From the Alamo to Gettysburg, the battlefields of the United States’ many wars are commonplace across the country. Whether big or small, each battlefield has its own history, and these histories are worth studying and commemorating. Yet while it is easy to built memorials and transport small remnants of war, nothing can match the preserved artifacts of the battle – including the terrain itself. However, it is often hard -if not impossible- to safeguard some of the most worthwhile remains of combat. These threatened relics are frequently found at sea, where the goal of protecting artifacts like shipwrecks is coming into conflict with environmentalist demands to preserve marine life.
The United States has no shortage of shipwrecks to attest to its history: According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there are 20,000 in US waters. Over the past few years there has been more national concern regarding the oil content in these wrecks and the possible danger that could result if any ships were to leak. While NOAA notes that “many ships have wrecked in US waters, most of these wrecks occurred before the use of oil as a fuel source or as a commonly carried cargo and do not present an oil pollution threat to the environment,” there are still 87 “priority” wrecks that could spill significant amounts of oil. Most of these risky ships can be traced to World War II, when many merchant vessels were utilized to carry war supplies. After the US entered the war, Japanese and German U-boats ceaselessly fired upon US ships, and over 200 vessels sank by the end of 1942. These ships have the potential to destroy vital ecosystems and marine life. For example, the World War II-era wreck, the U.S.S. Mississinewa leaked 300 gallons of fuel a day in 2001. The cleanup required nine Navy units and additional resources in order to combat the problem, and fishing was even temporarily banned.
Shipwrecks are not only an issue of oil spills, but also of ammunition and non-petroleum cargo such as mercury or copper. The Parliamentary Assembly notes, “Some 75 percent of sunken wrecks date back to the Second World War; their metal structures are aging and their metal plates are deteriorating, thus threatening to release their contents into the ocean due to the effects of corrosion.” The aging of these vessels can spread toxins and affect the marine food chain.
With the adoption of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act in 1988, these wrecks are formally under the control of the United States. The act formulates guidelines for the management of these shipwrecks and, as the National Park Service says, aims to “foster a partnership among sport divers, fishermen, archeologists, sailors and other interests to manage shipwreck resources of the States and the United States.” However, tourism and research makes it more likely that these ships will stay put, meaning that they will continue to age and potentially harm their environments. Additionally, the guidelines in the Act are just that—“guidelines”— and therefore “non-bonding,” giving states the power to revise programs concerning these wrecks. This creates many issues of federalism—Douglas Helton of the NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration talks of the complexity of legislatively addressing shipwrecks; ‘Sunken wrecks are an expensive problem that many agencies feel ill-equipped and underfunded to address.’”
Even further complicating the matter is the growth in the number of marine sanctuaries in the US. Marine sanctuaries are federally designated areas of U.S. waters that are protected from specified activities. There are 14 protected areas that cover more than 150,000 square miles. Areas become sanctuaries most often when there has been history of overfishing or pollution that threaten the marine life and surrounding areas. President Gerald Ford was the first president to designate a marine sanctuary in 1975 with the USS Monitor National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of North Carolina. To be sure, most recently President Obama has expanded two marine sanctuaries off the coast of California. These new sanctuaries are located in extremely diverse biological areas, with 25 endangered species and various ecosystems.
With each additional marine sanctuary, there is the question of whether or not the shipwrecks in these areas should be removed. NOAA must consider the location of the wreck, possible legal restrictions specific to marine sanctuaries or laws such as The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which requires the government and responsible parties to adhere to certain measures that prevent and respond to oil spills. Furthermore, even if specific vessels propose substantial threats to marine life, they might be too deep or undiscoverable for easy access. Even if the vessels are withdrawn, it is unknown how much cargo or toxic materials were lost over years of stasis. How would the removal of these wrecks harm the ecosystems that have built upon these historical remnants, such as coral reefs and fish species that have built habitats within and around these wrecks? Consider the potential harm from these wrecks if contamination were to proceed, harming not only the marine life, but also coastal communities, fishing businesses, offshore energy industries such as wind farms and the greater economies of nearby ports.
With or without the wrecks, marine life is threatened and communities are harmed monetarily along with potential health risks. Are the ecosystems reliant on these wrecks worth possible intoxication and contamination of further marine areas? How would those in favor of the removal of these wrecks overcome concerned parties with interest in the sustenance of these wrecks such as companies reliant on tourism related to the wrecks and research groups involved in the history and ecological responses to these wrecks? How would the government inform communities that these wrecks may harm their waters, but state that they will continue to exist?
The answers to these questions, and many others, are necessary in order to identify the steps that should be taken for these potentially harmful shipwrecks – the government has the difficult task of balancing the costs of removal, local fishing economies, and the demands of tourism companies, researchers and environmentalists. Time is of the essence: Without doing anything, these ships could end up contaminating the waters surrounding ecosystems and businesses dependent on these marine areas. Additionally, with the rise of marine sanctuaries comes more legal hurdles even if the government decides to go ahead and tackle the shipwreck problem. Ultimately, everything boils down to a question of the degree of government intervention that should be taken in order to protect the environment and specific communities, even though that would mean changing our history. Society must decide whether the risk of not removing these wrecks is worth what could be lost.