On Wednesday, a Supreme Court weighed the pros and cons of a federal judge's decision to limit the United States Navy’s use of sonar, in order to protect the whales and other marine life from being harmed.

Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who presented arguments on behalf of the U.S. military force, stated for the Court that sonar was vital to the nation’s security, admitting though that it caused problems for marine mammals, but adding that the issues it gave rise to were only temporary.

The country’s current administration has also informed that the sonar was essential to training sailors to detect enemy submarines, thus rendering it a major asset to military interests.

On the preserving the marine life’s side there were, as expected, the environmentalists, who claimed that the mid-frequency sonar could even kill the mammals, due to the fact that in order to avoid the sound it made, the latter would dive deeper, being then likely to suffer from decompression sickness. The aforementioned condition is triggered by the sudden decrease (which often follows a major increase) in the pressure around the body of the person or animal that is diving. It also goes by other names such as the diver’s disease, the bends or caisson disease.

Moreover, environmentalists expressed their concern that the sonar could make whales alter their breeding habits and also hinder their ability to swim underwater.

The hearing held Wednesday was prompted by an appeal against a federal judge’s order concerning the U.S. Navy,  which was filed by the Bush administration. The order, issued by District Judge Florence Marie Cooper in Los Angeles, prohibited the Navy from using the sonar when whales or other marine mammals were within 1.25 miles and it was later supported by the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Nevertheless, the controversy dates back one year, when the United States Navy failed to release an environmental impact statement (EIS) previous to the launch of the military training program, although federal law required it to do so.

According to the law, an EIS must be filed whenever the federal government decides to perform an action that could significantly affect the environment.

The Navy reasoned that in this case such a statement was not necessary, because major issues were not likely to arise from their training exercise.

Presently, the Navy is nearing the end of its training program, but the Supreme Court’s decision is said to solve another stringent problem. That of whether federal judges actually have the necessary authority to halt military exercise on the basis of harmful effects to the environment.

Critics of Cooper’s decision state that, by virtue of the fact that the plaintiffs (the environmentalists, that is) had not presented undeniable proof that the sonar did irreparable harm to the marine mammals, the judge had made the wrong call.

On the other hand, there are judges who agree with Cooper, reasoning that an EIS would have given a clear picture of the extent of the damage the Navy’s training exercise would have caused to the marine life. Consequently, both parties (the Navy and the environmentalists) would have been aware of the effects that were likely to occur as an aftermath of the training.