By Ellsworth Boyd
As the controversy on preservation of historic shipwrecks drags on--with states asserting more authority under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1988--new issues continue to surface.
Many state resources officials, backed by their archaeologists, are elated by the mood of the new Congress to pass even more responsibility down to state government. This, it appears, would strengthen the Abandoned Shipwreck Act that declares all the wrecks from shore to three miles out as state property. The more control and power they get over sunken ships, the more state officials seem to like it. But there's a downside they've overlooked that could backfire and cause them great humiliation as well as steep financial woes.
It's sort of like: Now that I've claimed this shipwreck, what am I going to do with it? Claiming all wrecks in shallow waters--and most of them within the three mile limit are reasonably shallow--could mean removal of those deemed navigational hazards.
While researching a ship, I recently discovered a case in Admiralty Law, prior to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, where the federal government was successfully sued for failure to buoy a wreck declared as a menace to navigation.
Part of the court decision reads: "The plaintiff, whose barge was sunk after a collision with the wreck of a merchant vessel owned and used by the United States--which wreck was not marked with buoy, beacon or light as required by the Admiralty Act of March 3, 1899--may recover all losses from the United States."
The responsibility of removing or buoying wrecks that are a menace to navigation now rests on the states' shoulders. The Feds are out of the picture and possibly breathing a sigh of relief now that they've shifted the burden of removal and/or buoying over to the state.
Here's a side note the Feds didn't tell the states: A fully automatic navigational buoy costs $384,000 with an annual upkeep of $7,200. In addition, Admiral W.J. Smith, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, speaking before Congress said, "We feel there is a considerable amount of oil contained in tanks of sunken ships. Experts have told us that it could be as much as 220 million galleons, enough to spread a slick larger than the area of Texas."
Hence, another issue arises in the historic shipwreck preservation controversy. If and when a test case arises, and a state is stuck with millions of dollars in buoyage of wreck removal costs (not to mention pollution costs from oil or chemical cargo spills) will some of the states back off from the shipwreck ownership claims? And, will this weaken or dismantle the Abandoned Shipwreck Act?
To the best of my knowledge, these possibilities have never been discussed nor brought up by the state officials and archaeologists who would be the first to bear the burden of a multi-million dollar law suit, complete with libel for loss of cargo and lives, in such a disastrous scenario.
Is this a possibility? Could it happen? Only time will tell.