1 JI01IR1 73 1473 EDITION OF I NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wham Date Entered)

11 . CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12 . REPORT DATE

Institute for Water Resources - WRSC-I, Water September 1979

Resources Support Center, Kingman Building 13 . NUMBER OF PAGES

Ft . Belvoir, Virginia 22060 31 _

14 . MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) 15 . SECURITY CLASS . (of this report)

UNCLASSIFIED

15a. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16 . DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited .

17 . DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, it different from Report)

18 . SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19 . KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and Identify by block number)

Canals, Commercial Navigation, Development of Western U .S ., Erie Canal, Locks

Transportation, Mount Vernon Compact, New York State Barge Canal System, Ports,

Waterborne Commerce, Water Resources Development, Waterways

20, . ABSTRACT (Caatfnue sm reverse stage Ft necesear and Identify by block number)

This staff paper is one of a series that reviews the history of waterways and

ports in the U .S . in the context of transportation needs of the nation today

and into the next century . The current volume, number one in the series, examines the period from settlement of the courtry to the completion of the Erie

Canal in 1825 .

(see reverse side)
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered)

(continued from # 20)

Although not a comprehensive history of waterways and ports, attention centers

on important experiences in the development of water transportation . Among

these are the Mount Vernon Compact, 1785 ; Albert Gallatin's 1808 report on

roads and canals ; development of private and state canal projects ; construction of the Erie Canal (the greatest water resource of the 19th century) and

the impacts of the role of government on our national economy and society and

regional development.

In a broader sense the report deals with the field of water resources management, the role of the federal government as a government of substance and

action, relationships among the states, melding of private institutions and

entrepreneurship with public resources and responsibilities, the values of

intermodalism, the importance of multipurpose projects, and the impact of

technical change on our navigation system .

A

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered)
L

ISTORY OF THE

OMMERCIAL

WATERWAYS &

PORTS OF THE

UNII'EDSTATES

VOLUME I

From Settlement to

Completion of the Erie Canal

Robert W. Harrison

December 1979

Staff Paper NWS-79-S1

National Waterways Study 0 U.S . Army Engineer Water Resources Support Center 0 Institute for Water Resources
Copies may be purchased from :

National Technical Information Service

U .S . Department of Commerce

Springfield, Virginia 22151

This report is not to be construed as necessarily representing the

views of the Federal Government or the U .S . Army Corps of Engineers .
NATIONAL WATERWAYS STUDY

Staff Papers

In the course of the National Waterways Study, the staff of

the Institute for Water Resources will prepare staff papers on a

wide range of subjects related to the waterways, their

development and use . These papers are being made available in

preliminary form for purpose of review and discussion . They are

not in their preliminary form official parts of the National

Waterways Study reports .

Questions or review comments on this staff report should be

addressed to Mrs . Arlene L . Dietz, National Waterways Study

Manager, at (202) 325-7141 or to Mr . Robert W. Harrison, Senior

Economist, at (202) 325-7420, Institute for Water Resources,

Water Resources Support Center, U .S . Army Corps of Engineers,

Ft . Belvoir, Virginia 22060 .
PREFACE

The National Waterways Study offers the opportunity for a

review of the history of the waterways in the context of the

transportation needs of the nation today and into the next

century . , Such a review serves practical purposes in that it

helps identify those actions toward resources development which

have been effective and those which did not produce desired

results or led to unfavorable outcomes .

A comprehensive history in the classic sense of the

waterways and ports of the United States is beyond the scope of

the National Waterways Study . What is desired is a search for

those elements of waterways experience which will help in the

planning of a more effective modern system of water transport

for the Nation . Thus, the center of attention will be directed

to the planning processes which led to those types of public

debate and cooperation productive of useful public

improvements . The American experience in development of

effective public works, including water transportation, has been

more varied than many students realize until they take a close

look at both the successes and failures in public affairs . Both

the successes and the failures hold vaulable meanings for the

National Waterways Study.

Most of the problems we deal with today in trying to plan

an efficient waterways system have been considered in one or

more earlier phases of national effort to develop a strong

economy and to build the infrastructure needed to maintain it .

In the approach outlined we seek a comparison among the many

goals sought through resource development and the means used to

realize them and a selection of those combinations of goals and

means which demonstrated promise of usefulness in solving

today's problems .

ii
HISTORY OF THE COMMERCIAL WATERWAYS AND PORTS

OF THE UNITED STATES

From Settlement to Completion of the Erie Canal

In the rotunda of the U .S . Capitol building, a series of

large paintings depict events of signal importance in the

history of the Nation . Among these is the Discovery of the

Mississippi by DeSoto, A .D . 1541, a very handsome painting .

There are few who would challenge the importance of this

discovery and the great role of this waterway in the shaping of

America, not only in the century of discovery, but in the whole

of national history . Certainly the native Indian tribes of

America made active use of the rivers, lakes and seacoasts, as

evidenced by their movements and by the earthworks they left and

the artifacts found to mark their earliest camps and settlements, frequently near the confluence of major rivers . The

divisions of Indian tribal territory were usually bounded by

reference to streams and lakes and the colonists from Europe

frequently did the same. Indeed our roadways and major

railroads to this day follow the trails established by the

Indian . The importance to the early European explorers and

settlers of sheltered harbors, estuaries and tidal rivers

capable of floating their ocean sailing vessels can scarcely be

overestimated . Each generation, in a sense, writes its own

history in the way it uses the resources and accumulated wealth

left to it . Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in

the use, . development and management of the great rivers, lakes

and coastal areas of the New World .

For over 200 years the waterways of North America served

the English, Dutch, French and Spanish colonies well . Few

nations have been so generously endowed with harbors, bays,

estuaries and rivers usable for navigation by sailing ships .

The Delaware and Hudson Rivers served the Dutch interests in

America . The Hudson was particularly important as it aided in

contact with the French in Canada by way of Lake Champlain . The

Mohawk, a tributary of the Hudson, led toward the Great Lakes

and the Ohio River, reaching its most important connection, the

Mississippi River as it flows to the Gulf of Mexico .

Tidewater men of Virginia used the rivers and creeks

tributary to Chesapeake Bay as highways to widely scattered

plantations . Oceangoing vessels of that day could sail for

considerable distances up the James, York, Rappahannock and

Potomac Rivers to the wharves of plantation owners . The

Virginia House of Burgesses enacted considerable legislation

directing the improvement of navigation on these and other

streams, but little was accomplished as the rivers provided

generallysatisfactory navigation to the fall line .

1
Improvements were limited to marking channels, placing lights at

strategic points, and establishing wharves and piers at

plantations and settlements . In time the need for labor to

transfer cargo from ships to wagons led to settlements at the

fall lines of the coastal rivers . Such settlements grew to

become the cities of Petersburg on the Appomattox, Richmond on

the James, Fredricksburg on the Rappahannock, and Georgetown and

Alexandria on the Potomac .

The rocky New England coast was not as inviting, but here

too, settlements were possible and soon Boston and Plymouth were

important centers for colonial commerce . The Connecticut River

served as a gateway to much of New England . This river was

probably first explored about 1610 by the Dutchman, Adriaen

Block, who sailed up the river as far as the rapids, at present

Enfield, Connecticut . For almost 200 years thereafter, the

Connecticut proved the principal transportation route in New

England . During the colonial period, flatboats and canoes

carrying fur from trading posts and the products of the interior

were moved, on the river, between the falls and transferred over

the successive falls, until Hartford, Connecticut was finally

reached . There, lumber, produce and fur were placed on sailing

craft bound for Boston, New York and the Indies . A shipbuilding

industry of some size grew up at Middletown and Wethersfield,

Connecticut . Thus, by the end of the colonial period, a

substantial system of waterway transportation based on the use

of rivers in their natural state had developed on the

Connecticut River from Wells River Junction in Vermont to the

sea .

To the French was left the development of a grand strategy

as the European empires sought possession and control of North

America . By good luck the colonial French found themselves in a

strategic position as they held the two main rivers which

penetrated deepest into the heart of the continent--the

St . Lawrence on the north and the Mississippi and tributaries

from the south . Having entered the Gulf of St . Lawrence in

1534, they explored the Great Lakes and the Upper Mississippi .

The mouth of the Mississippi was brought under French control by

Bienville in 1717, when New Orleans was founded . The French

explorers established a series of forts and outposts to form a

remarkable but weak chain which they hoped would hold this

western empire for France, but they were soon challenged .

1 Chorpening, C . H . "Waterway Growth in the United States,

American Society of Civil Engineers," Centennial Transactions,

Paper No . 2643, Vol, Ct, 1953, p . 976 .

2
Noted earlier was the route by the Mohawk River to the

Great Lakes and the valley of the Ohio . New York governors used

this route to begin explorations . Virginia governors also sent

out scouts to Virginia land claims in the west . The Ohio

Company of Virginia was founded in 1748 as a trading corporation

with plans to penetrate the Ohio as far as the falls at the

present site of Louisville, Kentucky . The Ohio Company was

aggressive, having many prominent backers in America and in

England . Trading posts were established and the Potomac and

Monongahela Rivers were used for movement of goods and

supplies . This activity excited the French and also some of the

colonial merchants in New York and Pennsylvania who saw the

western trade falling to Virginia . They began to develop

alternative routes to the west . The French resented this invasion of a dominion which they claimed as their own and sent

armed forces into the upper Ohio basin in 1753 . In spite of a

warning carried by George Washington to the French camp on the

Allegheny, they proceeded in the destruction of depots of the

Ohio Company. There soon followed the French and Indian War

which eventually resulted in loss of the French empire in

America .

The American colonies were familiar with the many

navigation improvements made on European rivers and with the

canal projects which were becoming common in Europe . The canal

lock was understood from ancient times . It came into common use

in Greece and Italy during the last half of the 15th century .

The years 1600-1680 were a time of active canal building in

France ., In England, canal building came later, reaching a peak

in the late 18th century. But in the colonies there were few

public funds for navigation improvements beyond channel markers

and lights at strategic points . Yet there were men of

imagination in every colony who saw the possibilities for

improving and connecting the rivers and making the ports

safer . In Massachusetts, Thomas Machin was such a man . He saw,

for example, that the hazards of navigation around Cape Cod

could be reduced by cutting a canal across that cape to provide

a safer sheltered route . Many years later this was accomplished .

In the colony of New York, Cadwallader Colden, the Surveyor

General, began in 1724 a survey of the rivers of New York .

Colden later became the Lieutenant Governor of the colony of New

York. He kept his interest in improvement of the waterways and

in 1750 took the leadership in the construction of a short canal

in Orange County, New York . This may have been the first canal

built in the territory which became the United States . Fifty

years earlier the French had dug a canal at Lachine on the

St . Lawrence River in what is now Canada .

3
The southern colonies also had citizens who were interested

in internal improvements . As soon as the French and Indian War

was over, there was renewed interest in the navigation of the

Potomac and James Rivers . George Washington (encouraged by his

friend Elkanah Watson) and Thomas Johnson of Maryland were

active promoters of navigation works . Washington, then in the

Virginia House of Burgesses, worked for the passage of an act

for opening the Potomac to navigation from the tidewater to

Fort Cumberland, Maryland .

Independence from England did not lead to complete harmony

among the former colonies, particularly on river navigation

problems . Maryland and Virginia had been fussing for over 200

years over. management of the Potomac . The Potomac was in

Maryland, but entered the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia where the

mouth of the Potomac and the lower Chesapeake had been improved

by the establishment of lights and channel markers and other

aids to navigation essential to safe use of the Potomac River .

In 1785 representatives of Maryland and Virginia met at

Mount Vernon where they discussed ways of cooperating on

navigation matters . They developed a document to guide their

states which became known as the "Mount Vernon Compact ."

Students of the early years of the Union consider this document

of great importance as it contains many concepts and principles

later used in the constitutional provision which guides the

states in their cooperative relationship where joint resource

problems arise . Following the meeting at Mount Vernon, other

states expressed the need to form agreements on the development

of navigable rivers . Pennsylvania had a special interest in the

Chesapeake because of the Susquehanna River . Delaware was also

interested . This led to the Annapolis Convention of 1786 . From

this there followed the Constitutional Convention of 1787 .

"Thus waterways and the necessity for regulating commerce were

major elements leading to the development of the Constitution,

and the 'Mount Vernon Compact' foreshadowed the commerce clause

of the Constitution which, remains today the basic law under

which waterway improvements are undertaken by the Federal

Government ."2

The compacts mentioned above proved to have a unifying

force throughout the colonies . The interstate compact of 1785

under which Virginia agreed to allow Maryland shipping to pass

the capes of Chesapeake Bay without payment of duties preceded

by almost half a century the interpretation of the commerce

clause of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in the historic

case of Gibbon vs Ogden .That case established firmly the

2 Chorpening, Op . Cit ., p . 986

4
rights of citizens of one state to pass freely over the rivers

and waterways of another, asserted the Federal control over the

interstate commerce that exists today, and showed that the right

of the Federal Government to control included the right to

improve . The historian, A. J . Beveridge, stated that John

Marshall's decision in that case " . . . has done more to knit the

American people into an indivisible nation than any force in

history except only war ."3

From the very beginning the Federal Government was

interested in the navigable waterways . The Constitution gave

Congress the power " . . .to regulate commerce with foreign nations

and among the several states and with the Indian tribes ." The

first congressional appropriation for waterways management was

that of April 6, 1802, providing $30,000 for erecting and

maintaining public piers in the Delaware River . Congressional

acts of 1823 and 1824 got the Army Corps of Engineers involved

for the first time in navigation improvements . The appropriation of March 3, 1823, was made in the sum of $150 for

examination and surveys of the harbor of Presque Isle on Lake

Erie in Pennsylvania . This was the first legislative assignment

to the Corps of Engineers of a survey for navigation

improvement . The Acts of 1824 were far reaching and are looked

on as the true beginning of the Corps of Engineers role in

developing the waterways of the nation . Under the Act of

April 30, 1824, President Madison was authorized to have

surveyed " . . .the routes of such roads and canals as he may deem

of national importance in a commercial or military point of

view." The Act of May 24, 1824, initiated Federal improvements

for navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, appropriating

$75,000 for the effort .

It is interesting to note that the early legislation

contained many provisions that are still important steps in

Corps of Engineers planning : preparation of a plan of

improvement, development of cost estimates for the plan

selected, and appraisal of the future effects of the work . The

legislation of April 30, 1824, specified that improvements

sought should be of national importance .

While Federal interests in development of navigation is as

old as the nation, it should not be assumed that the states were

inactive . In fact, during the first 75 years of national

history, the states took the initiative in the improvements of

the commercial waterways . The first acts of the Congress on

navigation gave approval to state projects for improving the

3 Ibid, p . 986 .
commercial waterways by removing snags, wrecks, and other

obstacles to transportation. The states also had a long list of

canals which they were planning to build to improve and connect

the natural system of river navigation.

They soon sought direct Federal support for canal building,

but the initial reaction was that this was a task for state and

local interests . Later the Federal Government did, however,

respond with development of a program of land grants begun in

1827 to aid inland navigation . In several instances the Federal

Government also bought stock or made loans to canal development

companies .

The period of active canal development, 1780-1850, is a

distinct chapter in the history of American waterways and river

engineering science . The early canals were typically carried

out by private companies organized for this purpose . Later the

individual states assumed the responsibility for construction

and management of the larger canal projects . Many distinguished

citizens served as officers and stockholders of canal

companies . William Penn, Governor Spottswood of Virginia,

Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington, for example, all took

an active interest in the development of navigation canals .

Canal building in America in the late 18th and 19th

centuries attracted much attention in Europe, particularly among

European engineers whose opinions were being increasingly

sought . The Senate of the United States was also interested,

sensing the political importance of internal improvements such

as roads, canals, ferries and other aids to transportation . In

1807 a Senate resolution directed the Secretary of the Treasury,

Albert Gallatin, to investigate and report upon road and canal

matters, as they might effect the new nation . Gallatin's report

of April 4, 1808, was designed to be a popular document and it

soon became so and remained in the public eye for a generation . It contained a skillful summary of the road and canal

work underway and proposed, and went on to show how independent

projects could be joined and extended into a national transportation system. His plan for developing roadways connecting

interior rivers with corresponding Atlantic tidewater streams

was the first proposal leading toward a national system of

transportation in which there was an attempt to integrate modes,

a concept which is still a goal of the Federal Government .

Gallatin singled out the projects of clear national

importance while acknowledging the local value of many road and

canal plans which the states or private groups had drawn up .

Along' the Atlantic coast he recommended completing planned

canals and developing new canals which would help to connect New

6
England with the South Atlantic states . This would facilitate

trade among the states by providing a route sheltered from

Atlantic storms .

For the Atlantic seaboard, Gallatin supported the

development of canals inland on the Susquehanna, Potomac, James

and Roanoke Rivers and on the Santee, making travel by boat

beyond the fall line possible . Gallatin also recommended a

canal from Muscle Shoals, connecting the Tennessee with the

Tombigbee River for securing water transportation to Mobile,

Alabama, on the Gulf of Mexico .

These proposals were all generally popular and they were

largely carried out . Gallatin also directed attention to how

best to connect the seaboard states with the interior of the

country, particularly with the Ohio River Basin . He thought

that two canals with parallel roadways should be built, one

connecting the Hudson River with Lake Champlain and the other

connecting the Mohawk River with Lake Ontario . Concepts of this

type had been on the New York state agenda for a considerable

time, but officials eventually found a better plan--the Hudson

River - Lake Erie Canal .

Passage from the coastal states to the west under

Gallatin's plan was to be further facilitated by four roads

connecting the Allegheny River in the west with the Susquehanna

or Juniata River in the east ; the Monongahela with the Potomac,

the Kanawha with the James, and the Tennessee with either the

Santee or the Savannah River .

Secretary Gallatin's report, "Roads and Canals," proposed

few projects that were entirely new, but it looked at the work

accomplished and that proposed with a new perspective--a

national point of view . The defense aspect of transportation

was emphasized, particularly the need to consolidate the Federal

hold on the western lands through securing the western and

northern boundaries . This expression of the broader social

significance of travel and commerce did much to persuade

national leaders of the Federal role in transportation and in

water navigation in particular . Gallatin introduced the

importance of planning waterway development into his discussions

of the role of the states and the Federal Government in road and

canal building . Gallatin was also aware of the dual relationship of navigation policy to transportation policy as a whole

and to water resources policy in its broadest context . In his

report, he introduced a letter (dated December 8, 1807) from

Robert Fulton, inventor of the steamboat, in which the

possibilities . for multiple purpose ~ aspects of waterway

development were discussed . The use of water from canals for

agriculture, for municipal supplies and manufacturing was

forseen . One hundred years after Gallatin's report the Inland
Waterways Commission in its report of February 1908 said,

"Gallatin's work, in conjunction with that of George Washington

(in the Mount Vernon Compact) may be said to have inaugurated

the waterways policy of the United States ."

The most tangible evidence of this policy came some years

later when the Congress initiated a series of land grants from

the public domain to promote state canal building projects . The

first canal grant was made in March 1827 giving over 500,000

acres to the states of Indiana and Illinois . From 1827 through

1866 grants were made exceeding 4 .4 million acres to the five

states of the old Northwest Territory for canal building as

follows:

LAND GRANTS TO STATES FOR BUILDING CANALS, 1827-1866

States

Canals Acres Granted

Indiana	Wabash and Erie Canal 1,457,366

Ohio	Wabash and Erie Canal 266,535

Miami and Dayton Canal 333,826

General Canal Purposes 500,000

Illinois	Illinois River to Lake Michigan 290,915

Wisconsin	Milwaukee and Rock River125,431

Breakwater and Harbor Ship Canal 200,000

Michigan	St . Marys Ship Canal750,000

Portage Lake-Lake Superior

Ship Canal 400,000

	 Lac LaBelle Ship Canal 100,000

Total4,424,073

In addition to land grants, the Federal Government also

subscribed to or purchased stock in private companies engaged in

canal building . The Congress also authorized loans to several

canal companies . The canal companies involved in sale of stock

or in borrowing funds from the Federal 'Government from 1825-1866

were : the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, $450,000 ; Louisville

and Portland Canal, $235,000 ; Dismal Swamp Canal, $200,000 and

the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, $400,000 .

While land ',grants and financial support were offered to

assist in canal building, the Federal Government was reluctant

to become directly involved in major canal development . Private

companies and later the states dominated canal work until after

8
the Civil War . While canal developments were sweeping the

country, the U .S . Government was employed, usually through the

Corps of Engineers, in improvements to the major coastal ports

and harbors and to the great Mississippi River and tributaries

where the steamboat was rapidly making river navigation a major

factor in passenger and freight movement .

EarlyPrivateandStateCanalProjects-1780-1850

There is no sharp beginning and end to the period of canal

construction for navigation in the U .S . Many small canals were

started before 1780 and several major canals were finished a

year or two after 1850 . In 1808 there were 115 miles of canals

in use . By 1850, there were over 4,200 miles of navigation

canals . The peak in canal planning and construction came after

the completion of New York State's Erie Canal in 1825,

connecting the Hudson River with Lake Erie and giving New York

City merchants the best route to the markets of the west, and

western farmers the best markets in the nation and abroad for

their grain and other produce . The engineering and economic

success of the Erie Canal was one of the great triumphs of the

19th century . It fired the imagination of a whole generation .

Water transportation was now seen as the one sure way to develop

two-way trade with the west . The intensive use and the high

earnings of the Erie Canal even before it was completed, sparked

a national canal building mania .

Europeans in' the very early years of American canal

building saw the potential that this mode of transport offered

for North America, not only for the movement of manufactured

goods and farm and forest commodities, but for the movement of

settlers to the western lands . America's wealth then was

largely in land and the way to secure and multiply this wealth

was to settle the land . Their interest also stemmed from the

fact that American canal builders frequently sought their

advice . America learned greatly from the experience of early

19th century canal building in England . Today American

engineers, economists and planners are again interested in the

rapid redevelopment of European waterways now taking place in

England and Germany, particularly, and to a lesser degree in

France . The development of the Common Market seems to have

stimulated a second look at the usefulness of waterways in

modern technological economies . Likewise there are many lessons

to be learned from the American experience in canal construction

and management . Most of the problems water resource planners

face today, the canal planning builders faced in one form or

another in the early 19th century . Often their solutions

represented genuine breakthroughs in science and social

management .

9
In this age of rapid transportation and high energy

consumption, it is difficult to imagine the importance which

even small improvements in transportation made in the life and

economy of early America . The canal represented a great leap

forward in efficiency over road haulage . Consider that a team

of four horses on a typical road in 1800 could haul one ton 12

miles a day . If the road was improved to the "turnpike"

standard, one and a half tons might be transported with the same

team in the same time . Few roads were of "turnpike" standards,

however . On the canal with a towpath, one horse could easily

draw a 30-ton barge at a steady rate of two miles per hour .

With the canal, most of the lift needed to move "uphill" was

provided hydraulically . The savings in transportation costs

were, of course, tremendous when canals could be utilized . For

passenger traffic canals were safe and compared with other modes

available they were at least equally fast . In many respects

they provided a comfortable way to travel . Travelers on

American canals left many interesting reports . Many found the

canals a beautiful and even exciting way to travel . If

declining petroleum supplies suggest an energy constrained

future, the waterways could become a more diversified carrier

than they are now.

The desire for canals was felt greatest by those who had

attempted to navigate interior streams in a natural condition .

The broad estuaries of the coastal rivers and bays, such as the

large Chesapeake Bay, posed few problems, but above tidewaters,

the rivers became very difficult to navigate . During floods it

might be possible to pass over the rapids, but the currents were

strong and treacherous and many loads were lost . During low

water, the channel was often found full of snags and sharp

rocks . Nevertheless, the downriver passage of rafts and floats

on the larger streams were often successful . It was common to

sell the larger rafts and flatboats at the end of the journey

for building material as there was no reasonable way to make a

return trip upstream by flatboat or raft . Such boats ordinarily

carried 40 to 50 tons, but a few attempts to market the produce

of whole communities quite often ended in disaster as large

rafts were difficult to maneuver and could easily run aground .

Keelboats, capable of carrying 15 to 50 tons, were soon designed

for river traffic . The shaped ends made steering easier

resulting in a safer boat during storms, and generally

preventing groundings . Downstream commerce continued to exceed

upstream movement, but the keelboat could be pulled upstream, a

laborious hand operation . When the river was swift, ropes . were

often fixed to the bank and the boat pulled upstream hand over

hand . Occasionally towpaths were built along the more difficult

reaches . On these, men were found pulling boats almost as often

as horses or mules . All who experienced travel by river through

flood or drought longed for the quiet, certainty and safety of a

1 0
predictable environment with its gentle slopes, towpaths and

picturesque locks to do the lifting .

The development of the steamboat offered the prospect that

the interior rivers might become navigable in both directions

and that large loads might be carried . The period of canal

building was well underway before the effectiveness of the

steamboat was demonstrated. The concept of a steam railroad was

also in its infancy . Throughout the canal building era, the

possibility that the canal would be made obsolete by the

railroad was feared . Various steps were taken to forestall

railroad completion, often without success . The development of

the steampowered boat on the rivers and lakes aided the major

canals .. Steamboat passengers and shippers of freight were able

to continue their movement by water, otherwise impossible but

for the artificial canals connecting the navigable rivers .

The technological revolution in transportation brought on

by steam power on water and land did not, at first, have the

influence on canal development plans and projects that the

economic revolution of the late 18th and early 19.th centuries

had . The European wars greatly stimulated American trade . In

1791 the American export trade was estimated at 19 million

dollars ; in 1794 at 33 million ; and in 1907 at 108 million . As

the vessels of the warring nations were needed elsewhere,

American shipping began to carry a much larger proportion of the

American trade . In 1789, about 50 percent of the vessels

engaged in American trade were of foreign registry . In 1796,

only 6 percent were foreign ships . The market prices of many

farm products rose rapidly, many doubling in a few years .

Exports of cotton, for example, rose from 138,000 pounds in 1792

to 60 million pounds in 1807 . There was a great demand for

grain in Europe, but it was difficult to get grain over the

mountains to New York and Baltimore and that which could be

moved to New Orleans found that market in foreign hands . . Thus,

economic conditions set the stage for water transport plans of

all types, but particularly canal plans as these were judged to

be the most reliable . They were tested and ready to be put in

operation . The New York merchant and the settler on the

frontier both saw their fortunes and fate tied up in the quest

for better waterways . The ruling classes on the seaboard held

millions of acres in western land grants . George Washington,

for example, had 20,000 acres in grants on the Kanawha and Ohio

Rivers . Canals would make these lands more valuable, easier to

sell or to use . The soldier and the small farmer also wanted

canals built so they could go west to start farming on new

land . With water transportation they could more easily take

their families and their household goods and farming tools . The

canal development era started during a period of great

optimism. The growing economy had enabled the new states to

1 1
treasuries . The state officials and administrators wanted to

exercise their authority to develop public projects . Canal

projects filled the bill . Tolls could be charged for use of

canals and thus return to the states and to the private

supporters their investment . This could be used to set in

motion further internal improvements . The future looked bright .

Connected to the economic considerations was the great

question of the political integrity of the nation . This is what

worried Washington and Jefferson and many other public-sprited .

men . There was no time to waste in providing the transportation

facilities which would end the isolation of the west .

In summarizing, by 1808 the following canals were

completed : Appomattox, Virginia ; Baldwinville, New York ; Cape

Fear, North Carolina ; Carondelet, Louisiana ; Conewago,

Pennsylvania ; Dismal Swamp, Virginia ; James River, Virginia ;

Middlesex, Massachusetts ; Mohawk and Ontario, New York; Montaque

Falls, Massachusetts ; Potomac, D .C. and Maryland ; Pawtucket

Falls, Massachusetts ; Santee and Cooper, South Carolina ;

Schuylkill and Susquehanna, Pennsylvania ; South Hadley Falls,

Massachusetts ; and Susquehanna, Pennsylvania .

Waugh has pointed out that there are many technical

problems in developing workable, manmade, artificial

waterways . The canal building era proved to be a varitable

school for practical engineering . Many devices were used to

carry canals over difficult terrain and across major streams .

Waugh says " . . .ingenious and monumental engineering works were

devised . Remarkable feats were accomplished with 'ocks,

inclined planes, portage railways, aqueducts, and tunnels ."

The Middlesex Canal extending from near Boston Harbor

(Charlestown's millpond) to Chelmsfork on the Merrimack River

was the longest canal, (27 miles, with 22 locks) built before

the New York Erie Canal . The Dismal Swamp Canal was the next

longest (22 miles) originally built with four locks . The locks

were large for the time, 100 feet long by 18 feet wide . During

the construction of the Erie Canal frequent reference was made

to the experience on these two canal projects .

4 Waugh, Jr ., Richard G ., "Canal Development in Early America,"

Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, U .S . Army Corps of

Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, p . 23, not dated .

1 2
Fig . 1 . - The Canals of Early America (1786-1851) .

Source : Waugh, Jr ., Richard G ., "Canal Development in Early

America," Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Fort

Belvoir, Virginia 22060 .

1 3

LEGEND

1 Cumberland &

Oxford

2 Middlesex

3 Blackstone

12 Chemung

13 Genesee Valley

14 Morris

15 Delaware & Raritan

16 Delaware Division

17 Lehigh Navigation

25 Santee & Cooper

26 Carondelet

27 Ohio & Penn

28 Sandy & Beaver

29 Muskingum

30 Ohio & Erie

4 New Haven &

Northhampton

5 Delaware &

Hudson

18 Schuylkill Navigation 31 Hocking

19 Susquehanna &

Tidewater

32 Miami & Erie

6 Champlain 33 Whitewater

7 Erie 20 Penn. State Canal 34 Wabash & Erie

8 Black River 21 Chesapeake & Delaware 35 Louisville &

9 Oswego 22 Chesapeake & Ohio Portland

10 Cayuga-Seneca 23 James River & Kanawha 36 Illinois &

11 Chenango 24 Dismal Swamp Michigan
miles, was 40 feet wide at the water surface, tapering to 28

feet at the bottom of the canal . It had a depth of 4 feet of

water . There were 81 lift locks each 90 feet long and 15 feet

wide . It could handle barges up to 78 feet long and 14 feet

wide, with 3 feet 6 inches depth, but the first barges were 70

feet long and 7 feet wide with a 30-ton capacity . Such a barge

could carry 1,000 bushels of grain . This was the typical size

of barges on most English canals . From Tidewater on the Hudson

River above Albany, the canal entered Lake Erie at Buffalo, New

York at an elevation of 572 feet . Construction cost was

$12,720,032 .25, including the feeder canals, considerably above

the cost as estimated during the planning period . The canal was

opened as each unit was completed . The first part opened was

the 15-mile section between Utica and Rome, New York, on

October 23, 1819 . To mark the event there was a great

celebration . A boatload of officials left Rome for Utica as

spectators lined the canal, accompanied by ringing bells and the

roar of canons . A letter of the times described the event as

"sublime ." There were many such celebrations as completed

parts were opened . In 1825 there was a truly grand celebration

the length of the canal, marking the completion of the Erie

Canal Project . The whole of New York seemed to have taken part,

so great was the excitement when a flotilla of western coal

barges finally arrived in New York City, although the city had

not supported the canal project .

5

Langbein, W . B ., Hydrology and Environmental Aspects of Erie

Canal (1817-99), Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2038,

U .S . Government Printing Office, Washington, D .C., 1976, p . 1 .

6 Drago, Harry Sinclair, Canal Days in America, New York, 1972 .

14
One of the earliest decisions was to build a canal

independent of the local streams, as opposed to one where the

natural channels of rivers were cleaned and improved .

Experience on the Mohawk River where the Western Lock Navigation

Company, chartered in 1792, had built a canal near Rome,

demonstrated the difficulty of making "canals" out of river

courses with all of the uncertainties commmon to a natural

stream. Many parts of the canals of the colonial period were

merely streams that were cleaned of obstructions and deepened .

This appeared to be the cheapest way to do the job, but

maintenance was difficult as the frequent high water damaged or

destroyed the improvements .

A second decision made early in New York State deliberations on canal management was to favor public as opposed to

private construction, operation and maintenance of the canal .

This was a dramatic reversal of earlier practice and it did not

come easy. The Federal Government was, however, asked to

support the Erie Project but President Jefferson declined . He

thought the idea was good but ahead of its time by a century .

The decision in favor of State operation stemmed in a large part

from public reluctance to see such a large and important project

put in private hands . While the ownership and control of the

canals rested on the public, the barges were privately owned by

companies or individuals and operated under state rules .

Another important policy question focused on the best route for

the canal . A passage to Lake Ontario was rejected as it was

feared the potential traffic here might be attracted to

Montreal. The economic, as well as the physical size of the

canal was also debated at length . In the usual balancing act

between cost and benefits, a middle position was taken as the

safest in light of the many unknowns . The slope of the canal

was also studied in some detail as there was the possibility

that a graded canal (built as an inclined plane from Lake Erie

to the Hudson River) would make possible a source of Lake Erie

water for a large part of New York State . But at the time there

15
Canal and provided a warning of the great damage floods could be

to successful canal development . The potential impact of the

canal on the environment of the region it served was given

serious thought during the planning period . The environmental

issues centered on the question of whether land clearing and

other land developments along the canal might adversely affect

the hydrology of the region leaving the canal without adequate

water during the summer and making flood and drought more

extreme . On this point, Langbein observes :

The anxieties over the adverse effects of

deforestation expressed by the Commissioners of

1811 were frequently restated by the others who

followed . Indeed, one of the reasons given for

setting aside the Adirondack Forest Preserve in the

1880's was to maintain a steady flow of water to

the Erie Canal . By that time contrary opinion had

emerged as stated, for example by the State

Engineer . 'An idea seems to have found lodgement

in the public mind, that the preservation of the

forest in the Adriondack Region, is the only means

by which an adequate supply of water for the state

canals . . . can be secured for all time .' Although

preservation would be justified for game, health,

and recreation, the benefits would not include

water supply which could be obtained from

impoundments by dams . 'The facts show most

conclusively that from fourty to fifty years ago

when the forest of the Adriondack Region were in

their primitive state, they were much less reliable

as a source of water supply, than they have been

during the past few years .'

7 Langbein, W. B ., Op . Cit ., p . 50 .

16
There was one important question which the seven Land

Commissioners of 1811, headed by Gouverneur Morris and the

Commissioners of 1816 under DeWitt Clinton, chose to put aside

for the future . That was whether a canal of the type they

proposed might not be soon made obsolete by the development of a

steam railway . On this matter Langbein says,

Less in the public view but, as things turned out

of greater importance was an argument of a

technological nature . The now classic arguments

between the merits of inland seasonal navigation

and those of railroads began even before rail lines

existed . The controversy emerged with a published

letter from John Stevens (1812), the Hoboken

inventor, to Gouverneur Morris, Chairman of the

Commissioners of 1811, advising that a relatively

small research investment in a steam railroad would

forstall the early obsolescence of the canal .

Stevens explained the principles involved--for

example, that the square law of resistence does not

apply to motion on rails as it does to motion

through water, and that a rail line is more

flexible in location of route and is usable all

year . The proposal was not taken seriously because

canals, towpaths, and horses were known from long

British experience to be a proven technology,

whereas rails were still only an untested

concept . Anticipation of technological change to

this time is not a part of water planning in the

United States (White, 1969) .

The clear and present advantage of building a canal

seemed to be greater than the political, and

technologic uncertainties of the future, so the

project moved toward approval . The Commissioners

of 1816 appointed to design a canal, needed only to

address those engineering matters that were

necessary to give physical bounds to their

proposal--to adapt the project to the terrain .

Thus they proceeded to resolve such fundamentals of

water engineering as choosing between an Ontario

Canal or an Erie Canal and between a ship or a

barge channel, selecting the profile and the route

location ; and finally, the cross segtion--deciding

on the width and depth of the canal .

8 Op . Cit ., Ibid, p . 10 .

1 7
in 1810, DeWitt Clinton then mayor of New York--later Governor--

was appointed to the Board of Commissioners studying the need

for a canal . He became the leading supporter of the Erie

throughout the construction of the canal . He was opposed in

many of his efforts by Martin Van Buren ; thus the building of

the Erie Canal, as with so many later water projects, became a

political contest filled at times with rancor and animosities .

The engineering profession was almost as publicized by the

Erie Canal project as the political figures . Benjamin Wright,

Chief Engineer, and James Geddes (a lawyer and self-educated

engineer), were the leaders, along with Nathan S . Roberts .

John Sullivan, John Jervis, Fredrick Mills, and Canvass White

were young men of talent who became well known through their

experience on the Erie Canal Project . The men trained on the

Erie went on to build many of the major canals of Pennsylvania,

New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois .

To get the project started, employment and purchasing

offices were opened in Albany and New York . The excavation work

was contracted usually in 10-mile segments . The state built all

of the locks, bridges and aqueducts with directly hired labor .

The prime contractors for excavation had many subcontractors .

The Irish immigrants to New York furnished most of the labor for

digging the Erie . In Canal Days in America, Harry Sinclair

Drago says :

We never tire of hearing how the Irish bogtrotters

built the Erie . Certainly a great number of them--

perhaps more than three thousand--put their sweat,

blood and muscle into it . As they fought their way

through the mosquito-and malaria-infested Montezuma

marshes west of Syracuse, toiling in waist-deep

muck and water, wearing only a shirt and slouch cap

to shield them from the relentless sun, they write

a page of human endeavor that has seldom been

18
had to be cleared . Stone had to be assembled for the locks and

aqueducts . Deep cuts through rock had to be planned . Fortunately the many local farmers who came to the project looking

for work brought with them a natural inventiveness which was

also put to work. A long list of ingenious tools and implements

were developed, some of which were used in field, forest, and

construction for the next 100 years . The need for a hydraulic

cement for use in making the stone locks and aqueducts was

solved when Canvass White located with local help a deposit of

trass, the volcanic pumice used to make cement resistant to

water . Use of the Dupont Blasting Powder proved hazardous . The

Irish were regarded as the best "blowers" on the canal but they

were careless and there were many accidents with loss of life .

From Rome the canal went directly westward, crossing rather

than paralleling the natural streams . Several of the crossings

were major engineering projects . Drago says :

Canal historians have described the beautiful

Genesee River Aqueduct with its eleven Roman arches

(originally only nine), but have had very little to

say about the longer but somewhat less eloquent

aqueduct at Cohoes . It was built on stone piers

that carried canal traffic across the Mohawk River,

twenty-five feet above the river's high-water

level . Of the three Erie aqueducts, it was the

longest ; 1,188 feet ; the Genesee measu1td 802 feet

and the Little Falls Aqueduct 744 feet .

9 Drago, Op . Cit ., p. 173 .

10 Drago, Op . Cit ., p . 173 .

19
The crossing at Schoharie Creek also caused much worry

until it was decided to build a dam to partly contain this

stream.

The marvel of the canal was found at Lockport, where

Engineer Nathan S . Roberts lifted the canal for 60 feet so that

it could pass over the Niagara escarpment . This was done by

building two tiers of five lock chambers each, one to take west

moving boats up and the other to bring east moving boats down .

In the locks the upper gates of the lower chamber acted as the

lower gate of the chamber next above. Thus the name "Combines"

originated . The double tier of combined locks saved time and

water . The approach to these locks involved a deep rock cut

which added to the public interest in this part of the canal .

The approach to the Hudson from Schenectady was also interesting

engineering-wise, as it took 2 7 locks in a distance of about 15

miles . To avoid these, passenger traffic on the Erie often

started at Schenectady, making the trip from Albany by roadway

coach rather than take the time to go through the locks .

Two additional features of the Erie need to be mentioned,

the feeder canals that supplied water to the main canal from

local streams and the many bridges that were built to accommodate local movements of people and livestock . There were

hundreds of bridges ; for the sake of economy, they were built

low. A man standing on the deck of a canal boat had to duck or

run the risk of being knocked down . The development of the

feeder canals to keep the Erie supplied with water was a major

undertaking . As it turned out the canal was short of water

throughout most of its life due to seepage being greater than

was estimated .

Like the building, the operation of the Erie Canal was a

major task. Over 2,000 people were employed in regular

operations--engineers, inspectors, toll collectors--and other

tasks . The problems to be solved were legion, as the canal was

working near capacity from the beginning . There were many

delays in barge movements as repairs were made, washouts of

culverts fixed, and many traffic jams straightened out . A

surprising volume of passenger traffic developed and the demand

for speed was great . Soon after the canal was opened, the

Commissioners set the legal speed limit for barges at 4 miles

per hour, having noticed that a speed of 5 miles per hour

produced wavewash which eroded the newly dug banks . Up to 1824

the canal was navigated only in daylight hours . After this, the

demands of boat operators forced the Commissioners to agree to

day and night barge movements . Drago says :

On the Erie, three types of boats were in

operation : the fast, exclusively passengercarrying packets ; the long-haul freighters ; and the

2 0
11 Drago, Ibid, p . 192 .

small, individually owned short-haul freight boats

that made a business of picking up and delivering

mixed cargos whatever their destination . The fast

traveling "line" boats, with their relay stations

where fresh horses and crews were always waiting,

and which were to lord it over the Erie eventually,

had not yet appeared .

In their demand for greater speed on the canal, the

boat lines, of which there were many, forced the

Commissioners to keep the locks open day and

night . Their fast-moving boats damaged the berm

and towpath so frequently that a limit of one

hundred miles a day was set . They ignored it, and

when hauled into court, paid their fines and

continued to defy the regulations . Perhaps the

greatest offender was the Six-Day Line-six days

from New York City to 'Buffalo . It was death on

horses, but oftener than not the boats got through

on schedule .

11

Rapidly growing traffic resulted in a number of

enlargements of the Erie from 1832 to 1865 . The original

location and levels were generally maintained with width and

depth enlargements to make possible movement of barges up to 240

tons . . Freight tonnage reached a peak in the 1880's . Early in

the 20th century a further enlargement was made using the

canalized Mohawk River . Known as the New York State Barge

Canal, this system operates with motorized barges, capable of

moving a thousand tons . It bears little resemblence to the old

Erie, except as Langbein observes : "The old and the new have

chiefly in common that they carry about the same tonnage ." The

success of the Erie led to a demand by communities across the

state that lateral canals be built to serve them . The Lake

Champlain connection was made more or less simultaneously and

work was soon begun on additions to the system .

The New York State engineers report of 1853 describes this

system as follows :

The main canal of this system is the Erie Canal,

occupying the valley of the Mohawk River and the

southern slopes of Lake Ontario, running east and

west nearly through the center of the State, and

connecting the chain of western lakes with the

navigable waters of the Hudson .

2 1
The Chenango canal, occupying the valley of the

river of that name, running from the southern

border of the State, northward, connects the waters

of the Susquehanna with the Erie Canal near the

middle of the State .

The Black River canal (nearly completed) extends

from the navigable waters of that river, and

connects with the Erie canal, near the outlet of

the Chenango .

The Oswego canal connects the most easterly harbor

in the chain of great lakes with the Erie Canal at

the center of the State, and forms the shortest

line between the most easterly of these lakes and

the tide-water .

The Cayuga and Seneca canals connects the Erie with

the lakes of those names, and by means of the

Chemung canal, extends the navigation of the

Susquehanna .

The Crooked Lake canal completes the navigation

between the lake of that name and the Seneca .

The Genesee Valley canal, (nearly completed)

occupying the valley of that river, running south

nearly to the southern border of the State,

connects the Allegany river with the Erie canal

about one hundred miles east of Lake Erie .

The Champlain canal constitutes an independent

route, extending the navigation of the Hudson River

to Lake Champlain, and thence by the improvement of

its outlet to the Saint Lawrence, in the province

of Canada .

Today the Erie, Oswago, Cayuga-Senecca and Champlain canals

are now operated as the New York State Barge Canal System .

Engineers and economists are interested in learning some of

the technical problems which the Erie Canal brought to wider

attention . The canal has recently been studied by

W. B . Langbein ; his report, "Hydrology and Environmental Aspects

of Erie Canal, 1817-1899," Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper

2038, U .S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D .C ., 1976,

outlines most of the major problems which engineers and

economists dealt with during planning and construction of the

old Erie Canal .

2 2
Water supply to make up for seepage proved to be the

greatest problem of the old Erie, as noted earlier . Water for

locks was a minor problem . The methods used in estimating the

supply to be expected from feeder streams during dry weather

were inadequate . Similiarly, floods from small streams crossing

the canal often exceeded expectations and washed out culverts

causing many delays and much damage . There were also hydraulic

problems as the cross section of the canal was too small to move

the large volume of water required to keep the canal supplied

between the feeder streams . This condition was aggravated when

the canal was crowded with barges . Throughout the whole history

of the old Erie there was difficulty keeping the water levels

adequate . The strong fears expressed in the planning phase for

the local environment did not materialize . The canal was never

seriously polluted . It contained fish which were regularly

eaten . The land along the canal and inland was cleared to a

considerable degree, but no water shortage could be traced to

this work. Langbein concludes :

The overriding fact that the initial anxieties of

the planners proved unwarranted and that environmental conditions did not become intolerable by the

standards of that time probably led to neglect of

consideration of environmental risks in subsequent

public works practice during the 19th century

r.

This is probably true and it is certainly interesting to

note that canal building programs following rapidly on the Erie

expressed few environmental concerns . In fact, the word

"environment" was scarcely mentioned for the rest of the 19th

century where canal building was concerned .

12 Langbein, Op . Cit ., p . 2 .

2 3
SUMMARY NOTES

This and other staff papers which will follow are preliminary and clearly not the basis for a set of conclusions . As the

National Waterways Study proceeds and progress is made on the

history of the waterways, there will be an opportunity to assess

the waterway in the broad context of national transportation

development and in terms of national objectives for the water

resource . Now is the time for note taking and observations put

down tentatively, recognizing that there will be a need to

rethink as the work proceeds . With these qualifications, the

following generalizations are made .

1 . The improvement of navigable rivers and the building

of canals were the first large scale engineering efforts in the

field of water resources by the American colonies . In carrying

out these works, numerous institutions, social approaches, and

procedures--ways of doing things--were developed . Many of these

have had a lasting impact on our national economy and society

and on the development of the regions . It was on the question

of internal improvements that the role of the Federal Government

as a government of substance and action, compared with a government primarily of philosophy and policy, was thrashed out .

Likewise the relations between the state governments and the

Federal Government were first defined in terms of water

resources development and management . The relationships among

the states as they related to commonly held resources also found

early definition in water resource arrangement such as the

"Mount Vernon Compact ."

In the same manner the role of private enterprise in

developing public projects found a sharpened definition in

working on the complex task of building a water transportation

system for the nation . The complexities of melding private and

public efforts is, of course, still with us and plays an important part in decisions affecting the present efforts toward

improving the inland waterways and ports . But the system of

private enterprise we enjoy today was shaped to a very great

degree by the problems and issues faced in dealing with "public"

resources such as the navigable waters of the nation . A long

list of creative enterprises and projects now flow from the

ability to combine private institutions and entrepreneurship

with public resources and responsibilities . To use an early

example : when the State of New York in deciding to build the

Erie Canal as a State project also provided that the barges

moving on the canal be owned and operated by individuals and

companies, they set in motion a pattern which has had a profound

impact not only on the future development of water

transportation, but for a long list of public and private

programs covering the full spectrum of American enterprise .

2 4
It is evident that in the adjudication of public and

private interests pertaining to the water resource, the American

colonies at an early date developed not only an engineering

expertise, but launched a social experiment .

2 . Turning to some of the principles that have gradually

evolved in transportation planning, we find that some of these

have roots in the early development of waterways and canals .

The importance of increased integration in the transport system,

the values of intermodalism and the essential character of the

multiple purpose concept in both transportation and water

resources planning are now widely recognized . Even the most

casual review of waterways history will demonstrate that these

concepts are as old as the national effort to provide for an

effective transport system. In water transportation we find

many early examples of how these planning objectives may be

satisfied . The values, for example, of integration of systems

including intramodel cooperation were not lost on

Albert Gallatin . His report of 1808, "Roads and Canals," to the

Senate contained, as Richard Waugh has written : " . . .the first

proposal for a national system of integrated transportation ."

His plan for linking the navigable rivers of trans-Appalachia

with coastal streams by means of turnpikes was a recognition

that intermodal planning is an important element in meeting

transportation needs . During the canal building period there

were numerous examples of rail and canal "integration of

objective" which made for more effective transportation .

Passengers for Pittsburgh on the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal

often left Philadelphia by coach (later by rail) to board canal

packet boats at Columbia, Pennsylvania . These examples may seem

amusing, but this type of enterprise gradually expanded and

finally became one of the best transportation systems in any

nation .

The multipurpose project also has a long history in water

transportation . The Erie Canal furnished water for power to

many New York industries along the canal . The recreational

value of the canal was also utilized from the beginning .

3 . Regional development, driven by the need for a rough

comparability of opportunity among regions, has been linked with

the transportation objective since colonial times . The regional

objective has been associated with waterways projects in every

part of the nation . The waterways moved the early Armies on

their way to western posts . Settlers on the public lands of the

south 'and west often used rivers and canals to move their

families and their homestead goods .

When the steamboat made two-way water travel practical, the

products of the nation's farms and factories began to reach the

seaport markets in volume .Each generation has had its own

2 5

	 
definition and requirements for regional growth and development .

The flexibility of the water resources project, including the

transportation project, in meeting regional development needs

has been remarkable . A review of waterways history adds

perspective to the variety of regional objectives the water

resources development project has satisfied . But we must

remember that over time regional goals change and that the

navigation project today may not have the regional significance

of earlier efforts to develop transportation .

4 . Looking over the long history of public projects for

water transportation cannot help but strengthen the general

perception of the importance of careful planning and consistent

management, particularly of the maintenance component . The Erie

Canal was well planned . It was timely . It was kept up to

date . It responded to multiple needs . Many projects did not

have these characteristics . Maintenance management when of high

quality can often find ways to correct the defects of faulty

design . This lesson has been demonstrated scores of times in

the planning process for the national waterways . It is thus

strange that provision for maintenance, replacement and

management are frequently left out of the planning process for

water resources .

5 . In studying the internal improvement projects of the

18th and 19th centuries in America, the importance of

obsolescence quickly becomes apparent . Yet even today the water

resources planner seldom anticipates the rate of technological

change and its effect on resource use and management . How

different our transportation history would have been if there

had been a realistic approach to the use of railroads and canals

as elements in a planned system, rather than a rush to steam

powered railways with abrupt and wholesale abandonment of

waterways, largely at State and Federal Government expense .

Today we face somewhat the same problem in deciding on the role

of slurry pipelines and how to combine this expanding technology

with the waterway mode and with the more general water resource

problems .

6 . In the long history of the inland waterways, questions

of environment have assumed a very uneven role . During the

early 1800's there was great interest in how the Erie Canal

would impact on the natural environment of New York State . It

was feared that the lands along the canal would be deforested

due to development and that this would lead to a reduced water

supply for the canal . The fear did not materialize and the

questions of environment were, for a time, forgotten. Later the

Great Lakes became the center of environmental concerns and the

work at Niagara Falls served to stimulate the discussions . But

the uneven attention paid to environmental matters has served to

2 6
weaken the disciplines involved and has led planners to a mixed

mind as to how to adequately deal with the genuine problems

navigation efforts may hold for the environment .

7 . Today the application of cost-sharing principles and

user charges to the waterways is a major issue . The long

history of tolls on American canals is, to say the least,

instructive .

8 . From the very beginning it has proved difficult to

predict the use to which waterways may be put . Many of the

early canals were justified on the basis of freight traffic, but

in practice, passenger traffic became almost as important and in

some instances more important . The movement of settlers west

was certainly a vital function of the Erie and the Pennsylvania

Main Line Canal . Today there are similar difficulties in making

navigation projections . For example, ex-post studies of the

McClellan-Kerr Navigation Project for the Arkansas River Basin

demonstrate that the projections of use made at the time of

planning are quite different from the waterway movements

actually experienced .

9 . The national system of transportation we know today

serves many needs but it is far from completed in any ideal

sense . The development of the natural waterways has proceeded

slowly, driven to a considerable degree by regional needs and

the desire to stimulate lagging economic sectors . Within the

broad context of waterway development, the canal building period

held a special place . Seymour Dunbar in his A History of Travell

in America, New York, 1937, writes :

. . .The short period of canal construction which

appeared in this country between 1817 and 1845 was

largely the outgrowth of unusual circumstances, was

begun and ended by conditions peculiar to the

country and period, and can best be described as a

sudden, sporadic, forced and exotic phenomenon

instead of the slow and natural outgrowth of broad

necessity. It is improbable that canals would have

gained headway at all had there been even a dim

general realization of the significance contained

in the work performed with steam by Fitch, Evans,

Stevens, Fulton, and others from 1785 until about

1815 . And, once a really valuable though premature

canal system was in working order--as was the case

by the fourth decade after 1800--it would not have

been allowed to disintegrate in large part had

there been a general or governmental appreciation

of the future needs of the country, coupled with a

popular sense of business morality sufficiently

strong to resist those blandishments which finally

2 7
resulted. in the crippling or outright abandonment

of important, costly and useful public

improvements . (p '770-771)

10 . The study of waterways history and institutions has

been sadly neglected . It is interesting to note that when the

engineer and surveyor for the State of New York in 1905 wished

to describe the canals of America, he had to turn to the work of

a French writer, saying,

The information to be obtained concerning the

various canals of North America is somewhat meagre

and a satisfactory compilation is extremely

difficult . The most complete document on this

subject is the report of H . Vetillart to the French

Minister of Public Works . This report, entitled La

Navigation aux Etats-Unis, has been used in

preparing the present work, but considerable

original research has been made also . . . .

2 8
Andrist, Ralph K ., TheErieCanal, American Heritage,

New York 1964

Armstrong, Ellis L ., History of Public Works in the United

States 1770-1976, American Public Works Association,

Chicago, 1976

Bacon-Foster, Carra, "Early Chapters in the Development of

the Potomac Route to the West," Columbia Historical Society,

Washington, D .C ., 1912

Bobbe, Dorothie, DeWitt Clinton, Minton Baech, New York, 1933

Burton, Anthony, "Canals--Silent Highways of the Past," New

Scientists, Nov 2, 1972, p 282

Caruso, John A ., The Great Lakes Frontier, Bobbs-Merrell,

Indianapolis, 1961

Chalmers, Harry, How the Irish Built the Erie, Bookman

Associates, New York, 1965

Civil Engineering, "Great Falls Canal and Lock : Civil

Engineering Landmark," Civil Engineering,, V . 43, Nov 1972,

p 53

Clinton, DeWitt, Letters on National History and Internal

Resources of the State of New York, New York, 1822, p 224

Clowes, Ernest S ., Shipways to the Sea,, Williams and Wilkins,

Baltimore, 1929

Comstock, Howard Payne, History of Canals in Indiana, Indiana

Historical Society, Indianapolis, 1911

Drago, Hany Sinclair, Canal Days in America, Clarkson H . Potter,

1972

Edmonds, Walter, Rome Haul, Little Brown, Boston, 1929

Federal Writers Project, The Intracoastal Waterway, Government

Printing Office, Washington, D .C ., 1937

Finch, R. G., "The New York State Barge Canal and Its Operations," Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers,

V . 91, 1922, pp 833-854

Fite, Emerson D ., "Canal and Railroad from 1861-65," Yale

Review, New Haven, Connecticut, 1907

29
Gallatin, Albert, "Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on

the Subject of Public Roads and Canals," Senate Resolutionof

March2,1807

Garrity, R . G ., Reflections ontheErieCanal, Historical

Society of the Tonawandas, Tonawandas, New York, 1966

Goodrich, Carter, Ed ., Canals and American Economic Development_,

Columbia University Press, New York, 1961

Hill, Henry Wayland,_Historical Review of Waterways and Canals

Constructed in New York State, Buffalo, Historical Society of

Buffalo, New York, 1908

Jones, Alexander, The Chicago Drainage Canal and Its Forebearer_,

the Illinois and Michigan Canal, Illinois State Historical

Society, Springfield, Illinois, 1906

Kirkwood, James J ., Waterways to the West, James River and

Kanawha, Eastern National Parks and Monument Association, 1963

Kulp, Randolph L ., History of the Lehigh Valley Transit Company,

Lehigh Valley Chapter N .R .H .S ., 1966

Love, W . Del ., "The Navigation of the Connecticut River,"

Proceedings, American Antiquarian Society,, Worcester,

Massachusetts, 1904

McCullough, Robert and Leuba Walter, The Pennsylvania Main Line,

Canal, American Canal and Transportation Center, 1976

Meyer, B . H ., History of Transportation in the United States

Before 1860, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington,

D .C ., 1917

Mitchell and Hinman, Mitchell's Compendium of Canals and

Railroads, 1835, American Canal and Transportation Center,

York, Pennsylvania (reprinted 1972)

Niles, Blair, James River, Farrar and Rinehart, New York, 1939

Percher, F . A ., The History of the Santee Canal, South Carolina

Public Service Authority, Columbia, S .C ., 1950

Roberts, Christopher, The Middlesex Canal,

Boston,1938

Sanderlin, W . B ., Great National Project : A History of the.

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Baltimore, John Hopkins Press,

1946

3 0

L . C .Page,
Shank, William H ., The Amazing Pennsylvania Canals, American

Canal and Transportation Center, York, Pennsylvania, 1975

Shaw, R. E., Erie Water West, University of Kentucky Press,

1966

Sweet, E ., "Radical Enlargement of the Artificial Waterways

Between the Lakes and the Hudson River," Trans American

Society of Civil Engineers, V . 14, 1885, pp 37-140

Swetnam, George, Pennsylvania Transportation, Pennsylvania

Historical Associations, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 1968

Tanner, Henry S., Canals and Railroads of the United States,

1970 Reprint, (Augustus M . Kelley) New York, originally

published 1840

Tyler, W. C ., "Great Lakes Transportation," Transactions,

American Society of Civil Engineers, V . 105, 1940

Veit, Richard F., The Old Canals of New Jersey, Geographical

Press, Little Falls, N .J., 1963

Waggoner, Madeline Saddler, The Long Haul West : The Great

Canal Era 1817-1850, Putnam, New York, 1958

Wakefield, Manville B ., Coal Boats to Tidewater,, Wakefair

Press, Gramsville, N.Y., 1965

Ward, George Washington, Early Development of Chesapeake and,

Ohio Project, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1899

Whitford, Noble E., History of the Canal System of the State

of New York, Brandow Printing Co ., Albany, N .Y ., 1914

3 1