From “Hawai’i has a lot to gain from open ocean aquaculture” in today’s Honolulu Advertiser:
Just as we need to be off imported oil, we need to be off imported seafood. This opportunity can be an economic engine for Hawai’i, and hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.Let’s not stand in our own way. There’s a lot to gain for everyone.
Absolutely.
The amount of seafood that we import is really astounding. It is upsetting, though, that in the wake of a very large aquaculture operation, which would export up to 90% of its ahi products, statements like the above, are used to defend it.
The article, by Jay Fidell of ThinkTech Hawaii, goes on to say that:
There are anti-aquaculture groups who don’t want “greedy” corportations to make a profit and export aquaculture products to outside markets. Those groups don’t acknowledge andvancements in the technology, and regularly diseminate disinformation about the industry. They’ve been pulling out all the stops, apparently bent on wiping out open ocean aquaculture in Hawai’i. Theyre’re completely wrong. Without open ocean aquaculture, Hawai’i would have to depend on foreign unregulated producers and overfished wild stocks. Those options are not nearly as secure or sustainable as the development of homegrown open ocean aquaculture.
I do not think of myself as entirely “anti-aquaculture”, I just think it should be done right. My cause is not to “diseminate disinformation”, it is to let people know that there are serious implications that multiple aquaculture ventures could have on Hawaii’s marine ecosystems. It is also to open peoples eyes to aquaculture in other parts of the world, and to how it has affected those places. This article makes it seem like there is some hidden agenda beneath fighting these giant open ocean aquaculture projects. But really, I have nothing to gain from this. I have neither read nor heard anything pro-open ocean aquaculture, aside from the people who would benefit direcly from it.
]]>From: Andrea
Just last month, Act 155 was passed in the Hawaii Legislature, amending Hawaii’s renewable energy law.
One of the highlights of this amendment was the strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (often abbreviated as RPS). These standards are binding for electric utility companies, which must satisfy the specified percentage of their net electricity sales with electricity generated from renewable energy sources by the specified date.
Now, Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards are as follows: 10% by 2010; 15% by 2015; 25% by 2020; and 40% by 2030. The two standards that Act 155 changed are the two later dates: the 2020 standard was increased by 5%, and the 2030 standard was a new addition.
This strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards was a wise move by the Hawaii Legislature. Hawaii should be a predominant leader in the renewable energy realm, considering that it is the most oil dependent state with over 90% of its energy needs met by imported fossil fuels– a doubly detrimental impact with carbon footprints from long-distance importation and burning. The context of climate change and sea-level rise heighten Hawaii’s energy vulnerability.
Yet, Hawaii is also ideally situated to move the ball forward with renewable energy due to the high availability of solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy. Thus, the Legislature’s addition of the long-term standard, 40% renewable-created electricity by 2030, is in line with Hawaii’s position of great need, vulnerability, and opportunism.
However, the short-term standard could be a bit more aggressive. Although a five-percent increase to 25% by 2020 is an improvement, a few other states have more stringent short-term standards. For example, California is requiring 20% renewable-created electricity by 2010– double Hawaii’s 2010 standard. And, Maine has a 2017 standard of 40%, Hawaii’s standard for 13 years later, while New York has a 2013 standard of 24%– 9% greater than Hawaii’s 2015 standard.
Regardless of the precise standards, the definition of “renewable energy” sources must be amended. While creating more stringent standards in the short-term is ideal, amending the definition of “renewable energy” to only encompass those sources that are truly clean is a must.
As it stands now, the definition of “renewable energy” does not contain any qualifications. For example, it includes “biofuels.” Such an unqualified authorization allows utility companies to meet the standard with, say, palm oil, which fits the broad definition of “biofuels.”
What’s the problem with palm oil qualifying as a renewable energy source? This “biofuel” implicates a significant carbon footprint due to carbon-emitting land change. After the deforestation, heavy fertilization, and peatland burning required to produce the palm oil, the production of this “biofuel” actually contributes more to global warming, opposed to ameliorating the crisis.
Renewable energy sources and, thus, renewable portfolio standards for utility companies should authorize only clean renewable sources in life-cycle terms. Renewability should be just one requisite for clean energy sources; the holistic footprint, including emissions, land change, and other environmental impacts, also must be taken into account.
Otherwise, we may simply displace the impact to another medium. Without amending the law to reflect this crucial qualification, the renewable portfolio standards may end up perpetuating the very problem that they are intended to improve.
Want Hawaii to lead a meaningful renewable energy transition?
Contact your representatives in the State Legislature and voice your opinion!
Here’s contact information for our House representatives:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/members/members.asp
And, here’s contact information for Senate members:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/senate/members/members.asp
From: Andrea
Last night at the public hearing on the Draft Science Plan for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, held at the monument office in Hawaii Kai, a troubling consequence of the lack of environmental review was elucidated.
One of the Science Plan authors stated that research activities that have already been permitted are assumed to have gone through a “rigorous” review by management. The problem?
Actually, there could be quite a few from this muddy statement. For one, this statement suggests that research activities that have already been permitted will not be scrutinized- nor, certainly, environmentally assessed- in the future. It sounds like grandfathering-in existing and previous permits, meaning some activities that have been permitted in the past will be continuously assumed to pass muster, despite never actually being environmentally reviewed.
Clearly, grandfathering-in research activities so that they never undergo environmental review creates informational ravines that make cumulative impact analysis impossible. Cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action, must be assessed. The managers need to understand the big picture, especially when making seemingly small decisions like permitting.
Secondly, what is this “rigorous” review that the manager mentioned? There has been no environmental assessment on any permits nor the entire permitting system nor the Science Plan, so it clearly was not environmental review. If this rigorous review were undertaken via the prioritization system of the Science Plan, that, too, is problematic.
As I have blogged before, the Science Plan has two tragic flaws: (1) the prioritization scheme that doesn’t actually prioritize permit activities (To prioritize permit activities, it asks, pros and…pros?, leading to 97% of potential research activities to be ranked as “critical” or “high” in importance.) and (2) the lack of environmental review.
But, the environmental assessment did not come with the Science Plan. The managers argue that this is the draft plan, so environmental assessment is not appropriate now. However, they also proclaim the plan to be an evolving document- not problematic necessarily. The evolving nature of the plan is problematic, however, for lack of environmental review because, if it is meant to evolve, when would the managers consider environmental review appropriate? There could always be an argument that it is not truly finalized yet if it’s an “evolving” document.
On the other side, if the monument managers, in fact, conduct an environmental assessment for the Final Science Plan, which is the next step after last night’s public hearing, the decision on permitting prioritization will have been made. And, environmental assessment is legally required to take place prior to decision-making. The whole point of environmental review is for decision-makers to be informed of environmental impacts before they make final decisions.
So, either the Science Plan truly is an evolving document, in which case an environmental review is likely to be put off forever. Or, the Science Plan will be finalized in the next step, the Final Science Plan, which frustrates the point of environmental review taking place before decisions are made.
Confusing? Yes. But it need not be.
KAHEA urges the monument managers to take the straightforward approach by conducting environmental review of the Science Plan, which guides the entire permitting process, prior to finalization of the plan. KAHEA also urges environmental review of all permits- no grandfathering-in. Each proposed permit should be looked at with a fresh eye, through the lens of cumulative impacts, which inherently change over time.
Let’s hope that public comments are indeed incorporated into the Final Science Plan, whenever that may be. Otherwise, the one-sided prioritization system will continue to rank most activities high, leading to excessive access and impact in a fragile, irreplaceable ecosystem.
What can you do? Speak up!
Last public hearing on the Science Plan is in Hilo tomorrow:
Hawai‘i, July 23th, 6-8 p.m.
Mokupapapa Discovery Center,
308 Kamehameha Ave, Suite 203, Hilo, HI, 96720.
All written public comments must be received by the monument managers by or before August 10.
• U.S. Mail:
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Attn: Science Plan Comments, 6600 Kalaniana‘ole Hwy, Suite 300, Honolulu HI, 96825
• E-mail: nwhicomments@noaa.gov.
To read the plan:
http://papahanaumokuakea.gov/research/plans/draft_natressciplan.pdf
(It takes a few minutes to download, but once you’re there, skip to page 10 for the prioritization chart.)
Most people are familiar with our inalienable natural rights, as John Locke summed up as life, liberty, and property. But what about nature’s right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve?
These are the inalienable legal rights that the town of Shapleigh, Maine, voted to grant to nature last February. Now, in the town of Shapleigh, population 2,326, natural communities and ecosystems are endowed with these inalienable, fundamental rights, and any town resident has “standing” to bring a lawsuit on behalf of natural communities and ecoystems.
Read the Boston Globe article here:
Shapleigh is on the right track. While critics may argue there are too many potential litigants, ranging from the Kukui tree to the Waimea River, there exists an entire planet of species and ecosystems deserving of the right to exist. And, sadly, counts of these potential litigants are diminishing. See:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01296862.htm
The above article, published July 2, reports that more than 800 animal and plant species have gone extinct in the last five-hundred years, with almost 17,000 threatened with extinction now, according to a recent International Union for Conservation of Nature report. The track record shows that we are failing at conservation. Endowing nature with the right to exist may bolster our efforts at conserving biodiversity.
Apparent in many facets of our social structure, we have consistently valued profit above nature. After all, corporations have long had the legal status of a “person” and the corresponding rights, including ability to sue. If corporations are “persons” in the sense of legal status and rights, then what is the problem with nature possessing rights to exist? Nature is fundamental to our own existence, quite unlike corporations.
We are behind the time in recognizing nature’s rights. Notwithstanding the dire situation of lost biodiversity, concepts of an ethical relationship with nature have been around for at least 100 years. Aldo Leopold, an early environmentalist, wrote about his “land ethic” in A Sand County Almanac. Based on the idea that ethics should be expanded to encompass nonhuman members of the biotic community, Leopold summed up his land ethic as follows: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” If we humans were on board with this profoundly simple land ethic- and had been during our last couple hundred years of pillaging-, then perhaps we would not be in the situation of having to pass town ordinances to grant nature the right to exist.
But, alas, so is human nature. Our attempts at control have led us to a precarious precipice: here, at the edge of continuing to diminish biodiversity, we have a choice. The town of Shapleigh recognized this watershed moment and stepped in the direction of preservation.
If my town votes for a similar ordinance, you bet I’ll holler aye. And, when critics question, “how do we know what nature wants?” and argue that the interest is actually ours, I’ll have my response.
Sure, we humans may be the ones instituting this groundbreaking regime of granting legal rights to biota. But in reality, the idea of humans bringing these suits on behalf of nature is not so far-fetched. After all, people serve as trustees to bring suits on behalf of incompetent people and trust beneficiaries. Human implementation of nature’s rights is requisite: the law is our system, and our impacts and attempts to control ecosystems thus far have led to the gross loss in biodiversity.
Humans- but not corporations- are a part of the planetary ecosystem. We are not the operators behind an enormous control panel, like we have long been masquerading. As a single species, we should make room in our legal and socioeconomic structures for the other species to survive, lest we deprive them all of their right to exist.
We should be celebrating and wholeheartedly codifying nature’s right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve. Without nature, without Earth, homo sapiens would not exist.
Ho’okahi No Ka ‘Aina A Me Na Kanaka.
]]>The U.S. Coast Guard removed 32 tons of debris from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands over the Fourth of July weekend. Much thanks to the Coast Guard for ameliorating the health of our oceans! See the Honolulu Advertiser article:
While I am glad that efforts to clean up marine litter are taking place, especially in such an irreplaceable, nationally protected locale, 32 tons is only the tip of the iceberg. The scale of this problem is vast. Marine litter filling our oceans is a global problem affecting all people and nations. Marine litter, of which 80% are plastics, harms marine life, degrades human health, and results in tremendous social, economic, and cultural costs.
The United Nations Environment Programme recognizes this immense ocean dilemma that affects everyone. In April 2009, the UN Environment Programme released a report titled “Marine Litter: A Global Challenge.” Find the report at:
http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_Marine_Litter-A_Global_Challenge.pdf
“There is an increasingly urgent need to approach the issue of marine litter through better enforcement of laws and regulations, expanded outreach and educational campaigns, and the employment of strong economic instruments and incentives,” the report says.
The report also notes that the “overall situation is not improving.” Thank you, Coast Guard, for your part. But, we must do our part, too.
What can you do to help reduce marine litter?
From Alana:
Last week in the Honolulu Advertiser there was an article about the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, which is supposed to “prevent overfishing, minimize bycatch, and protect fish stocks and habitat” in federal waters in the Pacific. The council was found to be less than accessible in terms of releasing public documents.
At a time when most public agencies routinely put their documents
online, the council requires a visit to its office to inspect or copy
most of its available records, the report said. In addition, a citizen
must file Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain anything “not normally made available to the public.”
And although there is no proof, some people speculate that their secrecy is because of misspent federal money or illegal lobbying that might show up in the records.
Kahana residents have not ceased their tireless fight to stay in their homes. Since their homeland was condemned as a state park in the ’60s, the people of Kahana have had to battle the State of Hawaii to stay in their homes.
And, now, after the State found illegal the law passed in ’93 to allow long-term leases for pre-existing residents in Kahana State Park, legislation has been proposed to ameliorate this unsettling situation for now.
House Bill 1552 presented Kahana residents an interim solution from being forced to leave their homes. Public process gave them a way to voice their interests within the decision-making arena. Reflecting Kahana residents’ input, the bill would help Kahana residents in the following ways:
But, now, Governor Lingle has voiced her intent to veto the bill, apparently under the guise of prohibiting illegal activities in Kahana. If that’s the case, go after the illegal activities as the government would do so anywhere else! The State should not perpetuate the suffering of long-time Kahana residents who are not participating in illegal activities because some residents are breaking the law there.
Want to support Kahana residents in their fight to protect their homes?
Oppose Governor Lingle’s intent to veto HB 1522:
Wednesday, July 8, 11 a.m.
Demonstration at the State Capitol
]]>From Marti:
The Navy has been on the hot seat lately for the damage it has caused in Hawaii nei. In central and western Oahu, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state got a commitment from the Navy to clean up any remaining contamination at two Superfund sites – one in Lualualei near the naval munitions storage area and the other in Wahiawa. While preliminary investigations have indicated that no immediate threats currently exist at the sites, soil contaminants at the sites include PCBs, volatile organics, semi-volatile organics and metals. PCBs can cause cancer in animals and adversely affect the nervous, immune, and endocrine systems in humans.
“Our agreement with the Navy and the state finalizes the process that the Navy will follow to complete the investigation and clean up of any remaining chemical contamination at both sites.” said Keith Takata, director for the EPA Pacific Southwest Region’s Superfund Division.
The agreement with the Navy is open to public comment. Get your say in now by visiting: www.epa.gov/region09/NavalComputer
Check out the full article at The Hawaii Independent: http://www.thehawaiiindependent.com/hawaii/oahu/2009/04/02/epa-us-navy-agrees-to-clean-wahiawa-lualualei-superfund-sites/
And, on the South shore of Oahu, controversy is brewing as the state attempts to hold the Navy financially responsible for the carnage of coral from the USS Port Royal grounding in February 2009. Ten acres of ancient coral was destroyed! Chunks as large as cars are still bouncing around on the ocean floor causing further damage.
“There is a critical need for the U.S. Navy to mitigate the damage which has occurred, which continues to occur, and which will get worse with the upcoming south summer swell,” said Laura H. Thielen, chairwoman of the DLNR, in the letter.
“We urge the U.S. Navy to commit appropriate resources to rescue disturbed or destroyed coral, remove or stabilize rubble, and protect loose live coral that has resulted from this incident.”
Here, here!! Systems that ensure the “polluter pays” are a completely reasonable (and actually quite capitalist) approach to addressing damage to our environment. The Navy’s negligence destroyed a significant part of our ocean environment. They should be required to pay for the injury they have caused and do all they can to prevent further damage.
What the Navy does in this situation will be a key indication of what the public can expect from their activities affecting the Papahanaumokuakaea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (you will recall the Navy plans to intercept chemical-laden missiles over Nihoa – the only home of at least four endangered species and one of the most significant cultural and archeological sites in the archipelago).
Check out the full article here: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090402/NEWS11/904020369/1001
The bill to transfer management of the sacred summit of Mauna Kea to the University of Hawaii passed the state’s House Finance Committee on Tuesday. By the Committee’s own count, 900 people submitted testimony in opposition to the 10 or so in support. This number is not counting the testimony submitted by a dozen Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) scholars who signed a joint letter in opposition to the bill, as well as testimony from the Hawaii Sierra Club, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, and several individual Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners detailing the history of destruction and desecration from the University’s 40 years of telescope construction on the summit.
This bill is extremely dangerous for the future of our sacred summit and all of our conservation lands. It gives the University – the developer of the summit – control over what happens to the natural and cultural resources of the conservation district that currently protects the entire summit of the mountain, setting a terrible precedent for delegating the state’s conservation responsibilities to developers.
The bill would also allow the University to establish its own private police force on the summit. These “rangers” do not have the same level of training or authority as the state resource enforcement officers who currently have jurisdiction over the summit. In fact, these “rangers” themselves have engaged in desecration of cultural sites, interfered with spiritual and religious practice on the summit, and endangered unique, fragile natural resources.
In addition, the bill would allow the University to pocket state money with no oversight by establishing a special fund. For 40 years, the University has facilitated the theft of state money by foreign telescope owners who construct massive telescope facilities (and all of the gift shops, parking lots, and other support structures that go with them) on state land without paying rent to the state. In addition, millions in profits is made from the sale of patented information developed on the summit. Instead of offering to pay some of this back-rent (to help the state avoid drastic budget cuts), the University is proposing to legitimatize this history of theft by establishing a special fund into which revenue from the summit is deposited and from which only the University can withdrawal.
The bill will now move to the state Senate for additional committee hearings. If you care for the sacred summit of Mauna Kea and the integrity of conservation management in Hawaii, then now is the time to speak up. For 10 years, the public has asked for the same four things:
1. A legitimate management plan - This is a plan that protects the natural and cultural resources of the summit from unreasonable development. It is prepared and approved by the Board of Land and Natural Resources and accepted by the community.
2. An independent management board – the current set up is a puppet of the University with members chosen and paid by the University.
3. Fair Representation – the independent management board must include Kanaka Maoli and environmental representatives that serve in a meaningful decision-making role beyond just merely “advisory.”
4. Fair Compensation - while no one, but the University, knows for sure how much profit is made off the summit, some estimates put it at $50-60 million a year. If the telescopes paid just that for the 40 years of back-rent owed to the state, taxpayers would earn $2 billion dollars.
You can help protect Mauna Kea. Take action now! Click here and submit a personalized letter to Hawaii’s legislators.
To help inspire you, here are excerpts from a few that have already been sent:
“I strongly oppose the University’s plans for the future of Mauna Kea. Enough is enough. The summit lands are ecologically sensitive and culturally sacred. Expansion of astronomy’s footprint on the mountain should not be an option. If a new telescope is truly needed, dismantle an old one. Mauna Kea should be available to the akua and to the people and to the scientists– in a way that puts pono first. Pono, meaning, in righteous balance for all concerned. You are our elected and appointed representatives, charged with the responsibility to excecute the wishes of the people, the caretakers of this land– not the empowered elite. Mauna Kea Summit is a conservation area and what remains should remain kapu. Protect it.
Mahalo,
Z Johnson
Honokaa, Hawaii“
—-
“Aloha no –
I would like to add my voice to those protesting UH’s plans for the future of Mauna Kea. I am a huge fan of the science that is done in the observatories; however, this MUST be balanced with the rights of Kanaka Ma’oli and the needs of the environment.
Mahalo,
David Edelstein
Seattle, Washington”
—-
“I strongly oppose the University’s plans for the future of Mauna Kea. We should learn from the flaws of past Land Board mismanagement on Mauna Kea, keep the laws that protect Mauna Kea now, and exercise management authority towards the protection and restoration of this “wahi pana”, sacred place.
Mauna Kea is ceded lands. The unrelinquished claims of the rightful beneficiaries have yet to be settled!!!
For these reasons, I urge a strong stand for Mauna Kea. Uphold the protections currently in place, and preserve what is left of Mauna Awakea for it’s sacred purpose. It is our Kuleana – our Responsibility toward Akua (Creator) and the coming generations!!!
Mahalo,
Luana Jones
Pahoa, Hawaii”
—-
“POP DA PIMPLES: BEFORE YOU LOOK INTO SPACE, YOU NEED TO MALAMA THIS PLACE….MAUNA A WAKEA!!!!”
Malama i ka ‘aina a me na kupuna,
Leimomi Wheeler
Kea’au, Moku Nui“
—–
“Aloha,
I am a UH-Hilo alumni from 2004 and now live in my home state of Minnesota. I am deeply dismayed by the continued breach of ethics and law by the school where I earned my degree. It is embarrassing for the state of Hawaii to continue to let these institutions bulldoze their cultural heritage and environmental resources in the name of scientific advancement. Hawaii is becoming a sad cliche in management of resources and in the treatment of indigenous peoples.
Has the astronomy community not taken enough land and proven enough mismanagement of what they have already taken? Isn’t it time for Hawaii to join the modern world and learn mistakes of the past and err on the side of protection and conservation? Once these sacred places and natural resources are taken, they are gone forever. They will become a paragraph in a history book on yet another breach of trust between government and its local population.
I did my UH Environmental Impact Statement paper in college on the Mauna Kea Plan. It didn’t take a masters degree to see how many laws have been violated or skirted around. I have many fond memories of hiking on Mauna Kea and respect and want to extend my support from afar for those who continue to try to preserve what is left.
Jennifer Johnson
Minnesota”
—-
“I vehemently oppose the University’s plans for the future of Mauna Kea. The lands of Mauna Kea are ecologically unique and culturally significant that is why they are protected as a conservation district. Conservation — not telescope construction — must be focus of all activity there.
Mahalo,
Valerie Loh
Honolulu, Hawaii”
Each place in our islands has a Hawaiian name and is associated with mo’olelo or an ancient Hawaiian story. Still, the Hawaiian language with its history, insights, and cultural significance remains silenced in its ‘one hanau or birthplace.
The collection of ‘olelo no’eau or Hawaiian proverbs provide some evidence that the Hawaiian language evolved and emerged as they discovered and wandered the beautiful landscapes of this new and unfamiliar land.
The steep cliffs of the Ko’olau mountains and high sea cliffs of Moloka’i provided one example for an avenue of poetic thought and expression that were used to compare and contrast plants, animals, and people to its sheerness and distinction.
Over the next few months, we hope you will see more more Hawaiian language in KAHEA’s outreach and website–part of a renewed commitment from us to integrate the Hawaiian language as a living part of our daily work.
We’ve seen some other hopeful examples around, including the recent release by GO! Airlines of their bilingual website. So maybe GO! Airlines pilots *have* been snoozing behind closed doors… but the company has invested in an effort to provide their Hawaiian language speaking customers a choice to make their reservations in ‘olelo Hawai’i.
Let’s all be a vehicle to support the Hawaiian language in the capacity we can as individuals, communities, and organizations. E ola ka ‘olelo Hawai’i!
]]>From email from Rich ma over at Beach Access Hawai’i in Kailua:
I was going to use a clever subject line for this email — something like, “Show me the money!” because that’s what it comes down to now. We’re asking the State to pony up bucks to do this beach access survey and report. But a little earlier I got a phone call from someone in our group…
His mother passed away this morning and he wanted the phone number of another BAH member, because he needed help getting a canoe so he could scatter her ashes in the waters off the Mokulua islands. He said she loved Lanikai and Kailua Beach, and this is what she wanted.
Until I got involved with this cause, I didn’t know him or the paddler he wanted to get in touch with. I think it speaks volumes about what the beaches and ocean means to all who live in Hawaii. It connects us, and brings us together. You know those people who put up gates on “private” roads? Their world has gotten smaller, while our circle of friends is growing and getting bigger.
You can support the bill he’s talking about–HB839– by showing up to the hearing and/or emailing in your testimony to the finance committee. FINtestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov (contact Rich at figeli001@hawaii.rr.com if you need sample testimony to follow.)
From BAH: The meeting will be in Room 308 at the State Capitol building. HB839 is at the top of the agenda, so testimony will probably start around 11:15 am, and could continue for a half hour to an hour depending on how many people show up.
]]>Hawai’i's Statewide Beach Access Rally day began this morning with wet weather islands-wide!
The rain gently blessed our Beach Access Trolley this morning at 10:30 as it departed to raise awareness about the epidemic loss of public access routes to the beach all around the islands.
More than 40 people joined us for a rally and press conference this morning at the State Capitol that called on Hawaii’s elected leaders, beach-front property owners, and all ocean-lovers to work together to ensure our shorelines are protected, clean, and open to all.
We heard inspiring and motivating speeches from:
Rich Figel, Beach Access Hawaii
Annmarie Kirk, Living Hawaii Kai Hui
Melissa Ling-Ing, Commonground Hawaii
Suzanne Frazer, B.E.A.C.H.
Peter Cole, Surfrider Foundation
Sen. Gary Hooser, D-Kauai
Capitol protesters then packed the decorated trolley and headed to the first stop: the Ala Wai Boat Harbor… where a new parking plan will force people to pay to go beach. Auwe!
Off to save beach access!! Ding-ding!!
]]>