El año comienza con la celebración de los primeros 20 años de administración panameña del Canal de Panamá. Como bien saben nuestros lectores asiduos, el Canal está muy presente en nuestras páginas. Porque es una obra hidráulica centenaria paradigmática, que en su día admiró al mundo. Y que lo sigue haciendo, demostrando como a través del agua, puede revolucionarse el sistema mundial de transporte de mercancías, abriendo una nueva vía de comunicación.
Y 116 años más tarde, la vía de agua abierta, continúa uniendo a todos los habitantes del globo, facilitando su comercio. Además, el Canal abastece a la mayoría de los habitantes del país y depura y protege los ecosistemas acuáticos de sus dos cuencas.
Nuestro buen amigo y colaborador asiduo, Abelardo Bal,es un ingeniero panameño, apasionado por la historia del Canal de Panamá. De esta vocación da fe el artículo que publicó en junio de 2016 en estas mismas páginas.
Actualmente, el ingeniero Bal trabaja en la sección de recursos hídricos de la Autoridad del Canal de Panamá. Y además de gestionar cada día los datos hidrológicos, se dedica a la divulgación de su historia ingenieril. Y en septiembre de 2019, participó en el congreso mundial de la IAHR (Asociación Internacional para la Ingeniería e Investigación Hidroambiental), celebrado en Panamá, con una presentación sobre la historia del Canal. En ella, dio a conocer algunos de los proyectos más significativos que se plantearon para un canal que atravesara el continente americano precisamente por Panamá, desde la época hispana hasta la construcción del canal que conocemos.
Para nosotros es un honor que Abelardo nos permita reproducir su presentación, para que todos nuestros lectores, que ya serán los suyos, amplíen sus conocimientos sobre la ubicación, el número, el tamaño y la altura de las esclusas de navegación en el Canal. Y sobre las diversas soluciones planteadas, en un esfuerzo inmenso que incluyó exploraciones, estudios e incluso fracasos constructivos. El lector se percatará de las muchas variables consideradas, como el volumen de excavación, la capacidad de embalse, la geología local, los costes de construcción y operación, la seguridad de navegación y la gestión del agua.
Abelardo aporta una enorme documentación histórica, que incluye la relación de proyectos propuestos para un cruce del istmo panameño. Y explica las diferentes ideas de trazado de un canal interoceánico sobre la traza del río Chagres, aportadas por ingenieros, científicos y exploradores españoles, alemanes, ingleses, colombianos, franceses y estadounidenses.
El lector, además, conocerá la génesis y desaparición de una colonia escocesa en Panamá. No hay mejor forma de comenzar nuestro año hidráulico y celebrar el vigésimo aniversario de la transferencia norteamericana del Canal a Panamá , que estas formidable presentación del ingeniero Bal.
Les dejamos con ella, en su formato y versión original.
MAIN TRANSISTHMIAN CANAL PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE CHAGRES ROUTE IN PANAMA, FROM THE SPANISH COLONY TO THE AMERICAN CANAL
ABELARDO V. BAL RENAU
Water Resources Section Panama Canal Authority, Panama, Republic of Panama
1 INTRODUCTION
The subject of the history of the interoceanic canal investigations in the American Isthmus is very broad. This paper presents investigations and projects for a Panama Canal and their historical context, along the route of the Chagres River, during a period of roughly four centuries, between 1501 and 1906, paying attention to projects with navigation locks. This is part of a larger investigation made by the author in 2004, when there was interest in knowing the reasons behind the decisions made on the location and characteristics of the Panama Canal locks and dams, in order to plan for the Panama Canal expansion project and its locks.
Part of that investigation, on the construction period between 1906 and 1914, was published in 2014. The original report of 2004 contained more plates and figures with the canal alignments and the location of the locks than this paper. Those who wish to learn more on the history of canals and see interesting plates of several proposed Panama Canal projects, will enjoy a visit to the library of the Panama Canal Authority.
2 INTEROCEANIC CANAL INVESTIGATIONS DURING THE SPANISH PERIOD (1501-1821)
Rodrigo de Bastidas de Triana was the first Spanish explorer to reach the shores of the Isthmus of Panama, in 1501. Christopher Columbus discovered the Chagres River on November 1st, 1502, calling it «River of the Lizards” . Vasco Núñez de Balboa was the first European to observe the two oceans, from a hill in Darien, on September 25, 1513. On September 29th he arrived at what he called «the South Sea» .
Panama City was founded on August 15, 1519, with the intention of turning it into the terminal of the interoceanic route . The search for the westward route continued, until after many unsuccessful efforts, Ferdinand Magellan discovered the strait with his name on November 28, 1520 and gave the name to the Pacific Ocean, due to the good weather he found there. In 1523, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (also King Charles I of Spain), who reigned between 1517 and 1556, wrote to the Spanish courts requesting the search of a passage that connected the east and west coasts of America, thus shortening in two thirds the route from Cadiz to Catay .
Since then, Spaniards, British, Dutch, French and Americans studied the Central American isthmus for the same purpose. In 1527 Spanish Captain Hernando de la Serna and pilot Pablo Corzo explored the Chagres and Grande rivers, in order to open an interoceanic communication using their flows. Alvaro de Saavedra de Ceron was commissioned by the Spanish crown to raise the first plans of this work . It is said that he was the first to suggest an interoceanic canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. Alvaro de Saavedra was a partner of Balboa in Darien and of Hernan Cortes in Mexico .
Later he discovered the route from Mexico to Southeast Asia, through the Pacific Ocean. The first to name the best routes for an interoceanic canal was the Spanish priest Francisco Lopez de Gomara. In a book published in 1552, he mentioned that the best routes were those of Panama, Nicaragua, Darien and Tehuantepec . The successor of Charles V was King Philip II of Spain. He reigned between 1556 and 1598. In the face of the constant attacks of corsairs and pirates, he feared that an interoceanic route could facilitate the presence of England over the Hispanic colonies, to the point of dominating the largest oceans of the earth.
His successor, King Philip III, who reigned between 1598 and 1621, judged it convenient to begin the exploration of the Darien in order to open an interoceanic canal, but the Council of the Indies came to consider this project as dangerous for Hispanic power, since the canal would be a temptation to the greed of other nations . To prevent this, the Spanish Crown threatened with death penalty anyone who tried to open an interoceanic canal on the Isthmus of Panama.
But despite the threat posed by the presence of England and other nations in Central America and the Caribbean Sea, the Spaniards continued to carry out successive explorations during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, showing special interest in the Chagres River and Darien isthmus routes.
On January 28, 1671, Henry Morgan destroyed the city of Panama. On January 21, 1673, the new city of Panama was founded, near Ancon Hill. On October 30, 1698, an attempt to establish a Scottish colony began at a point called Scottish Port. The colony was named New Caledonia and the erection of a new settlement called New Edinburgh was started, in the place of the abandoned Spanish settlement of Acla. But the weather, the diseases and the Spaniards, ended by forcing them to leave the settlements in June 1699. There were two more attempts at Scottish colonization, but they also failed.
In 1739 England prepared an expedition, led by Admiral Edward Vernon, who captured Portobelo and disabled the castles. As a result of this attack and because of the repeated attacks of corsairs and pirates in the Caribbean Sea, that same year the interoceanic traffic through Panama received a death blow, when it was diverted completely to Cape Horn, in the Tierra del Fuego archipelago, in South America. The news were welcomed by the merchants of what today is Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Bolivia, etc., who had been protesting on the obligation to exclusively use the port of Portobelo, which, in addition to the inconvenience of the great distance, added the unhealthiness of the climate, which made staying in it dangerous .
In March 1799, King Charles IV of Spain granted permission to the German naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt and to the French naturalist Aimé Bonpland, to explore the most remote areas of Hispanic America . Humboldt began an extensive scientific journey through the lands of America since 1801. One of his most serious concerns was focused on interoceanic communication projects.
He noticed that there were three important routes that deserved a careful study: The Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Lake Nicaragua and the Isthmus of Panama. In the year 1804 Humboldt met with the president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, who became so interested in the recommendations of Humboldt, that he instructed his minister in Paris, William Carmichael, to obtain all the studies that had been carried out in Spain on the project of a canal in the Central American isthmus .
Humboldt published his observations between 1805 and 1834, naming nine tentative projects to unite the oceans with canals or river communications , which are shown in Figure 1.
In 1814 the Spanish courts approved a law for the construction of a canal on the Isthmus of Panama, which due to the independence of Panama, was made a dead letter . In 1817, the forerunner of the independence of the Spanish colonies in America, the Venezuelan Francisco Miranda, proposed to the English premier William Pitt, to snatch the Isthmus of Panama from Spain and open a canal.
This way, England would enjoy its benefits for a certain number of years, to compensate for the expenses it made. Pitt, who was worried about the Napoleonic wars, did not take into consideration this offer. But on April 10, 1819, Portobelo was captured by the English, who came to support the independence of the isthmus. The city was recovered by the Spaniards the following April 30th. Panama became independent from Spain on November 28, 1821 and joined the Great Colombia .
Figure 1. Nine routes proposed by Humboldt, 1811
3 ENGLISH AND FRENCH CANAL PROJECTS (1821-1850)
In 1827, the president of Colombia, Simon Bolivar, granted a commission to the Englishman John A. Lloyd, to study the Isthmus of Panama and determine the best communication route between the oceans.
The canal started in the Atlantic Ocean in Limon Bay, continued along the Chagres River and then continued along the Trinidad River. From there it would continue by rail to La Chorrera or Panama. Although Lloyd did not recommend the construction of an interoceanic canal, he mentioned that one day it would be built and then, the best route would probably be by the Trinidad River, as Figure 2 shows.
In November 1831, the Republic of Colombia was divided and Panama became part of New Granada. In 1838 the Republic of New Granada granted a concession to a French company to build roads, railways or canals through the Isthmus of Panama. After several years of exploration, this company communicated its results to the French government. The project was presented in an attractive way, with the hope of obtaining help to build the project. In 1843, the French government appointed Napoleon Garella to investigate in Panama the possibility of an interoceanic canal. Garella in 1844 recommended a canal between Limon Bay in the Atlantic and Vacamonte Bay in the Pacific, as is shown in Figure 2. The canal would have locks, with a depth of 7 m (23 feet) and a summit lake at elevation 48 m (158 feet) above sea level, which would be accessed by 18 locks on the Atlantic side and 16 in the Pacific side. The canal could accommodate ships with 6.4 m (21 feet) of draft,
60.3 m (198 feet) of length and 14 m (45 feet) of sleeve (width) . The water supply to the canal would be made through two lateral channels supplied by the Chagres River. He proposed to cross the continental divide with a tunnel 5.3 Km long. A more expensive alternative to the tunnel was to dig a trench. The cost estimate was considered very high and the project was not continued. Figure 3 shows the Garella tunnel, as well as two other project tunnels proposed along the routes of Darien and San Blas.
Figure 2: Transisthmic routes through Panama, 1829-1904.
4 THE LOCK CANAL PROJECT OF LULL AND MENOCAL (UNITED STATES, 1875)
In 1848 California was ceded to the United States and that same year gold was discovered there. The construction of the railroad between the cities of Colon and Panama started in 1850 and was opened to the public at the beginning of 1855. The topographical surveys of the railroad revealed that there was a passage in a site called Culebra, through which an interoceanic canal could be excavated. In that passage, the terrain elevation was only 84 m (275 feet), that is, it was 61 m (200 feet) less than what was considered before to be the lowest passage . In March of 1866 the Senate of the United States approved a resolution entrusting to the Secretary of the Navy, the investigation of interoceanic canals between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The investigation included 19 routes for canals and 7 routes for roads.
In March 1872, the Interoceanic Canal Commission was created to evaluate the results of the study. This commission concluded that the route along the Panama Railroad had not been sufficiently studied. For this reason, in 1875 Commander Edward P. Lull and his assistant A. G. Menocal , of the United States Navy, made survey measurements for a canal in Panama. They recommended a canal with locks, which would follow the Panama Railroad route, with a depth of 5.5 m(28 feet). The lake level would be 38 m (124 feet) above sea level, with 12 locks on each side to access it.
The locks would measure 20 m (65 feet) in width and 152 m (500 feet) in total length. The length between the lock gates would be 137 m (450 feet) . The length of the canal would be 67.1 Km, from Limon Bay to the Chagres River, ascending through its valley to the continental division and descending down the slope of the Pacific side through the Rio Grande valley to the Bay of Panama
Figure 3. Typical sections of tunnels for interoceanic canals.
Lull considered that Garella’s idea, of using the Chagres river-bed in part of its length was impracticable, due to the strong floods of the river. The canal would pass through an aqueduct over the Chagres River. The aqueduct would be 580 m (1,900 feet) in length, 19.8 m (65 feet) wide and 8 m (26 feet) deep. The height of the summit lake was calculated based on a maximum flood of the Chagres River. It would be 10.7 m (35 feet) above the normal flow point, at the point where the aqueduct would cross the river, taking into account the height of the arches on the aqueduct piles. The canal route was very close to the railroad route in almost all its length. It is noted that on the Atlantic side, the canal does not get close to the Chagres River.
The Chagres River was seen then as a hostile element, as an obstacle to save and avoid, instead of a resource. In order to supply water to the canal, a dam would be built upstream of the crossing over the Chagres River, in a location near Alhajuela. From there, another aqueduct would deliver the water to the canal. The continental divide crossing was by Culebra. On the Pacific Ocean side, the canal roughly followed the course of the Rio Grande, although it deviated before reaching Ancon Hill, passing east of it and out to sea in what is now Calidonia. The 24 lifts of this project are listed in Table 1. To better identify the location of the locks, a name was given by the author to each location, based on the names of villages and hills that can be seen on the Lull drawing of the canal and on another drawing prepared by the French company for a sea-level canal project in later years.
Table 1. Location of the locks in the Lull and Menocal project (1875). The number of lifts is in parenthesis.
| Atlantic Side (7 lock structures,12 lifts) | Pacific Side (8 lock structures, 12 lifts) |
| Gorgona (1) | Outlet of the Rio Grande to the canal (1) |
| East of the mouth of the Juan Grande River (3), | Nitro Hill (1) |
| North of Tavernilla, east of the Frijoles Grande River (3) | North Paraiso (1) |
| Tortuoso River (2) | South Paraiso (2) |
| Ahorca Lagarto (1) | Pedro Miguel (4) |
| West of Lion Hill (1) | In the middle of the current Miraflores Lake (1) |
| North of Tiger Hill (1) | Miraflores (1) |
| Calidonia (1, tidal lock) |
All the locks on the Pacific side would be located on hills, to ensure a natural foundation on rock, with the exception of Locks 10 and 11, which would be located over flat terrain. For these last two locks, a 6-foot-thick concrete floor was proposed. Locks 4, 7, 8 and 12 in the Pacific side, and 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 in the Atlantic side, were believed to be located entirely on rock . On the Pacific side, the selection of Pedro Miguel is remarkable as a suitable place to place locks with four lifts. In Paraiso two lifts were placed, although separated from each other.
In Miraflores a lift was placed. No more locks were set south of Miraflores, with the exception of the tidal lock near the sea. It is noted that Paraiso, Pedro Miguel and Miraflores, were selected in this first project made by the United States on the Chagres route, as suitable sites to place locks on the Pacific side.
Even if this project was interesting, in February 1876, the members of the Interoceanic Canal Commission unanimously voted that the best route was the route through Nicaragua.
5 THE UNIVERSAL CONGRESS OF INTEROCEANIC CANAL STUDIES (PARIS, 1879) AND THE FRENCH UNIVERSAL COMPANY OF THE INTEROCEANIC CANAL (1881-1889)
While the Interoceanic Canal Commission was conducting its studies for the United States, the International Civil Society of the Interoceanic Canal was organized in Paris, with General Étienne Türr (Hungarian) as president, in order to study a navigable waterway through the American isthmus. His representative, Lieutenant Luciene Napoleon Bonaparte Wyse, an officer of the French Navy, visited Colombia. Lieutenant Wyse was the illegitimate son of Princess Leticia, a niece of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte .
In May of 1876, Wyse signed a contract with the government of Colombia. This contract was modified in May 1878, to grant the exclusive privilege for 99 years to build and operate a canal. The canal was to open to navigation 12 years after the date of formation of the construction company . It was agreed that the general route of the proposed canal should be determined by an international scientific congress, to be held no later than 1881.
In 1877, at the request of Ferdinand de Lesseps, who was also interested in the company, Lieutenant Wyse and Lieutenant Reclús, departed to Panama in order to carry out a study of the possible routes for an interoceanic canal through Panama. Lesseps had played an important role during the construction of the Suez Canal, which had been inaugurated on November 17, 1869. In 1878, Wyse and Reclús presented to the International Civil Society of the Interoceanic Canal, a report favorable to the construction of a canal in Panama.
Following the contract clauses with the government of Colombia, the Universal Congress of Interoceanic Canal Studies was held in Paris, between May 15 and 29, 1879. As a result of this congress, on March 3, 1881, the Universal Company of the Interoceanic Canal was formally organized, with Ferdinand de Lesseps as president. The Colombian government concession was transferred to the Universal Company of the Interoceanic Canal. In the congress, it was estimated that the time of construction of a sea-level canal would be twelve years, so that the canal would be finished no later than 1892.
During 1885 and 1886, the engineers drew attention to the difficulties encountered during the construction, which would not allow the canal to be completed at the scheduled time. In October 1887, the company’s advisory committee agreed to change the canal’s sea-level plan, to a temporary locks scheme proposed by engineer Philippe Bunau-Varilla, which would allow the final conversion to a sea-level canal.
Figure 4 shows the plan, which consisted in building the bottom of the upstream lock gates of the same height as the downstream gates. The common thing is that in a lock, the height of the downstream gate is equal to the depth of the navigation channel plus the fall of the step, while the height of the upstream gate is equal to the depth of the navigation channel only.
According to the plan of Bunau-Varilla, in order to lower the level of the upper lake, half of the canal width in the section between the upper locks would be closed to navigation, while the navigation channel would be dredged to the same depth as the downstream lock gates. Next, the pair of locks of the upper level would be eliminated. Following this procedure, the locks would be removed in pairs, until conversion to a sea-level canal would be achieved. In this scheme a dam was contemplated in Gamboa, from where water would be pumped to a lake at a higher level, at an elevation of 49 m (161 feet) above sea level .
The plan consisted of building separate locks with 5 lifts on the Atlantic side and with 5 lifts on the Pacific side. The locks measured 18 m (59 feet) wide by 180 m (590 feet) long. The navigation channel would be 8.2 m (27 feet) deep. Table 2 shows where the locks would be located.
On December 10, 1887, a contract was signed with Gustave Eiffel, designer of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, for the construction of the locks and the installation of the lock gates. On February 25, 1888, Eiffel informed de Lesseps: «My technical and administrative staff has been busy on the isthmus since January 1st. The excavation of nine locks is already underway with a workforce of 3,500 workers and the work is proceeding more actively than it could have expected” .
On February 2, 1889, the following lock excavation volumes were reported: Lock 1: 7,157 m³. Lock 2: 7,973 m³. Lock 3: 7,959 m³. Lock 4: 4,558 m³. Lock 5: 12,974 m³. Lock 6: 10,897 m³. Lock 7: 5,229 m³. Lock 8: 3,658 m³. Lock 9: 14,306 m³. Lock 10: 8,657 m³
Table 2. Location of the locks in the Bunau-Varilla project (1887). The number of lifts is in parenthesis.
| Atlantic Side (5 locks) | Pacific Side (5 locks) |
| Bohio Soldado (1) | Between the Contractor and Escobar Hills, km 55.5 (1) |
| San Pablo (1) | In front of Nitro Hill, km 56.6 (1) |
| Matachin, km of the French project (1) | Paraiso, km 58 (1) |
| Corosita, km 46 (1) | Pedro Miguel, km 59 (1) |
| Las Cascadas, at the beginning of Culebra Cut, km 50 (1) | Miraflores, km 62 (1) |
Figure 4. Outline of the temporary locks of Bunau-Varilla (1887).
It is observed that the Pedro Miguel lock is the lock where more material was excavated during the French period. During the subsequent period of construction by the United States, it would be recognized that the French had already made an extensive excavation in the Pedro Miguel locks, as part of their plan with locks. This could have influenced the decision to maintain the Pedro Miguel lock in the final American canal project.
Despite French efforts to complete the Canal, the company had waited too long to adopt the lock plan. His financial situation was very difficult, so on February 4, 1889 the company ceased to exist and was liquidated.
6 THE FRENCH NEW COMPANY OF THE PANAMA CANAL (1894-1899)
After the failure of the Universal Company of the Interoceanic Canal, steps were taken to reorganize and finish the work. On October 20, 1894, the New Company of the Panama Canal was created. In February 1896 its board of directors appointed a Technical Committee to evaluate the project. The commission was made up of 14 European and American engineers, some of whom were the most prominent in their profession.
During this period, various proposals were made. One of particular interest, is that of Napoleon Bonaparte Wyse, which although it was not adopted, is interesting in terms of the distribution of the locks proposed. The scheme proposed by Wyse had three lifts consolidated at the Bohio locks in the Atlantic slope and another three lifts consolidated at the Pedro Miguel locks in the Pacific slope.
By June 1898 the company had already spent almost half of its original budget, so it was necessary to decide between the abandonment or the sale of the canal project. During the summer of that year, the directors decided to offer the property to the government of the United States. The Technical Committee delivered its final report on November 16, 1898, after 100 sessions and almost three years of intense study of the isthmus . On December 2, 1898, the chief executive officer and chief engineer of the company, met with President McKinley, who was given a copy of the technical report and a tentative proposal, to transfer the rights and properties of the company to the United States.
According to the report, the construction of a sea-level canal was considered unrealizable at the moment. Three projects were presented for a lock canal. In all of the three projects, the minimum canal depth was roughly 10 meters (32 feet). In the first project, the navigation channel bottom elevation in the highest section was 29.5 (97 feet) above sea level. The canal had 5 lock lifts at each end.
The lake would be at elevation 39.5 m (129.6 feet). In the second, the navigation canal bottom was at elevation 20.75 m (68.1) feet, with 4 lock lifts at each end. The lake would be at elevation 30.8 m (101 feet). In the third, the level navigation channel bottom was at 9.75 m (32 feet), with 3 lock lifts at each end, and with the lake at elevation 20 m (65.6 feet). It was calculated that the cost of each of the three projects was similar, excluding interest and administration costs. The lower the summit lake level, the higher was the cost of excavation and the lower the cost of the locks and dams.
The Technical Committee unanimously recommended the second project, since it could be built in the shortest time, since the excavation and the construction of the locks and dams, could be carried out simultaneously. The bottom of the navigation channel would be 30 m (98 feet) wide. There would be double locks, that is, there would be two lanes in the locks, just as in the canal built later by the Americans. They would be 225 m (738 feet) long and 9 m (30 feet) deep. The width of each side of the double locks would be different. One side would be 25 m (82 feet) wide and the other side would be 18 m (59 feet) wide. Intermediate gates would be placed on the narrower lane, in order to save water. On the Atlantic side, two lifts would be built in Bohio Soldado and two lifts in Obispo. On the Pacific side, a lift would be built in Paraiso, two in Pedro Miguel and one in Miraflores. Dams would be built in Bohio and Alhajuela. These dams would form artificial lakes, which would serve to feed the canal, control floods and supply hydroelectric power. The maximum operational elevation of Bohio Lake would be 31.75 m (102.5 feet). The Alhajuela Dam would form a lake at an elevation of 65 m (213 feet), with an area of 30 km².
A feeding channel, or aqueduct, would connect the Alhajuela and Bohio lakes. It was also considered to build a dam in Gamboa, as an alternative to the Alhajuela Dam, but Alhajuela was preferred for constructive reasons. No construction work was carried out in the Alhajuela Dam or in the aqueduct, but the surveying measurements and investigations were carried out to plan the work.
The French engineers also presented as an alternative plan, which they seemed to prefer, the third project described above, with the bottom of the navigation channel in Bohio Lake at elevation 9.75 m (32 feet). It was slightly more expensive and would take more time to build. Due to the time limits of the concession and the high cost of financing, this plan was discarded. The feeding channel from the Alhajuela dam would be omitted, although the Alhajuela dam would be maintained. Bohio Lake would feed directly from the Chagres River.
7 THE STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION (1898-1901)
While the new French company was trying to build the canal for Panama, a private American company was trying to build a canal through Nicaragua. The Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua was organized and incorporated by the United States Congress in 1889, although without receiving financial assistance from the government. Between 1889 and 1893, the company carried out construction work on a canal in Nicaragua, but the works were suspended due to the lack of financial assistance from the United States Government.
Subsequently, through the Congress Act of June 4, 1897, funds were appropriated to continue studies for the construction of a canal in Nicaragua. The studies were expanded to include the Isthmus of Panama, through the Congress Act of March 13, 1899, after the directors of the new French company visited the President of the United States, with the intention of selling the company’s assets. In Panama, the Isthmian Canal Commission, which was in charge of these studies, delivered its report on November 16, 1901.
It was estimated that the transit time of a high-draft vessel through the Panama Canal would be 12 hours, while transit time in a canal in Nicaragua it would be 33 hours. But Nicaragua was closer to the United States, so the navigation time between the ports on the Pacific coast of the United States and ports on the Atlantic coast of the United States and Europe, would be one day less for the canal in Nicaragua. The report favored the canal in Nicaragua, due to the high price of $ 109.1 million demanded by the French company for the sale of its assets in Panama.
The commission estimated that for the route through Panama to be preferable, the price should be decreased to $40 million. When on January 4, 1902, the French company declared itself interested in transferring its assets to the United States for $ 40 million, the commission changed its initial recommendation and on January 18, 1902, recommended the construction of the canal in Panama.
On June 28, 1902, the Congress Act, known as the «Spooner Act,» authorized the president of the United States to acquire the assets of the New Panama Canal Company for $ 40 million and build a canal with sufficient capacity and depth for vessels of the highest tonnage and the largest drafts in use or that can be reasonably anticipated. On November 3, 1903, Panama became independent from Colombia, with the support of the United States. On April 23, 1904, the shareholders of the French company formally authorized the sale of the property to the United States. The United States took possession of the Canal on May 8, 1904.
In the report of the Commission of the Isthmian Canal of 1901, the construction of a canal with locks in Panama was recommended and the construction of a sea-level canal was discarded, due to its high cost and construction time. The construction time of a sea-level canal was estimated at 20 years and that of the lock canal at less than half. It was noted that the cost of financing would be much lower than that of the French company, if the United States government provided the financing.
The canal with locks would have a central lake that would fluctuate between 25 and 27.4 m (82 and 90 feet) of elevation, being 25.9 m (85 feet) its normal level. During floods, the lake level could reach 28.2 m (92.5 feet). A dam would be built in Bohio, in the same site selected by the French. The spillway of the Bohio Dam would be located in Gigante and would have a fixed lip, with a length of 610 m (2,000 feet). The dam crest would be at elevation 30.5 m (100 feet) and the top of the locks would be at elevation 28.6 m (94 feet).
The locks would have two identical lanes, whose chambers would be 225.5 m (740 feet) long and 25.6 m (84 feet) wide. There would be intermediate gates to accommodate the smaller ships, which would allow lockages of both 122 m (400 feet) and 89 m (292 feet) in length, depending on the sector of the chamber used. It was estimated that with a storage depth of 1.04 m (3.4 feet), Bohio Lake could supply enough water to accommodate 10 lockages per day during the dry season, 4 of which would use the entire lock chamber and the other 6 would use the intermediate lock gates.
The depth of the navigation channel would be 10.7 m (35 feet), when the lake was at elevation 25 m (82 feet). The bottom of the navigation channel would measure at least 45.7 m (150 feet) wide in the Culebra Cut. There, almost vertical retaining walls would be built, which would reach elevation 28 m (92 feet), that is, 0.6 m (2 feet) above the maximum lake operation level. The walls would be provided with sidewalks 11.6 m (38 feet) wide on both sides of the canal. In one of them, the Panama railroad would circulate and in the other, a service railway would probably be installed.
On the Atlantic side, the central lake would be accessed in Bohio by two 13 m (42.5 feet) lock lifts each, in the same place chosen by the old and new French companies. Near the Culebra entrance, a pair of 100-foot- wide gates would be located in Obispo, in the place chosen by the new French company to build its locks, on a rock foundation. The function of these gates would be to empty the lake if necessary on their south side, without affecting Bohio Lake.
On the Pacific side there would be 3 lock lifts: Two lifts, each 8.5 m (28 feet) high in Pedro Miguel locks and one more lock lift in Miraflores, which would vary between 5.5 m (18 feet) and 11.6 m (38 feet), depending on the tide. Lake Miraflores normal elevation would be 8.5 m (28 feet). It was reported that in Pedro Miguel there was an excellent rock for the foundations and that the rock foundation in Miraflores was good, and downstream from Miraflores there was rock occasionally, but in general the material was very smooth. Work in Panama initially progressed according to this plan, since the United States took possession of the Canal.
The recommended plan was in general, the same plan that was recommended by the French New Company of the Panama Canal, except for some differences. The height of the Bohio dam was increased greatly, because in the French project, there was an intermediate lake between Bohio and Obispo, at an elevation of 20 m (66 feet), before reaching the upper lake. In this new project, Bohio Lake would be the upper lake, at elevation 25.9 m (85 feet), instead of the 30.8 m (101 feet) of the project of the new French company.
Another difference was that the Alhajuela dam was not considered to be necessary, because the volume of the upper lake was greater than the lake considered by the French. In addition, the canal would be designed in such a way that the lake could receive a flood of the Chagres River directly without impeding navigation. However, the construction of the Alhajuela dam was foreseen in the future to increase the water supply.
The locks of Obispo and Paraiso, which were considered by the French, also disappeared, and the Obispo gates were introduced. At the Pacific end, the locks were maintained in Pedro Miguel and in Miraflores, as in the plan of the new French company and, in turn, as in the Bunau-Varilla plan in the old French company.
8 THE UNITED STATES DECISION TO BUILD A LOCK CANAL (1904-1906)
The United States took possession of the Canal on May 8, 1904. Shortly thereafter, the question of a sea- level canal versus a canal with locks arose. To answer this question definitively, the president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, convened the «International Board of Consulting Engineers» (hereinafter referred to as «The Board»). On September 11, 1905, President Roosevelt received the members of the Board and told them: «I hope that finally it will be possible to build a sea-level canal. If it is feasible, such a canal would undoubtedly be the best at the end, and I believe that one of the best advantages of the Panama route is that it would be possible to have a sea-level canal at the end. But in addition to paying the necessary attention to the possibility of perfecting the scheme from an engineering point of view, remember the need to have a plan that can culminate with the construction of the canal in the safest terms and in the shortest possible time»
On September 28, 1905, the members of the Board left for Panama, where they stayed for eight days . The Board consisted of 13 engineers, who voted on the type of canal. The majority (8 engineers) favored the sea-level canal and the minority (5 engineers) favored the canal with locks. On January 10, 1906, the Board delivered its report.
The report ruled out the idea of first building a canal with locks and then converting it into a sea-level canal, as this was an expensive option, difficult to implement and with dangers in the canal operation. The canal at the proposed level would have a depth of 12.2 m (40 feet), with a width in rocky ground of 61 m (200 feet) and where the bottom was dirt, of 45.7 m (150 feet).
A dam would be built in Gamboa to divert the flow of the Chagres River to the Atlantic Ocean and a double tidal lock would be placed in Ancon, which would be 305 m (1000 feet) long and 30.5 m (100 feet) wide . The report of the majority of the Board estimated that the sea-level canal construction time would be 12 or 13 years, while the construction time of the canal with locks would be 10 or 11 years .
For its part, in the report of the minority of the Board, a construction time of 15 years was estimated for the sea-level canal and 7 and a half years for the canal with locks.
The report of the Board was delivered to the Panama Canal Chief Engineer John F. Stevens, who on January 26, 1906, recommended the adoption of the minority plan, that is, a canal with locks. In the letter to President Roosevelt, the Isthmian Canal Commission mentioned that navigation through the lock canal would be faster and less risky than in the sea-level canal.
The level sea-level canal could not be built in less than 20 years, while it was reasonable to think that the canal with locks would be built in 9 years. These estimates of construction time were essentially the same as those made by the Isthmian Canal Commission in 1901.
As a result, President Roosevelt supported the canal with locks. In his letter to Congress on February 19, 1906, the president mentioned that a sea-level canal would be easier to defend than a canal with locks. However, among the advantages of the canal with locks were the following: It would be easier to enlarge, it would not cost much more than half of the sea-level canal, the risk during construction would be less, the transit of large vessels would be faster, and taking into account the interest on the amount of money saved during construction, the maintenance cost would be lower.
He also mentioned that, considering the experience gained in the United States with the canal with locks of Sault Ste. Marie, a canal with locks in Panama was superior to a sea-level canal in terms of safety, feasibility and convenience . After discussing the problem considerably, the United States Congress approved the canal plan with locks by a narrow margin of 36 to 31 votes, on June 21, 1906. The president signed the resolution to build the Panama Canal with locks on June 29, 1906.
Abelardo Bal Renau
Reiteramos nuestro agradecimiento al autor y le animamos a continuar sus investigaciones en la senda ingenieril del canal más importante del mundo
Lorenzo Correa
¡ Síguenos en las redes sociales !
¿Te interesa la gestión del agua desde la perspectiva del coaching?
Ponte en contacto con nosotros para más información sobre la participación de Lorenzo Correa en charlas, conferencias, formaciones o debates a nivel internacional