Justices to take Navy sonar case
Weighing the balance between military readiness and environmental protection, the Supreme Court said Monday that it would decide whether the U.S. Navy must limit its use of high-powered sonar off the California coast to protect whales and other marine mammals.
The justices voted to hear the Navy’s appeal of a judge’s order that requires ships to turn down their sonar whenever whales or dolphins are spotted within 2,200 yards -- 1.25 miles. A modified version of the judge’s order will remain in effect during the appeal, but the high court’s decision to hear the case is a victory for the Navy and a setback for environmentalists.
The intense sound waves from the sonar are believed to frighten, injure and possibly kill whales. But the two sides differ greatly on the extent of the effects.
Environmentalists point to studies of dead whales that washed ashore in the Bahamas, Canary Islands and Madeira islands after the Navy conducted war games nearby. Some of the animals appeared to have died of hemorrhages in and around their ears, brains and lungs. They also said the Navy’s own studies forecast that training exercises off the California coast would “significantly disturb” an estimated 170,000 marine mammals.
But the Navy said training exercises using sonar have been conducted for 40 years off California, and they “produced no evidence of sonar-related harm to any marine mammal.” Of special note, there are no reports of dead whales after these exercises, they said.
In their appeal, administration lawyers argued that the judges in California had overstepped their authority by restricting the Navy’s operations. They described “anti-submarine warfare [as] a high-stakes cat-and-mouse game” that requires days of carefully tracking sound waves. A requirement to suddenly shut down its sonar equipment “cripples the Navy’s ability to conduct realistic” training exercises, they told the court.
Last year, the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica and four other environmental groups went to court in Los Angeles seeking limits on the Navy’s use of sonar during a series of exercises planned off the California coast.
They relied heavily on the Navy’s own studies to show the probable harm to marine mammals, including the vulnerable beaked whale.
U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper agreed with the NRDC that use of the mid-frequency sonar would create a “near certainty” of harm to the mammals. In January of this year, she handed down an order that limited the Navy’s use of sonar when marine mammals came within 2,200 yards of a vessel. She said sonar could not be used with 12 miles of the coast, nor near the Catalina Basin, where whales congregate.
Navy leaders took particular exception to the requirement to power down the sonar whenever the mammals came within 1.25 miles of a ship.
“Imposing that restriction means a complete loss of training in that environment,” Vice Adm. Samuel J. Locklear, commander of the U.S. 3rd Fleet in San Diego, said Monday. “It would effectively eliminate any productive anti-submarine rehearsals.”
In February, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Cooper’s order but modified it somewhat. During a “critical point” in a training exercise, the Navy may use the sonar at a lower decibel level even when mammals are spotted within a mile of the ship, the appeals court said.
But the administration appealed on behalf of Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter and said that even the modified order “jeopardizes the Navy’s ability to train sailors or Marines for wartime deployment during a time of hostility.”
The judge’s order appears to stand on a weak platform, the administration lawyers said.
It rests on an alleged violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to conduct environmental impact studies.
That law does not forbid the government from taking action, they said.
Separately, the Marine Mammal Protection Act protects whales and other marine mammals, but it includes an exception for “military readiness activity.” And in this case, the Defense Department exempted the Navy from complying with this measure during its California training exercises.
Lawyers for the NRDC said they were not surprised by the court’s willingness to hear the Navy’s appeal but said they remained confident of winning.
Richard B. Kendall, a Los Angeles lawyer who represented the NRDC, pointed out that the justices had recently rejected a similar claim from the administration that the military’s need to hold “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay trumps the detainees’ right to go to court.
“We expect that the Supreme Court will again hold that the military must obey our nation’s laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, and reinforce the message that the Navy should train using sonar, but train responsibly so that it causes the least possible harm to whales and other marine life,” Kendall said.
The high court will hear arguments in Winter vs. NRDC in the fall.
--
--
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)
Back story: Sonar and whales
The Navy and environmentalists have been waging the sonar-versus-whales battle for more than a decade.
Environmentalists accuse the Navy of underestimating the damage to marine mammals from sonar.
The Navy says it must be able to train its crews to track ultra-quiet submarines from unstable Third World countries. Navy exercises off Hawaii and Southern California are the focus of litigation by environmentalists.
Although the original litigation dates to the late 1990s, the battle has heated up in recent years, leading to the U.S. Supreme Court’s agreement Monday to consider the issue. Some notable developments:
In February, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, backing a lower court ruling, rejected the Bush administration’s request to exempt Navy sonar from environmental laws. But it allowed the Navy 30 days in which to conduct already-scheduled training exercises off Southern California without the farthest-reaching protections.
In January 2007,the Defense Department granted the Navy a two-year exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as allowed under the law. That same month, the California Coastal Commission voted to impose restrictions on the use of sonar and later filed a lawsuit.
In July 2006, the Navy reached an out-of-court agreement allowing it to use active sonar during a multinational exercise off Hawaii.
In July 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service of the Commerce Department agreed to exempt low-frequency sonar from the Marine Mammal Protection Act after determining that it would have a “negligible impact.” (Various cases have litigated the use of assorted frequencies.) But the fisheries service required that the Navy stay at least 12 miles offshore when operating sonar at full volume. A similar restriction was demanded by a judge in 2007, but the Navy has refused to comply.
--
-- Tony Perry
More to Read
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.