Government was to cover the entire cost of these general investigations. The difference 

 between the cooperative studies and the general investigations, in terms of content, was that 

 the former were to "result in a report containing specific recommendations to remedy a 

 situation at a particular locality,"^ ^"^ whereas the latter were to involve work on more 

 broadly based problems. Because of this provision to study broadly based problems, Public 

 Law 166 is credited with formally establishing the research and development activity of the 

 BEB. 



Pubhc Law 166 differed in still another way from the 1936 legislation, Public Law 834 

 (which was now repealed). This difference involved one of the three opinions the Board was 

 to include in its reports (see pages 38 and 39 where these opinions are listed). In the 1936 

 Act, opinion (b) called upon the Board to indicate "what Federal interest, if any, is involved 

 in the proposed improvement." The 1945 legislation changed this to "what public interest, 

 if any, is involved in the proposed improvement." This change of the word "Federal" to 

 "public" cleared the way for a much broader interpretation of "interest."* It would no 

 longer be restricted to cases where only Federal property or Federal investment was 

 involved. 



The 1945 legislation also retained as a function of the BEB the review of "aU projects 

 having to do with shore protection."^ ^^ This provision kept shore protection in a special 

 category, apart from Corps projects involving river and harbor improvements. Such action, 

 which had begun with the 1930 legislation, was largely a reflection of the still rather Umited 

 diffusion of knowledge on coastal engineering, a situation which was to change in the years 

 ahead. 



An intervening event which took place during this period of readjustment following 

 World War II was the abolishment of the Shore Protection Board. This move was indicative, 

 in part at least, of the melding of Federal and public interest in shore protection. Up to this 

 time, it had been the task of this four-member, all-mUitary Board to consider "shore 

 protection of Federal property or problems relating thereto as assigned by the Chief of 

 Engineers."^ ^^ However, as authorized in General Orders No. 8 issued by the Chief of 

 Engineers and effective May 10, 1946, the Shore Protection Board was abolished, and its 

 duties became the responsibility of the BEB.^^^ These duties included the directive 

 contained in Public Law 409 (passed in 1935) that required examination of the possible 

 effects that proposed navigation improvements might have on the adjoining shoreline. 



House of Representatives Bill No. 2033 was still pending in Congress. This bill was to 

 provide for Federal aid irt the construction but not maintenance, of works for "the 

 improvement and protection against erosion by waves and currents of the shores of the 

 United States that are owned by States, municipalities, or other political subdivisions." The 

 Federal Government's contribution was not to exceed one-third of the total construction 

 cost of the protective works of an approved project. 



*William Sutphin, Representative from New Jersey, had attempted to change this wording as early as August 1937 

 when he introduced in the 75* Cong. 1st gess. H.R. 8205. 



49 



