protection of tlie beaches along the shores of the United States,. . ."^Ol -pj^jg j^^j ^^g ^^^^ 

 passed. One of the questions that troubled several members of the House of Representatives 

 Committee on Rivers and Harbors, which was reviewing the biU, was that if the Federal 

 Government was to begin providing financial assistance for beach protection, how far 

 would it go? Where would the line be drawn?* 



In June 1936, a somewhat similar bill (S. 3505) did become law. This was PubUc 

 Law 834, 74th Congress, entitled, "An Act for the Improvement and Protection of the 

 Beaches Along the Shores of the United States." The bill had been initiated by the ASBPA 

 and received backing from Senator A. Harry Moore, former governor of New Jersey, and 

 Senator Barbour of New Jersey, along with Representatives Isaac Bacharach and WUliam 

 Sutphin also from New Jersey.^ ''^ The legislation somewhat broadened the activities of the 

 BEB, but again, it was the Board's interpretation of its duties that was the determining 

 factor, especially in regard to Federal financial aid for construction of shore protection 

 works. 



On this important question. Public Law 834 declared it to be the policy of the Federal 

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

 and protection of the beaches along the shores of the United States" where Federal interests 

 were involved. The Chief of Engineers and the BEB interpreted "Federal interests" to mean 

 only where Federal property or Federal investment required protection.^ ^'* As a result of 

 this interpretation of the legislation, only very small amounts of Federal funding were 

 allocated to construction of shore protection works, piuch to the disappointment of those 

 who had supported the biU.** 



In addition to" this "construction clause," Public Law 834 contained, among others, the 



following stipulations: (1) It maintained similar provisions for the conduct of cooperative 



studies as contained in Public Law 520 (1930). Regarding financing of these studies, the 



new law stated that, "not more than 75 per centum of the cost of any specific investigation 



shall be borne by the United States." However, as requested in an Executive Order from 



President Franklin D. Roosevelt, dated June 27, 1936 (the day after he signed the bill into 



•During the hearing on H.R. 7590, there was a discussion between Mark Wilcox, Congressman from the State of 

 Florida, and John McDuffie, a Committee member from Alabama. Mr. Wilcox was explaining how important the 

 topic of coastal protection was to his State. He added, "If our (Florida's) shore line was straightened out and 

 extended along the Atlantic Coast, it would reach from the northeast comer of Maine to Charleston, S.C." To 

 this Mr. McDuffie responded, "You are not going to ask us to straighten it?" "No," said Mr. Wilcox. 102 

 McDuffie 's question is more than amusing. Indeed, it conveys a subtle message. 



"Consideration of the study of St. Simon Island, Georgia, done in cooperation with the Commissioners, Roads & 

 Revenue, Glynn County, Georgia, clearly illustrates this interpretation. The matter came up during the Board 

 meeting of March 18, 1940, which was held in the Savannah Engineer Suboffice, Post Office Building, Brunswick, 

 Georgia, following inspection of St. Simon Island. The Board minutes read as follows: 



"A question was raised as to a finding of federal interest in the recommendation, in view of the fact that the 

 U.S. Lighthouse Reservation occupies 300 feet of the 5,000 feet of frontage to be protected under the 

 recommended plan. The Board approved a finding of Federal interest in direct proportion to the frontage 

 involved, whereby the United States would be justified in bearing three-fiftieths of the total cost of shore 

 protection works as provided in the recommended plan. "105 



This funding recommendation was then included in the final report, H. Doc. No. 820, 76^^ Cong. 



38 



