realm of Federal funding. For example, in a letter dated February 4, 1936, and addressed to 

 the Honorable Royal S. Copeland, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 

 Secretary of War George H. Dern expressed these thoughts: 



"This Depixtment is unable to find a justification, however, for the establishment 

 legislatively of a policy looking to the expenditure of Federal funds in the 

 construction of shore protection works along our coast. The property to be 

 protected is in general privately owned, and its improvement and protection at 

 public expense appears to be unwarranted. Certain localities are in the ownership 

 of States and municipalities and are used for the recreation and enjoyment of the 

 public at large; but it is not clear that Federal participation in the cost of the 

 improvement and protection of these beaches has greater justification than the 

 Federal participation in the improvement of the municipal and State parks. 

 Special cases may justify a different view, but should be regarded individually."^® 



In April of that same year. Col. Earl I. Brown, a member of the BEB, also echoed 

 sentiments disapproving Federal financing of the construction of shore protection 

 structures. He stated: 



"At this time when it is becoming more and more the habit of promoters of every 

 conceivable scheme to look to the federal government as the source of easy 

 money, there is developing an increasing tendency for local interests to concert 

 together to force the federal government to assume the burden of shore 

 protection, or at least the greater portion of such load."^ 



He believed that proponents of such action were really asking the Federal Government to 

 save and/or protect the property on the beach rather than the beach itself. Concerning the 

 private businessman at the shore, it was Brown's opinion that: 



"He (the businessman) has deliberately placed his structure in a dangerous 

 location near the sea, with a view to seeking the profits to be derived from the 

 facilities which he affords to the seacoast visitors, that is, he deliberately chooses 

 a location to exploit the visitors and if he has made a bad choice, he should not 

 expect those visitors to be taxed to save him from his dilemma."^ ^^ 



Such was the mixture of opinions on shore protection and the role of the Federal 

 Government. 



e. The Beach Improvement and Protection Act of 1936. This key issue of Federal 

 funding for the construction of shore protection structures was intricately involved in 

 attempts to pass new beach erosion legislation. The ASBPA played an active role in these 

 efforts. In February 1934, Representative Isaac Bacharach from the State of New Jersey 

 introduced H.R. 7590, which would have declared it to be "the policy of the United States 

 to assist in the construction, but not the maintenance, of works for the improvement and 



37 



