The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a potentially important case concerning the relationship between national security and environmental protection. In Winter v. NRDC the Navy sought review of a court injunction against the use of high frequency sonar facilities during naval training exercises due to their potential impact on whales. Specifically, the district court found that the Navy had failed to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to the federal government, the Council on Environmental Quality found "emergency circumstances" that justified the Navy's failure to fulfill NEPA's requirements, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
The LA Times covers the story here. The opinion below is here.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Colburn on Navy Sonar Case:
- Supremes to Take on Navy Sonar:
There could certainly be an argument that shallow water terrain provides a unique environment for sub hunting (and thus sonar usage.)
The lab at MIT called the"RAD LAB", is a $100 million boondoggle that is said to produce "electronic machines that can detect objects far away". When asked why they did'nt just telescopes like everyone else the War Deptment also declined to comment. A class action lawsuit by other Boston residents against MIT, the Navy, and the War Deptment is expected soon.
I can imagine the scenario:
"We've almost localized the 'enemy' submarine. It appears to be closing."
"Damn! Ensign Smith just spotted Flipper 2,000 yards off the stern."
"Sigh. Turn down the sonar. Again."
Sonar behaves very differently in shallow water than in deep. The Navy is extraordinarily concerned about diesel-electric submarines, particularly in littoral waters, because of the difficulty in detecting them due large amounts of small-boat traffic. Who are we referring to specifically? Indigenous Chinese Song class and Russian-made Kilo class submarines exported to - among other nations - China, Iran, and Venezuela. Why the need for shallow water exercises? The average depth of the Persian Gulf is 50 meters, while the Taiwan Strait has a maximum depth of about 70 meters, and both are areas with the potential for significant naval combat.
Bob from Ohio: NEPA claims are 0-14 (I believe) in the Supreme Court. (Despite which, it remains a rather powerful statute.)
Judge Ahab and the Whales
June 19, 2008; Page A14 at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121383310973986705.html
coyote wrote:
True. However, as I understand the facts from the courts' opinions, the Navy's EA was to cover 14 exercises beginning in 2007 and ending in 2009, of which 8 had not been conducted when the USDC issued the PI on Jan 10, 2008 (and the USDC had earlier enjoined the Navy, which the 9th Cir. has previously reversed and remanded). Given that the earliest that the Supreme Court will hear the case is the first Tuesday in October, and given the the Supreme Court usually takes a few months to issue a decision, since the PI will remain in place until then -- even assuming that this case makes it 0 - 15 -- the PI will remain in effect until sometime in 2009. Accordingly, while the NRDC may ultimately loose, that will be moot since the Navy will not have conducted the training, and will have to do a new EA or EIS to conduct the missed training, which the NRDC can then challenge in the same USDC all over again.
The LA Times omitted mentioning the other restrictions (in addition to those that the Navy had already decided to put in place). See the 9th Cir decision at 2122:
Considerable preparation, training and equipment will be needed by the Navy to comply with these restrictions, if any of them are up-held by the Supreme Court.
Again, effectively the NRDC wins, whatever the Supreme Court decides. The Navy's preparation time to comply with the restrictions will likely force it to postpone or cancel some or all of the remaining exercises.
Still, my favorite restriction is #1 -- How do you tell if "a dolphin or a porpoise . . . is intentionally following" a ship? Maybe a Navy JAG could get it to execute an affidavit saying "I was only playing."
High frequency sonar is generally short range, and more effective in shallow water, or in water that has a shallow layer depth in terms of the temperature gradient.
The technological trend back then was from the higher freqs, such as the AN/SQS-29 series and the AN/SQS-23 to the low freq AN/SQS-26 series sonars.
I don't know about today's sonars, but the high freq we used 30-40 years ago used to attract porpoises. They would "cavort" (where have we heard that term lately?) around the ship, keeping perfect pace with us, as if they were enjoying some kind of ...
... never mind.
Navy ships and helicopters doing ASW patrolling are the strongest, but "fish finders" and depth sounders on smaller civilian craft are also high frequency sonars.
Low frequency sonars need bigger antennas.
Most of the things I wanted to say were said by several other people.
/former US Navy
Clap your hands and wish real hard, children.
my gawd, the deference to the Executive is just staggering for a libertarian blog. I wonder how things will change if Obama gets elected.
Presumably if the Executive doesn't like the statute, they have to ask Congress to change it. They can't just ignore it then complain that the court's fault that it doesn't read the way they would like it to read.
True, this does not affect trying to find an actual enemy sub. However, how do you learn how to find an enemy sub? You have to train in all sorts of situations against friendly subs. As a former submariner, I participated in all sorts of wargames against our surface fleet. It was amazing how at the start of a set of games, the poor nubbly surface sonar technicians couldn't find us, and as the games went on, they got much better. Everything in the Navy was about practice. Drill over and over, in all kinds of conditions, so that if it ever became the real thing, you knew what you were doing and responded automatically. This method works, and works well.
As to whether congress is really at fault here, i'd have to agree. They could have easily made it easier for the Navy to conduct littoral water training exercises. The fact that this is going to the supreme court is just another indicator of the failure of the legislative branch to prepare for unintended consequences.
Respectfully,
Pol
Common Sense, thanks for validating this civilian's intuition about changes that may seem small to the outsider but that can have a huge effect on those who have to live or die with the consequences.
Those living and dying by the consequences include all of us. Not merely the submariners and their ASW rivals.
I know it is fun to sneer and be snarky about the chain of command and clueless idiots at the Pentagon, but the military spends tens of millions of dollars cleaning up old and existing ranges. Lead from ammunition is a real problem, especially when it comes time to close a range or turn it over for civilian use. Disposal of old stockpiles of obsolete ordnance and clean up of ammunition plants, and the destruction of our chemical weapons stockpile is costing the military billions of dollars.
Even if you could care less about the environment, you should realize that the issues surrounding finding alternatives to lead ammunition (and even live fire exercises) are also driven by a desire to save money--not just the environment. That is certainly something every self-respecting libertarian should appreciate.
Coyote, I did not realize the requests were coming from the chain of command, and assumed they had come from outside the military. I meant no snarkiness toward them; they have been there, I have not.