This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.

---

J
w
Mjssi^ipi^Gulf Coast, Sunday, June 26, 1983 ----------------:------:---:--------—------—
a ‘
& U v
i,.•**;aagi f '“.jflSjll:
By EDITH BIERHORST BACK
Bureau Chief	•	.-‘-OtJ
»’ BAY ST.^OUIS —The beach ' in , Hancock County, eroded to non-existence, in places, and the battered seawall,, are‘ the most striking, visible1 arguments for ' converting “the county government to. a unit system.
Although the five supervisors equally divided.: $1.5 - million-^'1' one-third - of the county ,budget for the current fiscal year—for their separate road and bridge funds,iithe;only,, benefit, to, the. beach has been periodic sand-grading. Replacement of sand lost to wind and tide action has not been part *of the minimum maintenance program and in some areas the beach is now too larrow for-a grader.
.Until 1971, the 3 cents per gallon gasoline tax known as the ‘seawall tkx" was used in part for a beach maintenance program, with a beach foreman and a equipment, supported by budgets of $150,000 to ,$200,000 per year^4n the 1960s. The seawall(fund disappeared when the supervisors agreed to use all the tax proceeds to retire the 'second series of bonds for the"’* Port and Harbor Commission.'?-The end of ^he. fund meant the end of the maintenance program for which the five supervisors were jointly responsible. j.With erosion pf the neglected beach, which serves as a protective- berm' to the adjoining boulevard, the road has suffered .(.major danxage with each storm ^battering jt^ie Coast. Repairs t were mad^ with a federal disaster grant *n 1971, and again in . 1982. Both jobs were only partial restorations, and without replen-
*	ishing the s&nd beach and keep--,ing the seawall in good repair,
\ the road was and is vulnerable.
*	! iNow the supervisors have created a committee of planners
*	and ..representatives of the two cities ' to’plan a beach maintenance program, without which
' tin stntp nr fpriprnl fiirennv would
-jauyva uujs*	ia m
non
imon
rw.
that the work could proceed. The order says, in part, that according to the 1914 state Legislature, Hancock County is authorized to maintain a seawall and 4‘ ‘it is necessary that a sand berm or sand beach at least 50-feet wide be built in front of said seawall.
‘‘. . . The Board, in cooperation with the U.S. Army <^orpso( Engineers, is?.', . to commence a project^of reconstruction and repair of said seawall and the roads and streets.
‘‘. . . the waters and soil under the waters of the Bay ... are in trust for the people of the state, and this Board has by the abovesaid statute been empowered to fj exercise such jurisdiction over such water and the soil there- & under, being land where the mean high tides ebb and flow for public use."	■ i j ■	f->
The seawall was installed un-der the 1914’law.-In 11966,*the | Corps added the beach. Accord- . ing to W.W. Burdin of the Corps’ * Coastal Office Planning Division, state and federal laws that made the beach agreement possible contain provisions that made the supervisors respon* sible for maintenance of the beach after its completion.
. At least since 1971, nobody has maintained the beach and seawall.	.	AA
* Certainly a maintenance plan would be welcome, but the problem now is that there isn’t much left to maintain without major reconstruction. And the usual question is, who pays.
Since the taxpayers contribute $1.5 million for road and bridge maintenance in the county, it seems reasonable to ask how the supervisors decide to spend this
mrmov	*
.12*33 XWtf Sii .eoM'-i ,3!i! W.i’ls ':n aiifiti	rt} n■
:ibi:
f: Yea rs of n eg I
■ji»;
awarded according to beats. Tied to the four-year term of one. board, the money is allocated so that each supervisor will have a.v major road reconstructed, during his term. For the current board, a total of $1.28 million has
been available, ance of $181,1 before the end . The beat systc county-wide i Dividing up roa equal parts sen