Supreme Court Agrees to Review Navy Sonar Case

Now this is interesting.  It just came out that the Supreme Court has agreed to review a California Appellate Court ruling against the U.S. Navy regarding the use of mid-range active sonar in California coastal areas. 

For us, this is quite fascinating because this is a story which plays a significant role in our film story for Way of the Dolphin.  First of all – here’s the AP story on the Supreme court decision. And then afterward, some comments from me: 

Supreme Court agrees to review Navy sonar case

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday stepped into a dispute over the Navy’s use of sonar off the Southern California coast and its potential harm to dolphins and whales.

Acting at the Bush administration’s urging, the court agreed to review a federal appeals court ruling that limits the use of sonar in naval training exercises.

Sonar, which the Navy uses primarily to locate enemy submarines at sea, can interfere with marine mammals’ ability to navigate and communicate. There is some evidence that the technology has caused whales to strand on shore.

The administration says the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco jeopardizes the Navy’s ability to train sailors and Marines for service in wartime.

The government also says national security interests can trump those of marine mammals, and that its use of mid-frequency sonar in training exercises hasn’t caused any documented harm to dolphins or beaked whales.

The Navy applauded the high court’s intervention.

“The Navy’s position has been the same since the first court case. This is an issue that is essential to national security and we welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case,” said Admiral Larry Rice, the director of the Chief of Naval Operations’ Environmental Readiness Division.

Rice said the restrictions placed on the Navy in earlier court rulings, if not overturned, could cripple training exercises.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, who along with four other advocacy groups sued the Navy over the issue, contends there are ways to use sonar and to protect wildlife.

“It’s clear … that the Navy can reduce the risk of this harm by commonsense safeguards without compromising our military readiness,” Joel Reynolds, director of NRDC’s Marine Mammal program, said in a statement.

Although the science is inconclusive, there is strong evidence that sonar affects marine mammals. The Navy’s own environmental assessment of the use of sonar in 14 training exercises off the California coast found it could disturb or harm an estimated 170,000 marine mammals, including temporary loss of hearing in at least 8,000 whales.

Some environmentalists said the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case will finally settle what takes precedence — national security or environmental protection.

“This will decide whether or not the Navy is fulfilling its security goals in a way that doesn’t leave massive collateral damage,” said William Rossiter, president of Cetacean Society International, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Lower courts concluded there would be near certain harm to marine life in Southern California if the Navy proceeded with sonar exercises as planned.

An injunction by a federal judge in Los Angeles early this year created a 12-nautical-mile no-sonar zone along the coast and ordered the Navy to shut off all sonar use within 2,200 yards of a marine mammal. That prompted President Bush to step in and sign a waiver exempting the Navy from a section of the Coastal Zone Management Act so training could continue as the government appealed the decision.

But the 9th Circuit sided with the lower court and said the Navy must abide by the injunction. However, while the litigation was under way the appeals court gave the Navy leeway to lessen the restrictions if it determined it was in a critical maneuver point, so that sonar shutdown would begin at 1,000 meters (about 1,093 yards) and full sonar shutdown would come at 200 meters (about 219 yards). Those are the restrictions the Navy is currently operating under.

Arguments will take place in the next court term, beginning in October.

COMMENTS:  It’s important to understand that one of the reasons the California Court decision happened the way it did, is because a big piece of it is simply that the court felt the Navy should use use reasonable precautions to in effect “clear the range” before releasing sound bombs into the water that can kill marine mammals.  One of the things that really struck me about this issue is that on the one hand, you can easily make the case the national security trumps the welfare of a few marine mammals — acceptable collateral damage, right?  But on the other hand, if what is required is simple common sense precautions, why would the Navy not be willing to exercise the same care in “clearing the range” of vulnerable marine mammals.  I think it’s important to understand that in the movie we don’t demonize the Navy … rather we present the two competing arguments and frankly it’s not an easy one to figure out.  That complexity is evident in the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue — it would never have gotten elevated to that level of consideration if it were not an interesting and compelling issue with meaningful arguments on both sides.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Dolphins, Musings

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: