My facebook search did pull up beautiful loving remembrances and showed me that though we ran in many of the same circles and knew many of the same people and places, our paths had never quite crossed. At brunch, through the eyes of her dear friend, we were each able to learn about this quiet powerhouse who had brought us all together that day. I learned that Aunty Elaine was an accomplished lawyer who was involved in countless social justice issues and groups, including the Black Panthers, farmworkers, Justice for Palestine, the Protect Kahoʻolawe ʻOhana, East Maui Water, and short-term rentals on Maui, to name a few. It was immediately apparent that we are cut from the same cloth when Burt shared that Aunty Elaine would often help people refine their testimonies by offering tips and revisions and would strategize how best to hit all the most important points between all the testifiers – so maybe one would come from an environmental perspective, and one from an ʻŌiwi perspective, while someone else could bring a social justice lens as a settler ally. This reminded me very much of the kind of work we strive to do at KAHEA. We also learned that Aunty Elaine was also a fiber artist, and a private person, who was fond of lists and thoughtfully planned for the future. We are so grateful to Aunty Elaine, for her generous donation, of course, but beyond that, mahalo nunui for her life of service and commitment to social justice and love for Hawai’i.

My facebook search did pull up beautiful loving remembrances and showed me that though we ran in many of the same circles and knew many of the same people and places, our paths had never quite crossed. At brunch, through the eyes of her dear friend, we were each able to learn about this quiet powerhouse who had brought us all together that day. I learned that Aunty Elaine was an accomplished lawyer who was involved in countless social justice issues and groups, including the Black Panthers, farmworkers, Justice for Palestine, the Protect Kahoʻolawe ʻOhana, East Maui Water, and short-term rentals on Maui, to name a few. It was immediately apparent that we are cut from the same cloth when Burt shared that Aunty Elaine would often help people refine their testimonies by offering tips and revisions and would strategize how best to hit all the most important points between all the testifiers – so maybe one would come from an environmental perspective, and one from an ʻŌiwi perspective, while someone else could bring a social justice lens as a settler ally. This reminded me very much of the kind of work we strive to do at KAHEA. We also learned that Aunty Elaine was also a fiber artist, and a private person, who was fond of lists and thoughtfully planned for the future. We are so grateful to Aunty Elaine, for her generous donation, of course, but beyond that, mahalo nunui for her life of service and commitment to social justice and love for Hawai’i.

Many of our followers have been with us for a decade or more as we are approaching our 25th year! Spending time to learn more about Aunty Elaine was a potent reminder of the depth and richness of each of your lives, many whom we’ve never met in person. You inspire us to keep going and remind us that we are in this together!

Many of our followers have been with us for a decade or more as we are approaching our 25th year! Spending time to learn more about Aunty Elaine was a potent reminder of the depth and richness of each of your lives, many whom we’ve never met in person. You inspire us to keep going and remind us that we are in this together!

Tuesday, July 9, 2024 (Wai‘anae District Park Multi-Purpose Room)
Wednesday, July 10, 2024 (Kahuku High and Intermediate School)
Thursday, July 11, 2024 (Leilehua High School)

Even if you don’t feel ready to speak on this topic, we encourage you to attend one of these hearings! Your presence matters!

• Bring a sign with an aloha ‘āina message!
• Help be the eyes and ears for the broader lāhui and ʻāina
• Take pictures and notes on what you hear and share it out on social media.
• Use your experience at the hearing to inform a written comment (due Aug 7th, instructions below)
  

In 2021, hundreds of you, our supporters, submitted comments to the Army about what the scope of their EIS should be. We called for a future that prioritizes health, healing, and peace at home and abroad. Unfortunately, though their DEIS is lengthy (1,000+ pages), it does not meaningfully address any of the concerns we previously raised. Here are some points to consider, for either written or spoken testimony:

• Military presence in Hawai’i puts a target on our islands. With global tensions mounting with the war in Ukraine, the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, recent alliances between Russia and North Korea and more – the US military presence, does not offer us protection, but instead, threatens the safety and wellness of Hawaiʻi both externally and internally.

• The framing of this proposal as a mere “real-estate” action is offensive. What is being proposed is another 65 years of disconnection from these lands. 3 more generations of our ancestral places being used to rehearse the destruction of othersʻ homelands and killing of the people who live there.

• The legacy and ongoing presence of the military in Hawai’i is one of toxic abuse. This history includes, but is not limited to: evictions/blocked access, burial desecration, intentional bombing of cultural sites, irreparable pollution of lands and waters with toxins (like jet fuel and PFAS) and/or UXOs, destruction of native habitat with impact to rare plants and animals and perhaps hardest to measure, impacts on practices and connections to places from which we are cut off. The military presence in Hawaiʻi has already caused grave harm to our natural and cultural environment and the Army retaining these leases will only extend a bad situation.

• The Army assumes, without basis, future lease terms would be the same and does not assess or propose new lease terms. DEIS at ES-12 This is presumptuous considering what poor stewards the military has been. The state should inspect the conditions of these lands before considering a renewed lease. The Army should clean and restore the lands theyʻve held for 60 years, to support their claim that despite their atrocious track record, they can be trusted with these special places.

• The Army should not be allowed to contaminate land without cleaning it up, simply because it is too expensive. The DEIS says that the Army will, “remove weapons and shells used in connection with its training activities to the extent that a technical and economic capability exists and provided that expenditures for removal of shells will not exceed the fair market value of the land.” DEIS V. 3.2 Appx. G, (KTA lease ¶29), (Poamoho lease ¶29), (MMR ¶8, 26) If you can’t afford to clean it up, don’t contaminate it in the first place.

• DEIS fails to meaningfully evaluate socioeconomic impacts of continued Army presence

• 38% of arrests resulting from Operation Keiki Shield (a coordinated effort involving local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies tasked with the investigation and prosecution of internet-facilitated crimes against children) were active-duty military personnel.

• Large housing allowances mean military personnel outcompete locals in a very tight rental market. Basic Allowances for Housing (BAH) range from $2,256-$4,638 depending on one’s rank and whether or not they have dependents. This money is tax-free and exacerbates an already dire housing crisis.

• DEIS dismisses cultural impacts through a disingenuous process and fails to address the long-term impacts of little or no access.

• Though they didn’t ask, the DEIS repeatedly faults community members for not providing specific locations within the project area for different cultural resources or practices. If specific locations within state-lands was the standard for cultural practices to be considered relevant to the DEIS, the Army should have said as much.  If the Army was genuine in learning about how cultural practices may be impacted by their actions, it could have simply asked community members whether or not any of the practices mentioned occur within the state-lands in question. It is disingenuous that they did not ask such an obvious follow-up question. It is poor logic to assume that because people did not, unprompted, volunteer specific locations of their cultural practices, that they do not occur on the relevant state lands.

• DEIS fails to consider the impacts of maintaining the status quo. What is the impact of  NOT using these lands to address the many pressing issues our communities face? These include but are not limited to affordable housing, food insecurity, energy independence, and climate change.

If you can’t make it in person this week (and even if you can!) written comments are being accepted until August 7th. They can be sent to atlr-oahu-eis@g70.design or via webform here: https://home.army.mil/hawaii/index.php/OahuEIS/project-home.

This week’s hearings and the written comment deadline in August are a few opportunities to weigh in on what the US military presence in Hawai’i will (or won’t!) look like in the future. There will be many more opportunities. Now is a good time to learn/refresh ourselves on the history of these places and our personal (dis)connections to them and our hopes for our collective future.

The TMT is not being built on Mauna Kea. You know that. We know that. Yet UHH has been claiming they started TMT construction in 2019, in order to be in compliance with condition #4 of their conservation district use permit (CDUP) that requires “Any work done or construction to be done on the land shall be initiated within two (2) years of the approval of such use…” Tune in at 1pm on Tuesday 11/07/23 (via livestream only) to hear us make the common sense argument to the Land Board that construction has not begun on TMT.

The Land Board approved the TMT CDUP on September 28, 2017 – which means that their original deadline to start construction was September 28, 2019. However, in 2019, the University of Hawai‘i (UHH) sought and were granted a two-year extension of the CDUP based on its June 25, 2019 testing of GPS equipment and partial survey of the Submillimeter Array access road and July 12, 2019 survey of underground fiber optic and electrical lines. This extension gave them until Sept 28, 2021.

On April 28, 2021, UHH told Land Board staff they had “initiated” work based on actions in 2019 – including inspections for invasive species on July 15, 2019, a “Kick-Off Meeting” between TMT and its contractors to discuss construction on July 8, 2019, and removal of an ahu on June 20, 2019. Discussing construction is not the same as initiating construction. Based on their erroneous definition of “initiating” TMT construction, UHH argued they had complied with CDUP Condition 4.

In 2021, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Kumu Paul Neves, Kūkauakahi Ching, Deborah Ward, and KAHEA (aka the Mauna Kea hui) filed a motion pointing out to the Land Board that UHH was violating its CDUP because the TMT is not being built on Mauna Kea. We argued the Land Board should re-open its permitting proceedings and listen to the many reasons UHH/ TMT cannot build the TMT on Mauna Kea. Not in 2019. Not in 2021. Not under the Land Board’s permit. The TMT will never be built on Mauna Kea.

Finally on Tuesday, 11/07/23 our 2021 challenge will finally be heard. There will be no public testimony taken, as only parties who submitted filings in the original 2021 motion can argue. Those parties are: the Mauna Kea Hui, the Flores-Case ‘ohana, Cindy Freitas, Lanny Alan Sinkin/Temple of Lono, PUEO, UH Hilo and TMT. Tune in here to watch the hearing: https://www.youtube.com/c/boardoflandandnaturalresourcesdlnr

To whom it may concern,

KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization provides the following comments on the Mauna Kea Working Group’s (Working Group) Draft Report, “He Lā Hou Kēia Ma Mauna a Wākea: A New Day on Mauna A Wakea,” dated December 17, 2021 (draft report).

KAHEA is a community-based organization working to improve the quality of life for Hawaii’s people and future generations through the revitalization and protection of Hawaii’s unique natural and cultural resources. We have been advocating for the protection of Mauna Kea for nearly the entire life of our organization, which was founded in 2000.

1. Recommendations helpfully recognize existing issues, but entrust resolution to a Governor-appointed Entity

The Draft Report recognizes existing management practices do not ensure the observatories: (1) plan for and finance decommissioning and restoration; (2) are held to appropriate standards of “restoration”; and (3) contribute to decommissioning funds. Draft report at 26. The Draft Report also, helpfully, recommends development of “a plan to return the mauna above 9,200 feet elevation to its natural state.” Id. at 25. The Draft Report, however, unilaterally entrusts a new Governing Entity to ensure these are implemented in a timely and meaningful way. This is a mistake as described infra Part 3.

2. No framework to implement traditional kānāwai

The Draft Report describes traditional kānāwai, including Kai‘okia Kānāwai, under which natural boundaries dictated traditions, such that “land deemed safe for residential and commercial activity were zoned as wao kanaka, where man could live and work. Other lands were set aside and zoned as wao akua, where human activity was kept to a minimum, either for safety from elemental activity or to keep the area pristine to maintain our natural resources.” Draft report at 5.  Hawaiian practices as dictated by traditional Kānāwai include:  “The height of the mauna sits at an atmospheric level that prohibits occupation. The top is revered and should be treated with utmost reverence. It is the makahiapo or the oldest child and is ʻkapuʻ; therefore, prohibited for occupation.”  Draft report at 14.

These traditional laws prohibit industrial development on Mauna Kea, including existing development. Yet, these traditional kānāwai are only “intended to guide and inform how the [Governing] entity designs and implements its governance and management frameworks; and performs its day to day operations by recentering permissible human use and access activities towards the overall, cumulative health and resilience of Mauna a Wākea.” Draft report at 12. The problem has never been a lack of brilliance or deep knowledge of Hawaiian practitioners as is expressed in the kānāwai shared in the report. The problem has always been the failure of the University and State to relinquish their control over the management of Mauna Kea and their refusal to allow those most knowledgeable to apply that knowledge to the care and protection of this sacred place. Western laws are open to a certain width of interpretation, safeguarded by checks and balances of the coordinate governing branches. Guidance and information have larger spheres of interpretation and lack assurances that they will be implemented. Instead, the Working Group should demand compliance with traditional kānāwai - no further development on Mauna Kea.

3. Remove the Governor’s power to appoint nearly all the members of the Governing Entity

Several years ago in 2018, the senate introduced SB3090, which would have removed UH from its management role over Mauna Kea and installed a governor-appointed management authority in its stead. Legislators introduced the bill after promising community groups that they would not do so. KAHEA joined the calls of caution from community leaders - that UH’s dismal management record should not be a reason to repeat a wrong-headed approach directed at "resolving conflict". Conflict isn't the problem. The problem is over-development on the mauna.

Like the SB3090 Management Authority, the Working Group sets forth parameters for a “Governing Entity,” comprised of nine members, all but one (the OHA CEO) of whom are appointed by the governor. Draft report at 23.  The Governing Entity will be the “sole authority” over management of “state-owned lands above the 6,500 foot elevation line, inclusive of Pu‘u Huluhulu to the summit of Mauna a Wākea.” Id. at 21, 24.

Like the SB3090 Management Authority, this Governing Entity removes protective procedures that are currently in place and could themselves use strengthening. It would provide one-stop shopping for project design review, leasing, conservation district use permitting, environmental impact statement approvals, and any historic preservation or burial treatment impacts review. Instead of the more protective serialized system of approvals from different entities - BLNR, SHPD, DOFAW, Burial Councils, and other agencies - development applicants need only turn to the Governing Entity. Facilitating development on Mauna Kea is the opposite lesson that we should have learned from litigation and contested case hearings on the Thirty Meter Telescope.

More importantly, you cannot present a preformed template and ask the community to trust you to fill in the blanks.  Management and governance of Mauna Kea must proceed from a truly community-based process that builds trust amongst people who have shown their commitment to protecting the mauna, which includes many more than those who served on the Working Group. Build that trust by empowering longtime Mauna Kea protectors from the Royal Order of Kamehameha, Sierra Club of Hawai‘i, Hawaiian charter schools, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou to select Governing Entity members and without requiring the governor’s appointment.

One issue that remains unresolved in the draft report is whether or not a representative from the astronomy industry should be afforded a seat. We strongly oppose this recommendation as the goals and interests of the astronomy industry have been overrepresented on Mauna Kea for the last 50+ years which has caused, “significant, substantial, and adverse harm” to cultural resources. (2005 NASA federal EIS on the Keck Outrigger project). Western astronomy now dominates the summit of Mauna Kea and need not further impose its priorities on this sacred landscape.

We hope that the Working Group deeply revises its recommendations to include: (1) significant, meaningful, and broad based community input prior to the introduction of any legislation; (2) removing the governor’s power of appointment of nearly all the members of the Governing Entity; and, (3) honoring the traditional kānāwai by, first and foremost, prohibiting any further construction – including the Thirty-Meter Telescope – on Mauna Kea.

Me ke aloha,
KAHEA Board and Staff 2022

Hui Wai Ola pointed out the TMT previously violated its permit by allowing idle construction machines to leak oil on Mauna Kea in 2015, and incorrectly “certifie[d]” that construction runoff would not impact Hawaiian cultural resources or practices. Hui Wai Ola'so filing explains their members “are taught knowledge of the gathering and use of waters from sources that begin as mist or rain on the Northern Plateau of the Mauna Kea summit. This wai (water) serves cultural medicinal purposes and must be extremely pure for these purposes. This sacred wai is contributed to by natural runoff on and around the plateau of the north side of the Mauna Kea summit. Changing how water enters the underground aquifers in this area may significantly impact the purity and quality of this water.”

Founding Hui member, Laulani Teale commented, “Our Hui and I are seeking a contested case hearing to ensure that the Department of Health protects our most sacred water traditions by denying any permit that would enable harms to our many pure and fragile sacred waters originating on or connected to Mauna Kea’s North side, along with our practices, other sacred water practices, and the sacred Indigenous practices of future generations.” DOH’s deadline for comments on its proposed TMT water pollution permit is June 7, 2021; email: cleanwaterbranch@doh.hawaii.gov or by mail at P.O. BOX 3378, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96801-3378.

Take action and let your voice be heard! This convenient form created by Healani Pale will send your comments to all of the Senators who have decision-making power on this issue. Please read KAHEA's submitted testimony below.

Aloha Senators,

Please accept this testimony from KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance in strong opposition to GM 583 and decline to confirm the nomination of Chris Yuen to yet another term to the Board of Land and Natural Resources. KAHEA is a Hawai‘i-community based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with over 10,000 supporters. Mr. Yuen has served for 14 years in total on the BLNR, which violates the spirit, if not the letter of HRS § 26-34, which limits terms of service to 8 consecutive years. Vacating Member Yuen’s spot would allow the Governor to appoint a person from any number of underrepresented groups on the BLNR, including kānaka maoli (Native Hawaiians) and women.

Mr. Yuen treats large landowners and developers with deference, but aggressively questions Hawaiians and others who champion natural resources. He takes applicants at their word, but submits aloha ‘āina to searching scrutiny for any real or imagined inconsistency in their claims and positions.

In addition to his past bad actions, enumerated below, if re-appointed, Mr. Yuen will be a decisionmaker on many controversial issues that matter greatly to Hawaiian and local communities in Hawaiʻi. These include, but are not limited to:

• Long term lease arrangements for the East Maui stream
  diversions

• Long term lease arrangements for Wai’ale’ale stream
  diversions

• Allowable ʻōpeʻapea (bat) take by wind turbines

• Influencing negotiations on Mauna Kea related issues like  a
  possible future general lease, management plan updates

• Allowable take for the aquarium fish trade

• Oversight on leases of state land for military use

Our resources, and the people who rely on them, deserve decisionmakers who are committed to compassionate listening, creative solutions and critical questioning of entities that pose harm to their health. Mr. Yuen has showed time and time again that he will not commit to doing so.

Reasons we oppose Mr. Yuenʻs continued tenure on BLNR include his positions on:

1.      Thirty-Meter Telescope permit.  Mr. Yuen voted in favor of granting the TMT permit, ignoring the many concerns of the community and long-time advocates concerning the desecration of Mauna Kea.

2.       Mauna Kea emergency rules. Mr. Yuen aggressively questioned opponents of emergency rules, but did not similarly question proponents. He was convinced that it was an emergency requiring immediate action. Yet, after a circuit court judge struck down the emergency rules, nothing happened. There was nothing to justify any sort of emergency. There never was.

3.      Kahuku wind turbines. After the hearing officer recommended that a permit for the controversial Kahuku wind project be denied, Mr. Yuen aggressively questioned counsel for Keep the North Shore Country while deferring to the claims of the applicant. He discounted recent scientific studies and ignored evidence that showed that every wind facility has grossly underestimated how many ōpe‘ape‘a they would kill. Yet he accepted the applicant’s unsupported claim that it could not curtail the spinning of the blades when necessary to protect ‘ōpe‘ape‘a.

4.      Kahala Hotel. The Kahala Hotel operated a restaurant, tourist cabanas, and sold wedding packages on public land, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars. When community members brought the violations to BLNR’s attention, Mr. Yuen shrugged his shoulders and supported for the hotel, which continues to exclude members of the public from the beach.

5.      Labor violations in longline fisheries. Mr. Yuen convinced the Board to ignore the connection between the state’s commercial fishing licensing practice for foreign fishing operations and the exploitation of local fisheries and workers via an indentured servant system on longline fishing ships operating out of Hawai`i. One petitioner, a Hawaiian fisherman, has appealed BLNRʻs decision all the way to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.

6.      Seawalls for vacation condos. Mr. Yuen convinced BLNR to approve a seawall for a timeshare investment on Maui called Hololani. He actively disregarded the pleas of community members and longtime fishers to protect shoreline from the erosion caused by seawalls. Instead of addressing their concerns, Mr. Yuen questioned community members, who had flown in from Maui, why they hadnʻt raised their concerns at prior BLNR meetings.

7.      ‘Ewa limu. Mr. Yuen expressed disdain for limu gatherers whose practice would obviously be adversely impacted by the discharge of polluted stormwater on top of limu beds in ‘Ewa.

8.      Hilton Hotel profits.  Mr. Yuen argued BLNR should charge less for the Hilton to use state land to launch its fireworks displays for guests, even though DLNR lacks adequate funds as it is.

For these reasons, amongst others,  we strongly urge you to Oppose GM 583 and decline to confirm the nomination of Chris Yuen to another term to the Board of Land and Natural Resources.

Mahalo for your time and consideration,
KAHEA Board and Staff, 2020

We understand a final environmental assessment was accepted in 2012, but since that time the community, Waimanalo, and even the Master Plan project have undergone significant changes.

- The Plan identified uses of R-1 water, but the Waimanalo water treatment plant does not recycle water to an R-1 level. Where will the water be sourced from? 
- How will new traffic projects planned for areas adjacent to the park exacerbate the previously reviewed environmental impacts?
- The initial project provided that grubbing wouldn’t occur between April 15 and August 15 to avoid interfering with the breeding season of the endangered ʻōpeʻapeʻa (Hawaiian hoary bat). However, the final plans changed the time period to June 1 to September 15 without a clear explanation. How is the City certain that this important species will be protected? 
- The community has documented instances of archaeological monitoring violations during grubbing. How can the community be better assured iwi and historical sites are protected?

Communities that value Waimanalo beach park have many concerns. Neither the Master Plan nor the environmental review documents have answered them. We urge project proponents to immediately cease tree-clearing and call together a public hearing to answer the community’s cogent questions. Further environmental review and consultation is prudent and needed.

We are a coalition of Hawai‘i-based nonprofit groups organized around protection of our communities’ parks, open spaces, and cultural resources. 
- Nā Kuaʻāina o Waimānalo is a community association of ʻaloha ʻāina assembled to protect Waimanalo.
- KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance has been advocating for the rights of Hawaiian communities in our precious natural resources since 2000. 
- Hawaii’s Thousand Friends is a non-profit environmental, land and water use organization dedicated to ensuring that Hawaii’s natural and cultural resources are protected for present and future generations. 
- O‘ahu Island Parks Conservancy advocates for sustained protection and preservation of public landscapes and open spaces including historic parks, scenic byways, greenways, natural spaces, and related view planes, to benefit the people of Hawai‘i and future generations. 
- The Outdoor Circle’s mission is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and resources of our islands for future generations by providing and promoting environmental education and activities that cultivate respect and appreciation for Hawai‘i’s unique natural environment. 
- The Hawai`i Alliance for Progressive Action seeks to catalyze community empowerment and systemic change towards valuing ʻāina and people ahead of corporate profit. 
- Save Ala Moana Beach Park Hui is a community association dedicated to principles of preserving our public park spaces.
- The Hawaii Audubon Society has been fostering community values that result in protection and restoration of native wildlife and ecosystems and conservation of natural resources through education, science and advocacy in Hawaii and the Pacific since 1939.

Mahalo for considering our concerns. Please contact Kalani Kalima (XXXXXX), Donna Wong (XXXXXXX) or Bianca Isaki (XXXXXXX) with any questions.

Me ke aloha,

Kalani Kalima, Nā Kuaʻāina o Waimānalo
Bianca Isaki, KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance
Donna Wong, Hawaii’s Thousand Friends
Michelle Matson, O‘ahu Island Parks Conservancy
Winston Welch, The Outdoor Circle
Anne Frederick, Hawai`i Alliance for Progressive Action
Shar Chun-Lum, Save Ala Moana Beach Park Hui
Linda Paul, Hawai`i Audubon Society

Cc: 
Council chair Ikaika Anderson
Councilmember Heidi Tsuneyoshi
Councilmember Tommy Waters
Councilmember Anny Kobayashi
Councilmember Carol Fukunaga
Councilmember Joey Manahan
Councilmember Brandon Elefante
Councilmember Ron Menor
Councilmember Kymberly Pine
Kamakana Ferreira, Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Hinaleimoana Wong-Kalu, O`ahu Island Burial Council
Alan Downer, State Historic Preservation Division
Senator Laura Thielen
Representative Cynthia Thielen
Representative Chris Lee

Subject: Comment on informal consultation draft, dated January 2, 2019, HAR chapter 20-26, "Public and Commercial Activities on Mauna Kea Lands,” from KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance.

To whom it may concern,

The following comments are submitted on behalf of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, a Hawai‘i nonprofit organization. While we appreciate the gesture of seeking to improve the rules that went out to public hearings last September 2018, the fundamental flawed premises of these rules remain in the current draft proposed HAR chapter 20-26.

Rather than a point-by-point analysis of the rules, we provide historical context to highlight issues with the direction the rules have taken. In brief, the state Auditor recommended rulemaking as a means to address: (1) the observatories’ violations, and (2) increased traffic, in large part due to BLNR and the University’s permitting of commercial tours. The proposed rules specifically exempt University and observatory personnel and unduly regulate public access, including access necessary for Kia‘i Mauna, cultural practitioners, the exercise of free speech and assembly, and enjoyment of the Mauna.

(1) Rules are primarily intended to regulate the University, observatories, and commercial tours.

In 1984, the University developed a management plan that required rulemaking. Although it drafted rules on parking and permitted uses, the University delayed doing anything for eleven years.

In 1995, Nelson Ho of Sierra Club, went to the summit to investigate windblown construction debris from the observatories that were entering the Ice Act Natural Area Reserve and impinging on ahu that ring the summit.  Ho contacted the University and the then-Institute for Astronomy Director, Don Hall went with Ho and others to the summit. They saw 55-gallon drums blown into gullies, a lot of construction debris, and some trash left by tourists close to the summit. Hall said the University would get it cleaned up.

Four months later, the trash was still there. Ho hiked around the summit collecting debris with the names of telescope facilities on it. The Hawai‘i Tribune Herald ran a front page story on the issue.

Also in 1995, the University and BLNR drafted a new management plan that transferred most responsibilities back to DLNR because the University “is not structured to manage, control, or enforce public recreational use and areas or process commercial permits.”

Bianca Isaki & Shelley Muneoka on behalf of
2019 Board & Staff, KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance

You can read the full draft here or check out this summary from a kiaʻi in Colorado, Brandy Toelupe, who went through and pulled out the main points. She even includes a helpful executive summary at the beginning. Mahalo nui Brandy for this quick(er) reference! :)

All comments must be submitted by September 28, at 7:30 pm. You can submit via email to uhhar@hawaii.edu or attend one of the hearings in person.

• Monday, September 24, 2018, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Sullivan Conference Center, University of Hawai‘i Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
• Tuesday, September 25, 2018, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hawai‘i, 600 ‘Imiloa Place, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
• Wednesday, September 26, 2018, 6:15 p.m. to 8:15 p.m., Waikoloa Elementary and Middle School, 68-1730 Ho‘oko Street, Waikoloa, Hawai‘i 96738
• Friday, September 28, 2018, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., ‘Ike Le‘a (Room 144), University of Hawai‘i Maui College, 310 West Ka‘ahumanu Avenue, Kahului, Hawai‘i 96732
  
  

Background on OMKM rulemaking

In 1998, the State Auditor recommended empowering UH to make rules to rectify management issues on Mauna Kea lands. In its 2005 follow-up audit, the Auditor traced some of UH’s management failures to their lack of rules. In 2009, the legislature passed Act 132, which granted UH authority to adopt rules “relating to public and commercial activities permitted or occurring on the Mauna Kea lands.” The legislature found rules were necessary to protect cultural and natural resources and to ensure public health and safety.

In 2011, UH drafted rules that were unacceptable (see OHA comments). In 2015, UH attempted to enforce “emergency rules” that were transparently directed against the kia‘i of Mauna Kea, resulting in 15 arrests and 6 citations. The Flores-Case ‘Ohana successfully challenged the emergency rules in court and Judge Ibarra ruled them invalid.

In June 2018, despite strong public opposition and the misgivings of its owns members, the UH Board of Regents authorized OMKM to move forward with the formal process to create rules governing Mauna Kea summit lands. Many of the Regents reasoned that the public vetting process would fix issues with the rules. And that is just what weʻre now attempting to do.

Things you can do:

• Attend a hearing in person
• Submit written comments to uhhar@hawaii.edu by Friday, September 28, 2018, at 7:30 pm (one of the notices said midnight, but to be safe, aim for 7:30 pm)
  • Both KAHEA and OHA submitted comments on these draft rules in June, saying that it was not the right time to begin this formal process, but the UH Board of Regents decided to move forward anyway. Check out OHAʻs comments and KAHEAʻs comments as sample testimony to get you started.
• Link to this page on social media to get friends and family to do the same!
• Donate now to help us continue this work

Mahalo for allowing me to offer some thoughts on behalf of KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance  on item VC4, “Authorization to Request Governor’s Approval to Allow the University to Hold Public Hearings regarding Proposed Chapter 20-26, Hawai‘i Administrative Rules, entitled “Public and Commercial Activities on Maunakea Lands”

It is premature to request the Governorʻs approval to allow for public hearings on these proposed rules. There are far too many substantive issues with the rules in their existing draft to put them out for public comment. It would make more sense to get better consensus before spending time and resources in a public hearing process. Involve in a more meaningful way practitioners who will be impacted by these rules—which means including them in the creation of the rules, not merely allowing comments on University-created rules.

Our apologies if the following sections skip around, but we did want to include some areas of specific concern

• 20-26-3: Blanket exemption for UHʻs educational and research activities aka: telescopes. Why? UHʻs activities have the same impact everyone elseʻs does. If we put the resource first and at the center of our decision-making itʻs clear that UH research does not deserve such an exemption. This gets to the heart of why the leasee with high impact use of the land should not be the one creating management rules.

• 20-26-6 Cultural practitioners should not need to pay an entrance fee or for parking to exercise their cultural or religious practices. An exception or accommodation should be added to 20-26-6.

• 20-26-21 Who assesses “impact” when determining if a cultural practice requires a permit?

• 20-26-22 This section is very problematic. UH itself canʻt even follow this proposed rule (specifically parts 1-5) which describes activities that have all occurred during or as a result of telescope development.

o Section 8 prohibiting people from carrying basic tools is an over-reach. Particularly if practitioners need to clear invasives to collect lā`au, or want to use the tools to collect lā`au.

o section 9: could be used to target the construction of ahu. Kānaka should not need to explain/justify the building of an ahu to the university.

o section 10: an added rule to prevent civil disobedience like what occurred in 2015 even though those arrested were largely cleared of any criminal wrong-doing

o section 11: It is absurd for UH to regulate hiking on pu`u while they themselves have LEVELED pu`u.

• 20-26-24: This section is also very problematic largely going against the stated purpose of “promoting public safety and welfare” by prioritizing the scientific community over cultural practitioners accessing the area

o Sections 1 - 3 No cell phones or flashlights? The mountain is vast and it is reckless to propose a ban on cellphone and flashlight use. A dangerous proposal.

• 20-26-31 We whole-heartedly support banning sports meets and competitions

• 20-26-32: Telescope operators should also be subject to restrictions on hazardous materials on the mountain.

• 20-26-38: Prohibition on camping: What about TCP that involve staying overnight to observe the way celestial bodies move in the sky which may include moonrises and moonsets as well as sunrises and sunsets. Accommodation or exemption should be made for practitioners

• 20-26-39: We are against installing a gate, fence, or other “access control structure” on the mauna

o This section uses “public safety and welfare” as a justification for road closures, however, as you may recall these same ideas were used as the rationale to pass the so-called “emergency rules” after civil disobedience in 2015. Rules that were quickly reversed after a successful challenge in court.Those arrested because of the emergency rules had their charges dismissed. People are leery of this language because of this past misuse.

• In terms of night time visiting hours; kanaka should not need to check-in with anyone at UH in order to access the mountain.

• Subchapter 3: Commercial Activity is inappropriate in the wao akua—even if it is regulated via permitting, it is still inappropriate. Taking a page out of the Bible, look at how Jesus dealt with merchants in the temple, itʻs simply incongruent with a sacred place

The concerns listed above are not trivial ones and are a testament that these rules are not ready to be vetted by the public—instead the body that drafted these rules should work at building trust and relationships with the kānaka that will be most affected by these rules. That kind of trust cannot be built at a public hearing. The current draft has too many that allow Hawaiian practices to be regulated out of existence. Please do not authorize a request to Governor Ige to approve these rules to go out for public hearing.

Mahalo for your time,

KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance

On November 9, 2017, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) announced it filed a lawsuit against the state, Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), and the University of Hawai`i (UH) for their mismanagement of Mauna Kea. For decades, many of us have been voicing opposition to the state’s failure to protect the fragile ecosystems of Mauna Kea and the rights of Hawaiian cultural practitioners in Mauna Kea’s cultural resources. From our perspective, it helps that OHA has stepped up its involvement to protect Mauna Kea in this way. We are not concerned with speculation that OHA is merely using this lawsuit to secure more funding. More funding for OHA does not take away from protection of Mauna Kea. Rather, it brings resources into a state agency that is meant to be answerable to Kanaka Maoli. OHA raising concerns about mismanagement, pursuing back-rent, and holding UH accountable for decades of empty promises all help to call out the university’s perverse attempt to industrialize Mauna Kea. OHA’s lawsuit helps to challenge the current sweetheart deals on the mountain.

Even though it does not specifically call out the hewa that is the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) proposal, OHA’s lawsuit helps us in our struggle against the TMT by seeking to rescind the general lease to UH and affirm our argument that UH and BLNR have been mismanaging Mauna Kea for decades, assembling another front on which UH must fight, and, perhaps most importantly, sending a clear message to TMT’s funders and supporters worldwide that construction of the TMT on Mauna Kea is far from a foregone conclusion.

Some are understandably wary of OHA’s motives for filing their recent lawsuit. OHA has spent two years meeting (or at least attempting to meet) with state officials without consulting with communities that have been in the fight to protect Mauna Kea for many years. This is cause for certain concern. But that concern should not overshadow our focus on the larger goal of protecting Mauna Kea.

The mismanagement of Mauna Kea has been going on long before the TMT. The road to securing Mauna Kea from exploitation and desecration will be a long one. To OHA - we are glad you are joining us.

** Read the 1998 State Audit that first “officially” documented mismanagement that kia`i had been observing and reporting for many years.

http://files.hawaii.gov/auditor/Reports/1998/98-6.pdf

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.

Editorial| Island Voices

No, the state should not allow TMT on Mauna Kea

By Kealoha Pisciotta, Bianca Isaki and Candace Fujikane
September 7, 2016

Since Sept. 1, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been holding its 2016 World Conservation Congress in Honolulu.

Committed to conservation and sustainable development, the congress, which ends Saturday, has brought together world leaders, nongovernmental organizations, businesses and indigenous and grassroots organizations to act on the challenges to the environment we all face.

While Hawaii’s leaders see this gathering as an opportunity to showcase Hawaii’s conservation efforts, our accomplishments cannot hide the elephant in the room: the state-supported proposal for a massive Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) proposed for a designated conservation district near the summit of Mauna Kea.

Mauna Kea dwells in the heavenly realm of po, out of which is born the potential for all things. Because of this, Mauna Kea is the equivalent of Papahānaumokuākea: They are the two sacred places in Hawaii that make complete our creation stories, one in the highest heavens, the other in the darkest depths of the oceans.

Mauna Kea is the firstborn of Papahānaumoku, Earth Mother, and Wākea, Sky Father, and is the elder sibling of kalo and the Hawaiian people.

Culturally significant places such as the “Ring of Shrines” are concentrated on the northern plateau. The many water deities who reside on Mauna Kea are a constant reminder that the mountain sits atop five aquifer systems that provide water for the entire island.

Laws protect the conservation district, and TMT cannot comply with these laws. The proposed TMT would be 18 stories tall on 5 acres on the pristine northern plateau. Construction would excavate 20 feet into the mountain, relocating 64,000 cubic yards of earth. A commercial dump truck can hold 10-14 cubic yards of dirt. It would take over 4,700 dump trucks to remove the earth at the TMT’s construction site.

The state Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) is responsible for protecting the fragile ecosystems in conservation districts through a permitting process. In 2011, however, it approved the TMT’s application, which the Hawaii Supreme Court later vacated based on BLNR’s error of approving the application before the contested case hearing.

Today, 24 organizations and individuals are preparing for the second contested case hearing against the TMT.

Development projects being considered for permitting must be consistent with the purpose of the conservation district, which is “to conserve, protect, and preserve the important natural and cultural resources of the State.”

Furthermore, the state Constitution protects rights customarily and traditionally exercised by Native Hawaiians.

The permit application asks whether the TMT would have a “substantial adverse impact.” NASA’s 2005 environmental impact statement on the Outrigger Telescopes concluded that the 13 telescopes on Mauna Kea have had a cumulative impact that is “substantial, adverse and significant.”

The mountain is overbuilt, and the TMT would only add to adverse impacts.

Yet the TMT is touted as a model of “sustainable astronomy” because it will be “zero waste,” use solar panels, truck wastewater down the mountain, and be painted an aluminum color to reduce visibility.

These are short-sighted, manini concessions to “sustainability.”

The 10,400 gallons of liquid waste generated by the TMT would require two trips by a large-sized tanker truck each week. The TMT will also generate 120 cubic feet of trash per week. Operation of the TMT will increase the use and underground storage of chemicals that will need to be transported by truck. All of these hazardous activities threaten both sacred ground and the waters of the aquifer.

We ask World Conservation Congress participants to address indigenous concerns over the “World Heritage” designation, to bring critical attention to Mauna Kea, and to pass a resolution urging the state of Hawaii to reconsider its support for construction of the TMT.

The initial expansion proposal covered a larger area.  Later, U.S. Senator Schatz proposed a smaller area for protection in order to accommodate Kauaʻi boat fishers in Middle Banks and north of Nihoa, but would also accommodate fishery exploitation by commercial longliners in the southern part of the area.  We support the initial map (below), but would also support the second proposal because both would increase the volume of  protected areas.

Map of initial proposal for expansion (above).

Map of Senator Schatz's subsequent proposal for expansion (above).

Ongoing support for Papahānaumokuākea

KAHEA was part of the initial push to create a protective refuge in the state waters of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and the subsequent, successful establishment of the first-ever marine monument in 2006.

Beginning in 2000, and for six years following, fishers, divers, scientists, cultural practitioners, conservation advocates, and other concerned members of the public attended over 30 public hearings and 100 public meetings--all sending a clear message about their vision for the future of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands which now comprise the Papahānaumokuākea monument. In all, over 100,000 public comments were submitted in support of full conservation for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This dedicated public advocacy ultimately helped to win a commitment from both the State of Hawai'i and the U.S. Federal government for full conservation of this fragile, wild, and uniquely Hawaiian place. In the summer of 2005, the State of Hawaiʻi established the Northwest Hawaiian Island Marine Refuge protecting all state waters from inappropriate and harmful extraction. On June 15, 2006, the Monument expanded those protections out fifty nautical miles around each island. Presidential Proclamation No. 8031 was the first use of the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. §§431-36) to protect extremely significant and fragile marine environments from potentially harmful federal actions like military exercises, federally regulated fishing, and federally funded research or construction. On July 30, 2010, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) delegates inscribed Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument as one of only 28 mixed (natural and cultural) World Heritage Sites in the world.

The Papahānaumokuākea monument harbors a wealth of unique historical, natural, and cultural resources that constitute an irreplaceable part of Native Hawaiian cultural heritage. Expansion of Monument boundaries, for instance, would protect a voyaging seascape. This means more than the Monument islands and nearshore waters must be protected. Native Hawaiian wayfinding and navigation practices required biological indicators such as the varied flights of seabirds and pathways of mobile marine species to cross oceans, all of which extend out well beyond the current fifty nautical miles.

Referred to as the Kūpuna Islands, the lands and water comprising Papahānaumokuākea monument are "ceded" crown lands and part of the cultural and natural heritage of the people of Hawai`i. Hundreds of cultural sites provide information about the origins of Hawaiʻiʻs first peoples and life in wā kahiko. The islands are celebrated in mele and oli (song and chant) as the place where Hawai`i began. One ancient mele describes the travels of Pele through the Papahānaumokuākea lands on her way to the main Hawaiian Islands. Ancient cosmological chants, such as the Kumulipo, link Native Hawaiians genealogically to all life that originated in this region. Ecological protection of Papahānaumokuākea has and will continue to nurture connection and revitalize Hawaiʻi and its living indigenous culture.

Rationale and Hawaiian practitioner and resource manager support.

On April 5, 2016, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Native Hawaiian Cultural Working Group (“Working Group”), which is administratively under the Monument Management Board for the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, wrote to Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The Working Group conveyed their “enthusiastic[]” vote in support of Monument expansion and invited CEQ to meet with the Group in Hawai‘i. Expansion would increase protections for Monument natural resources, which are coextensive with Hawaiian cultural resources. The Working Group further requested the State of Hawaiʻi Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) be elevated to the status of “co-trustee” of the Monument in the interests of fuller participation from Native Hawaiian communities and leaders.

Marine protected areas are effective.

Our oceans are threatened by overfishing, pollution, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, and climate change. According to The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2014, about 90 percent of global fish stocks are overfished or fully-fished. Researchers found that fully protected marine reserves are essential to rebuilding species abundance and diversity and increasing ecological resilience to climate change. At least 20-30 percent of our ocean should be in protected marine reserves to ensure the productivity of marine fisheries and overall ocean health. Today, only 3.4 percent of the world’s oceans are protected. Establishing a larger boundary will create safe zones for our fish.

Protections for biodiverse ecosystems.

The current boundary of Papahānaumokuākea includes vital habitat for a number of species. However, it does not fully protect sufficient habitat and travel routes for several protected or ecologically important species, such as the Hawaiian monk seals, green sea turtles, sharks, whales, and Black footed and Laysan albatrosses. Further, a number of undocumented species live outside current Monument boundaries, as well as seamounts, which are hot spots of biodiversity, and old growth coral colonies that are thousands of years old and merit protection as part of the common heritage of mankind.

Monument expansion would help mitigate climate change impacts.

President Obama’s 2014 expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was part of his effort to respond to climate change crises. President Obama expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument from 370,000 to 490,000 nautical square miles under a legal process similar to one proposed for Papahānaumokuākea. The 2014 “National Climate Assessment” confirmed that anthropogenic climate change has been causing sea levels to rise, as well as ocean temperatures. Warming ocean temperatures harm corals and cause certain species to migrate. Increased carbon outputs are also absorbed by ocean waters, which causes acidification that damages corals, shellfish, and alters marine ecosystems. Large marine protected areas help to rebuild this biodiversity, support fisheries, and improve overall ocean ecosystem resilience.

Come to public meetings on the expansion of Papahānaumokuākea: Monday, August 1 in Waipahu for Oahu and on Tuesday, August 2 at Kauai Community College.  RSVP through the Expand Papahānaumokuākea page.

Kekaha wai‘ole o Kona (“the waterless shores of Kona”)

Seemingly barren and dry, Kona harbors underground rivers that sustain coastal fisheries, fishponds, anchialine ponds, and communities that depend on those resources. Ancient Hawaiians recognized the importance of this place and determined to settle on the makai portions of Kohana‘iki, Kaloko, Honokoahu, and Kealakehe ahupua‘a. Troubled by rampant development in the early 1970s, Hawaiian communities of the area successfully organized and lobbied the U.S. Congress to protect Kaloko-Honokōhau. U.S. Representative Patsy Mink worked with the Hawaiian Civic Clubs to convene a Commission to put together a proposal for establishing a national park. In 1974, Fred Cachola, Herbert Kane, Arthur Chun, ‘Iolani Luahine, David Kahelemauna Roy, Pilipo Springer, George Pinehaka, George Naope, Abbie Napeahi, and Emily Ka‘ai Thomas wrote the “Spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau,” which recommended establishing Kaloko-Honokōhau as a sanctuary for Hawaiian cultural practices. More than 40 years later, the vision of the Spirit Report is living as communities continue aloha ‘āina at the fishponds at Kaloko-Honokōhau and across Kona. Fred Cachola offered this presentation on the way Kaloko-Honokōhau became a national park.

Kaloko Fishpond

October 2015 Aloha ʻĀina workday participants.

The Spirit Report authors emphasized protection of freshwater in order to maintain cultural practices, stating: Good water quality is essential to fishpond culture, and since the source is almost entirely in the rainy mauka areas, management of these and other lands adjacent to the park will have a direct impact on water resources within the park. Thus, cooperative planning efforts with the state, county, and private landowners is an important part of this proposal.

Currently, several residential and commercial developments, including wells, are planned for areas mauka of Kaloko-Honokōhau Park. Withdrawing freshwater in mauka areas leaves less water in flows to the coast. Further south in Keauhou aquifer, chlorides exceeding drinking water levels have been pumped from the Kahalu‘u well. Higher chloride concentrations can occur where over-pumping caused oceanic water to move further inland. In 2011, the Kona Hawaiian Civic Clubs adopted Resolution 11-40, urging the state and county to protect the sustainability of Kona’s fresh groundwater aquifers in view of increasing development. As foreseen by Spirit Report authors, protecting water and makai cultural resources will require cooperating with the state, county, and private landowners.

Water Management Area designation

The state water code (Hawaii Revised Statutes, chapter 174C) has separate laws governing water resources within and without WMAs. In all aquifers, water developers apply for well installation permits, register their wells, and report their monthly water usage. Water developers include the county, private subdivision developers, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), and other well drillers and diverters. Unlike other water users, DHHL may reserve water to itself, and has already done so in the Keauhou aquifer. In WMAs, they must apply for water use permits. To obtain a permit, applicants must show their water uses will not interfere with the rights of DHHL, existing water users, or Hawaiian traditional and customary uses, and that their water uses can be accommodated from water sources, and water will be put to reasonable and beneficial purposes.

WMA permits and public hearings are mechanisms for enforcing protections for community and Hawaiian cultural uses of water. Outside of WMAs, water use permits are not required. Instead, water developers only apply for permits to install wells, no public hearing is required, and neither the state nor county can control the placement of the wells. Well placement is important pumping clustered too closely may compromise the freshwater lens. If too much groundwater is drawn too quickly, the freshwater lens of water can be destroyed or depleted.

Ten other groundwater WMAs have been designated: all but the Wai‘anae aquifer system on O‘ahu, all Moloka‘i, and the ‘Īao aquifer on Maui. Designating the Keauhou aquifer as a WMA would impose a more comprehensive water protection scheme, in which the impacts of different amounts and locations of water withdrawals would be publicly disclosed and assessed.

Keauhou WMA designation

View of ‘Aimakapā fishpond from ʻAiʻōpio fishtrap.

In 2013, the National Park Service petitioned for Keauhou WMA designation (see FAQ here) the county, many developers, realtors, and others opposed WMA designation, primarily because they argue: permitting processes would stall development; and there is more than enough water for development.

Reported pumpage is approximately 15 million gallons per day (mgd) and the sustainable yield trigger for Keauhou aquifer is 38 mgd. Yet, the sustainable yield trigger does not take into account underreporting, impacts on coastal ecosystems, and the ways too-close well placement can damage the aquifer.

Permitting all existing uses may take up to a year, after which new uses could get in line for permits. Because permitting is a public process, certain people could “contest” permits in a court-like proceeding called a “contested case” hearing. In Maui, where not enough water was left to be allocated, these contested cases took many years to resolve. If CWRM starts managing the water now, there will likely be fewer contests because, currently, the amount of water reportedly used is below the sustainable yield trigger. If we wait until there are only scraps left, we’re going to see scraps.

What's next?

CWRM will be receiving two presentations at its May 19, 2016 meeting in Kona at 10am on: (1) Native Hawaiian traditional and customary uses of water at Kaloko-Honokōhau National park; and, (2) why water is needed at existing flow levels to sustain natural resources in and around the park. Come!

Tuesday, May 19, 2016, 10:00am
West Hawai‘i Civic Center Council Building A,
Council Chambers
74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy., Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

No decisions are being made about whether to grant the WMA petition at this meeting, but we will keep you updated.