Radar Emissions Study Will Define Debate for Nation

On Tuesday, for the first time in California history, a panel of independent scientists will meet to study the possible impacts of military radar emitters on the coastal zone. This investigation seeks to settle a four-year disagreement between the California Coastal Commission and the Naval Surface Warfare Engineering Facility, known as the SWEF.

The facility sits at the mouth of the Port of Hueneme. Its radars tower over a state park, a public beach and the entry to the only deep water port between Long Beach and San Francisco.

The SWEF radar emitters are at the gateway to Channel Islands National Park. Navy officials concede that the presence of endangered species gives the area surrounding the SWEF the status of a habitat. They rely on a 30-year-old study to claim that radar does not adversely affect birds. They ignore the Santa Barbara Channel in front of their emitters. It is a migratory route of world-class significance for birds, whales and other species.

And what of the human species?

The small community of Channel Islands Beach and its visitors picnic and play unaware and unprotected. Pleasure and commercial boats ply the waters. Fishermen dot the jetty and surfers ride the cresting waves. Huge transports slip past the emitters into port. All these are the powerless users of the coastal resources. The SWEF is the Navy . . . omnipotent.

It is not as though the operators of SWEF have been unaware of the problem. Their own pre-construction document identifies significant and “unavoidable” radio frequency radiation “hazard impacts” to public use areas of our coast. No environmental document exists on the completed facility. The Navy says it may just be lost; the commanding officer of the SWEF conceded before the Coastal Commission earlier this year that failure to locate an environmental report “has created a breach of public trust.”

There have always been alternatives for the SWEF. Fiber optics connect it to the Point Mugu base, San Nicolas Island and Vandenberg Air Force Base. The radar emitters could be moved to an unpopulated area and still provide the necessary data for work at the SWEF as though they were still in place on its roof.

The Navy has ignored this and other viable alternatives. Instead, its solution is to propose additional radars. Is there reason for concern? How can one practice prudent avoidance when the Navy has refused for almost five years to disclose data necessary for independent evaluation?

In the midst of this long Navy stall comes a ray of hope. On Tuesday, experts in electromagnetic science, environmental health and wildlife will begin their study. They will evaluate the potential threat of the SWEF’s radar emissions on the human and natural resources of our coast.

The deliberations of this panel have significance far beyond Ventura County. There is new emphasis by the Navy on “littoral warfare,” a shift from deep-sea to near-shore maneuvers. The recent assault proposed on Monterey’s pristine coastline by Navy war games is part of this shift, and it will be repeated on both coasts.

So the panel’s evaluation will involve more than seeking a resolution to a disagreement between the Coastal Commission and the SWEF. It will inform and guide all states that touch the sea as to the potential threat of radar emissions from military operations.

It will define the question: Does the state have the right and responsibility under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act to protect coastal resources from the impacts of military operations?

If the answer is no, we risk the treasure of scenic beauty and wildlife that blesses both shores of this nation. We may risk as well the health of our citizens to unmeasured impacts. The work of this panel will be observed with interest by every state with a coastline and a military installation. It demands the attention and support of every citizen of this county.