The Navy recently complained about differing sonar restrictions imposed by courts in California and Hawai'i, but an attorney for plaintiffs in a Hawai'i lawsuit said the two sets of rules resulted from the Navy's "unwillingness" to agree to provisions that were previously ordered and pressing the court here to rule differently.

Paul Achitoff, an Earthjustice attorney, said a federal judge's Honolulu ruling in February was more lenient than a prior federal court ruling for sonar operations off Southern California, but that the Navy was not happy with the result.

"Basically, the only thing that satisfies (the Navy) is if they don't have to comply with anybody's standard except their own," Achitoff said in an interview last week.

Asked for comment on Achitoff's remarks, the Navy said in a written statement, "The bottom line is many of these court-ordered restrictions here and off the California (coast) jeopardize the Navy's ability to train sailors and Marines for deployment, posing substantial harm to national security."

Navy sonar training and its effects on marine mammals has been a litigious issue, with a lack of hard science on how active sonar "pings" affect marine mammals.

U.S. District Judge David Ezra last month noted the Navy was taking a "very hard line" in its request to modify his February court order.

"I would love nothing more than to be able to allow the Navy to train to the extent and in the manner in which it feels most appropriate," Ezra said during the May 9 status conference. "I would also like to be able to give to the plaintiffs every protection they feel that the mammals are entitled to. But sadly, that's impossible because those two goals clash in the middle of the ocean where whales and other marine mammals live and where the Navy trains."

Ezra a day earlier had said the Navy "has made it very clear that they do not believe the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other laws apply to them."

Ezra added that "they may be right," and that the issue may have to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ocean Mammal Institute; Animal Welfare Institute; Kahea; the Center for Biological Diversity; and Surfrider Foundation Kaua'i Chapter filed suit in 2007 challenging Navy undersea warfare exercises off Hawai'i using high-intensity midfrequency sonar.

As a result of federal court decisions in California, the Navy must shut down sonar when marine mammals are within 6,600 feet. For anti-submarine warfare training off Hawai'i, sonar intensity must be reduced starting at nearly 5,000 feet from mammals.

Off the southern coast of California, the Navy said it must post three watchstanders and two National Marine Fisheries Service lookouts. Off Hawai'i, the Navy has to have three dedicated marine mammal lookouts and at least three watchstanders on the bridge team.

"Throughout this litigation, both in California and here, and in the 9th Circuit (Court of Appeals, the Navy's) position has been, time and time again, to absolutely reject any form of mitigation beyond what they themselves had proposed a long time ago," Achitoff said.

The Navy said it already adheres to 29 "science-based" protective, or mitigation, measures approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service to minimize the potential harm to marine mammals during active sonar use.

According to court records, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups brought a 2005 suit challenging Navy sonar training worldwide, including in Hawai'i.