Panama Canal is bigger

A change in ownership status of Panama Canal is being discussed in US. One can steer clear of current political matters and still learn a lot. Here goes.

Railway across the Isthmus of Panama

In 1847 the Colombian government negotiated the building of a transcontinental railroad by investors in the United States, but political and health problems kept it from becoming operational until 1855. The Bidlack-Mallarino Treaty of 1846 granted the United States a right-of-way through the isthmus and thus the right to intervene to protect the line and free transit across the continent. It played a large role in 1848- California gold rush logistics. I find no information on deaths during that construction.

French Canal Project

France and Colombia signed a treaty covering this in 1878. The area planned for canal, which is its final location, was then within the territory of Colombia. It was planned as a sea-level canal. Construction and excavations began in 1881, and by 1887 the plan was changed to a canal with locks bringing ships up to the level of Lake Gatun. Excavating to sea level was abandoned as unfeasible. In part because that much ‘reshaping’ proved beyond technology. In part because tropical diseases killing many were thought to result from ‘emanations’ from freshly dug soil. A railway alongside canal route (see above) was also further developed by France, and remains in use today. France ran out of money and ended their efforts in 1889. France paid USD$ 262 million in total (another source says 289) including USD$ 25 million for the railway. French project was purchased by US for USD$ 40 million in 1903 (with other costs to US described below). About 22 thousand deaths were reported (in hospitals) during the French project, although this is widely regarded as underestimate. I find no information on those as being French citizens or hired workers from elsewhere.

US Canal Completion and SCIENCE

Panama split from Colombia in 1903 with US assistance. US paid this new country USD$ 10 million initially for control of 16-km-wide canal zone, followed by $250,000 ‘rental’ each year. US construction began in 1904 and canal was opened in 1916. US spent almost USD$ 500 million to complete it. During US canal completion 5,609 workers died, mostly from yellow fever and malaria. Most of those were from Barbados, Jamaica, Martinique and Guadeloupe. I find no information about the smaller number of US workers who died. All these death totals were much lower than during the earlier French effort. Disease transmission by mosquitoes was identified by Finlay of Cuba and Gorgas and Reed of US. Their combined science work made US canal work less deadly, and improved public health much more widely. A vaccine for yellow fever was developed in 1937, and an effective malaria vaccine has not yet been developed.

Additional US payment to Colombia

The Thomson–Urrutia Treaty was ratified in 1921, between the United States and Colombia. By terms of that Treaty, US paid Colombia 25 million dollars in return for Colombia's recognition of Panama's independence.

Has US received any canal crossing tolls, 1916 - ?

As far as I can see, no. Those are paid to Panama Canal Authority. In 2023 Fiscal Year, 4.65 billion Balboa (the official currency of Panama = $USD) tolls were paid. It is not possible to assess here economic benefits that have come to US over time, but I think they are very large. US shipping has much benefited from this canal.

Why was control of this Canal ceded from US to Panama?

In late 1960s H. Kissinger perceived that US imperialism did not ‘look good’ against perceived global Communist expansion. Among responses was that Panama with this canal in itself should have autonomy. Prez Carter came to support that after resisting, and US Congress approved Panama Canal Treaty and Treaty of Permanent Neutrality and Operation. In 1999 full control of canal and perimeter would go to Panama, with US to retain permanent right to defend the canal from any threat. At present, Panama canal is theirs, and they did spend $USD 5.2 billion of their own money (canal toll revenue) to make it work better, completed in 2016.

Could US make this canal ‘ours’?

Realizing US military strength, and doubting that any other global military forces would directly oppose, I say YES. It would be political to consider if US moving against Panama seems a net positive, so that would need to be discussed elsewhere. New Trump distracts from reality in many ways for ?reasons? But those can only be addressed in our other political place. In political discussion we might read of 38 thousands Americans having died in building this canal. We might read many things.


Current canal operations

Panama charges passage tolls equally by tonnage to all vessels regardless of ‘flag’. Only exceptions are US and Panamanian military vessels that are granted expedited passage. I thought readers would want to know.

 

There are extensive port facilities on both Atlantic and Pacific ends of canal. Those are probably as exposed to sea-level-rise problems as all other global sea-level ports.

Annual rainfall in Panama is extremely variable. Of particular note, over watersheds that 'power' canal with their rainwater stored in reservoirs. Canal expansion increased the source area by adding watersheds. I think there is only one more watershed that could be diverted to canal use, and it is not very big. Climate change could increase durations and depths of rainfall 'droughts' and limit canal operations. Operations have been limited that way in the past. Expansion was intended to ameliorate this, but problem clearly persists. 2024 was dry in Panama, and fewer crossings could be made.

Regional climate-change models project they will happen in this century, but those projections do not offer certainty.

On the other extreme, intense rain right along the canal erodes a lot of soil into canal, which needs to get dredged out. This has been happening throughout construction and operation years. It will certainly continue in future, but these are very short-term events and predictions of them have even more uncertainty. It is simply part of canal operating costs, and gets passed on as crossing fees. If there is more dredging on future, crossing fees will increase,

 

Well, they either fit or they don't. Panama Canal Authority sets crossing fees based on displacement. I presume that they do so rationally, as more water must be cycled through the locks to move the big ones.

Dry years have constrained canal operations since always. Fewer ships can cross and they pay more to do it. Intense rains increase dredging costs, and those costs get passed along. In neither case can we be certain of climate-change change, but it ends up in crossing fees. Not a threat to canal, unless somebody eventually digs a competing sea-level canal through Nicaragua. This was being actively considered a few years ago, but nothing heard lately.

==
Ultimately the canal is threatened by eroded soils filling the water-storage reservoirs. Reducing their capacities. I have seen no studies of that so cannot say if is likely within 100 years. 500 years? But that is how Panama Canal will end.