The U.S. Navy has finally, under court order, released its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Growler jets at Whidbey Island. As usual, according to the Navy, there is “nothing to worry about. Just go along with our preferred plan.”
You may remember that the Navy was ordered to complete this EIS because of the lawsuit brought against it by the long running court battle between it and the local people who oppose the expansion of the base. The never ending rounds of jets roaring off into the night up to midnight in many cases (I have been kept awake when I lived west of the Jefferson County Fairgrounds many nights in the summer at that time of night), and the unmuffled nature of the jets has been a point of contention for decades. Along with that, poisoning of wells in the vicinity of the bases has been an established fact, as PFAS studies by the Navy showed conclusively. PFAS is the ‘forever’ chemical that is has been found in an enormous array of common items such as food packaging and consumer goods. Twenty states have now banned PFAS. The Navy used fire fighting foam to cool the jets, which has PFAS in it, and that foam leaches into the groundwater over decades. I don’t think I’ve read that the Navy is going to do anything but pay the homeowners, not sure whether the chemical will continue to leach into more wells further afield, or even poison the water supply of the town nearby. But hey, that’s the price the people living near the base have to pay, right?
I have not yet read the full 800 page EIS, but I have in the past on other EIS that they have filled out and won. It’s always the same formula. Multiple choices, including no action, but the Navy action is more jets. Go through some court battles and then the courts cave. Am I cynical? Sure. But we now will await the court’s reaction to the Navy. This is the way the game of environmental protection is played. We usually if not always lose when it’s the military. Given the current administration’s apparent belief that they can create a new Monroe style doctrine, invading South American countries at will for their oil we assume that even more jet pilots are to go and be trained sooner than later on Whidbey.
While on the subject of the use of the Navy in our current military engagement in the Caribbean over Venezuela.
Venezuela is already working closely with Chevron, and has for decades.
Chevron is a major player in Venezuela’s oil sector, operating joint ventures with the state-owned PDVSA, producing significant output (around 200,000 barrels/day, a large chunk of the nation’s total), and exporting crude to U.S. refineries under special U.S. licenses, despite broader sanctions, acting as a vital economic link between the two nations and a stabilizing force amidst geopolitical tensions and U.S. crackdowns on Venezuelan oil flows.According to the compiled answer by Gemini 3
Key Aspects of Chevron’s Presence:
- Joint Ventures: Chevron partners with Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, in several projectshttps://finance.yahoo.com/news/chevron-steers-risky-path-oils-143008982.html.
- Production & Exports: They produce a substantial portion of Venezuela’s oil (around a quarter to a third) and are crucial in getting it exported, primarily to the U.S..
- U.S. Sanctions Exemption: Chevron holds special licenses from the U.S. Treasury to operate and export, allowing it to navigate sanctions, a policy shift under the Biden administration aimed at fostering political change.
- Economic Role: Their operations provide much-needed hard currency for Venezuela’s struggling economy and contribute to U.S. energy security.
- Political Sensitivity: Chevron’s presence is complex, facing scrutiny from both Venezuelan opposition and U.S. political factions, yet it maintains operations by working with the government and benefiting from U.S. policy.
Recent Developments (Late 2025 Context):
As of late 2025, tensions have escalated with increased U.S. pressure and blockades on Venezuelan oil shipments, putting Chevron in a precarious but central position, as their tankers continue to move oil to the U.S.. (So are we actually seizing our own ships? Author note)
Answer provided by Gemini3
The gunboat diplomacy that the current administration’s is pursuing, which appears to simply be a realigment of American political dominance of Latin American countries (remember United Fruit’s banana empire, our overthrow of the Cuba revolution in 1899, and many other intrigues) alongside the massive funding by the oil companies to our political right, can be easily lead one to conclude we, like many countries, have been overthrown by a consortium of oil companies. Followed by the elimination of wind and EV government funding, there appears to be nothing that the oil cartels of America are not willing to do expand their immense profits.
Back here, we will be looking forward to expansion of jet noise, with no way to demand that we can sleep at night before midnight, nor that our children won’t be impacted for life by the noise that the EIS clearly states is affecting them but is only calling for “more study”. I’ve watched for twenty years as that phrase has been used to slow any attempts at harm reduction by the corporations that have manipulated the process we put in place to protect citizens.
Same as it ever was, but what can you do? Let’s ask Gemini 3 again:
Opposition to jet noise on Whidbey Island centers on the intense, disruptive sound from Navy EA-18G Growler training, leading to health concerns (sleep loss, stress, hearing issues) and legal challenges against the Navy, with groups like Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve (COER) and the Sound Defense Alliance (SDA) pushing for noise reduction, better studies (EIS), and potential relocation, highlighting impacts on over 74,000 residents despite Navy justifications for training.
Are there alternatives? Sure. It’s right in the EIS. However, the Navy does not want to even consider them. It’s not about “Not in my Backyard” so much as “There are better alternatives that actually are workable, you just don’t want to consider them”.The people opposing this expansion are Americans and are not opposing the Navy or its mission. We all understand that the U.S. needs a trained military. What we see is an unending appetite to turn the Puget Sound into a training ground for anything the Navy wants. We have the legal right to challenge that. So says the Constitution and virtually all of our judiciary.
You can follow those links above and donate to the fight for our health. Write our state representatives, who do agree with us that the Navy needs to be better regulated on environmental concerns. Reducing the need for oil in your life, using electric vehicles, bicycles etc help push their impact down. But obviously, the Navy is an economic engine, one that is a false economy because it is simply our tax dollars recycled into the Whidbey Island economy, not actual job creation by industry. The belief that the military “produces” anything is simply false. Given that the Navy is being used not for protection but as a tool of an administration that is going to war and committing what many ex-Navy officers have clearly stated are war crimes and doing so without Congress’ approval, we can and should stand up for our rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It’s easy to define “Life” in that phrase to include our long term health, which produces that life.
Filed under: Olympic Peninsula |
