I am writing this diary as a follow-up to an earlier diary: Cal. Coastal Commision Sues Navy.
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is a quasi-governmental agency in charge of coast land use. The CCC placed restrictions on the Navy's ability to conduct sonar test off the coast of San Diego. These restrictions were meant to protect marine mammals thought to be harmed by sonar and to comply with requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The U.S. 9th Circuit ruled with the CCC and placed an injunction against sonar use by the Navy.
Today's LA times (link) is reporting that Bush has over-ruled the court decision.
a Justice Department lawyer asked that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal repeal the restrictions set out in an injunction issued this month by U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper.
---------------------
"Each day that the injunction remains in force the Navy and national security suffer grievous harm," he wrote, asking that the three-judge appeals court panel lift the injunction by 2 p.m. Friday.
This issue is fundamentally an issue of jurisdiction: who has the power to decide which priorities take precedence:
The administrative actions and court filings set up a classic struggle between the administrative and judicial branches of government, in a widely watched case that pits environmental protections against troop readiness and national security.
It is also an issue of a state's rights versus federal rights. Bush's move to overrule the decision represents:
the first presidential override of the law that since 1972 has given states the right to review federal activities that affect their coastal resources.
It seems that Bush has clear authority to override the CCC:
Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, said the president had clear authority to exempt the Navy's exercises from the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act.
However, anticipating this, this ruling was based on the federal law NEPA:
it's less clear if the White House Council on Environmental Quality has the authority to override the requirements in another federal law -- the linchpin of the federal case. Conservation groups persuaded Cooper to issue her injunction based on the National Environmental Policy Act.
Important issues of precedence are at stake here. I believe that good environmental policy requires that states have the power to regulate their own land, air and water use. This is partly because states have the most stake in their own well-being. But it is also because in this way states are allowed to innovate and act as models to the rest of the nation---as we've seen with California leading the way with stricter emissions standards.
Update: I extended the first quote in the body section of the diary.
Update II: NatureGal provided a link to a WaPo article, here's a good quote from that:
"There is absolutely no justification for this," Commissioner Sara Wan said in a statement. "Both the court and the Coastal Commission have said that the Navy can carry out its mission as well as protect the whales. This is a slap in the face to Californians who care about the oceans."