Mauna Kea is the anchor for kanaka maoli, it is our collective mana, which is being stripped and disrespected. Our deities exist in its winds, its rains and mist and dew, and its snows. The elemental nature of the Mauna reaffirms from where we come and where we now stand.
This is not the first time that the state Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) has failed to enforce constitutional and legal protections for conservation district lands, native Hawaiian cultural practices and the environmental resources upon which those practices depend. For two decades, a hui of Hawaiian cultural practitioners and environmental justice advocates have worked tirelessly to bring attention to these issues and to be voices of reason against unfettered development of our sacred Mauna Kea. In 2015, the Hawai'i Supreme Court invalidated BLNR's approval of the TMT permit. BLNR has missed another opportunity to do the right thing and KAHEA and other community petitioners are faced with the burden of fixing those failures, yet again.
The next step will be the court appeal. Both the Hearing Officer and the BLNR have committed some of the same procedural violations that the Hawai'i Supreme Court cautioned against. Both those for and against the TMT earlier sought to disqualify the Hearing Officer, and similarly, objected to participation by board members with conflicts of interest. We emphasize also that the TMT International Observatory Corporation does not have a sublease for its use of Mauna Kea lands. Construction should not begin before all legal processes have run their course. We've been here before, we are here now, and we are here in the days and years to come.
]]>We’re liking this thought-proving post from journalist Anne Minard, on the “next great telescope race”–Day 14 of her “100 Days of Science.” She asks some great questions about the fundamental purpose of the two U.S. proposals for “next generation” giant land-based telescopes being proposed for construction within the next 10 years. Do we really need THIS much telescope, guys?
Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, acknowledged that the two telescopes are headed toward redundancy. The main differences, he said, are in the engineering.
He said the next generation of telescopes is crucial for forward progress in 21st Century astronomy.
“The goal is to start discovering and characterizing planets that might harbor life,” he said. “It’s very clear that we’re going to need the next generation of telescopes to do that.”
And far from being a competition, the real race is to contribute to science, said Charles Blue, a TMT spokesman.
“All next generation observatories would really like to be up and running as soon as possible to meet the scientific demand,” he said.
But when I asked him why the United States teams haven’t pooled their expertise to build a single next-generation telescope, Blue declined to comment.
In all, there are actually three teams (two from the U.S., and one from Europe) racing to build the first of these giant land-based telescopes: Extremely Large Telescope (Europe), TMT (U.S.), and Giant Magellan Telescope (U.S.). (And no, we’re not making these names up… in almost every description we could find, these bad boys are characterized first and foremost by their massive size.) The total estimated price tag for all this summit development? $2.6 billion dollars.
In the midst of this competition to build the first and the largest, the worldwide community of those who share aloha for sacred summits are humbly asking: for time and real consideration for native ecosystems, threatened endemic species, the cultural meaning of sacred space, cultural practice, and the natural and cultural heritage we have to pass forward to next generations… all in short supply on earth today. Can we not rationally slow down this latest race for space, in the interest of the future of life on our own planet?
]]>Today, DLNR is proposing a “wild laundry list” of EIS exemptions for DLNR-managed lands, from building new roads to chemical herbicides. That’s 57 pages (fifty-seven!) of exemptions. Yeesh. We are asking the Office of Environmental Quality and Control (OEQC) to send DLNR back to the drawing board. If you or your organization is interested in participating in a group letter to OEQC or just want to know more about this issue, please contact Marti at marti@kahea.org by Friday morning.
]]>Yesterday, the Mauna Kea hui (Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Royal Order of Kamehameha I, Sierra Club, KAHEA, and Clarence Kukauakahi Ching) filed the opening brief in our appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals challenging the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for Mauna Kea. The Circuit Court had denied our case on the theory that the CMP didn’t actually do anything to affect the summit.
If the CMP doesn’t do anything to affect the summit, then how can the University of Hawaii proceed with its proposal to build the Thirty Meter Telescope? Answer: they can’t.
The University of Hawaii — the sole creator, proponent and implementer of the CMP — simply can’t have it both ways. Either the CMP meets the legal requirements for construction in a conservation district and therefore does “something”… a “something” for which rightholders like the Mauna Kea hui can ask a court review. OR… the CMP doesn’t actually do anything, and therefore doesn’t meet the pre-requisite that a conservation district have comprehensive management before anything is built there … thus prohibiting the construction of a new massive telescope.
Here is the introduction to the hui’s opening brief:
This case is about the Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (“BLNR”) preferential treatment of the University of Hawai‘i’s astronomy program and its complete disregard for the protected rights of Native Hawaiian and other users of the summit of Mauna Kea. On its face, the University of Hawai‘i’s Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan (“CMP”) purports to broadly and actively regulate all uses of the Conservation District of Mauna Kea’s summit, including the religious, cultural, and recreational activities of the Mauna Kea Appellants. But the BLNR chose to completely ignore the CMP’s impact on Mauna Kea Appellants’ rights, duties and privileges. Contrary to its obligations under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) Chapter 91 and Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”) regulations, (Hawai‘i Administration Rules (“H.A.R.”) §§ 13-1-28 – 13-1-40), the BLNR issued its final decision to approve the CMP without holding a full and formal contested case proceeding. Record on Appeal, 2009 (“ROA-2009″) at 20-27.
The Mauna Kea Appellants appealed the BLNR’s final decisions to the Third Circuit Court of Hawai‘i (“Circuit Court”). ROA-2009 at 1-15. Appellees BLNR and the UH entities refused to transmit the administrative record to the Circuit Court and instead filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal. ROA-2009 at 254-265, 268-282. Incredibly, the Circuit Court determined, without ever reviewing the CMP or the rest of the administrative record, that the CMP was a harmless “unimplemented” document and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ROA-2009 at 369-372; Record on Appeal, 2010 (“ROA-2010″) at 1-9.
The Mauna Kea Appellants respectfully request that this Court reverse the Circuit Court’s order and remand this case to the Circuit Court: (1) with a finding that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, under HRS § 91-14 and/or H.A.R. § 13-5-3 to review Appellants’ appeal from the BLNR’s final decisions; or, alternatively, (2) with a finding that the Circuit Court misapplied the standard of review for a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, particularly where the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is intertwined with the merits of the Appellants’ appeal.
In other words, please give the Mauna Kea hui its day in court. Here is a link to the full opening brief.
Big mahalo to our attorneys, Colin Yost and Elizabeth Dunne, for working so hard on our behalf.
]]>From Marti:
This legislative session didn’t turn out to be as bad as it could have been for our natural and cultural resources. By mid-session this year, there were proposals to drastically weaken our EIS law, transfer 54% of the Division of Aquatic Resources to HIMB for groundskeepers (really, Dr. Leong? You know, City Mill has a sale on lawnmowers), and grant corporations extended leases to exploit our ocean. Thanks to the advocacy of so many, none of these proposals passed.
Not only that, legislators did manage to pass some good bills (in addition to HB 444). Sitting on the Governor’s desk for approval right now are laws that make it a felony to intentionally kill Hawaiian monk seals, require solar water heaters on new homes, and prevent beachfront landowners from using naupaka to block public access to and along the shoreline. It’s about time! Thanks also to your efforts, an audit will happening for Mauna Kea–albeit a self-audit. And while we still believe a self-audit is really no kind of audit at all, we do see it as a step in the right direction by the legislature. A very small, very weak and very tentative step, but a step nonetheless.
Mahalo to all those whose late nights, phone calls, petition gathering, and committed advocacy helped keep this 2010 legislative session from going off the rails.
]]>Unfortunately, legislators still could not find the courage to figure out what is going on with the telescopes on Mauna Kea. Instead of requiring an actual financial audit by the State Auditor of the private use of public (ceded) lands on the summit, legislators asked the University of Hawaii for a report… another one?! Where’s the oversight in self-reporting? What is the University going to say in this report that they haven’t already said in response to the million and half times we asked where’s the rent (…which was, in case you hadn’t heard, “i dunno.”)? What does it take to get some independent oversight around here?
Last year, $12 million dollars bypassed the state’s general fund in a deal between Caltech and Yale University for a few nights of viewing time on Mauna Kea. The people of Hawaii didn’t collect anything from that — no taxes, no fees, and no rent. And who knows how many other deals like this have gone down over the use of our public lands on Mauna Kea and throughout Hawaii. You can talk about the “multiplier effect” of an astronomer buying tomatoes in Hilo all you want, the bottom line is state law requires market-based rent be collected for the use of our public lands. The foreign countries and corporations that own the telescopes on Mauna Kea are paying a $1 (or less!) a year — how far-off market-based do you have to be before it is illegal?
Our point: Mauna Kea is a conservation district, not an industrial zone; a sacred place, not a wasteland. The state should not be encouraging the creation of an industrial zone in this sacred conservation district by subsidizing rent costs for foreign countries and corporations.
]]>Great editorial in the Sacramento Bee yesterday about the analogies between the struggle depicted in the movie Avatar and the real world struggle to protect the last pristine plateau of Mauna Kea. Here’s a quote:
The California astronomers’ “unobtanium” quest – research papers revealing “the secrets of the universe” and identifying planets beyond our solar system – is certainly more noble than mining minerals, but it’s another example of promoting one culture’s notion of progress by overriding another’s reverence for the land. As in the movie, behind the Mauna Kea invaders stands the big money of a starry-eyed entrepreneur, Intel co-founder and telescope donor Gordon Moore.
Particularly rich was the comment posted by Richard Ha about the importance of process. Totally agree, Uncle, which is why we oppose a plan to manage the summit conservation district that is written by the lead-developer of the summit. Just as one example, the plan puts no limit on the number of telescopes that could be built on the summit.
This is not surprising. For decades, the University of Hawaii has promised to better protect the natural and cultural resources of the summit while actively destroying them. This TMT+CMP combo is just the latest example.
]]>News coverage of the court hearing on the University’s plans for Mauna Kea characterized our opposition to the plan as anti-development. It said:
“(opponents) want to block new development on the mountain by stopping approval of the management plan.”
As one of our kupuna pointed out, actually the motivation is all the University’s part. She said
“advocates for more telescopes on the summit want the UH CMP rushed to completion in order to move forward with several new development plans.”
While it is true that as long as there is no plan there is no TMT, that is not the desired outcome for the plan. We’re not trying to block the plan to stop TMT.
What we do want is the opportunity to have a real plan–one that arises out of a transparent process and allows communities to articulate a public vision for the future of these extremely important public trust lands. That is what a public planning process is supposed to do. The point is that we have been denied the kind of critical, public and open discussion that would lead to such a plan. In its place, we are being told to shut up and accept a plan that was written by the university and driven by its interest in telescope development and telescope dollars.
We have long said that we want a fair opportunity to talk through and determine together how astronomy and cultural practice and natural conservation coexist–in what form, by what rules, and with what limits–on the summit. This is not an unreasonable ask. The University is wasting precious public education dollars on motion after motion in this case, because they are unwilling to compromise in any way on their development plans. For the University, this case is all about TMT. For advocates of the mountain, this case is not about TMT at all. It is about our standing, and the right of the people of Hawai’i to determine the future of a unique, irreplaceable summit that is part of Hawai’i's public trust.
Click here to read the article from the Hawaii Tribune Herald.
]]>Yesterday morning, the Third Circuit Court heard oral arguments on the University of Hawaii’s motion to dismiss our appeal for a contested case hearing on the University’s new management plan for Mauna Kea.
Though we are still waiting for the judge’s ruling, the hearing made one thing clear: supporters of this “CMP” also support more telescopes (and more desecration and destruction) on the sacred summit. Less than a dozen people sign-waved outside the Hilo courthouse during the hearing with pre-printed signs that said “Mauna Kea TMT Yes!” If you ever doubted the connection between more telescopes and the University’s CMP, then yesterday’s demonstration of support for the “Thirty Meter Telescope” at a hearing on the CMP should make it clear that the University wrote this CMP to facilitate telescope construction on Mauna Kea. Indeed, the CMP does not speak to any limitations on telescopes or a carrying capacity for the summit.
…unless, of course, if by “TMT” they meant “Too Many Telescopes.”
And, Mahalo Nunui!! This is just a little shout out to all of those who took time out of their workday to sit in solidarity with us before the judge. Mahalo for your unwavering support.
Want to help? Click here to sign up for action alerts and receive regular court updates. And click over here to donate directly to the Mauna Kea Legal Defense Fund.
Tomorrow, we along with others will plead our case at the Board of Land and Natural Resource meeting for a contested case hearing on the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan.
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, The Sierra Club-Hawaii, The Royal Order of Kamehameha I, KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, Dwight J. Vincente and Clarence Kukauakahi Ching have submitted a request for a contested case hearing on the plan.
Robert Harris, executive director of the Sierra Club, said that after the plan was approved in April Mauna Kea was chosen for a $1.2 billion Thirty Meter Telescope project.
“Our position is we’re not sure you should be approving new telescopes until this comprehensive management plan is finalized,” Harris said. “If you are going to call this a comprehensive management plan, I think you’re going to have to take into account future development and this plan specifically doesn’t address any development whatsoever.”
Department of Land and Natural Resources staff are recommending against a contested case hearing, saying there are no laws or rules requiring one because of the board’s approval of the plan and that the petitioners have no property interest in the project.
“The (comprehensive management plan) does not permit or authorize any new land use of development on Mauna Kea, including telescope projects,” the recommendation said.
Marti Townsend, program director for KAHEA, said there is a public interest in the protection of public trust resources. More time is needed to develop the plan and get public input, she said.
The DLNR says the acceptance of the plan doesn’t facilitate new construction but Townsend said she thinks it does, especially in light of the recent announcement of the Thirty Meter Telescope project.
“That was our concern all along — that we’re rushing through the management plan process in order to accommodate the TMT and so it’s really a development plan,” Townsend said.
To read full article click here.
The meeting will be held tomorrow (August 28, 2009) at 9:30 in the DLNR Board Room 132 on the first floor of the Kalanimoku Building at 1151 Punchbowl St. The Board Room is located on the makai (ocean) side of the building.
]]>From Alana:
This week Mauna Kea was chosen as the site for the Thirty Meter Telescope. It was chosen over a location in the Chilean Atacama Desert. In the weeks prior to the decision, some people thought that Mauna Kea might not be chosen because of its significantly higher cost, but was anyone actually surprised when the Mauna Kea site was chosen? It is sad to see untouched, sacred land used for a telescope that could be obsolete in a matter of years. In these job-hungry times the state should be focusing on creating jobs that invigorate the ‘aina, rather than destroy it. The ecological and cultural price might be even more than the price of building it…
More information on the Mauna Kea site: http://www.tmt.org/news/site-selection.htm
Following last night’s passionate hearing regarding the proposed Mauna Kea Thirty-meter telescope, a letter to the editor to was sent to The Star Bulletin strongly opposing the telescope. The letter details the long history of cheating and cutting corners, in terms of environmental and cultural laws, that Mauna Kea developers have had.
Testifiers at last week’s Hilo EIS meeting revealed that the EIS presented a lesser number of telescopes in the science reserve than in previous documents — by changing how they’re counted. Did this new counting strategy intend to leave the impression the TMT would fit within the “11 major telescope” limit mandated in the 1985 management plan approved by Board of Land and Natural Resources? The land board established that limit specifically to prevent astronomy interests from “taking over” the mountaintop. One person at the Hilo meeting counted, in front of everyone, 21 domes or antennas already on the mountain.
UH claims to have changed, and that its building practices will be better, but there is nothing in their plan that can attest to that claim– especially in a plan that blatantly lies about the number of telescopes on Mauna Kea.
For the whole letter, written by Catherine Robbins (Volcano, HI) click here.
]]>From Melissa:
Walking into the Farrington High School cafeteria for the Mauna Kea Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) hearing for the draft EIS, was like walking into a world of glossy posters and seductive color schemes. TMT staff were present in great numbers, anxiously awaiting questions from the community. More of a sales pitch at the beginning than a hearing, the TMT guys tried to entice the crowd with turkey rolls, brownie bites and promises of community benefit and higher education packages that sound more beneficial to the community than what they really offer.
From cultural education programs for the employees of TMT to a zero discharge wastewater plan for the facility, the mitigation measures brought forth did not seem to address the legitimate concerns of the Hawaiian people. Mitigation measures for the decimation of a cultural site of extreme importance, not to mention the irreparable damage the TMT would cause to the environment, were not attended to because these two issues are inevitable and irreversible.
The oral testimonies given were fairly balanced between support and opposition. Those in favor of the TMT went first, followed by those in opposition. TMT supporters mainly argued that the monetary packages offered to the community would be a godsend, and that Hawaii should be on the forefront of astronomical advances.
Our Program Director, Marti (who blew us away) and those in opposition brought up several interesting and valid points. The main issues brought up were that a federal EIS is required because TMT is funded by federal money, a permit for TMT will not be issued as it is in a conservation district, TMT doesn’t show a comprehensive management plan, the Board of Land and Natural Resources should be reviewing the EIS because TMT would be in a conservation district, students shouldn’t have to give up a cultural site just to receive chump change (education package), and the fact that the site has great environmental and cultural significance.
Overall, the hearing was informative, and those in opposition got to voice their opinion to the people that are carrying out the project, who are fully aware their work will devastate the land and decimate a culturally significant site. Whether or not TMT will actually be built is not yet known (our fingers crossed are it will fall through).
To learn more about this issue please visit the following site:
If you wish to voice your opinion, please click on the following link to submit testimony:
Defend Mauna Kea’s Last Pristine Plateau
From Alana:
The following letter to the editor, published in The Maui News newspaper, plainly shows that the logic UH uses to defend its proposed telescope is very flawed.
A fallacious argument is made that because Hawaiians revered astronomy, then anything done in the 21st century with respect to astronomy is automatically consistent with Hawaiian spirituality. It’s like saying because Hawaiians revere kalo and because a company wants to genetically modify kalo they’re actually not at cross purposes – they both have proper respect for kalo, they’re just looking at it differently. That logic is unacceptable!
It is also unacceptable logic that infers that during the 19th century period of Hawaiian monarchy, Kalakaua introduced telescopes to Hawaii and he would be – and we should be – in favor of the ATST. Well, Kalakaua also introduced electricity to Hawaii. Shouldn’t we, by the same logic, light up Maui – or at least the top of Haleakala – at night with electric lights? Of course not!
For Kiope Raymond’s entire analysis click here.