Editor,

I am writing in response to James Peterson’s March 25 letter: “Contributions by Navy vital to Whidbey community.”

Setting aside Mr. Peterson’s feelings toward the Navy and its contributions, his logic regarding the recent court ruling is fundamentally flawed. He points to a completely unrelated West Virginia v. EPA federal court decision and thinks it should be applied to our local situation, but he is incorrect:

The West Virginia case is about the EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 emissions. Whereas, in the NAS Whidbey case the court found that the Navy – in its environmental assessment – failed to quantify the noise impacts on classroom learning, as well as other shortcomings.

Therefore, Mr. Peterson’s remedy – that “it is essential to reconsider the magistrate’s findings” — is also flawed. No court or judge should or would look at a totally unrelated case just because it also has the word “environmental” in it!

The Navy’s “remedies” – as I understand them – would be for them to redo the part of their environmental study related to noise (and other applicable sections), which may or may not change the outcome of the findings. Or … they can go to court to challenge the ruling of a U.S. District Court judge, which again, may or may not be in their favor.

But the remedy is not to apply an unrelated court ruling just because Mr. Peterson or others want a different outcome.

David Freed

Clinton