Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
In reply to an inquirery as to what California's position on shipwrecks was, Peter Pelkofer one of the States Attorneys (and the one on the Brother Jonathan case) states that: <<California's definition of a historic vessel is contained in Public Resources Code Section 6313 (b)(c) and is longer than I care to type here. It generally covers submerged objects which have historical significance and that significance is determined by reference to standards set up for inclusion in the National Register. There is no time requirement. It could have sunk yesterday and be significant or 500 years ago and not be significant. There is a presumption that objects that have remained under water for 50 years are significant, but that presumption is subject to proof any time it is questioned.>> In reply to a question on the status of the USS Moony, a WWI destroyer sunk as a film prop off of LA Harbor, Mr Pelkofer states that: <<As to the USS Mooney, so far as the State is concerned it and all former military vessels belong to the US. unless they say they don't. The State's only interest in them would be if someone wanted to salvage them and in doing so came within our permit process because they were in state waters. The concern then would be environmental not archaeological. I can't tell you who own the Mooney. Based on your facts, if the Navy sold it (and had authority to sell) then movie studio was the owner when it was sunk, it belongs to the studio, unless the studio abandoned it. Is it historic, possibly, does the State claim it . NO>> Now for my own opinion. The statement that wrecks are determined on a case by case basis is all well and good, but if the process of determination is not codified so that the State has to go through a justification process the State will always make the decision by not making a decision. The State will say that because it is older then 50 years it must be historic so it is ours. If fact Mr Pelkofer stated ""There is a presumption that objects that have remained under water for 50 years are significant, but that presumption is subject to proof any time it is questioned"" Anyone care to be the test case? As for the Moony, anyone have the time and the money to test that case? I didn't think so. Peter Johnson -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]