The War Over The MMPA

By William Rossiter, CSI President

The war over the MMPA is part of a wider battle against basic environmental laws, now underway in Congress. The military's duty is to wage war, but when they decide the laws of the land are the enemy we are all in jeopardy. For years a significant amount of military funds and resources have been used to meet the obligations and restrictions of environmental laws, for good reasons. Whether this is part of the legitimate price to defend freedom depends on your perspective. Given the assault so far, the military believes the environment gets in the way of their mission, and should be treated like any other collateral damage. A coordinated campaign within the Department of Defense (DoD) surfaced early this year, to attack the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Noise Control Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Victory would be exemptions for almost all military activities under almost all aspects of those Acts.

But why? The military already is exempt, under Title 10, Section 2014 of the United States Code, from any agency's actions, such as enforcing environmental legislation, if certain conditions are met for reasons of military training or other readiness activities. Under hostile conditions there are very few restrictions at all. In May the General Accounting Office presented findings, to the House Government Reform Committee, from a study on the impact of environmental regulations on military readiness and training, concluding that the Department of Defense has achieved readiness and has failed to demonstrate how and to what extent environmental laws have negatively affected its mission. Is it impolitic to suggest that the military services want to take advantage of the nation's patriotic fervor to increase everything military, especially programs dear to them, and end the rankling restrictions? For an example near and dear to CSI, the hassles the Navy has endured while its coveted LFA system has grown obsolete must be unbearable to the admirals, and the contractor, and may have been the catalyst that sparked the overall military assault. The LFA can never comply legitimately with environmental restraints, so why not be exempted from them?

Ever since you first became interested in cetaceans you have heard of the MMPA. You may have fought to keep it strong, essentially by responding to alerts to contact your Senators and Representatives as Congress debates changes during periodic reauthorizations of the MMPA. Another reauthorization is happening right now, and we plead with you to stay alert. This year the fight is largely over changing the definition of "harassment". To nonlegal minds the changes proposed are subtle and innocuous. To the experts they guarantee legal challenges to every effort to limit whatever humans want to do to cetaceans. The DoD has for years tried to relax the act's definition of harassment of marine mammals so they can get on with their mission without worrying about collateral damage or telling anyone what they are doing. They are now joined by NMFS, which seeks to lighten the bureaucratic load by reducing the number of restrictions and required permits. The Navy already ignores NMFS and permit requirements in some cases, or NMFS is unwilling to force the Navy to comply, so their answer seems to be to weaken the law to lessen the work and prevent hassles. Not only the military and NMFS want the benefit of severe changes to these laws. Every commercial and industrial user that has been held back by environmental legislation will try to benefit from any weakening of the MMPA.

But will the proposed changes harm marine mammals? Instead of looking to prove that these changes will not cause more harm, NMFS, and the Navy, are demanding proof that they will cause more harm. Once again the basic Precautionary Principle is ignored. Environmentalists argue that altering the definition would limit the circumstances under which activities potentially harmful to marine mammals could be reviewed or restricted. To fight more effectively for a reauthorization of the MMPA that cetaceans can live with, CSI and some 30 other organizations representing millions of members, have come together as the Marine Mammal Protection Coalition (MMPC). Another coalition has formed to fight the DoD's efforts to be exempted from laws other than the MMPA. On behalf of the MMPC, the Humane Society of the United States (http://www.hsus.org/), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (http://www.nrdc.org/) have posted details and alerts concerning the progress of the MMPA's reauthorization process, with continual updates to keep us all informed when it is time to act.

And that's what this is all about. You and I, voters and constituents, are the last hope to influence our Senators and Representatives to keep the MMPA from being weakened. Just tell them that you do not want any changes to the definition of "harassment" in the bill reauthorizing the MMPA. It's that simple. (While you're at it, mention that you do not want them to vote for a Defense Authorization Bill that has any anti-environmental riders and amendments.) See your local phone book or newspaper for names and contact information, or call 202-224-3121 for the Capitol Switchboard, and ask to be connected to your Representative's or Senator's office. Their Legislative Assistant on the issue will be careful to take your opinion, and follow up if you wish. For faxes or e-mails, go to your Senator's or Representative's web site. Or find that at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html. Or see NRDC's action page: http://www.nrdc.org/action/default.asp.

A headless right whale calf carcass was discovered in early June by a NMFS aerial survey crew, just to the north of the northeast area designated as critical habitat for the endangered species, about 60 miles northeast of Cape Cod, MA. The U.S. Navy had been conducting bombing exercises about 50 miles north of the critical habitat, near an area known as Sharrer Ridge and possibly within drifting range of the whale after it died. In January and February of 1996, the Navy had conducted live fire bombing exercises just outside of the southeast critical habitat for right whales. Coincidently, several right whales were found dead off the coast of Florida and Georgia near that critical habitat. No additional deaths occurred after the Navy moved the exercise area. No samples were available to determine if the acoustic shock of the weapons' explosions had caused the deaths.