decades. This reasoning freed Man from having to answer for his own participation in the 

 problem at hand— he became just an innocent victim of the "caprices" of nature. Moreover, 

 it is likely that it impeded an understanding of the basic factors involved in beach erosion. 



An early opponent to the subsidence theory was Douglas W. Johnson, professor of 

 geology at Columbia University and author of Shore Processes and Shoreline Development 

 (1919). In a paper written jointly with Warren Smith dated May 1914, Johnson discussed 

 what he believed to be tlie "fallacy of tliis reasoning."^ ^ Johnson, along with several others, 

 later worked on the problems of sea level change and coastal stability as part of a study 

 under the auspices of the National Research Council. In 1929, this group pubUshed a 

 report^ ^ which tended to discredit (but only temporarily) the theory of coastal 

 subsidence.* This work may well have eased the way for development of a more realistic 

 approach to the problem of coastal erosion. 



To illustrate how the attempt to find a broad-scale explanation for shore erosion was 

 related to efforts to combat the problem, a study (to be discussed more fully under the next 

 heading) undertaken by the Engineering Advisory Board on Coast Erosion of the State of 

 New Jersey in 1922, set out to answer two fundamental questions: First, "have there been 

 changes in the conditions that are tending to erode the coast either along its entire length or 

 locally?"^ ** This group arrived at the following answer: 



"In so far as can be seen we have no evidence of such changes if we consider tlie 

 word change to mean a definite and permanent transition from one state to 

 another, traceable to some clearly defined cause." 



Thus, in this case, the idea of an overall change in coastal conditions had to be resolved 

 before this study group could deal with the second question, "are there any key works such 

 as heavy riprap, jetties that could be placed at localities that would tend to correct any 

 destructive currents along the coast?"^^ 



c. Organizational Response to the Erosion Problem. It was soon realized that the efforts 

 of individual property owners were totally incapable of coping with the problem of coastal 

 erosion— that a broader based approach was necessary. For example, a series of three severe 

 storms struck the New Jersey coast in rather quick succession during the winter of 1913-14. 

 Commenting on the situation in their .article referred to above, Johnson and Smith 

 concluded: 



'Johnson's conclusions on coastal subsidence were based on data that had been obtained during a period when the 

 sea level fluctuations along the east coast of the United States, and especially in the New York area, did suggest 

 general stability. * 8 His argument against coastal subsidence, therefore, seemed quite sound at the time. However, 

 starting about 1930, a definite rise in sea level began, and the secular trend ever since has been that of a sea level 

 which is slowing rising in relation to the land. 



In regard to coastal erosion, this gradual increase in the level of the sea is now generally thought to be of lesser 

 importance. (It must, however, be considered in the construction of coastal projects which are plaimed to extend 

 over long periods of time.) As expressed by Steacy Hicks, "The dramatics of surf and longshore currents in the 

 beach erosion process overshadows the small but relentless changes in sea level over years and decades."'^ Thus, 

 Johnson's basic belief was correct— that factors other than coastal subsidence accounted for the immediate 

 problem of beach erosion. 



13 



