Bal. Due Int.
Pd. to 11/30/27







$277,117.14





$2,551,491.89


The following debts are owed to the Board:
Newhall Drainage District, note dated Feb. 1, 1926, for
$9,642.92 6%, due Aug. 1, 1926. Renewal note. Interest
paid on notes renewed.
Note date Jan. 1, 1927, for $21,285.27, 6% due July 1,
1927. Renewal note. Interest on notes renewed was $1,-
769.62, and $1,700.00 was paid. Interest due $69.62 plus
interest from January, 1927.
Disston Island Drainage District owes $6,289.72, since
1924, for construction and engineering.
South Shore Drainage District owes $2,467.36, for en-
gineering and inspection from June, 1926, to March, 1927.
IIendry County owes $2,000.00 since 1925, for excavation.









BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


DRAINAGE BONDS
BONDS OUTSTANDING


Outstanding
July 1, 1926
$ 117,600.00 6%
1,500,000.00 6%
1,000,000.00 6%
500,000.00 6%
1,250,000.00 6%
1,500;000.00 51%
700,000.00 5%%/
1,300,000.00 51/%%


Sub total $7,867,600.00


Retired
7/1/26
to
6/30/28
$117,600.00
273,000.00
232,000.00
None
None'
137,000.00
700,000.00
None


Outstanding
June 30, 1928
None
$1,227,000.00
768,000.00
500,000.00
1,250,000.00
1,363,000.00
None
1,300,000.00


$1,459,600.00 $6,408,000.00


REFUNDING BONDS ISSUED JULY 1, 1925


$2,500,000.00
None
None


5% None
5% $505,000.00
5% 837,000.00


$2,500,000.00
505,000.00
837,000.00


Sub total $2,500,000.00

Grand total $10,367,600.00


$1,342,000.00 $3,842,000.00

$10,250,000.00


BONDS IN HANDS OF STATE TREASURER
Not Yet Delivered
REFUNDING BONDS
Series B-No. 506 to No. 2500............ $1,995,000.00
Series C-No. 838 to No. 3950.............. 3,113,000.00

Total unissued .................... .$5,108,000.00
The refunding bonds were exchanged for bonds pre-
viously issued, or sold and a like amount of older bonds
redeemed so as to keep the outstanding bonded indebted-
ness at $10,250,000.00. The refunding process was begun
in the period covered by the last audit, dated June 30,
1926, and was brought into balance during the period of
this audit. Bonds not due but called or offered for ex-
change were redeemed at 102%, refunding bonds sold or


Issue

5/1/1917
7/1/1920
1/1/1921
7/1/1921
1/1//1922
7/1/1923
1/1/1924
1/1/1925


Series A
Series B
Series C










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


exchanged at 92.45%, and difference in accrued interest
at date of exchange paid.
The Treasurer holds for the Board receiver's certificate
of proof of claim against the Bank of Okeechobec, assigned
by the tax collector on account of taxes collected, as fol-
lows:

No. 693, Acet. One Mill Maintenance Tax ..$ 388.29
No. 694, Acct. Acreage Tax ............... 1,560.58

Dividends of $15.53 and $62.45, respectively, were re-
ceived and deposited in the proper tax funds.
The Board has certificates of proof of claim that could
not be located against the Bank of Moore Haven, assigned
by the tax collector on account of taxes collected. On
March 31, 1928, the bond fund received $17.13 account
41/ % dividend paid March, 1928, and the tax fund re-
ceived $47.59 account 121/2% dividend paid May, 1925.
The board has certificates that could not be located as-
signed by the tax collector of Palm Beach County under
Chapter 12240 (1927) amounting to $30,600.52.
It is respectfully recommended that these certificates of
proof of claim be located and properly filed, and accounts
kept on them.
The following are statements of balances, receipt and
disbursements of the funds of the Everglades Drainage
District:
DRAINAGE BOND FUND JULY 1, 1926, TO JUNE
30, 1927
Balance July 1, 192 ..............$373.772.55
Less warrants outstanding 2ii2.465.79
Net balance July 1, 1926 $ 111,306.76
Loans from I. I. Fund 22,,427.15
Certificates of Deposit taken up lby
Spitzer Rorick & Co 500,000.00
Interest on C/D 14,188.89
Int. on New Hall D. D. notes ................. 1.700.00
Int. on funds in banks 1,706.84
Sale maps, old machinery, etc............. 1.518.63
Sale canal rock and supplies................... 3.79 .18
Canal tolls 1.506.94
Transfer from Drainage Tax fund........ 1.42.822.12
From Spitzer Rorick & Co., in exchange
of $67,000.-6% bonds for $90,000.-
5% bonds 16,205.00
Lease canal R/W (12.50
Various refunds 366.99











BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


Refunded I. I. Fund $ 8,902.08
Paid Treasurer "Items of Reconcile-
ment" in audit of June 30, 1920.......... 50,822.12
Redeemed $13,000-bonds at par... .......... 13,000.00
$5,000-bonds called at 102 and com-
mission 5,100.37
Redeemed $8,000-bonds at par and
commission 8,010.00
Redeemed $1,000--bond at par.................. 1,000.00
Paid Sinking Fund Account exchange
of bonds 467.00
Bills paid, see distribution 927,936.68
Error in paying warrant .40
Net balance June 30, 192(i 8,422.35

$1,023,667.00 $1,023,667.00

DRAINAGE BOND FUND JULY 1, 1927, TO JUNE
30, 1928


Net balance July 1. 1927 $ 8,422.35
Loans from I. 1. Fund 28,796.15
Canal tolls 448.09
Sale canal rock and supplies 4.620.93
Miscellaneous receipts and refunds........... 1135.97
Interest on funds in banks 152.83
Rent of boat 96.34
Sale of reports 130.50
Inspection fees 150.00
Dividend from Receiver of Bank of Oke-
chobee 17.13
Bills paid, see distribution
Net balance June 30, 1928

$ 43,970.29

Net balance, June 30, 1928 $ 2,577.71
Warrants outstanding 264.45

Treasurer's balance. June 30, 1928..........$ 2,842.16


$ 41,392.58
2,577.71

$ 43.970.29


DRAINAGE TAX FUND JULY 1, 1926, TO JUNE
30, 1927


Balance July 1, 1926..............$476,355.58
Less warrants outstanding.. 695.39

Net balance July 1, 1926......
Taxes received
From Comptroller account
tax redemptions ...............
Loan from I. Fund ...........
Refund from Sinking Fund
Paid Interest Coupons..........


$ 475.660.19
1.170,339.67

3.50
15,000.00
150.00


$ 560,065.65











EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT

Paid Commission ..................
Bonds called $96,200.00,
at 102 98,124.00
Commission 94.00

Bonds matured $2,300, at
par $ 2,300.00
Commission 0.33


Bonds exchanged $100,000-
at par, given $100,000,
Series B 5%, at 92.45%.
paid discount .....................
Bonds exchanged $700,000
given $700,000 Series C
5%
And bonds exchanged $137,-
000 given $137,000, Series
C 5%
And bonds called $10,100-
at 102% $ 10,302.00
Commission 12.88

Repaid I. I. Fund...................
Transferred to Sinking Fund
Transferred to Bond Fund..
Paid bills, see distribution..
Net balance June 30, 1927....


7,550.00


43.442.00


10,302.68


10,314.88

15,000.00
21,986.28
142,822.12
342,347.40
40(,090.11

$1,661,153.36 $1,661,153.36


DRAINAGE TAX FUND JULY 1, 1927, TO JUNE
30, 1928


Net balance July 1, 1927....
Received taxes ....................
Paid Interest Coupon............
Paid commissions ................
Exchanged $100,000 ma-
tured bonds for $100,000
5% bonds 92.45% paid
discount
Exchanged $165,000 called
bonds at 102%. Paid
premium $ 3.300.00
$165,000 5% bonds, at
92.45% paid discount-...... 12,457.50
Difference accrued interest
to Dec. 9, 1927................... 724.17

Exc. $50,000 called bonds
at 102% for $50.000 5%
bonds at 92.45% paid pre-
mium $ 1,000.00


$ 406,090.11
1,273,191.42


$ 557,902.50
657.61


7.550.00


16,481.67


653.91


98,218.00



2,300.33











BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


Paid disc. on 5% bonds........ 3,375.00
Difference in accrued inter-
est to March 9, 1028 ........... 94.43 4,869.43


Transferred to Sinking Fund
Red. $5,000 bonds in Sink-
ing Fund
Repaid I. I. Fund...............
Paid bills, see distribution
Net balance June 30, 1928....


Net balance $402,100.84
Outstanding warrants .......... 17,014.13

Treas. bal. June 30, 1928......$419,114.97


26.813.30

5,000.00
258,520.32
399,385.86
402,100.84

$1.679,281.53 $1.679,281.53


ONE MILL DRAINAGE TAX FUND JULY 1, 1926,
TO JUNE 30, 1927


Balance July 1, 1926............$ 59,173.74
Less warrants outstanding None
Net balance July 1, 1926....
Receipts, taxes ..... ...........
Paid bills, see distribution..
Balance June 30, 1927..........


$ 59.173.74
22,279.60
$ 66,424.47
15,028.87

$ 81,453.34 $ 81.453.34


JULY 1, 1927, TO JUNE 30, 1928
Balance July 1, 1927 $ 15,028.87
Receipts, taxes 26,442.99
Paid bills, see distribution $ 22,247.36
Balance June 30, 1928 19,224.50

$ 41,471.80 $ 41,471.86
No warrants outstanding.

EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOND SINK-
ING FUND

JULY 1, 1926, TO JUNE 30, 1927
Balance July 1, 1926 $ 73,459.19
Transfer 2% taxes collected.................... 21,986.28
Interest, funds in banks 2.685.84
Interest on bonds in Fund 291.65
Discount paid on 5% refunding bonds
exchanged for 6% bonds owned by
Fund 467.00
Refund interest paid in error.................. $ 150.00
Balance June 30, 1927 98,739.96

$ 98,889.96 $ 98.889.96










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


JULY 1, 1927, TO JUNE 30, 1928
Balance July 1, 1927 $ 98,739.90
Transfer 2% taxes collected...................... 26.813.30
Interest on funds in banks 3,694.91
Interest on bonds in fund 125.00
Redemption of bonds in fund................... 5.000.00
Disbursements None
Balance June 30, 1928 $ 134,373.17

$ 134,373.17 $ 134,373.17
No warrants outstanding.
Respectfully submitted,
A. J. HENRY, Auditor.

REPORT EVERGLADES ENGINEERING BOARD OF
REVIEW

In March 1927, the Board of Commissioners of Ever-
glades Drainage District engaged the services of Messrs.
Anson Marston, S. H. McCrory, and George B. Hills, to
submit a report on the drainage of the Everglades. The
above, comprising the Everglades Engineering Board of
Review submitted their report in May following. This re-
port deals with the engineering features involved in con-
nection with the drainage of the Everglades, reviewed the
work previously done, rendered its opinion as to the
efficiency, correctness arid effectiveness of the work al-
ready performed, and the cost of the same, and sub-
mitted recommendations for the Board to follow in carry-
ing out the new work of the District. This report was
published by the Board of Commissioners of Everglades
Drainage District and is available upon request.
The above was the second time that the Board of Com-
missioners of Everglades Drainage District had employed
eminent engineers to make an examination and report re-
garding the Everglades, the prior report being that of the
Everglades Engineering Commission made up of Isham
Randolph, Marshall O. Leighton and Edmund T. Perkins.

STATUS OF WORK

The status of work of Everglades Drainage District is
shown by the following tables:












18 BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928

TABLE "A"

EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT-STATUS OF PRESENT
WORK TO JAN. 1, 1929


Name of Canal




Caloosahatchee ...............
Cypress Creek .................
Dania
Iarneys Pond ..................
Nine Mile
Snake Creek ......................
Tamiami
South New River ..............
Snapper Creek .................
Snapper Creek Ext. ........
Indian Prairie ....................
IIillsboro
North New River ............
Miami
St. Lucie
West Palm Beach ........-...
Lateral Canals .................


U2



28.00
12.20
5.95
3.65
9.73
14.30
5.52
25.00
12.56
8.47
20.83
50.00
59.20
78.70
25.00
40.90
39.96


Totals 439.97


r





E0

3.199,457
768.288
1.109.019
226.952
148,610
292.346
419,577
3,700,977
572,090
328,847 1
1,668,705
8,522,440
8,708,416
8,211,169
25,205,487
10,738,937
1,181,235

75.062,552


0

208,419.35
106,504.34
169,559.49
44,455.70
16,812.70
42,169.66
92,968.78
1,031,559.31
149,442.87
278,553.74
1,129,322.75
1,935,230.74
1,994,502.42
5,791,449.45
1,686.307.51
103,926.75

$14.871,185.56


TABLE "B"

EVERGLADES I)DRAINAGE DISTRICT-STATUS OF PRESENT
WORK TO JAN. 1, 1929


Lake Okeechobee Levee. Length.
Bacom Point-Hillsloro Div..... 11.00
llillsboro-N. New River Div... 3.10
North New River-Miami Div... 7.50
Miami-Sand Point Div............. 6.30
Moore Haven-Sand Point Div. 15.60
Moore Haven-Northwest Div... 3.40

Totals 46.90
Miscellaneous excavation for
slips, dams, docks, etc...........
TOTAL EXCAVATION (canals
and levees)


Excava-
tion.
874,871
343,274
817,378
421,534
1,071,738
212,628

3.741,423


Cost.
$ 163,949.05
66,977.30
146,644.15
82,653.99
192,126.37
39,083.62

$ 691.434.48


151,959

78,955,934 $15.562,620.04











EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT 19

TABLE "B"- (Continued)

Lock Dimensions
Locks and Dams. Width Length Cost.
(feet) (feet)
North New River No. 1 25 130 $ 59,795.50
North New River No. 2 (obsolete).. 20 90 7,109.81
North New River No. 3 (obsolete).. 20 90 0,513.10
North New River No. 4...................... 22 110 109,506.94
South New River No. 1...................... 22 90 68,621.31
Miami No. 1 25 130 133,138.21
Miami No. 4 22 90 53,488.98
Hillsboro No. 1 25 130 61,432.50
Hillsboro No. 9 25 130 215,337.94
West Palm Beach No. 1.................... 25 130 109,894.07
West Palm Beach No. 2................ 25 135 304,937.43
Caloosahatchee No. 1 30 150 114,103.60
Caloosahatchee No. 30 150 88,836.64
Caloosahatchee No. 3 30 150 129,015.35
St. Lucie No. 1 30 150 125,677.25
St. Lucie No. 2 30 150 417,689.01
Total cost of locks to date, $2,005,157.64.

TABLE "C"

EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT-STATUS OF PRESENT
WORK TO JAN. 1, 1929
Other Work. Costs.
Operations Department $ 61,839.01
Drainage Surveys 11,872.06
Equipment! New Equipment ...-.......... 109,513.83
Eq t Equipment Maintenance.... 30,725.61
Storm Emergency 20,569.28
Fire Control 57,973.78
Miscellaneous Costs 65,831.95

Total $ 358,325.52
REcAPITULATION.
Total Costs to January 1, 1929
Canal Excavation $14,871,185.56
Control Works (locks and dams) 2,005,157.04
Levee Construction 691,434.48
Other Work 358,325.52

Total Expenditures $17,926,103.20
Distribution of the above costs may be made as follows:
Drainage $9,775,390.02
Flood Control 0,066,748.85
Navigation 20,o3 964.33














EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT-


CANAL
Caloosahatchee
Cypress Creek
Dania
Snake Creek
South New River
Snapper Creek
Indian Prairie
Hillsboro
North New River
Miami
St. Lucie
West Palm Beach
Taylor Creek
Levees-
Lake Okeechobee
North Palm Beach
Pennsylvania Levee
Miscellaneous Yarding
Equipment
Miscellaneous Expenses
TOTALS-Excavation
Construction
Maintenance and Operation ..................
Engineering
TOTAL EXPENDITI: ES


TABLE "D"
-WORK ACCOMPLISHED AND EXPENDITURES DURING 1927
COST


Excavation
Cu: ic Yards
70,793






275,350
(57,025
-------------
1 )24.706
298,952
35,302

561.1(01
204 563
-----------
29,722
.4,057,-34
----------- --
4,057,634

.....................


Const.
$ 14,706.70

.. .. 1- -----.




51,134.88
2!5,(01.25

806.973.04
38,915.i17
12707.50


Operation
and Maint.
$ 7,868.25
81.05
720.35
72.01
2.274.47
257.27
1,038.07
9.032.17
13.56 4.00
2,196.09
40.873.29
10,703.68
.. ............... .


Eng.
$ 4,284.28



089.78

1.038.08
7.133.42
7,703.25
5,000.00
10,000.00
3.292.54
2,135.54


TOTAL
$ 20,859.23
81.05
726.35
72.01
2,964.25
257.27
2,077.35
67,300.47
310,929.10
7,196.69
917,846.33
52,902.19
14,843.04


.............. 91,959.40( 27.085.92 119,045.38
17,330.30 ..................... 1,059.93 18,396.23
- -----........ ....... ...... 162.85 102.85

54,0(2.91 1,736.44 ..................... 55,799.35
-.-...-... ---- .. 5 245.28 ..................... 5,245.28

$1.351,498.55..................
-- ---------......- $ 187,62 .(8 .. .......... ...............
.. .. ........ .... --.------ $ (9,57(.19 ......................
....... --.. ... ................. .. ......-...... ...-.- $1,608,704.42











TABLE "E"
EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT-WORK ACCOMPLISHED AND EXPENDITURES DURING 1928
COST


CANAL
Caloosahatchee
Cypress Creek
Dania
Iarney's Pond
South New River
Indian Prairie
HIillsl'oro
North New River
Miami
St. Lucie
West Palm Beach
Lake Okeechobee Levee
Iacom Point-H-illboro
Hillslhoro-N. N. R.
N. N. R.-Miami
Miami-Sand Point
Sand Point-Moorehaven
Moore Haven-Northwest
Miscellaneous Excavations
Equipment
Operating Department
Miscellaneous Expenses
TOTALS-Excavation
Construction
Maintenance and Operating.................
Engineering
TOTAL EXPENDITURES


Excavation
Cubic-Yards






)9.6!97
232.080

1,012,823


38S,S04
45.)59
46,019
15,953


6.155



1,497,490


Const.

$. ..... .....




29,809.71
145,37(1.37
.. .. ..... I - -
343,671.:0





...................73
......................




12,,58.73
... ...............


Operation
and Maint.
$ 5,008.29
137.01
312.51
23.83
1,028.47
106.40
(.607.25
3,768.71
S 0.347.38,
71.569.21
4.9,0.76

12,3(i0.99
12,C43.18
6.279.75
7.55').)04
143.908
5.63

6,829.43
7.431.90
2,059.75


S5 1 16.61 ......................
. ... ......... $ 155.173.47
......................- -.. ................


Eng.
$ 1,493.52


15.96
1,314.80
107.41
5.3010.47
9.160.24
2.181.74
133,767.64
3,413.49

1,890.24
1,008.28
2,231.21
2.494.72
1,808.23
529.19

361.50


TOTALS
,$ 6,501.81
137.01
312.51
39.79
2,343.27
213.81
41.807.43
158,305.32
8,529.12
429.008.65
8,304.25

14.251.23
13,651.46
8.510.96
10,053.76
1.952.21
534.82

20,149.66
7,431.90
2,059.75


$ 47.168.64 .................
................ $ 734.158.72









BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


FLOOD PROTECTION AROUND LAKE
OKEECHOBEE

This subject was discussed at length in the Biennial
Report, 1925-1926. By reason of the importance of this
subject,, and for emphasizing certain recommendations
made in the former Biennial Report, attention is again
called to flood protection around Lake Okeechobee, the
necessity therefore, and the character of works designed
for that purpose.
Experience during the hurricane of 1928, again em-
phasizes the absolute necessity for protection against Lake
Okeechobee during such times. The statement in the
1925-1926, report regarding reduction of hurricane dangers
is even more applicable now by reason of an early occur-
ence of another hurricane. What was stated then should
be emphasized now, and for laying emphasis upon the
same, the statement in the 1925-1926 report is in part set
down here as follows:
There is absolute necessity of undertaking on a broad,
comprehensive scale, not only the protection of lands
around the lake against storm damage in so far as prac-
ticable, but also reducing the danger to human life. That
there will be other storms is certain. The occurence of
hurricanes such as that experienced in September, 1926,
according to available records, is at extremely infrequent
intervals, but records are often broken and there is no way
of forecasting how soon another may be experienced, hence
the early preparation for and speedy completion of works
for combating hurricane dangers is most desirable. The
protection of life and property against hurricanes is a
feature not strictly a part of land drainage, but the experi-
ence of September, 1926, makes clear the necessity of
combatting this danger, as well as providing against heavy
rainfall. The construction of drainage canals adequate
for carrying away heavy rainfall, or of the regulation of
Lake Okeechobee to a degree satisfactory for agricultural
purposes, and as protecting the land against overflow, is
strictly a part of the drainage enterprise. The reduction
of danger from hurricanes is another matter. Correlation
of these two forces, water and wind, and the aggravation
of danger by reason of the simultaneous culmination of
them in combination, especially in the lake region, is pro-









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


ductive of conditions similar to those along the shore of
the sea itself, and against which it is absolutely imperative
to undertake work which will bring the dangers resulting
from their combination within reasonable limits by break-
ing up the combination of these two destructive agencies.
Since but one of these is susceptible of treatment, efforts
must be confined to works to resist the storm-driven waters.
In other words, levees must be built along the shore of
Lake Okeechobee.
In planning for flood relief and for lessening hurricane
danger, it may seem that the expenditures necessary for
its accomplishment are large. The degree of protection
necessary should be carefully considered. If such pro-
tection is for agricultural purposes only, perhaps works
affording less degree of protection and at reduced cost,
might be justified on the theory that almost any expendi-
ture would improve conditions, hence warranted. There
are situations, therefore, where partial protection may be
wise and where property losses at infrequent periods could
be borne. On the other hand, there are other situations,
such as the protection of towns and homes, involving the
consideration of human life, where anything less than
complete protection not only would be unwise, but a men-
ace to the lives and property intended to be protected, and
where the provision of insufficient works might lead the
inhabitants to a feeling of false security which would re-
sult in aggravating the danger, rather than ameliorating
it.
The construction of an adequate levee around the south-
western, southern and south-eastern shores of Lake Okee-
chobee of sufficient height to prevent hurricane driven
waters going over them, and of sufficient mass and resist-
ance to withstand wave action under hurricane conditions,
will require works of far greater height, strength and mass,
and at much greater cost, than any required merely for
retaining the waters of Lake Okeechobee under non-hurri-
cane conditions, but structures capable of resisting the
effects of such storms as that which occurred last Septem-
ber can be built, and though at large cost, the exigencies
of the case must be its justification.
The above is from Biennial Report dated Jan. 1st, 1927.
One year and nine months after the above was written,
and two years from the occurrence of the former hurri-










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


cane, another had spread devastation and death in that
area. As a result of the 1928 hurricane, the damage with-
in Everglades Drainage District area as estimated by re-
ports from various sources within the several counties af-
fected, amounted to $3,800,000, and the loss of approxi-
mately 2,000 lives.
In connection with construction of levees around Lake
Okeechobee, it might be well to state the purpose of these
levees and to correct an erroneous impression which is
quite general regarding them. There has been an idea
abroad that the construction of levees such as are pro-
posed is for the purpose of holding the lake water at high
levels. The levees are for no such purpose. Their con-
struction around the low shores of the lake is not for
holding high water levels in Lake Okeechobee, but to pre-
vent hurricane-driven waters being blown out of the lake,
endangering life and flooding the land. It is here em-
phasized that the levees proposed are for flood protection
under hurricane conditions, and not for holding water in
the lake at high levels under non-hurricane conditions.
When levee construction began in 1921 their purpose
was for restoring the rim of the lake at or somewhat above
its original elevation from which it had subsided three
to four feet due to settling of the spongy muck soil from
drainage. Protection against hurricanes was not contem-
plated. It may be interesting to know that all of the de-
velopments in the upper Everglades around Lake Okee-
chobee, the growing of crops, the marketing of them and
the bringing into that section of millions of dollars in
return, was made possible by the works thus far provided.
What is now needed is enlargement, extension and addi-
tion to present works in order that they may be adequate
to protect lives and property against hurricane-driven.
waters from Lake Okeechobee.

REGULATION OF LAKE LEVELS

In connection with levees, the regulation of lake levels
must be considered as an inseparable part of the flood
control problem. The existing War Department permit
defines elevation 15.0 feet as the level about which the
lake is to be regulated and determines that elevation as
the minimum desirable level for the said lake. With the
minimum level at elevation 15.0 feet, the high level be-










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


comes 18 feet. The question of lowering this level came
before the War Department at hearings held by that de-
partment at Pahokee and at Moore Haven in October,
1927, in connection with a consideration of works for flood
control and for navigation by the United States. This of-
fice is of the opinion that sufficient proof existed then and
was submitted by the Drainage Board as an argument for
a lower level of regulation. That proof has subsequently
been emphasized. A high lake level of 16 feet would be
inherently safer than a high level of 18 feet.

THE HURRICANE OF SEPTEMBER, 1928

The hurricane which had been approaching Florida from
the southeast, reported September 10th, reached the Okee-
chobee section during the evening of September 16th. The
general direction of storm translation was northwesterly.
As the storm approached, the wind blew with increasing
violence from the northeast. With the arrival of the storm,
the wind came in from the north immediately ahead of
the storm's path and from northwesterly on the west side
of its path. In its first stage, with the wind coming from
northerly directions as above, the duration of heavy storm
winds was from 4 to 6 hours, reaching maximum velocity
during the hour preceding the lull. As the storm struck
Lake Okeechobee, the general wind direction was from
the northward toward the south end of the lake.
In the southeast section of the lake there is a large pocket
known as South Bay. The water throughout South Bay
is shallow, varying from a few inches along its edge to
5 to 7 feet at distances of 5 or 6 miles off shore, where
the water reached its greatest height during the first phase
of the storm. Marks of various kinds on and along the
levee indicate that wave crests reached 29 feet. Still water
in buildings along and near the levee registered water
marks as high as 25.7 feet. During the week ending the
day prior to the storm, the elevation of the lake ranged
from 16.3 to 16.4 feet. The day following the storm the
lake stood at 17.3 feet. Land elevations along this section
vary generally from 17.0 to 19.0 feet. Storm waters in
the South Bay section of the lake were driven to heights
of 12 feet above the then lake level.
Near midnight a lull came, indicating the center or
vortex of the storm. This lull lasted 40 to 50 minutes
..* ...


."... i i..' ": .'- ":.:.
. .S .

















BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


* .** .*a
I*
.I* *










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


in the east lake section, according to best information.
Following this lull, the wind came in with sudden and
violent force from the south and slightly southwest. This
was the second phase of the storm. The wind from the
south promptly shifted the lake crest from the south end
to the north end. Indications are that wave crests reached
elevation 29 feet at the north end. A water mark inside
of a building near the point showing wave crest at elevation
29 feet, registered 26.9 feet. The wind from the south
reached its maximum intensity in about 30 minutes to one
hour, after which it rapidly subsided. Along the east
shore of the lake the water rose from 2 to 4 feet as meas-
ured at Canal Point, head of Saint Lucie Canal and vi-
cinity. The accompanying map shows water levels reached
during the storm at various points along and near the
lake shore and a water stage curve for the two storm
phases.
The comparatively slight rise along the East Beach
probably results from:
1.-The direction of the wind in both phases of the
storm was nearly parallel with the east shore line.
2.-The long shore line of even configuration.
3.-The slope of the shore is much more pronounced
over this section of the lake, water to a depth of
8 to 12 feet extending to within 800 to 1000 feet
of the shore, permitting undertow to set in, thus
assisting in returning the storm-driven surface
waters to the body of the lake along the bottom.
Along the entire south shore of the lake there are tem-
porary levees extending generally to elevation 22 to 28
feet. The lower sections of the levees were topped. A
few high sections around elevation 29 feet show evidence
that the water did not go over these high places. The
temporary levee was constructed for the most part of muck,
marl and sand, or a mixture of the above and of rock in
a few places where rock had been encountered in excavat-
ing. Though without riprap protection, considerable
reaches of the levee suffered but minor damage. In a
few places the levee was breached; in many places the top
was washed away to a depth of two to three feet. The
section of levee where damage occurred extended from
Pelican Point to Miami Canal, a distance of 21.6 miles.
The aggregate length of levee damaged to the extent of















28 BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


LEGEND-
SHIGH WATER MARKS INTREES,ON LEVEE
OR ON RIDGE
HIGH WATER MARKS FROM STILL WATER


MAP OF
LAKE OKEECHOBEE
SHOWING
HIGH WATER MARKS ON SHORE OF LAKE
AND
STORM TIDE DIAGRAM DURING THE
HURRICANE. OF SEPTEMBER 1928


pO OFF Cr IF or RA E NAC GnC oR TU Ft


FrlSueAT|N










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


having its crest lowered to elevation 20 feet or below, was
1.7 miles.
With the exception of the levee as above, drainage works
of the District, including canals, locks, spillways, and other
structures, suffered no serious damage.
The accompanying is a record of the Everglades Drain-
age District barometer at West Palm Beach during the
storm period:

Sept. 15th- 7:00 A. M.-29.86
12:00 Noon-29.78
6:00 P. M.-29.69
Sept. 16th- 1:00 A. M.-29.68
4:30 A. M.-29.64
8:40 A. M.-29.46
11:40 A. M.-29.33
2:30 P. M.-29.04
Sept. 16th- 5:20 P. M.-28.20
6:00 P. M.-27.92
6:15 P. M.-27.74 Beginning of Lull.
6:50 P. M.-27.70
7:00 P. M.-27.62
7:10 P. M.-27.60 (2 minutes)
7:30 P. M.-27.78 End of lull
8:15 P. M.-28.08
9:00 P. M.-28.52
10:00 P. M.-28.90
11:00 P. M.-29.07
Sept. 17th-12:15 A. M.-29.22
9:00 A. M.-29.54
11:00 A. M.-29.55
5:00 P. M.-29.60

The velocity of storm translation was approximately 15
miles per hour, so that equivalent storm periods as be-
tween West Palm Beach and the eastern shore of Lake
Okeechobee are separated by 3 to 4 hours. The anemometer
at Everglades Drainage District station three miles south-
east of Lake Okeechobee near Belle Glade failed at an
indicated wind velocity of 96 miles per hour. Another in-
strument located at Canal Point on the east shore is un-
officially reported to have blown away when registering
150 miles per hour. General indications in the affected
territory would lead to the assumption that the storm of


29










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


September, 1928, is comparable in wind velocity to that
of September, 1926, where velocities of 132 miles per hour
were reported from the Miami section.
Rain catchment during the hurricane period was as
follows:

Moore Haven-5.33 inches.
Canal Point-5.82 inches.
Head of St. Lucie Canal-8.96 inches.

The above is purposely referred to as "catchment," for
there is little doubt but that our rain gauges did not catch
all of the precipitation. The best guide as to rainfall is
the two days rise of Lake Okeechobee of 0.9 feet. This
rise occurred before water in sufficient quantities began
discharging into the lake from its sheds to produce more
than 0.2 feet rise. Rainfall on the lake must have amounted
to an average of 9 inches, with greater amounts on the
east and northeast than on other -sections. This was the
second extremely heavy rainfall in a single period during
the 1928 rainy season, there having occurred in August
13.17 inches of rain from the 8th to 13th. Though not
relevant as to the September storm, it may be stated as
having effect upon the lake and its watershed that the
total rainfall caught at Saint Lucie station (near the
center of both storms) for August and September was
35.87 inches, and for nine months of 1928 to September
30th, 65.44 inches, the normal for 12 months being ap-
proximately 48 to 50 inches in the lake section. The total
for the year was 68.10 inches.
The above description is related in order that conditions
prevailing during that storm may be borne in mind in
connection with a consideration of:
1. Requirements for levees to resist hurricane-driven
waters.
2. Requirements for lake level control.

LAKE LEVEES

From the above it is shown that both storm crests, that
is, the crest during the first phase of the storm on the south
side of the lake and that during the second phase on the
north side, reached practically the same elevation. Wave
crests reached elevation 29 feet in both instances.


30










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


The above elevation for hurricane driven waters was
attained from a quiescent lake level of 16.4 feet, just be-
fore the storm. The basis of lake level regulation was with
elevation 18 feet as an allowable maximum. Based on
12 feet as the developed hurricane crest and 18 feet as
the allowable maximum for quiescent lake level, it is clear
that the top of the levee should not be below elevation 30
feet for those sections of the lake showing necessity there-
for.
The way in which the hurricane struck Lake Okeechobee
and its wind direction during both phases was not such as
to disclose what elevation the water would have reached
along the east shore had the wind come from the west,
hence, there is no way of knowing exactly what elevation
the waters would have reached with the wind direction
normal to the east shore and of an intensity equal to those
of that hurricane. The configuration of the lake shore
from Pelican Point to Chancy Bay, the more pronounced
slope of the lake bottom and the long even shore line
would undoubtedly tend to prevent as high lake level
from winds of equal intensities as were attained elsewhere,
but just what this difference is or may be there is no way
of determining with absolute accuracy. It would scarcely
be safe to allow a'difference of more than 3 feet. Hence
on such allowance, if a levee with its crest at elevation not
below 30 feet is required for south shore sections under lake
level regulations up to 18 feet, the shore or a levee along
East Beach section and other sections of the lake with
similar characteristics should not be below elevation 27
feet. The natural shore along such sections is below that
elevation, hence if other sections of the lake are to be safe
at lake levels up to 18 feet, levees must be built entirely
around the said lake. From the foregoing it is therefore
stated that on a basis of regulation of Lake Okeechobee,
having 18 feet as the allowable maximum level, levees
should be built around the low shores of the lake on the
north and south sides having their crests not below eleva-
tion 30 feet, and that for sections of the lake such as East
Beach, levees should be provided having their elevation
not below 27 feet, with variations between elevation 27
feet and elevation 30 feet, as local conditions warrant.
As an alternative to levees entirely around Lake Okee-
chobee with a lake level based on a maximum of 18 feet,
is the regulation of the lake based on 16 feet as the allow-









PROPOSED PLAN
FOR
LAKE OKEECHOBEE LEVEE
JAN. 199

W

EL. 31' ---x- '

SLAKE

I.- ^ EARTH EMBANKMENT a

N.S. ELIS 15
EL. 13'
BORROW o' ,
CANAL O1- A

1 ROCK K

ABOVE SECTION APPLICABLE ALSO TO LEVEE. TO EL. 28'.


p BIENNIAL REPORT, OFFICE OF CHIEF DRAINAGE ENGINEER,TALLAHASSEE FLP










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


able maximum, with levees having their crest at 28 feet for
the sections along the south shore and part of the north
shore, and omitting entirely levees along East Beach where
the natural shore line is above elevation 25 feet.

ESTIMATES OF COSTS

1. For levee entirely around the lake on the basis
of maximum lake level at 18 feet and levee crest
at 30 to 31 feet, $6,311,000.00.
2. For levees around those sections of the lake where
necessary, based upon lake level control at an allow-
able maximum of 16 feet, and levee crest at 28
feet, $2,593,000.00


2 -H. 1). I).










DAILY RECORD SIUl-T
ARIL RoY JANE ooLA


AUGUBT SEPTIMBR OCTOBER NOVERME DCMBEKRE
(IO~1 I I 20 3 I 1B2 S mI R 1 l . .


41' It-I-
IiL. .. .......e j .





-F------ ----~~ VI I -t ,1. _1.
i 6-\ ..Ti -tf-wz-f- -.J4 2:wj -4
L;Lz< m' T, I u




41 7
:I' V j..............IL
.... .... :1:. ':i 147

-14A-4A "s02. I? .I -_ ...
I S
!1: .3l 41 4





Hi I !I t-Ll J i}IIi F74 =. .....r
..0 ......... I 4, .A-II .4-RH
:', '! !, r ., T







II- -l- ios i
AP~UALA --4. qfljE_ '". F 9%kWII49s L Z.4k
!7 :t .. .. ..

.... .........

JAC CY P U MARCH A LM...
7~
.. .... L T -:

7j-f: 7!jitj I:_-
.~....;tL~:.:! C-A .... T ........ -7-:I.::


11 1. 11 2. 1. 1 A


i :r i : n MAY J UM


IULY AUW Um;u


iii .i;i I;I;;.I
OSr0ll WOY~II DeY








*lllL 11*11Y* I.... oc1 ~ o.ER ..Y ..... *111= D~ry~
ti lL SECOXO ohm'; ; i


H4' It -'I- K,
I~~~ j i Tiil'il4~Ii


t :


.7.


Il 'u1 I I t
I1 II _
40~








ot .I~j
IfI
1 45. I-F U


jo~i ; :LL~ H21





JII -1 1 :`


MMPCROR11~1 MOYRR MVERE MOMMM


--


o 2 '"


JANUARY ManuARY
10.1 .20 -l 1.1 O


MA.-C


AnnonR


runwanT


MARCH


AmsL


JULY 1. AU9 1ro a
JUyL AYUGUIr














BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT, WEST PALM BEACH STATION
RAINFALL EVAPORATION r-= 4
1920 1921
" 13 ,
Toral Rainfall 6Z.59 Total Ra;nfrll A4.85
S- Evapora ;on 6.74' .. vaporrion 66.1
N -NOTE. RAINFALL BY STANDARD RAIN G. UOG.
EVAPORATION FREE WATER SURE CE FROM PAN ,
FLOATING IN CANAL.







4
3





Jan. Feb. Mar Apr. May JuneJuly AgSep.Oct Nov. Dec. Jan. ebMor. Apr. MoyJuneJuly Aug.Sep. Oct Nov. Dec.
14
1922 1923 ^

Total Rainfall 69 Toal Rainfall 5707
Evaporoon 5.37' Evaporaion S.5



7-
10

9 9
-'8







Sa ..




Jon. Feb. Mar Apr May June July Aug.SeprOcr. Nov Dec Jan. Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct. Nov Dec.









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT WEST PALM BEACH STATION
RAINFALL I EVAPORATION C-3
U 1924 1925 1,
Total Rainfall 74.73 Toral Ra.;if'al 68.44
S. Evaporation 4&81" Evaporation 44.77

so
9

7 7'



04

Jan. eb. Mar. Apr May JuneJuly Aug. ept Oct Nov. Dec Jn.J. Feb. Ma Apr May June July Auq.Sep .Oct Nov. Dec.
'4 14
3. 1926 19Z7 ^
Total Rainfall 71.73 T.I-l Ranfall 44.5(o"
SEvaportion 49.30 E" ,. ao", 'LO



7. 'I



ll : I I I ,j


Janc Feb. Mar Apr. May-lurieJuly Au9.Sepr Oct Nov. Dec. J.n. Fteb ror Apr. June Jiulj Afg. Sefp. Oct Nov Dee.









BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DIST WEST PALM BEACH STATION
RAINFALL IW EVAPORATION C
14 14
la, 19als 0
I,- Total Rainfoll 59.4
Evaporation 56.3
o- 10

8 8
77


4 4.




I 241
LAKE. OKE.ECHOBEE: STATIONS
5?8 1 3
a Total Roinfoll 68.1
Total Evaporation G5.d.
10 10
00
n 9
al- 8
7 7

4.4

3


0
don. Feb Mar. Apr Mi June duly Aug Seft Oct Nov Dec









- --- El oL., ions Phow n (os(C 9) US L n, s. Datum- Rw Chad oote Harbor lea -1
s .. .1 M L W 4uIf of MMXcac 31910
7_j Fro- R.o'o-y Coe-pan,,seo
4-J W f~oe-qlddes Dra~o --


-Z-7





143C


31
N
* ;^


'A


I -


E33
E^


1 ~ -'I


N


25 \

o -


V- .- N


27 Q
C

2BOD


:

I09


29 3
P


30O


32


147

8'


EAST
LAKME








so Cypr-ss
La6e

a a Ine&a L.
t0l


-Av
7! 74


\ __-I



I -
r


P-L769


S


5 77 S

67 i2


I"6"~


~er


1


CE:




a~keMaruc


(68)
079


a

I
74!


ISA


ra7


63"? e~ii


oiic/leJ
;1:


04
^'
*^D


M-


SI ,) -~


I A5~


IsO
C3


00
0


sr


00-V 2 -A 2
34 o 6- \ -



S35 -\6
--36- EB^ "" ,L ,s




-7- -: -: O Er.. CHOBIE1




L AI
409 H\
S7
_.-I e, 0Y KF EVCRt-5 ANAID 0 3TICT
_, *-_ o \ \ B\






K. -OBEOBE









SH EN 'Observation I.

Clo osoatchee A".R U I





WATER, NORMAL CONDITIONS --- ARA N SQUAR E

I Fisheahing Creek and Indian Prairie -...... 880 -. -*i
3 Taylor Creek ..-- -17 Area5 I,2,34 417S-q.Miles
o -o















39 Ki ee --- 5 ou Shore Wa'ershed o .












oLake Okeechobee 730o ,
Total Area o Watershed 4176 Toal S'
A E Kream.rn 1.





--WATERSHED, NORMAL CONDITIONS ---AREA IN SQUARE MILE.5Y I
I Fisheating Creek and Indian Prairie- 880
2 Lake Isokpoqa __ -- 654 -WATERSHED UNDER FLOOD CONDITIONS-
3 Taylor C0-eek -17 Areas 1,2,3&4 4176 Sq.Miles
4Kiosimmee- --.-------- ^5 Soutt Shore Warershed 300 .
Lake Okeechobee 730
Tofal Area of Watershed- -4176 Tbral FZ06 .


Area of Lake Okeechobee- - -30
TOTAL AREA OF DRAINAGE BASIN-- -- 4906


OFFICE oF THE CHIEF DRAINAGE ENGINEER,
TALLAHA55EE FLORIDA 19'7 cm


26
23


146







z)


I


U


I -


i


J


lr I


,-z lr


i k r"


I 7 j


O


A


- -I


3,\










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


LAKE OUTLETS

Lake Okeechobec is the second largest body of fresh
water wholly within the United States. It is nearly cir-
cular in form, having an average diameter of about 31
miles and a superficial area of approximately 730 square
miles. Its maximum depth with the lake at 18 feet above
sea level is 18 feet. The bottom of the lake at its greatest
depth therefore is at sea level. Its average depth might
be taken at about 8 to 12 feet. The normal elevation of
the lake before drainage operations began was 20.5 feet
above the sea and usually fluctuated through a vertical
range of 2 to 3 feet between high water in the rainy
season and low water in the dry season. It occupies a
large shallow depression in an extremely flat surrounding
country.
The lake is the catch basin receiving the runoff from
its watershed to the northward which has an area of 4,176
square miles. To the above should be added a secondary
watershed around the south shore of the lake having an
area of 300 square miles, and the lake itself of 730 square
miles. The total area as above under flood conditions
amounts to 5,206 square miles. The water from the north-
ern watershed finds its way to the lake principally through
the Kissimmee River and valley, and also through Taylor
Creek, Fisheating Creek and by direct surface drainage
not confined within definite channels.
Since storm periods are those of primary importance in
connection with flood control, it is necessary to give partic-
ular consideration to heavy rainfall as producing high lake
levels, which in combination with hurricanes are produc-
tive of disastrous floods. Rainfall periods for the years
1922, 1924, 1926, and 1928, are shown in detail on dia-
grams for those years. The diagrams disclose similar
characteristics for each rainfall period, the difference being
chiefly of degree, depending on their relative intensity, dur-
ation and distribution.
These diagrams largely relate their own stories. Among
other things they reflect the value of Lake Okeechobee as
a great reservoir within which storm waters may be tem-
porarily stored. Each of these diagrams discloses that
during limited periods much larger volumes of water
pour into Lake Okeechobee than can be removed within
it by discharge outlets capable of being provided within














k- ,-fk-i. : .-:-i A:'C ,T _-,. S P.Z.Z--f. '"1 --,= jK' -, .. P'_ ,- Ti' :i S ,; : '. ".


l'- .-. :- ---- -

,_ .f.;8 :" i 1r i-s-- 'I,: *-.

1 7' /"I .,
^" ] '"
^^.^ ^ ^ ^ 77" jIt-*: :::


(p.;-~


-I4/S. 1st


1- i1 1 4-i ------


-y. rr "-g.; '-.'


--: ,. .- ;n .. '
I .... I ... ... .



amr^ ^ jJ? f4ft i &T'~ -;'' :r *:"'. -:-: 5 7 tt = -*l *

tk T ] I Ii Ii Ir
.. ..6' . ] .. :. .


~ji- .1


w
H'


>>
z



z
=r<



0
H
4ti
0




['3
M



,-S

co
e.aD
c-'
oo


.4,.


";~Tii-


CWY-ttti it~ i


I I 1 I





~{J2IIJ -4 IIC

0; t
T- r 41

0 4 I



-0 H 'T,
4, 414"t

;t! V :: i i
2 4~Vh ~~4V -A W T4


Or 4'- IY K4
im~I 1I l1 f
173419 Fo 17
*1 d




)21
-~1 00 <1
S.,~L 9r~i 4,70 ,:




i,: t
I4 4
a H~t T~ti 4rfi~t4 111t- 1-:i- Ii I; I
*f HI ~ ft



iji ~~/ iif;z.~ ~
I-'4 I






w ;1;. LEtrr:f&_4
. .
L 4 1, i:

I $,r '< l .I.-.

... .... / 1 -
-D miT V7 'A C^4.4 s it
:L-V -j
fr -T ,
Q'J}J-fr~ N41'- Iii.
I~ FIZ '_ I



7 '] '' H
t I
4 I( .... .I
4~~ ~~ ~ 'hi fl 19-~~


t _< I
u t






t~~ttdrv,~~4 3in41 17: .Im't _____4r,
71,-I tji. ':, __7__ _

17 r 4 A 4X lN
-T::I I -









~,-4- ~ )-4
-.6:0 141 __7-0. Itr'.,

-T 4r !24 I
mirt'4 4z i rit~f~ 7--
,c 7N17Oz,100 14,12- 7_


J14: __ir iie



-I-. -... ....t
I- Ili_:r: r~- 7"T7;

-m- -- 4 :1
Iril T





LAKE OKEE-CHOBEE.


DAILY RECORD JULY IST' TO DECEMBER 31ST-


OFFICE OF CHIEF DRAINAGE ENGINE
TALLAHASSEE FLA. JAN. 929








fAILY RlECORID sEETn
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUAN JULY LU NY RYrMER OCYARER NOVUISR RRCflfl
i I 0 1 10 1 1 1 1 I 1 2I 1.... 10 iS 2 .1. 1.0 i. 140 1 .. > -f



SLt 14
44.1 -I |
..il-H 1:. -_-:--: ..[ =.._.-- i t_ M C'-.-A 1,, : ;---_..., -,.__ fl..
T:CE-.I:_ -T-- -iV. I '.t^.. 5-


S-r ,--.._;. v,, ;.-: .. -- .. : &- ] -_ -
-t:.- "...... -4 "- 0- ..--
4.. .. .: .7 .. ... ..





F-J
_-7 -- L -- --I--t--S--- 4 r--"1 ~. -s-4-2
.. ---- .- .....-- .

'-" V. t- i-"E CO. :HM 7:1I7





-I 1. 4y iaH i
--' '- : r ... !.. ---: i:- .l ., -:


... If .k .. ... .

JAUR IRRAII 1C* N APRL MA* JUL YL AUTURY BIPYLNRRR ARrORAS SOOKARER 151































14











il













N 34I










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


any reasonable limit of cost. In the year 1922, the average
of the 10 day maximum coming into the lake was 25,800
cubic feet per second; in 1924, the quantity was 51,600; in
1926 it amounted to 21,200; and in 1928, a year unlike
any preceding in that there were two separate intense
rainstorms, there was a maximum 10 day inflow of 44,680
cubic feet per second for the first storm and 42,500 for
the second. The Saint Lucie Canal as completed has a dis-
charge capacity of 5,000 cubic feet per second, with lake
elevation 17 feet. This discharge capacity to accommodate
51,000 cubic feet per second necessary for holding the lake
at an unchanged level at the end of a 10 day period under
such conditions, would require 10 canals such as the Saint
Lucie at a cost of around $60,000,000.00. By reason of
lake storage it is unnecessary to discharge waters from it
at anything like the rate at which it is supplied.
For periods of 90 days water was supplied to the lake at
the following average rates:

1922- 9,800 cubic feet per second.
1924- 8,300 cubic feet per second.
1926- 7,100 cubic feet per second
1928-15,310 cubic feet per second.

In the above, evaporation losses are accounted for. The
total addition to Lake Okeechobee during the 90-day period
for 1928 was greater than for any other year of record.
The elevation of the lake at the beginning of the 1928 flood
period was 13.7. The addition of the above volume to the
lake with no lake discharge would have raised its level 6.2
feet, or to elevation 19.9. To have controlled the level of
the lake within three feet in 90 days under those conditions
would have required discharging from the lake during that
time an average of 8,400 cubic feet per second. 5,000 cubic
feet per second of that amount has already been provided
for through Saint Lucie Canal. The remaining discharge
which would have been necessary for holding the lake to a
3-foot rise under the conditions imposed during 1928, would
be 3,400 cubic feet per second.
A total discharge from the lake of 7,500 cubic feet per
second would have controlled the lake during the storm
period of 1928, within a range of 3.4 feet. On August 7th,
the beginning of the first storm, the lake was at elevation
13.7 feet. With a total available discharge as above the









BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


lake would have reached elevation 17.1 feet. The elevation
actually attained, with Saint Lucie Canal as is, was 18.5
feet.
The Saint Lucie Canal as at present constructed has a
discharge capacity from Lake Okeechobee with the lake at
elevation 17.0 feet of five thousand cubic feet per second.
For providing total discharge capacity of 7,500 cubic feet
per second either:

1. Enlarge Saint Lucie Canal to a total of 7,500
cubic feet per second at an estimated cost of $1,-
224,000.00 for lake level regulation to 18 feet, or,
$1,474,000.00 for 16 foot level.

Or,

2. Leave Saint Lucie Canal as is and enlarge Caloosa-
hatchee Canal so that its discharge capacity will be
2,500 cubic feet per second at an estimated cost of
$937,600.00 for lake level regulation to 18 feet, or
$1,185,000.00 for 16-foot level for work within the
boundaries of Everglades Drainage District.

The second plan requires improvement of Caloosahatchee
River west of the boundary of Everglades Drainage Dis-
trict to such extent as will enable the said river to take
care of the added water from Lake Okeechobee. This plan
is therefore contingent upon some other agency undertak-
ing that portion of the work outside of the Everglades
Drainage District. The estimated cost of the same is ap-
proximately $1,500,000.00. Caloosahatchee River is a
navigable waterway of the United States and has been the
subject of improvement by the Federal government from
time to time.
Of the above alternative plans, the preference is for im-
proving the Caloosahatchee Canal and River for the fol-
lowing reasons:

1. The cost of improvement within Everglades Drain-
age District is less and may be undertaken more
economically by the District, provided some other
agency undertakes the necessary improvement to
Caloosahatchee River outside of Everglades Drain-
age District.









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


2. Additional territory will be opened up and bene-
fitted by the improvement to Caloosahatchee Canal
and River, while the improvement to Saint Lucie
Canal will not affect adjacent territory.
3. The improvement to Caloosahatchee Canal and
River resulting in a minimum navigable depth of
six feet through this channel would afford the re-
maining connection for a valuable navigable water-
way across Florida.
4. Experience during the hurricane of 1926, and 1'l2,
and records of other hurricanes indicate that the
paths of maximum disturbance are commonly 35 to
45 miles in width. That the direction of translation
of such storms is, in a large majority of cases, from
the southeast toward the northwest: that since the
Saint Lucie and Caloosahatchee Canal and River
have opposite directions more or less at right angles
to the usual path of hurricanes and are separated
by more than 30 miles between their nearest ends,
and greater distances through their further reaches,
it is unlikely that any one hurricane will- seriously
damage both waterways, but that if Saint Lucie
Canal is in the path of the storm, the Caloosa-
hatchee outlet will escape, and vice versa. Hence,
if one of these waterways received damage which
reduces its discharge capacity from the lake, the
other will escape and will be intact for serving to
its full capacity. Control outlets from opposite
sides of the lake are advisable.

Cost of Lake Okeechobee control works to be provided
in Everglades Drainage District, based upon lake level up
to 18 feet.

LAKE OKEECIIOBEE LEVEE (Elevation 31 feet.)
18 foot Basis

Earth Rock
South Shore, subic yards ....... 4,922,000 1,970,000
West Shore, cubic yards ........ 5,632,000 2,505,000
North Shore, cubic yards ...... 1,932,000 630,000
East Shore, cubic yards ........ 1,964,000 1,059,000

Total cubic yards ............ 14,450.00 6,164,000










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


COST

14,450,000 c.y. of earth @ 13c ............ $1,878,500.00
6,164,000 c.y. of rock @ 60c ............. 3,698,400.00

Total ............................... $5,576,900.00
Storm Gates at Moore Haven .... $ 30,000
Storm Gates at Taylor Creek ... 30,000
Improvements to locks .......... 100,000

Total ....................... $ 160,000.00

$5,736,900.00
Plus 10% for incidentals ...... 573,690.00

Cost .... .................... $6,310,590.00

OUTLETS

(a) Enlargement Saint Lucie Canal 2,448,000
cu. yds. @ 50e ................... .$1,224,000.00
Protection to Saint Lucie Canal ....... 175,000.00
Plus 10% .......................... 139,000.00

Total St. Lucie Plan ............ $7,849,490.00
(b) Enlargement Caloosahatchee Canal in
District, 3,356,800 cu. yds. @ 26c .... $ 872,560.00
Improvement to locks and spillways ... 65,000.00
Protection to Saint Lucie Canal ...... 175,000.00
Plus 10% ........................... 111,256.00

Total Caloosahatchee Plan .......... $7,534,406.00
(c) Including (b) and adding cost of Caloosa-
hatchee River outside of District ....... $9,034,400.00

Since the District is not authorized by law to undertake
works primarily for navigation, the above includes no new
channels for developing continuous navigable depths with
those works. Additional work for that purpose consisting
of Caloosahatchee channel in Lake Okeechobee and chan-
nel in Saint Lucie River would cost approximately $345,-
000.00.










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


Based upon lake level up to 16 feet.

LAKE OKEECHOBEE LEVEE-(Elevation 28 Feet)
16 foot Basis


(A) South Shore-Bacom Point to 3
miles N. W. of Moore Haven: Cubic Yards
Earth ..................... 2,883,400
R ock ........................ 1,489,
(B) Bacom Point to Florida East
East Coast Railway 11/2 miles
south of Canal Point:
Earth ....................... 522,000
R ock ........................ 215
(C) North of Moore Iaven and west
to Atlantic Coast Line Grade:
Earth ....................... 347,000
R ock ........................ 193
(D) North Shore:
Earth ..................... 1,647,000
Rock ........................ .673.


Totals-
Earth ...................... 5,399,400
R ock .... . . .


900


,800



,000


.000


2,571,700


COST

5,399,400 cu. yds. of Earth @ 13c ......... .$ 701,922.00
2,571,700 cu. yds. of Rock @ 60c ........... 1,543,020.00

Total ................................. $2,244,942.00
Storm Gates all canals (lump sum):
1 @ 32,000 ................ $32,000
5 @ 16,000 ................. 80,000 $ 112,000.00

Total Cost ......................... $2,356,942.00
Plus 10% for incidentals ............... 235,694.20

Cost .................................. $2,592,636.20










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


OUTLETS

(a) Enlargement Saint Lucie Canal 2,948,-
000 cu. yds. @ 50c ................ .$1,47400.00
Protection to Saint Lucie Canal ....... 175,000.00
Plus 10% ........................... 164,900.00

Total Cost St. Lucie Plan ........... $4,406,536.20
(b) Enlargement Caloosahatchee Canal in
District, 4,308,000 cu. yds. @ 26e ...... $1,120,000.00
Improvement Caloosahatchee, 3 locks and
spillway .......................... 65,000.00
Protection to Saint Lucie Canal ....... 175,000.00
Plus 10% ........................... 136,000.00

Total Cost Caloosahatchee Plan ...... $4,088,632.20
(c) Including (b) and adding cost of Caloosa-
hatchee River outside of District at $1,-
500,000.00 ........................ $5,588,632.20

Since the District is not authorized by law to undertake
works primarily for navigation, the above includes no new
channels for developing continuous navigable depths with
those works. Additional works consisting of Caloosa-
hatchee Channel in Lake Okeechobee and channel in Saint
Lucie River for that purpose would cost about $345,000.00.
The following is a comparison of the two flood control
plans outlined above:
LAKE LEVEL BASIS 18 FEET, LEVEE ELEVATION
31 FEET

ADVANTAGES.-Favorable to navigation. Larger water
water supply for irrigation and other purposes.
DISADVANTAGES.-Cost $3,400,000 more than the lower
lake level plan. Less favorable to drainage of lands ad-
jacent to the lake. Inherent added danger from high lake
levels.

LAKE LEVEL BASIS 16 FEET, LEVEE ELEVATION
28 FEET

ADVANTAGEs.-Cost $3,400,000 less than high lake level
plan. Favorable to drainage of lands near Lake Okee-
chobee. Greater safety due to lower lake levels.





































SfEPAGE DIAGRAM
TEST5 AT EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION,
RELATIVE TO IRRIGATION, BY HOLDING WATER IN DITCH FROM
.G' TO 3.3' HIGHER THAN NORMAL GROUND WATER LEVEL


OFFICE OF CHIEF DRAINAGE ENrINEi.l TALLAHASSEE










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


DISADVANTAGES.-Less favorable to navigation. Di-
minished supply of water for irrigation and other purposes.
With respect to the above items, the comparison in costs
speaks for itself. The difference to navigation between
the two plans can be largely eliminated by adding two feet
to the depths of the lake channels. These channels must
be provided in either case if the navigation feature is to
be fully harmonized. The difference in cost of the lake
channels would not exceed 8% of the difference in cost be-
tween the two control plans. In other words, at a cost
not exceeding $350,000 the unfavorableness of the lower
lake plan to navigation can be eliminated. Since the chief
advantage of the higher lake level plan is for navigation,
it would be necessary to show that the difference in favor
of navigation is worth $3,000,000. The advantage of the
higher lake level plan in making available larger quantities
of water for irrigation and other purposes is worth con-
sidering. That there would be advantages from the stand-
point of irrigation is conceded. That there would be any
worth while difference for other purposes is doubtful. The
idea that high lake levels have favorable effect in affording
greater fire protection is erroneous except as to the lands im-
mediately along the lake rim within seepage distance of the
lake. A difference of two feet in lake levels can have no ma-
terial influence upon "ground water levels in lands more
than one-fourth of a mile from the lake. In support of
above see "seepage diagram." The water levels in the
various canals have far greater influence upon fire control.
These canals are separated from the lake by locks and spill-
ways. The prevailing water levels in the canals on the
downstream side from the locks will be lower than the
level of the lake in either case. It would be expecting
too much of Lake Okeechobee to attribute any material in-
fluence from that lake upon lands miles away in so far as
ground water levels are concerned.
The plan of lower lake levels is more favorable to drain-
age of lands near Lake Okeechobee for the reason that
gravity drainage would be permitted a greater portion of
the time, the length of time necessary to provide drainage
by pumping would be reduced, and the head pumped
against would be less. While it is not argued that the
higher lake level plan is unsafe, yet in lower lake levels
lies even greater safety.
Either of the above plans, or any modification within
those limits, is practicable, but taking everything into con-










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT 53






34 3, 33 33 34 13 1 37 30 30 *0 41 41 43



-34
7 .
--3-----

;II '



-i LAAF oJliE(VIoBFE
4, c







43M4

Is3 -----rF
jt
43. F~.... -



IIs



A -
.7 *1 'S. 1 ~ i

3 3 ''3' i














---- -------









T'4T
Is















s3 33 3C 35 3. 37 S6 as 40 A, AZ 43


\JTIONS MAP PRESENTING

OoiotC4r~2'. oS Ls. .otAp.H.o-f~r' Wk., 6nd
OFT 07EST3NG LOCK & '33 ho-n,r, 33130 50423033 Urrits of Aro t- V2S;kb Swc, Worsk
DAM A31-d Ade33I Dr~--$. Of.b.+.
A-oro'3,p o, teS0 S'2 o
EVERGLADE.5 EN3SIhER)NG 50ARDO OF REVIEW
9.331 r~~3$ MAY 192T.
.5 0 5 33 5


F1MiURE No. Z










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


sideration, this office favors the plan of control under the
lower levels.

DRAINAGE WORK PROPER

This subject will not be dwelt upon at length in this re-
port as the same has had sufficient consideration in the
Biennial Report, 1925-1926; also in the report of the
Everglades Engineering Board of Review. In both of
those reports the recommendation is made that the drain-
age work be proceeded with progressively by completing
the drainage of limited areas from time to time according
to the needs of lands for settlement and colonization. Areas
aggregating 490,000 acres can be made ready, so far as
main drainage works are concerned, in a period of two
years at a cost of $4,000,000. At present there is no neces-
sity for the drainage of lands at so rapid a rate. By
proceeding with drainage progressively under a plan of re-
stricted areas, the amount of land drained from year to
year can be regulated to meet the needs therefore. In order
to provide for a four years working schedule under a pro-
gressive system, it is recommended that up to $4,000,000
be provided to that purpose, or at the approximate rate of
$1,000,000 per year, until it is shown that either an excess
or a deficiency of land will result, whereupon the rate of
work could be adjusted accordingly.

LEGISLATION

Since the Legislature meets every two years and pro-
vision is made from time to time by Legislative Act for
carrying on the District's work, arrangements are usually
worked out for a period of two years, with tentative plans
for four years. $10,000,000 of bonds will suffice to take
care of the District's needs as those needs are now deter-
minable. Such would include flood control for Lake Okee-
chobee, a suitable schedule for progressive land drainage,
and provide the Board with funds for paying its outstand-
ing obligations not covered by bonds to the extent of $2,-
100,000. Sufficient taxes have already been imposed by
the Legislature to take care of bond issue of $10,000,000
in addition to the bonded debt now outstanding. No in-
crease in taxes is necessary.
Chapter 12016, Acts of 1927, authorized the issuance of a









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


total of $20,000,000 of additional bonds. Under this Act
bonds to the extent of $10,000,000 might be issued from
time to time as needed for taking care of the above sched-
ule; or, if more satisfactory, the Act might be amended to
limit the proposed bond issue to $10,000,000; or, if neither
of the above plans is deemed advisable, the above Act might
be repealed if circumstances justify so doing, and a new
law enacted authorizing the issuance of $10,000,000 of
bonds, or such other amount as the board may deem ad-
visable.
In considering works of flood control for the District,
there appears probability that the United States will join
therein. To what extent is not now known. In anticipa-
tion of the United States participating in such work, it
would be advisable to secure State legislation specifically
authorizing Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drain-
age District to join and co-operate with the United States
in works of flood control for Lake Okeechobee to such extent
and in such manner as the said Board may deem advan-
tageous and advisable and to enter into such arrangements
or agreement with the United States as in their judgment
may be necessary, subject to the limitations of Everglades
Drainage District laws, and also carrying authority for
the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage Dis-
trict to hypothecate, sell or otherwise dispose of to the
United States bonds of Everglades Drainage District,
either interest bearing or non-interest bearing, as the said
Board may deem advantageous and in such amounts and
under such arrangements as may be determined by the
Board.
Such legislation would place upon the Board nothing
mandatory but would vest in the Board such authority as
would be needed for making it possible for Everglades
Drainage District to take advantage of the opportunity
which favorable action on the part of the Congress would
present. In addition to legislation last above outlined
must come an Act, also above referred to, for the issuance
of bonds.
Anticipating participation by the United States in works
of flood control for Lake Okeechobee and assuming the
proportion of local contribution which has been suggested
by certain Senators and Representatives of Congress based
upon precedent in other cases, the set-up for the needs of
the District as at present determinable is as follows:










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


Estimated remaining cost of flood control
for Lake Okeechobee, including levees,
outlets, and connecting channels ...... $10,000,000
Expenditures already made by Everglades
Drainage District for flood control and
navigation .......................... 8,000,000

Total estimated cost .................. $18,000,000
Basis Local and State 2/3 ............. $12,000,000
Less credit already expended ............ 8,000,000
Balance to be provided local and state .... 4,000,000
Balance to be provided Federal ......... 6,000,000
Therefore, for Everglades Drainage Dis-
District as previously referred to in this
report:
Flood control for Lake Okeechobee ..... 4,000,000
New drainage work proper (Tentative
schedule, 4 yrs.) ................... 4,000,000
Liquidating District's notes .......... 2,000,000

Total ............................ $10,000,000
If more favorable arrangements with the Federal govern-
ment than those above outlined can be secured, then so
much the better for the district, but at this time it appears
advisable for the District to be prepared to the above extent
so that when the time comes it will be in position to take
advantage of the best arrangement which can be secured
from the Congress. By all means the District should be
prepared to seize this opportunity for Federal aid when it
is presented.
Two questions have been asked by many in the Congress
of the United States:
"What part has the State itself taken directly in
this enterprise?"
and
"What part can the State (not Everglades Drain-
age District) take in a possible joint arrangement as
between the United States, the Everglades Drainage
District and the State?"
The first question is answered later in Part II of this
report. The answer to the second will depend on what










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


action the State Legislature may take, if any, in reference
to direct participation on the part of the State in the
drainage of the Everglades. That the Legislature will look
favorably toward appropriating money from the general
revenue, based upon a State millage for that purpose and
donating such sum directly to defraying a part of the
cost of that work is perhaps unlikely. It may be that the
Legislature would view with approval a measure by which
the proceeds from a State millage of possibly 1/4 or 1/5
of a mill would be turned over to the Trustees of the In-
ternal Improvement Fund for paying so much as it would
of the drainage taxes upon lands of the State. While
such would not be in the nature of a contribution to any
drainage work, it would greatly assist the Trustees in pay-
ing drainage taxes which the law requires the Trustees to
pay. Such it is believed might be justified from the stand-
point of good business in preserving the lands to the State
by permitting such lands to be held till they increase in
value by reason of the drainage works for which they
are taxed, rather than getting tax money by selling the
land piecemeal at low prices prior to their becoming
drained. Postponement of sale of such lands until after
drainage would result in better prices for them and a
better money return to the State. Such provision for tax
money would be accepted by the United States as direct
State aid.
There is another way by which the State may participate,
and without any draft upon the general revenue or resort
to a State tax. That is by making available a proper part
of the proceeds from lands other than swamp lands toward
paying drainage taxes on State owned lands in the Ever-
glades. Information is that the United States would accept
such as a State contribution. If so, and the payment is
extended over a period of years through the process of
annual drainage taxes supporting bonds of the District as
is proposed, there would be forthcoming funds from such
source therefore. Drainage taxes on State lands are now
paid out of proceeds of the sale of swamp lands. The
United States will not credit as a State contribution pro-
ceeds of the swamp and overflow lands because these lands
were granted to the State by the Federal government for
that purpose and with the specific condition in the grant
that the proceeds thereof be applied to that purpose. The
other lands referred to include those which the State owns










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


in its sovereign capacity, such as lake bottom lands, tidal
and submerged lands to such extent as the proceeds there-
from have not been otherwise appropriated by statute.
The application of proceeds from other lands to the pay-
ment of drainage district taxes on the Trustees' swamp
lands in the Everglades, as above stated, will be accepted
by the United States as actual State participation. Legis-
lative authority to the Trustees to apply such funds to the
payment of drainage taxes on their swamp lands and
partly to a district sinking fund would provide a way by
which the State could participate directly without a State
lax or without draft upon the general revenue of the
State.
Such methods of State participation is by way of sug-
gestion to the Trustees and to the Drainage Board for their
consideration. Participation by the State in the Ever-
glades would strengthen the whole situation and assist in
influencing the Federal government to participate also.
It would remove the question coming from Washington as
to the why of the propriety of Federal aid for the Ever-
glades while Florida withholds State aid from that under-
taking.









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


PART II

Part II deals in a brief historical way with the Ever-
glades as they came to the State from the Federal govern-
ment, as Everglades Drainage District was created by State
law out of a part of the Internal Improvement Fund Lands
and other lands, as the District has operated as a govern-
mental unit, and as the reclamation of the area has de-
veloped along economic lines, showing by periods of years
its progress and changes as collateral to and as resulting
from drainage.
The advancement of the District is shown by its increase
in population, enhancement in property values, progress
in agriculture, in the construction of roads, railroads, tele-
phone and telegraph lines, and its development along
divers lines. Reference is made to the progressive in-
crease in the security of the District as related to its bonded
debt; to district drainage taxes supporting the District's
bonds: and to other subjects having bearing upon the Dis-
trict as it evolved from its former condition of practically
watery waste through its transformation in part to a land
of homes, farms, municipalities or communities, having
the various advantages and conveniences of modern civil-
ization, and with its accompanying problems.
The subject is touched upon in its principal or important
features only. IIigh lights are brought out. Details, even
though significant and taken as a whole of great import-
ance, are purposely omitted.
Statements of facts are in most cases accompanied by
reference to the authority upon which such statements are
based. Frequent quotations have been made from the offi-
cial records of the Trustees and of the Drainage Board as
being the best evidence of their official acts. Conclusions
and opinions, where given, are supported by documentary
or other reliable evidence for which references have been
freely given to admit of full verification, and with all, the
subject is treated as briefly as seems practicable.

GENERAL
Iow FLORIDA CAME INTO POSSESSION OF ITS SWAMI' AND
OVERFLOWED LANDS
By Act of Congress approved September 28th, 1850,
known as the "Swamp and Overflowed Land Grant Act,"










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


there came to several States of the Union by grant from
the Federal government under the said Act, certain lands
designated as Swamp and Overflowed Lands. Among the
states authorized to receive lands under the above grant
was Florida, and under the said Act there have come to
this State from time to time by patents an aggregate of 20,-
424,972.87 acres of swamp and overflowed land, among
which are the Everglades. (See Biennial Report, Com-
missioner of Agriculture, July 1, 1928.) The Act of Con-
gress above referred to attached a condition to the grant
in the following language:

(9 U. S. Statute L 519-520.) "that the proceeds of
said lands, whether from sale or by direct appropria-
tion in kind, shall be applied exclusively as far as
necessary, to the purpose of reclaiming the said lands
by means of levees and drains aforesaid."

For the purpose above defined were the lands granted to
the said States.
The Act of the Legislature of Florida in reference to the
lands thus granted to the State under the Act of Con-
gress as above, may be found under Chapter 610, Laws of
Florida, approved June 6th, 1855. The introduction of
the Act is in the following language:

"WHEREAS, the Constitution of this State declares
that a liberal system of internal improvements being
essential to the development of the resources of the
country shall be encouraged by the government of
this State, and it shall be the duty of the General
Assembly as soon as practicable to ascertain by Law
proper objects of improvements in relation to roads,
canals and navigable streams and to provide for a
suitable application of such funds as may be appro-
priated for such improvements."

Section 16 of the above Act contains the following:

"That the Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Fund shall hereafter fix the price of the public lands
included in the trust and shall make such
arrangements for the drainage of the swamp and over-
flowed lands as, in their judgment, may be most ad-









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


vantageous to the Internal Improvement Fund and
the settlement and cultivation of the land *"

The above was the official expression of the State through
the Legislature of the acceptance of the grant from the
United States to the State. Thus Florida in accepting the
grant and the lands inuring thereunder, accepted the con-
ditions attached thereto, and as between two sovereign
powers, was bound by the same. Pursuant to the Act of
Congress as above and the Act of the Legislature just
referred to, in March 1903, preliminary steps were taken
by Honorable W. S. Jennings, Governor of Florida, toward
securing for the State the swamp and overflowed lands
known as the Everglades. (Message of Governor W. S. Jen-
nings to the Legislature of Florida relative to reclamation
of Everglades, April 7, 1903.) Formal application for patent
was submitted to the United States on April 6th, 1903, (See
Patent No. 137) and pursuant to above application there
was issued by the Federal government to the State of Flor-
ida said Patent No. 137 dated April 29, 1903, conveying
title in fee simple to the lands comprising the Everglades.
embracing an estimated aggregate area of 2,862,080 acres.
The description of the lands covered by the patent was
by metes and bounds. Within these metes and bounds all
sections numbered 16 not otherwise conveyed had previously
inured to the State School Fund by Act of Congress, March
3rd, 1845.

THE STATUS OF SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED LANDS AND THEIR
ADMINISTRATION BY THE STATE
By Chapter 610, Laws of Florida, Acts of the Legislature
approved January 6th, 1855, entitled "An Act to Provide
for and Encourage a Liberal System of Internal Improve-
ments in This State," the lands which had theretofore come
and thereafter to inure to the said State from the United
States by Act of Congress of September 28, 1850, were "set
apart and declared a distinct and separate fund to be called
the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida,"
and "said lands and all the funds arising from the sale
thereof.... are hereby irrevocably vested in five trustees,
to-wit: The Governor of this State, the Controller of Pub-
lic accounts, the State Treasurer, the Attorney General, and
Registrar of State Lands (Commissioner of Agriculture),
and their successors in office."










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


The administration of the Internal Improvement Fund
was provided for under the above Act and the said Act
makes reference to ".proper objects of improvement in re-
lation to roads, canals, and navigable streams, and to pro-
vide for a suitable application of such funds as may be
appropriated from such improvements."
In accordance with the foregoing law known as "The
Internal Improvement Fund Act," the Trustees have ad-
ministered the fund to the present date.
In 1901 the Trustees began a more definite policy of ad-
ministering the lands of the fund with respect to drainage.
As a result of the same, suits were instituted in 1902 by
land claimants under statutory grants to require the Trus-
tees to make specific conveyance under these legislative land
grants and to restrain the Trustees from applying the lands
or the funds therefrom to their drainage and reclamation.
(See Everglades of Florida, Senate Document 89, 62nd
Congress, Pages 12 and 13.)
Question having arisen as to the status of these lands
with respect to drainage and the duties and powers of the
Trustees in reference thereto, the said Trustees adopted on
November 21st, 1904, a Resolution setting forth their policy
in reference to the swamp and overflowed lands of the State
and their interpretation of their powers and duties regard-
ing the trust fund irrevocably vested in them under the
Internal Improvement Fund Act. A part of this Resolu-
tion is as follows:

(1) That the Trustees adhere strictly to the pro-
visions of the Act of January 6, 1855, Chapter 610,
Laws of Florida, as to their powers and duties and the
purposes for which said trust was created, and that
they will assert their rights and defend the title to the
lands granted and irrevocably vested in them for the
purpose therein set forth, of reclaiming said lands by
means of levees and drains."'
(See Minutes of Trustees, Volume 7, Page 267.)
The outcome of the suits referred to briefly was, "that
said Trustees shall have the right to sell or otherwise dispose
of said lands . for the purpose of using the proceeds
for purposes of drainage and reclamation .... The above
is covered in an order of the United States Court, May 2nd,
1907. Thus the contention of the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund "has been expressly sustained by the









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


courts and does not appear to be longer a question of con-
troversy." (See Minutes of Trustees, Internal Improvement
Fund, Volume 7, Page 536, and 59 Florida 648.)
The foregoing deals generally with the swamp and over-
flowed lands granted to Florida by the Act of 1850 and
their administration as a whole throughout the State.

EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT
1905 to 1913

CREATING THE DISTRICT INTO A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT.

The Everglades, as differentiated from other lands of the
fund, may now be taken up.
The first drainage law was passed by the Legislature of
1905, approved by the Governor May 27th. This law created
a "Board of Drainage Commissioners" with authority "to
establish drainage districts and to fix the boundaries
thereof in the State of Florida" and "levy thereon an
acreage tax not exceeding 10 cents per acre per annum,"
and authorized and empowered the said commissioners "to
establish a system of canals, levees, drains, dykes and reser-
voirs . to drain and reclaim the swamp and overflowed
lands within the State of Florida." (Chapter 5377, Acts
of 1905.)
The United States Court ruled against the constitu-
tionality of the above law. (See Senate Document 89,
62D Congress, 1st Session, page 15.) In 1907 the Legisla-
ture passed an amendment, approved May 28th (Chapter
5709, Acts of 1907), curing the defects of the 1905 Act.
This Act as amended was sustained by the decision of the
United States Circuit Court and the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the litigation arising under the
former Act was settled. By the Act as amended, the
Legislature itself specifically created "Everglades Drainage
District," defined its boundaries, levied an annual tax of 5
cents per acre upon the lands of the District, and author-
ized the use of the proceeds of the said tax for draining
and reclaiming the lands within said District. Under this
Act the "Board of Drainage Commissioners instituted the
work of draining and reclaiming the Everglades."
Thus it will be seen that in respect to the Everglades the
condition attaching to the grant under the Act of Con-
gress of 1850 "that the proceeds of said lands, whether










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


from sale or by direct appropriation in kind, shall be ap-
plied exclusively so far as necessary, to the purpose of re-
claiming the said lands by means of levees and drains afore-
said," have been and are being complied with. Florida has
kept the faith and the Everglades "come with clean hands"
to their development.

DRAINAGE OPERATIONS IN THE EVERGLADES

Actual operations in the Everglades may be considered
as having begun when there was "caused to be constructed
the dredge Everglades which was launched at Fort Lauder-
dale, on the 4th day of July, 1906. Also the Dredge
Okeechobee which was launched during the month of
October, 1906." (Senate Document 89, page 16.) Also,
in reference to Dredges Caloosahatchee and Miami, launched
in 1908 and 1909'. (See Minutes of the Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Fund, Volume 7, page 293.)
The above dredges, operated by the Trustees and Drain-
age Commissioners, carried on the work of drainage in
the Everglades till July 1st, 1910, when dredging opera-
tions directly by the District were discontinued and super-
ceded by award of contract for all excavation, including
the sale of the dredges, to a dredging contractor. The
work performed from the beginning in 1906 till July 1st,
1910, by the District is represented by the following:

Name of Canal Miles Excavated
North New River Canal .................. 11.19
South New River Canal .................13.64
Miami Canal ........................... 4.25
(See report Chief Drainage Engineer to May 1st,
1911, Senate Document 89, page 200.)

The work above is represented by a total excavation of
3,848,000 cubic yards of material. (See Minutes of Trustees
of the Internal Improvement Fund, Volume 8, page 637.)

Note.-The foregoing omits mention of Caloosa-
hatchee Canal, re-dredging old Disston Cut, 15 miles,
but the excavation for the same is included in the
statement. The above estimate of excavation appears
to be approximately 168,636 cubic yards in excess.
The quantity ascertained by the engineer's office is










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


3,679,364 cubic yards, which quantity is shown by the
canal statement as the total excavation from July,
1906, till July, 1910.

During this period sale of Everglades land was greatly
stimulated and land values enhanced by the drainage
work. In 1908, the Trustees sold Everglades land at $1.25
per acre. (Minutes of Trustees, Volume 8, page 163.) "A
conservative estimate of the increase in the value of Ever-
glades land may be obtained by comparing the price of
$2.00 per acre realized by the State for the sales prior to
1909 with the price of $15.00 per acre obtained by the
State for lands sold in 1910." (Senate Document 89, page
17.)
In 1910 the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund
and Board of Drainage Commissioners entered into con-
tract, said contract becoming effective July 1st, 1910, for
the excavation of four canals requiring the removal of an
estimated wir.:... t.: amount of 19',000,000 cubic yards of
earth and rock for their completion. Work under this
contract began in July, 1910.
From 1906 until 1913 funds for prosecuting the drain-
age work were derived from two sources as shown by the
records as follows:

"First, the Everglades lands proper owned and
controlled by the Trustees of the Internal Improv-
ment Fund, who are authorized and fully empowered
under the Act of January 6th, 1855, to sell such lands
and apply the proceeds thereof to the purpose of
drainage and reclamation."

aud

"Second, the new and additional source of revenue
provided by the enactment of the Drainage Law (1905
amended in 1907) which assesses a tax on the area
included in the District of 5 cents per acre per annum,
furnishing an annual net revenue of approximately
$200,000.00."

During this period, as has been shown, funds for carry-
ing on the drainage work were provided partly from the
sale of State land and partly from Everglades Drainage
3-E. D. D.










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


District taxes levied on the lands of the District. The
Everglades tax was at the rate of 5 cents per acre per
annum. The assessment amounted to an average of $215,-
656.00 per annum for the six years, 1907, to 1912, inclusive.
From 1906, to July 1st, 1913, work in the Everglades
comprised in principal part the opening of 225.4 miles of
main drainage canals, representing the excavation of 18,-
871,364 cubic yards of earth and rock, the construction of
two concrete locks and dams, and the carrying on of drain-
age surveys and investigations. The total cost of the work
to July 1st, 1913, was, in round figures, $1,836,000.00. At
the beginning of drainage operations in 1907 to 1909, it
was shown that State lands in the Everglades sold for
$1.25 to $2.00 per acre on an average. The population of
the District taken from the United States census, 1910,
was 1,492, the greater part of which was along the coast
from Coconut Grove south. In 1913 the Trustees sold
10,634.22 acres of State land at an average price of
$15.45 per acre. (Report of Commissioner of Agriculture,
land sales 1913.) The area of the District in 19'13, to which
the drainage tax applied was 4,313,120 acres. On the basis
of land values represented by State land sales at $2.00 per
acre in 1908 and 1909, the District had a land value of $8,-
626,240.00. In 1913 based upon land values as indicated
by State land sales for that year, the District had a land
value of $66,647,704.00. It is certain that the drainage
work was the chief influence in this increase. Thus it will
be observed that concurrently with the expenditures of
$1,836,000.00 for drainage, land values in the district in-
creased on the basis above described about $58,000,000.00.
Neither the records of the Trustees of the Internal Im-
provement Fund nor of the Board of Commissioners of
Everglades Drainage District show what the assessed value
of lands in Everglades Drainage District was prior to 1915.
A statement by Board of Commissioners of Everglades
Drainage District dated June 1st, 1916, contains the fol-
lowing :

"The assessed valuation of the lands within the Dis-
trict for state and county purposes for the year 1915
was $9,690,800 approximately. These figures are taken
from the assessors' books of the various counties within
the District."










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


Prior to 1913, it may be stated for all practical purposes,
that the agricultural output in the nature of farm products
of the District was on so small a scale as to be of little or no
commercial value. In some instances, through precarious
farming operations, various truck crops were grown, princi-
pally by way of demonstration. The principal value of
these demonstrations was to support the original conclusion
of the Trustees and the Drainage Board that the lands of the
Everglades when reclaimed would be agriculturally valua-
ble. Drainage of the Everglades was based upon the as-
sumption that the lands when reclaimed would become
agriculturally valuable. Upon no other basis could there
be justification for their reclamation, involving a great ex-
penditure of time, money and energy. That this assump-
tion was well founded will be borne out further as shown
later in this report by the statement of farming operations
and the importance from a commercial and market stand-
point which the agricultural products of the country as-
sumed as drainage progressed.
The work under the Drainage Commissioners related en-
tirely to drainage. An important work having bearing upon
drainage and the description of land for taxation was car-
ried out by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund
at the expense of the fund. This consisted in the survey of
Everglades lands, included in the Everglades Patent No.
137. These lands came to the State as unsurveyed. The
land sales made by the Trustees of the Internal Improve-
ment Fund necessitated the making of surveys in this here-
tofore unsurveyed territory by which to locate, describe and
convey title to purchasers, and also for description in the
imposition of taxes. This work was initiated in 1911 under
"Instructions for Surveying the Lands Embraced in U. S.
Patent No. 137, Known as the Everglades," adopted by
the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund December
29th, 1910, and under "Amended Instructions," adopted
December 23rd, 1912. These surveys were based upon the
rectangular system adopted by the United States. To date
approximately 1,000,000 acres of Everglades lands have
been surveyed into townships and ranges, with the greater
portion subdivided into sections. These surveys have been
adopted as official by the Trustees, have been confirmed and
validated by Act of the Legislature (Chapter 7892, Laws
of Forida, Acts of 1919) and have been sustained by the
Supreme Court of this State, the opinion of which was










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States. (See case Hardee v. Horton, 90 Florida, Page 452.)
Drainage operations in the Everglades as dealt with
above, proceeded under the Act of 1905 as amended in 1907,
till 1913 when Chapter 6456, Acts of 1913, Laws of Florida,
approved June 6th, became effective. The following table
affords information in reference to assessment and collection
of Everglades Drainage District taxes from 1907 to 1912
inclusive.

EVERGLADES TAXES

ACREAGE TAX ACT OF 1905 As AMENDED IN 1907.

Year Total Levy Collected
1907 .............. .... $ 215,456.32 $ 197,529.66
1908 .................. 215,332.05 204,971.67
1909 .................. 214,620.99 179,779.19
1910 .................. 221,901.40 228,565.72
1911 .................. 216,144.93 226,903.88
1912 .................. 210,481.63 179,392.64

Total .............. $1,293,937.32 $1,217,142.76

Ratio of Collections to Total Levy ............. 94%
EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT As AT PRESENT EXISTING

Operation Under the 1913 Act.

Since 1913 funds for prosecuting the drainage work have
been obtained, with the exception of small amounts bor-
rowed temporarily on notes, subsequently repaid, by pro-
ceeds of drainage district taxes used either as direct tax
money or as derived from the sale of bonds based upon
such taxes.
Under the Act of 1913 and amendments thereto, drainage
work in the Everglades has continued to this date. The Act
of 1913 was much broader in its scope than the former 1905
Act as amended in 1907, and conferred additional powers
upon the governing board of the district, among which was
the authorization to "borrow money on permanent loans
and incur obligations from time to time," and the said
board was "authorized and empowered to issue in the cor-
porate name of the said board negotiable coupon bonds of
Everglades Drainage District."











EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


The 1913 Act also imposed Everglades Drainage District
Acreage Taxes on a differential scale or rate, according
to the proportion of benefits received by various areas, as
based in a general way upon location of such areas in
reference to the drainage works constructed or proposed
to be constructed by the District. This plan of tax assess-
ment has been followed from 1913 until the present date.
The following table affords information in reference to
the assessment and collection of Everglades Drainage Dis-
trict Taxes from 1913 to 1928 inclusive:

ACTs OF 1913 AND AMENDMENTS


Year
1913 ..........
1914 ....
1915 ..........
1916 ..........
1917 .........
1918 ..........
1919 ....
1920 ..........
1921 .....
1922 .........
1923 .........
1924 .........
1925 ..........
1926 .........
1927 .........
*1928 ..........

*Collectable


Total Levy
352,221.90
342,968.82
307,703.34
306,971.63
306,695.52
295,022.00
344,591.00
490,260.74
470,883.12
660,348.18
783,569.76
1,152,768.50
1,468,001.31
1,548,740.19
1,741,000.73
1,714,298.45


Delinquencies
Collected Paid by Trustees Total


$ 267,839.39
296,144.21
332,419.69
228,111.47
287,710.79
275,267.17
444,288.11
312,627.10
426,374.81
667,362.76
775,987.96
1,126,940.89
1,369,287.68
1,177,840.71
1,247,396.84


$ 55,241.57
42,352.32
17,535.55
13,642.29
6,057.86
9,792.35
5,086.12
89,226.62
72,387.37
36,320.11
27,213.83
1,638.07
118,255.77
271,864.27
229,667.42


370,413.00 to Feb. 28, 1929.


$ 323,089.96
338,496.53
349,955.24
241,753.76
293,768.65
285,059.52
449,374.23
401,853.72
498,762.18
703,682.87
803,201.79
1,128,578.96
1,487,543.45
1,449,704.98
1,477,064.26


November 1, 1928, to April 1, 1929.


1 MILL TAX


Total Levy
.$ 9,424.10
. 9,424.10
. 11,982.30
. 15,071.98
. 27,635.79
. 31,099.99
. 41,824.00
. 31,955.00


Collections
$ 4,634.46
16,631.96
10,627.67
7,374.70
19,904.95
24,066.92
25,072.00
1,314.29 to Feb. 28, 1929.


*Collectable Nov. 1, 1928, to April 1, 1929.


Year
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
*1928










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


With the sale of the first issue of Everglades bonds,
drainage work in the Everglades took on an added im-
petus. The expansion of the drainage work by the district
influenced and encouraged developments along other lines.
Even to the end of 1916 the Everglades were inaccessible
except by means of the drainage canals. Roads reaching
the Everglades consisted of a short section of about five
miles reaching the settlement of Davie in the edge of the
Everglades in Broward County; a section extended along
Miami Canal northwest of Miami for four or five miles;
the new town of Moore Haven which had just come into
existence on the west shore of Lake Okeechobee was con-
nected with the outside world by scarcely more than a
trail, passable to vehicles at favorable seasons by main
strength and awkwardness. Developments other than
along drainage lines had scarcely begun. Farming opera-
tions were just beginning to assume importance from a
commercial and market standpoint. Accommodations for
the traveler were scant and inconvenient. Human habita-
tions consisted for the most part of scarcely more than
shacks of an extremely temporary nature. The population
of the district to 1915 had reached a total of 6,816 persons,
as disclosed by the State census for that year. The greater
part of this population was along the cast coast from Coco-
nut Grove south, and while in the district, could scarcely
be considered as Everglades residents.
Of the work and the development of the district as a
whole it can be said that it was at a stage representing a
beginning only. For all practical purposes the time of real
development in the Everglades might be taken as beginning
in 1916 or 1917.

EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT BONDS

Authorized by Act of 1915--$3,500,000.00
See Resolution of Commissioners of Everglades
Drainage District, January 3, 1917.
Int. Rate Sales Rate
Date Amount on Bonds Maturity Basis
Nov. 1, 1915 $1,500,0001 Average 6%%
May 1, 1916 $1,500,000 6% 12% years Average Price
May 1,1917 $ 500,000J 94.8c
Callable at 102. Amount outstanding Dec. 31, 1928-$ None.










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


Authorized by Act of 1919-$2,500,000.00

See Resolution of Commissioners of Everglades
Drainage District, July 22, 1920.
Int. Rate Sales Rate
Date Amount on Bonds Maturity Basis
July 1, 1920 $1,500,000 6% Average 6.53%
Jan. 1, 1921 1,000,000 13-2/3 years Average Price
95.00
Callable at 102. Amount outstanding Dec. 31, 1928, $1,886,000.00

Authorized by Act of 1921-$1,750,000.00

See Resolution Board of Commissioners of
Everglades Drainage District, November 26, 1921
Int. Rate Sales Rate
Date Amount on Bonds Maturity Basis
July 1, 1921 $ 500,000 6% Average 6%%
Jan. 1, 1922 1,250,000 16 years Average Price
95.0c
Without prior option. Amount outstanding Dec. 31, 1928-
$1,750,000.00.

Authorized by Act of 1923-$3,500,000.00

See Resolution Board of Commissioners of
Everglades Drainage District, July 24, 1923
Int. Rate Sales Rate
Date Amount on Bonds Maturity Basis
July 1, 1923 $1,500,000 5%% Average 5.95%
Jan. 1, 1924 700,000 18% years Average Price
95.0c
5%%
Jan. 1, 1925 $1,300,000 5% 17-3/4 years Average Price
93.04c
Without prior option. Amount outstanding Dec. 31, 1928-
$2,663,000.00.

ACT OF 1925-REFUNDING

Amount not limited. Use limited to refunding only.
Int. Rate Sales Rate
Date Amount on Bonds Maturity Basis
1925 "A" $2,500,000 5% 191 years 1 5-5/8%
1925 "B" 2,500,000 5% 202 years } Average Price
1925 "C" 3,950,000 5% 20 years J according to
maturities as
taken
Refunding Bonds outstanding Dec. 31, 1928-$3,842,000.00.









BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


The total amount of Everglades Drainage District Bonds out-
standing as of December 31st, 1928, is as follows:
6% Bonds ..................$3,636,000.00
5%% Bonds .............. 1,363,000.00
5% Bonds ................... 5,142,000.00
Total ...................$10,141,000.00

The Acts of the Legislature authorizing the above bonds
and levying taxes therefore have been affirmatively passed
on by the Supreme Court of the State as to the Acts of
1913, 1915, 1917 and 1921. Validation suits as to the Acts
of 1923 and 1925 were waived inasmuch as there were no
subjects presented in these Acts not already passed on by
the courts.

WHAT IS BEHIND EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT B.\,N[,-

Everglades Drainage District Bonds issued prior to 1927
are supported by the following:

Section 1165, Revised General Statutes: "The pro-
ceeds arising from the acreage tax levied by this
Article shall be used by the said board in the con-
struction and maintenance of such canals and to
repay any loans and interest thereon, and to the
creation of a sinking fund for the retirement of the
principal of the bonds that the board may issue."
Section 1168, Revised General Statutes: "The tax
or assessment levied by this Article shall constitute a
lien upon the lands so assessed as of the first day of
January 'of each year in which the entries aforesaid
are made in said tax rolls, which lien shall be su-
perior in dignity to all other liens upon said lands and
equal in dignity to the lien for State and County taxes
upon said land."
also,
In command to tax collectors, same section: "
and in case such drainage tax is not paid on or before
the first day of April, next, you are to collect the same
by levy and sale of the lands so assessed ."
Section 1183, Revised General Statutes: "
which moneys (proceeds from taxes levied) so far as
necessary are hereby set apart and appropriated for









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


the purpose to apply said moneys, and to pay the in-
terest upon the said bonds as the same shall fall due,
and at the maturity of said bonds out of the moneys
to pay the principal thereof, and there shall be and
there is hereby created a sinking fund for the payment
of the principal of the said bonds and the said board
shall set apart and pay into such sinking fund annually
out of the taxes levied and imposed by this Article
and the other revenue and funds of the said district,
at least two (2) percent of the amounts of bonds out-
standing. The said sinking fund . shall not be
appropriated to any other purpose than that herein
specified.'

As guarantee against default in tax payment to the
district, Section 1171 in reference to lands sold for taxes
states:

". and in case there are no bidders, the whole
tract shall be bid off by the tax collector for the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and shall
be held by said trustees during the period herein
allowed for the redemption of said lands."
And Section 1172: "The tax collector shall require
immediate payment by any person to whom any parcel
of such land may be struck off ."

The two sections last above cited require in case of tax
sales of parcels of land where there are no bidders, that
such parcels be struck off to the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund, and the said trustees are required by
law to pay the delinquent taxes thereon. The above pro-
vision acts automatically as a guarantee to Everglades
Drainage District against deficits in tax collection. Note
in the tax tables the amount of delinquincies paid by the
Trustees. It means substantially that acreage tax collec-
tions finally coming to Everglades Drainage District must
be practically 100% of the assessment. Also, since the
lands are behind the taxes and the taxes support the bonds,
it follows that through the medium of drainage taxes the
lands of the said district stand behind the bonds.
By the above, the full faith and credit of the district,
including the State lands in the Everglades, is pledged to
the payment of the interest and of the principal at ma-
turity on bonds issued by E,.i-'I ,1l.- Drainage District.










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


The Legislature of 1927 passed an Act, approved April
28th, ". to Authorize the Issuance of Additional
Bonds of the Everglades Drainage District of Florida and
to provide for the Payment of Such Bonds."
The Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage
District entered into contract dated May 11th, 1927, for
the sale of $10,000,000 of bonds out of the total of $20,-
000,000 authorized by the 1927 Act. The contract price was
on a 5-5/8 basis. The proposed bonds were to bear interest
at the rate of 5%, have maturities varying from 20 to 40
years, and upon such schedule of interest and maturities the
sales basis as above resulted in a price ranging from 90.1
cents to 92.55 cents for the bonds, the average being 90.99
cents on the dollar. The above bonds have not been issued.
Litigation over the 1927 Act passed from the Circuit Court
of the State to the State Supreme Court, which Court by
affirmative decision thereon, except in the matter of three
minor points which were rejected, held the Act valid.
Appeal from the opinion of the State Supreme Court was
taken in the United States Supreme Court, and in October
of 1928 the Supreme Court of the United States declined
to take jurisdiction on the ground that the case as sub-
mitted was not properly appealable. This action of the
Supreme Court of the United States left the 1927 Act in
the status as passed upon by the Supreme Court of Florida.

ESTIMATE OF ACREAGE TAXES AS IMPOSED BY
CHAPTER 12017, ACTS OF 1927, AND AMOUNTS
ESTIMATED FOR BOND REQUIREMENTS.
Int. Plus Balance
Total Tax 2% on for other
Year Levy 85% of Levy bonds out purposes
1929 $1,942,946 $1,651,504 $748,465 $ 903,039
1930 1,942,946 1,651,504 738,865 912,639
1931 2,147,151 1,825,078 728,465 1,096,613
1932 2,147,151 1,825,078 709,765 1,115,313
1933 2,148,913 1,826,576 688,015 1,138,561
After
1934 2,148,913 1,826,576 663,715 1,162,861
to to
1955 do do 14,000 1,812,576
1966 000 1,826,576

Since no bonds were issued under the 1927 Act, the levy
of an ad valorem tax was not made by Board of Commis-
sioners of Everglades Drainage District for the reason









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


that this tax was "for the sole purpose of paying or re-
deeming bonds authorized by this Act." Hence, till their
issuance such tax is not applicable. The Board of Commis-
sioners of Everglades Drainage District determined the
value of property within Everglades Drainage District
under Chapter 12016 to be $106,000,000 for the year 1927.
Reference to the foregoing tax tables discloses that the
taxes heretofore levied by the Legislature, exclusive of the
ad valorem tax authorized by the 1927 Act and now in
effect in Everglades Drainage District, is sufficient to take
care of all outstanding indebtedness of the district and for
new bonds to the extent of about $10,000,000, provided that
all funds derived from taxes, or practically so, be applied
to new bonds and not expended directly in defraying costs
of the drainage work.
The principal purpose in levying an ad valorem tax for
Everglades Drainage District was to provide for a valua-
tion of property subject to the District's drainage taxes,
which valuation would indicate the relation between the
bonded debt of the District and the value of property
therein. The revenue to be derived from such ad valorem
tax was secondary. In fact, under the Board's decision to
fix this tax for the present at 1/5 mill on the dollar of
property, there would be produced a revenue of approxi-
mately $21,000.00 to $22,000.00, which is only about
1-1/10% of the revenue resulting from the acreage drain-
age tax. As above stated, the purpose here was to show the
value of property behind the bonds rather than the raising
of revenue.
The reason for the valuation by the Board of Commis-
sioners of Everglades Drainage District was that the
valuation of property by county tax assessors is different
for each county in or partly within Everglades Drainage
District. While the assessors' valuations are properly ap-
plicable with reference to the respective counties so as-
sessed for county purposes, yet by reason of the variation
between counties it would not be satisfactory for District
purposes nor represent evenly the relative value of prop-
erty in the said District.
The foregoing deals with the provisions of the law and
the requirements thereunder in reference to Everglades
Drainage District taxes, the bonds of the said District and
the security behind the said bonds. Everglades Drainage
District has never postponed an interest payment or a










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


payment of principal at maturity. In addition to the fore-
going legal considerations, there are others not of a statu-
tory nature, but nevertheless having important bearing
upon the security of the District as related to its bonded
debt and as to the safety of the bonds of the District as
investments. These are economic considerations. The ques-
tion of whether or not Everglades Drainage District is
economically sound is disclosed through the advancement
of the District as shown by its increase in population, the
enhancement in property values, its progress in agricul-
ture, and in the construction of roads, railroads, telephone
and telegraph lines, and other diverse developments as the
District has evolved from its former condition of prac-
tically watery waste through its transformation in part, to
a land of homes, farms, municipalities and communities,
and as it has changed from a status of purely potential
possibilities to that in part of present actualities with still
greater prospects for larger potential development.
The advancement of the District in an economic way may
be indicated in part by the following tabulation:

LAND VALUES, POPULATION, ETC.

Column 1-Average State land sales, price per acre.
Column 2-Estimated population.
Column 3-Assessed value as for State and County
purposes.
Column 4-Estimated acres under cultivation.
Column 5-Miles improved roads.
Column 6--Miles railroad.
Column 7--Approximate value on State land sales basis.
Column 8-Bonded debt.

Year 1 2 3 4 1 5 7 8
Acres | l11. Mi.
1905 ........... $ 1.25 ................... ........... ........ ....... ........ ...... 45 $ 5,391,000 ...........................
1910 2... ... 2.00 1,402 ... ............. ............... 42 45 8,626,000 ..........................
(1913) (1913)
1915 ............ 15.45 6,816 9,600,800 20,000 50 49 66,600,000 .........
(1021)
1920 24.73 23,500 9,424,100 34,000 72 81 106,300,000 5,000,000
1925 ............108.66 40,200 27,635,700 50,000 340 180 467,000,000 10,250,000
(1926) (1926)
1927 ............ 81.51 46,007 41,824,090 92,000 507 192 350,500,000 10,255,000
1928 ............ 92.68 48,000 31,955,200 96,000 586 210 ** 10,141,000
*106,000,000










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


SOURCES OF INFORMATION
1. Official records of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Fund and reports of Commissioner of Agriculture, land
division.
2. State and United States census and estimated for 1928.
3. County tax assessor's books. Prior to 1927 acres exempt
from acreage tax not included. 1927 includes all. *Board
of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District,
under Chapter 12016 Acts of 1927.
4. Includes marsh lands south of Coconut Grove but no
citrus lands.
5. From Everglades Drainage District maps. Does not
include many short non-connecting roads in 1925 and
1927.
6. From Everglades Drainage District maps.
7. Estimated from column 1. "Acreage of land sold not
large enough or so distributed as to represent average
value.
8. From official records of drainage board. Columns partly
blank fragmentary records only.

NOTE-The 1925 "Boom" is reflected in abnormal land
values.
It has been shown that the advancement of the district
and its increase in value to date progressed at a far more
rapid rate than have expenditures from which such ad-
vancement has resulted. It has been shown that in 1905
at the beginning of drainage, based upon the average price
for which state lands sold, the district had a land value of
approximately $5,391,000. In 1928 the district had a land
and property value, based upon land sales prices and
property estimates, of about $300,000,000, or an increase
of nearly $295,000,000 from 1905 till 1928. The cost of the
drainage work to December 31st, 1928, was in round figures,
$18,000,000, or for each million dollars expended in drain-
age by the district, the value of the district has increased
about sixteen and one-half times-an expense ratio of 1 and
increase value rate of 161/2.

THE WORK MUST GO ON
The work completed to the present date represents a
large part of the total, but it is by no means all that is
necessary. But few areas of Everglades Drainage District,










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


as the drainage works now are, are reasonably protected
from flood dangers or in readiness for settlement and culti-
vation under that degree of protection to which the lands
are entitled and which they must have in order that such
settlement and cultivation may proceed with security
against overflow. The continuance of tax payments is
warranted only upon final placing of the lands taxed in
condition to be productive, and from their earnings in
shape to support the tax imposed. The soundness of the
district in its present condition depends in great measure
upon the completion of drainage. It would not continue
sound if the work should be discontinued or abandoned.
There are outstanding as of December 31st, 1928, $10,141,-
000 of Everglades Drainage District Bonds. The first bonds
were issued by authority of the 1915 Legislature. For nearly
fourteen years the district has met interest and maturity
payments promptly. There has never been a postponement
in interest or principal. The district's record is excellent
in that regard. Everglades bonds have earned a high ex-
perience rating. The credit basis of the district has im-
proved from the date of the first issue until the present.
That high standing should be protected. The ability of the
district to pay its debt already incurred is dependent in
large degree upon the completion of the work and the
placing of the lands under settlement and cultivation. This
means supplying the remaining drainage works necessary
therefore. It is essential, therefore, that provision be made
for carrying on the work.
The improvements, enterprises and developments thus
far undertaken or begun in the district predicate their
successful accomplishment upon the completion of the
drainage works necessary thereto. Every undertaking of
every character whatsoever in the drainage district is de-
pendent upon the drainage enterprise. Inseparably bound
up with it are many millions of dollars of private invest-
ment dependent upon drainage. The most humble citizen
in Everglades Drainage District, as well as those of greater
means, is affected. Drainage is the entire foundation upon
which the whole fabric of development and life of the dis-
trict exists. There is but one difference between the Ever-
glades as they originally were and the Everglades as they
now are, or as they may be in the future. That one
difference is drainage. Subtracting drainage, the Ever-
glades would promptly return to their original condition of
watery waste, uninhabitable by human beings and unfit










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


in the general scheme of things for uses of man. With
drainage, it has been abundantly proven by experience in
certain areas where drainage has sufficiently advanced to
afford an example of what can be accomplished by cultiva-
tion of the land. When considered in reference to its great
area, it is too obvious to require discussion that the ultimate
result of the carrying out of this great enterprise is of
almost incalcuable moment to the State.

EXTENT TO WHICH DRAINAGE OF THE EVER-
GLADES IS A STATE UNDERTAKING

The drainage of the Everglades is frequently referred to
as a State undertaking. The statement is often made that
"The State is draining the Everglades." This is not true
in a strictly technical, legal sense, for aside from the appli-
cation of funds from swamp land and certain other lands
to Everglades taxes on State lands, no money has ever been
appropriated by the State for drainage, no general State
tax is imposed for such purpose, the bonds issued for
carrying on the work are not an obligation of the State, and
no law authorizes the State itself to take part in or have a
hand in this drainage enterprise, but notwithstanding the
above as a strict legal interpretation of the situation, the
State has a great deal to do with the Everglades in being
the largest land owner in the district and as having its
highest public officials direct the work and affairs of the
said district. Furthermore, in its broad economic sense, the
State views the drainage of the Everglades as the means
of developing a tremendous potential asset within its
domain. But, though no actual money from the general
revenue has been furnished by the State, yet all the lands
owned by it in that section originally amounting to nearly
three million acres, or more than two-thirds of the total,
were, for all practical purposes pledged to the undertaking,
and in accordance with the terms of the grant, "the pro-
ceeds of said lands, whether from sale or by direct appro-
priation in kind" have been "applied exclusively as far as
necessary to the purpose of reclaiming the said lands by
means of drains and levees aforesaid." Furthermore, the
Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District
and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund are
continuing in the performance of their duties imposed by
various laws, all in accordance with the Act of Congress
hereinbefore referred to, and in accordance with the










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


original Act of the Legislature, Chapter 610, Laws of
Florida, approved January 2, 1855, requiring the trustees
to make "arrangements for the drainage of the swamp
and overflowed lands." The above may be taken as the
foundation upon which the policy of drainage rests, and it
is shown that from the beginning to this date, State
authorities charged with the administration of these lands,
have been, are now and propose to continue the carrying
out of the duties and trust thus imposed upon them.
Lands designated as "Swamp and Overflowed Lands" in
the Everglades held by the Trustees of the Internal Im-
provement Fund on December 31st, 1928, amounted to 871,-
600.84 acres unincumbered, and approximately 128,494
acres additional covered by sales contracts on which partial
payments have been made and additional payments amount-
ing to $2,075,472 will become due from time to time.
The State School Fund owns approximately 95,400 acres
of land in the Everglades Drainage District. The lands
owned by the school fund are not subject to any sort of
drainage or other tax. The school lands therefore, are in-
creasing in value without cost to the school fund. In addi-
tion to the school lands proper, the school fund receives
25% of the proceeds from the sale of all State swamp lands
in the Everglades. These lands constitute a valuable asset
of the State and of the school fund which is participated in
not only by every county within which Everglades lands
are situate, but within the entire State.
Such is the material interest which the State has in the
Everglades. There is another phase of the subject and an-
other kind of interest which the State has in this enterprise
of no small import either to the Everglades or to the State.
Florida has assumed to a degree the moral responsibility
for this undertaking, has encouraged it politically and has
fathered it as a great economic development on the theory
that it will enhance in value and will reflect to advantage
upon the whole State: that it will place upon the tax
books property for general taxation which will swell the
general revenue of the State, and that it will assist in
adding to the State that most valuable of all possessions-
citizens. Furthermore, it may be anticipated as drainage
progresses, as colonization, settlement and cultivation of
the land advances, as new and important developments ex-
pand along divers lines as collateral to the drainage enter-
prise, that the State will naturally, logically and inevitably
become more directly and closely connected with this the










EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


greatest work of reclamation and development ever em-
barked upon by any State in the Union. It is quite clear,
therefore, that though the drainage of the Everglades may
not be a State undertaking in its technical sense, yet in
its broader interpretation it is at least a quasi-State project
in which the State has a very material and direct interest
and a degree of moral responsibility.
Such are the interests which the State of Florida has in
the drainage of the Everglades.

FEDERAL INTEREST

By virtue of the character, scope and extent of the under-
taking and the various considerations involved therein, the
general proposition of the reclamation of the Everglades
joins with the subject interests even outside of the State.
In recent years attention has been focused upon certain
aspects of the drainage of the Everglades or in certain
features affecting the Everglades and especially the terri-
tory around Lake Okeechobee as affected by the said lake.
Therefrom result certain Federal interests.
There are now before the Congress of the United States
certain measures looking to participation on the part of the
Federal government in works of flood control for Lake
Okeechobee. Participation in flood control on the part of
the United States must be based upon the assumption that
the Federal government has an interest or interests in
Lake Okeechobee. The establishing of the principles on
which such interests are founded is essential in order that
the United States may be justified in undertaking such
work.
The general proposition of protecting its citizens against
danger, violence, or disaster, whether within a State, within
the United States, or in a foreign land, is a principle al-
ready established by the United States in having assumed
that as an obligation and as a duty thereunder. The appli-
cation of this general principle is not inconsistent here. In
this case there are still other interests.
Lake Okeechobee is a navigable waterway of the United
States, under its jurisdiction and control and subject to
the laws of Congress. The preservation of its navigability,
the holding of its waters at levels favorable thereto, and the
regulation of commerce thereon, result in levels which are
unfavorable to drainage and to protection of life and prop-
erty against hurricane floods unless certain works are pro-
4-E. D. D.










BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


vided to compensate for high lake levels maintained in the
interest of navigation. It would be feasible to lower Lake
Okeechobee to an extent which would remove danger of
flood to surrounding lands, even under hurricane con-
ditions, but such lowering would result in the impairment,
and possibly even in the complete destruction, of its
navigable feature. Hence if its navigability is to be pre-
served unimpaired, and by reason of that navigability the
said lake takes the status of a waterway of the United States,
and it does, it appears incumbent upon the United States
to preserve its interest in navigation simultaneously with
the State in preserving its interests in drainage and recla-
mation, and other subjects growing out of that purpose.
There appears justification, therefore, for the United States
to provide works of flood control which will make the terri-
tory around Lake Okeechobee safe against disastrous flood
in maintaining high water levels in the lake in the interest
of navigation. The interest of the United States in naviga-
tion is so clear and so well established that discussion along
that line is not necessary.
There is another interest of the United States in Lake
Okeechobee as direct and as important as that of naviga-
tion. That interest is directly in flood control and comes
about through the provisions of the Act of Congress of
September 28th, 1850, known as the "Swamp and Over-
flowed Land Grant Act." Under that Act the Everglades
were patented to Florida by the United States for a specific
purpose expressed in the language of the Act as follows:

(9 U. S. Statute L 519-520) "that the proceeds of
said lands, whether from sale or by direct appropria-
tion in kind, shall be applied exclusively so far as
necessary to the purpose of reclaiming the said lands
by means of levees and drains aforesaid."
The Legislature of Florida by Chapter 610, approved
January 6th, 1855, accepted the grant, the purpose for
which made, and the condition imposed by the said Act of
Congress. Pursuant thereto Florida has been and is en-
gaged in accomplishing that purpose and in carrying out
that condition. The Act of Congress as above, together with
the Act of the State Legislature, formed a compact between
the United States and the State as sovereign powers, and
they are bound by the same. Florida in carrying out the
purpose and condition expressed in the Act of Congress









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT


finds itself confronted with the task of taking care of some-
thing not ceded to it, over which it has no control or juris-
diction, but of serious import in carrying out that condi-
tion. It has become necessary to undertake works for the
protection of life and property against Lake Okeechobee, a
navigable waterway under the control and jurisdiction of
the United States, and subject to its laws. Lake Okeecho-
bee has operated to defeat the purpose laid down in the
grant and to prevent Florida from complying with the con-
dition imposed upon it by the United States. The Act of
Congress inevitably connects the United States with the
State of Florida in flood control for Lake Okeechobee. If
Florida is to carry out the condition imposed upon it by
Congress for the purposes of reclamation, then that condi-
tion must be possible of accomplishment. Since the condi-
tion has been imposed by the United States, and since Lake
Okeechobee is a waterway of the Federal government, it
follows that that agency should not permit something of
its own to thwart the State in carrying out that condition.
This means that the United States should undertake such
works for flood control in and about Lake Okeechobee as
will permit the State to carry out in good faith on its part
the condition imposed by the Federal government. Interest
on the part of the United States in flood control is thereby
established and it is submitted that the Federal govern-
ment should undertake such work, or should participate
therein to such extent as will make it possible for the State
to carry out without undue burden on its part the condition
imposed by the Congress.
The interests of the United States in Lake Okeechobee as
above are therefore three-fold.

First: Upon the principle of protection of its
citizens.

Second: Upon the principle of Federal interest in
navigation.

Third: Upon the principle of its interest through the
Act of Congress of September 28th, 1850, imposing a
condition upon the State and the obligation to permit
the State to carry out that condition.









BIENNIAL REPORT 1927-1928


ALL INTERESTS

The aspects of the reclamation of the Everglades in so
far as the several interests are concerned may be stated as
follows:

Local Interests: By virtue of which through local
drainage the lands of the District are made fit for set-
tlement and cultivation.

The enhancement of value of property of the locality
and the local benefits derived from the works therefore.

State Interests: The carrying out of an obligation
imposed by the United States and accepted by the State
in the grant of land for the specific purpose of reclama-
tion.

The enchancement of values of state lands.

The development within its domain of a great area
and the placing upon the tax books property for general
taxation which will" swell the general revenue of the
State.

In adding to the State that most valuable of all pos-
sessions-citizens, and the making of the said territory
safe for their habitation.

Federal Interests: Jointly with the State, the safety
and protection of its citizens.

Jointly with the State, through the Act of Congress
of 1850 imposing a condition upon the State, and the
obligation on the part of the United States to permit
the said State to carry out that condition.

Upon the Federal interest in navigation.
Thus far the work has gone forward upon the basis of
local interest. That is to say, the money for carrying on
works of flood control, drainage and reclamation, and in-
cidentally for navigation, has been provided through drain-
age taxes upon the lands and property within Everglades
Drainage District. The total thus far raised by the Dis-









EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT 85

trict is $18,000,000. All of the money applied by the State
to the payment of drainage taxes (Everglades and sub-
drainage district) on its lands has come from the sale of
swamp and overflowed lands granted to it by the Federal
government except approximately $800,000 which has
come from the sale of lands other than swamp lands. No
appropriation has been made by the State from its general
revenue and no State tax has ever been imposed on ac-
count of the Everglades. No appropriations for the pur-
poses of the District have thus far been made by the United
States. Certain surveys and examinations have been
authorized by Congress for Federal purposes in and about
that section of Florida, but no money has been expended
by Congress upon drainage or flood control work.
The part which these several interests, Local, State, and
Federal, may take in time to come will have great bearing
upon the future of that territory.















































































































i










INDEX

Subject PAGE
Letter of Transmittal .................... ...... 3
PART I.
Reorganization ................................. 5
Audit of Board of Commissioners of Everglades Dr.
D district ................... .............. 7
Report, Everglades Engineering Board of Review .. 17
Status of W ork ................................ 17
Table "A" (Canals) ...................... 18
Table "B" (Levees and Locks) .............. 18
Table "C" (Other work) ................... 19
Recapitulation ..... ...................... 19
Table "D," Work and Expenditures 1927 .... 20
Table "E," Work and Expenditures 1928 .... 21
Flood Protection Around Lake Okeechobee ........ 22
Regulation of Lake Levels ....................... 25.
Hurricane of September 1928 .................... 25
Lake Levees .................................. 30
Rainfall, Evaporation and Temperature
Diagram s .............. ... ......... 34-38
Lake Outlets ................ ................... 39
Lake Stage Diagrams ....................... 40-44
Lake Okeechobee Levee .......................... 47
Influence of Lake Levels on Fire Control ...... 51
Map-Proposed Drainage Works ................. 53
Drainage Work Proper .......................... 54
Legislation .................................... 54
PART II.
Swamp Lands in General ........................ 59
Status of Swamp Lands ......................... 61
Everglades Drainage District 1905-1913 ........... 63
Drainage Operations ......... ....... ............ 64
Everglades Taxes ............................... 68
Everglades Drainage District as at Present ........ 68
Everglades Taxes ............................... 69
Everglades Bonds .............................. 70
What is Behind District's Bonds? .............. 72
Estimate of Acreage Taxes, 1929 and Thereafter .... 74
Land Values and Population ..................... 76
W ork Should Go On ............................ 77
Extent to Which Drainage a State Undertaking .... 79
Federal Interest ................... ............ 81
All Interests ................................ 84