The war is on … the environment

Is the Department of Defense (DoD) really defending us? That is their mission, to defend us. This question is being asked a lot these days, especially regarding the Bush Administration’s intentions towards Iraq. But it might also be asked in regards to matters right here at home. By this I mean the DoD’s treatment of our homeland. Literally, the air, water, soil, plants and animals, that are the ingredients which make up this homeland. These are what we all depend upon for our survival.

Yet the DoD has a very poor record when it comes to the environment. It seems they don’t understand the connection between the health of our environment and our security. This lack of understanding has been made more obvious by legislation the DoD is now trying to push through Congress. The Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative is an attempt by the DoD to grant itself broad exemptions from six important environmental laws, among them the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

The MMPA was passed by Congress because many marine mammal species were threatened with extinction. The goal of the MMPA is to protect and promote the growth of marine mammal populations and to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. Some of the species it now protects exist today only as a direct result of the MMPA.

While some species have recovered, others remain endangered. They all continue to face a variety of threats, including new ones, such as the Navy’s Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar. This sonar blasts extremely loud sound which travels great distances at dangerous levels. LFA sonar, and other high-intensity naval sonars have already been very closely linked with the mass-stranding and deaths of whales and dolphins on numerous occasions.

Last November, Navy deployment of LFA sonar met a setback in court. The judge imposed a preliminary injunction restricting its use after finding that 4 federal laws, including the MMPA, were likely violated in permitting its deployment. The DoD has cited this as one reason it seeks to amend the MMPA. Another reason cited is the claim that the Navy’s LWAD program has been hindered. This program tests systems that involve the use of intense active sonars. One such test resulted in the deaths of many whales and dolphins in the Bahamas in 2000. But the fact is, the Navy never sought MMPA authorization, as they are legally required to, for any of the 17 tests conducted under this program.

The DoD intends to amend the MMPA so as to give itself broad exemptions for any military readiness activity. Currently an activity which has the potential to “take” (i.e. harass, injure, or kill) marine mammals requires a permit. Take permits may be issued only for “small numbers” of animals in specific geographic regions, providing those takes have only a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks. One amendment does away with the small numbers and geographic restrictions, allowing for permitted takes of huge numbers of marine mammals across the world’s oceans. The definition of harassment would be amended, making it more vague. As the DoD would have the initial authority to decide if its activities need to be authorized under the MMPA, they could use this ambiguity and simply decide they don’t need authorization. This redefinition would create a huge loophole, with many more animals being impacted by DoD activities the result. Another provision would allow the President to give endlessly renewable exemptions on any military readiness activity or property (such as LFA sonar) without it being conditioned on a declaration of war or a national emergency. This amounts to virtually unchallengeable blanket exemptions. The DoD could do whatever it wanted regardless of the impacts on marine mammals, so long as it has presidential approval.

There is absolutely no need for these amendments. All these laws the DoD has slated for amendment already provide for DoD exemptions on a case by case basis. The DoD has never even been denied a permit under the MMPA. Further, the basic precautionary intention of the MMPA is totally violated by these amendments, and the result would be devastating for marine mammals. While they may be only a strand in the web of life, the whole web would be damaged.

The DoD simply doesn’t want the responsibility of having to comply with environmental laws. But if in the name of defending us, they destroy that upon which our lives depend, our environment, then they clearly have failed, and we all lose.

Maine’s congressional delegation plays a key roles in the battle over this legislation. We must strongly urge them to uphold the strength and integrity of the MMPA and other environmental laws, which offer us true security.

Russell Wray of Sullivan works with Citizens Opposing Active Sonar Threats (COAST).