Dugong Lawsuit: Wise Decision from US Justice System Desired
The plaintiffs in the dugong lawsuit and environmental groups from both Japan and the U.S. have filed a new action with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco against plans to move the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station to the Henoko area of Nago city.
The United States, of course, is also an interested party in this relocation issue. The U.S. justice system should thoroughly adjudicate the legality of this plan, which goes against the wishes of the locals, to reclaim land where the protected dugong species lives.
The new filing requests that construction-related vehicles from the Okinawa Defense Bureau be banned from entering Camp Schwab, regulated by the U.S. Department of Defense, and which is adjacent to the land planned for reclamation. In effect, granting this request would mean a suspension of construction.
The lawsuit, which is based on the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), requests that the U.S. government also protect the cultural assets of other countries. The plaintiffs assert that the U.S. has not taken into consideration that the dugong is a protected species under the Japanese Act on Protection of Cultural Properties, and that the Henoko relocation project is in violation of the NHPA. With regard to the Department of Defense, the plaintiffs are also asking that it comply with the provisional decision made on the 2008 lawsuit, where the NHPA was applied to the dugong.
This same lawsuit was first filed with the U.S. District Court in 2003. After the court determined in 2008 that the Department of Defense failed to evaluate the effect on the dugong, and thus was in violation of the NHPA, the Department of Defense was required to present a plan for the preservation of the dugong and the trial was suspended.
The lawsuit will soon be reopened with this latest additional filing, and a decision will be made within at least half a year. Let us hope the results have a significant impact on the outcome of the project.
According to The Nature Conservation Society of Japan (NACS-J), there is evidence that the dugong fed on sea grass for about two months up until last month in 110 locations around the area of ocean slated for construction. The majority of activity was within the area of reclamation, which also holds new precious varieties of crustaceans and seaweed. These facts, however, are not recorded in the Japanese government’s environmental impact assessment.
The Department of Defense submitted a report to the U.S. District Court based on this Japanese environmental assessment and concluded there was no effect to the dugong. That report, however, is clearly lacking. As the plaintiffs point out, the section of the NHPA requiring all persons concerned to be consulted has not been fulfilled.
The plaintiffs argue that the ocean is an asset of the world. The idea itself, of filling up the wonderful ocean to build military facilities, contradicts the 21st century worldwide trend of stressing environmental conservation. I hope the U.S. judicial system makes the wise decision to withdraw the project.
The United States, of course, is also an interested party in this relocation issue. The U.S. justice system should thoroughly adjudicate the legality of this plan, which goes against the wishes of the locals, to reclaim land where the protected dugong species lives.
The new filing requests that construction-related vehicles from the Okinawa Defense Bureau be banned from entering Camp Schwab, regulated by the U.S. Department of Defense, and which is adjacent to the land planned for reclamation. In effect, granting this request would mean a suspension of construction.
The lawsuit, which is based on the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), requests that the U.S. government also protect the cultural assets of other countries. The plaintiffs assert that the U.S. has not taken into consideration that the dugong is a protected species under the Japanese Act on Protection of Cultural Properties, and that the Henoko relocation project is in violation of the NHPA. With regard to the Department of Defense, the plaintiffs are also asking that it comply with the provisional decision made on the 2008 lawsuit, where the NHPA was applied to the dugong.
This same lawsuit was first filed with the U.S. District Court in 2003. After the court determined in 2008 that the Department of Defense failed to evaluate the effect on the dugong, and thus was in violation of the NHPA, the Department of Defense was required to present a plan for the preservation of the dugong and the trial was suspended.
The lawsuit will soon be reopened with this latest additional filing, and a decision will be made within at least half a year. Let us hope the results have a significant impact on the outcome of the project.
According to The Nature Conservation Society of Japan (NACS-J), there is evidence that the dugong fed on sea grass for about two months up until last month in 110 locations around the area of ocean slated for construction. The majority of activity was within the area of reclamation, which also holds new precious varieties of crustaceans and seaweed. These facts, however, are not recorded in the Japanese government’s environmental impact assessment.
The Department of Defense submitted a report to the U.S. District Court based on this Japanese environmental assessment and concluded there was no effect to the dugong. That report, however, is clearly lacking. As the plaintiffs point out, the section of the NHPA requiring all persons concerned to be consulted has not been fulfilled.
The plaintiffs argue that the ocean is an asset of the world. The idea itself, of filling up the wonderful ocean to build military facilities, contradicts the 21st century worldwide trend of stressing environmental conservation. I hope the U.S. judicial system makes the wise decision to withdraw the project.