"I am not saying they are not well-intentioned," said Zak Smith, staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "But I am not sure their choices make them the best environmental stewards they could be."
The debate over sonars and whales has gone on for years. It centers on balancing the need to defend the United States, while safeguarding its natural resources.
It has also played out in court. In 2008, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted sanctions placed on the Navy over its underwater sonar testing.
Environmental interests, said Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority, "are plainly outweighed by the Navy's need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines."
Smith argued that the use of lookouts aboard Navy ships is not fully effective.
"Most marine mammals don't spend much time at the surface," he said. "When they do, you better have good weather conditions to see them."
Smith points to other consequences from the use of sonar and other acoustic sources off California and Hawaii.
Government estimates for 2014 to 2019 indicate there may be about 2 million cases of temporary hearing loss among marine animals, Smith told CNN. "Marine mammals use hearing the same way we use sight" to find food, he said.
"This kind of constant barrage and harassment is not a recipe for healthy populations," Smith added.
Van Name challenged Smith's assessment, saying the 2 million number includes all behavioral and "temporary" responses, such as an animal turning its head, stopping feeding or moving out of the area.