survey was to participate in the water resources studies for the National Resources Board 

 (later the National Resources Committee). In one of its early reports, the National 

 Resources Board devoted a section to the problem of coastal protection. It called for a 

 "reasonable program of research and investigation" which would provide the required basic 

 data, as well as supplying "employment for many of the present unemployed." It further 

 recommended that the BEB be given $250,000 for making these necessary studies of erosion 

 problems. ^ However, funds for the program were never received. 



A similar theme appeared in the National Resources Committee's revised report in 1937. 

 It stated: 



"There is an evident need for careful planning by States and beach communities 

 for the best development of their beach-recreation areas. Serious mistakes 

 entaiUng heavy losses have been made in the past. It is beheved that the Federal 

 Government, through the Beach Erosion Board, can render material assistance to 

 the States and communities in avoiding similar mistakes in future." 



The report discussed the need for a 6-year program of field and office work at an estimated 

 total cost of $300,000 and remarked that "erosion-control work costing approximately 

 $13,782,000 merits construction during the next 6 years."' Again, no financial aid from 

 the Federal Government for this work was forthcoming.* 



Nor did the Depression years, so often epitomized by a great expansion of various pubUc 

 works programs, provide much of a stimulus for extensive Federal funding for the 

 construction of shore protection structures. This, despite the fact that in Section 202, 

 Clause (b) of the National Industrial Recovery Act passed in June 1933, it stated that the 

 "prevention of soil and coastal erosion" was to be considered as a part of the comprehensive 

 program of Public Works.' ^ 



The comparison to government expenditures on otlier projects, especially flood control, 

 did not go unnoticed. As F. E. Schmitt, then editor of the Engineering News-Record, 

 observed, "It appears that flood protection has a strength of appeal lacking to shore 

 protection, an appeal that led to more positive legislation and more decisive action." 

 Others beheved the paucity of Federal support was attributable to the pubhc's seasonality 

 of perception of the coast. Most people saw the beaches only in the summer when waves 

 were generally gentle and the beach well suppUed with sand. Therefore, they were not aware 

 of the changes which occurred in winter. Then too, the relative newness in this country of 

 the appreciation for an increased program regarding coastal matters, combined with a rather 

 small group of advocates, were also seen as deferents to more decisive Federal action in this 

 regard during the Depression years. 



But another important point which must not be overlooked was that some people 

 believed that construction of beach protection structures was not, and should not become, a 



•However, some of the research concepts contained in these several reports were revitalized after World War II when 

 new legislation was passed which specifically authorized Federal support for coastal research. 



36 



