Blog
News, updates, finds, stories, and tidbits from staff and community members at KAHEA. Got something to share? Email us at: kahea-alliance@hawaii.rr.com.
Screening of Mauna Kea: Temple Under Siege
Aloha `ohana,
Last week Wednesday, a group of about 25 or 30 people came together for a screening of the film Mauna Kea: Temple Under Siege from Puhipau and Joan at Na Maka o ka Aina. Mahalo also to Native Books/Na Mea Hawai`i for hosting us, to Rey for mixing the `awa for us, and to Kamu and Miwa for running back to downtown at the last moment to bring the TV from our office!
Mahalo to Rey for providing the kanoa and to everybody at Na Mea for hosting us!
Despite the technical difficulties the audience graciously and patiently hung in there! Uncle Ku shared about the huaka`i (trips) that their Mauna Kea have been taking. It is so inspiring to see how much ground they’ve covered! It is so important for us to, both figuratively and in this case physically, walk the path of our ancestors.
Uncle Tane, Uncle Baron, and Uncle Ku--awesome mana`o, mahalo for sharing! 
Far too often culture and tradition are relegated to the past, with all modern day iterations appearing either as museum displays, placards or reenactments. I think physically having our feet on the dirt does something to us–it was really beautiful to hear about their journeys and rediscovery together. My favorite story was about their journey in 2003 on Ka La Hoihoi Ea (a Hawaiian National holiday commemorating the return of sovereignty after a short occupation by a British dude named Lord Paulet).
The simple act of honoring this day is cool in itself, but in 2003 the Mauna Kea Hui hiked to the summit with our national flags to raise them at the highest peak in the archipelago. The pictures look super windy! What powerful images on so many levels!
If you’d be interested in hosting a screening of this film, email shelley@kahea.org We only have a limited number of DVDs to lend out, but we do want to share the message as much as we can.
Also, here is a link to the online petition, please feel free to pass this link along far and wide. We are in the process of getting a new website up, but this one will have to do for a couple more months! E kala mai!
Mahalo to Pono Kealoha for documenting this event!
Laughable public process: changes to conservation protections
Hearings officer Sam Lemmo, the administrator for OCCL, made a point of assuring the room that the final regulations would definitely be different from what we are seeing tonight based on all of the great input they had been getting. (Did you just feel that gentle pat on the top of your head? I did.)
We pressed Sam on when we might actually see the final regulations. Generally speaking, the agenda for the Board of Land and Natural Resources is posted a mere six-days before the Board decides an issue. Will we only get six days to review the final version of the rules that are supposed to be protecting our conservation lands for at least the next 15 years?
In response, Sam chuckled and said “good question.” The audience laughed. I laughed, too — because what do you do when someone laughs in your face? Despite all the laughter it was a sad moment.
It is sad when regulations as important as these are given but the bare minimum of study and public process. We are talking about 2 million acres of conservation lands — our watersheds, nearshore waters… the important places. Conservation lands are 51% of the crown and government lands that are supposed to be held in the “ceded” lands trust for Native Hawaiians and the people of Hawaii — we have an obligation to protect these assets.
From what I hear from the old-timers, when these rules were changed 15 years ago, there was a public blue ribbon panel convened to advise the division on improving the regulations. Today, DLNR is unilaterally proposing major revisions. What gives? Where is the expert panel? The thoughtful study? The reasoned assessment?
In response to my quote on the need for “a blue ribbon panel” in the Star-Advertiser on Thursday, several insiders came forward at the hearing to thank Sam for DLNR’s history of work on these rule changes that were, in their words, “a long-time coming.” So long in coming, in fact, that the public just heard about them. These rules saw the first light of day in July and are expected to be approved before December. Coincidentally, that’s right before the Lingle Administration leaves office. Feels more like a 50-yard dash than a “long-time coming” to me.
Both in and out of public hearings, we have heard Sam say, at least 20 times (no exaggeration, I seriously counted), “Good question, that wasn’t what I intended” in response to questions and concerns about the staff’s proposed changes. I don’t know about you guys, but if what I write down isn’t what I meant to say, its usually because I was in a rush and didn’t take the time to think about the implications… welll… that kind of pondering is exactly what we need right now.
Good changes, bad changes, the bottom line is these changes need more thought. We should not let the timeline for the end of an administration drive the schedule for amending some of the most important protections in our islands.
Want to feel like you were there? Here is a link to notes from the Honolulu public hearing on August 12, 2010.
Want to participate in the process? Sign up for KAHEA’s action alert network, later this week we’ll send out an easy-to-use comment form by email.
Collaborate Much?
We’re liking this thought-proving post from journalist Anne Minard, on the “next great telescope race”–Day 14 of her “100 Days of Science.” She asks some great questions about the fundamental purpose of the two U.S. proposals for “next generation” giant land-based telescopes being proposed for construction within the next 10 years. Do we really need THIS much telescope, guys?
Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, acknowledged that the two telescopes are headed toward redundancy. The main differences, he said, are in the engineering.
He said the next generation of telescopes is crucial for forward progress in 21st Century astronomy.
“The goal is to start discovering and characterizing planets that might harbor life,” he said. “It’s very clear that we’re going to need the next generation of telescopes to do that.”
And far from being a competition, the real race is to contribute to science, said Charles Blue, a TMT spokesman.
“All next generation observatories would really like to be up and running as soon as possible to meet the scientific demand,” he said.
But when I asked him why the United States teams haven’t pooled their expertise to build a single next-generation telescope, Blue declined to comment.
In all, there are actually three teams (two from the U.S., and one from Europe) racing to build the first of these giant land-based telescopes: Extremely Large Telescope (Europe), TMT (U.S.), and Giant Magellan Telescope (U.S.). (And no, we’re not making these names up… in almost every description we could find, these bad boys are characterized first and foremost by their massive size.) The total estimated price tag for all this summit development? $2.6 billion dollars.
In the midst of this competition to build the first and the largest, the worldwide community of those who share aloha for sacred summits are humbly asking: for time and real consideration for native ecosystems, threatened endemic species, the cultural meaning of sacred space, cultural practice, and the natural and cultural heritage we have to pass forward to next generations… all in short supply on earth today. Can we not rationally slow down this latest race for space, in the interest of the future of life on our own planet?
Exemptions Gone Wild
Generally, under today’s environmental laws, certain kinds of projects have to do an environmental review (Like an EIS). Other kinds of projects can be exempted. The BP oil spill at Deepwater Horizon has been a sobering reminder of why these kinds of environmental reviews and exemptions are so critical. (Can you believe THIS was exempted from EIS?)
Today, DLNR is proposing a “wild laundry list” of EIS exemptions for DLNR-managed lands, from building new roads to chemical herbicides. That’s 57 pages (fifty-seven!) of exemptions. Yeesh. We are asking the Office of Environmental Quality and Control (OEQC) to send DLNR back to the drawing board. If you or your organization is interested in participating in a group letter to OEQC or just want to know more about this issue, please contact Marti at marti@kahea.org by Friday morning.
Manufacturing Consent
The UH Board of Regents made big “TAH-DAH!” over approving their giant Thirty Meter Telescope project for Mauna Kea this summer. Plenty press releases, plenty press. KAHEA staff tend to kind of shrug over this kind of “approval”, but after hearing so many comments and questions from all of you, we decided we should address it. Fundamental question: WHY is the Board of Regents approving TMT?
The term “manufacturing consent” comes to mind. Hmm.
Okay, let’s say for example, that Kanoe and Tyler want to build a parking lot in your front yard. Kanoe writes the proposal. Tyler votes to approve her proposal, and sends out a press release saying “Parking lot approved!” And your neighbors think, “”My, my. There’s going to be a parking lot over there.” Now, did you get any say about this parking lot? Nope! Does it matter? Of course it does.
A little tutorial on developing conservation lands, and looking good while doing it:
Mauna Kea is public trust “ceded lands” and a conservation district. This means that the mountain is to be managed “in trust” for the people of Hawai’i, and that its natural and cultural resources are to be protected and sustained. Under state law, the responsibility for managing these lands falls to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). DLNR does not financially benefit directly from development of Mauna Kea, and it is the agency with the mandate under state law to protect and conserve these lands.
Yet.
Today, the University Board of Regents appoints 100% of members to the Office of Mauna Kea Management. The Regents appoint 100% of the members of Kahu Ku Mauna. The University paid the consultant who wrote the management plan for Mauna Kea. At the end of the day, we have to ask: Who’s interests are being represented? Who is being left out?
So many have worked so hard and sacrificed so much, to get us to where we are today. Twenty years ago, the University and the UH Institute for Astronomy could not and would not even acknowledge the existence of clear problems. Two lawsuits and two state audits later, we can finally openly acknowledge past wrongs, and talk about impacts of astronomy development on cultural and natural resources. Not just on Mauna Kea, but Hawai’i's other sacred summits as well.
But without true change in management (!), it’s just that: talk.
If you support true community management of Hawai’i's sacred summits, you can join with the thousands of others around Hawai’i who are saying “Enough already” and demand a truly pono future for some of Hawai’i's most sacred places. Sign the petition today!
Mauna Kea Update: Appeal before the ICA
From Marti:
Yesterday, the Mauna Kea hui (Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Royal Order of Kamehameha I, Sierra Club, KAHEA, and Clarence Kukauakahi Ching) filed the opening brief in our appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals challenging the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for Mauna Kea. The Circuit Court had denied our case on the theory that the CMP didn’t actually do anything to affect the summit.
If the CMP doesn’t do anything to affect the summit, then how can the University of Hawaii proceed with its proposal to build the Thirty Meter Telescope? Answer: they can’t.
The University of Hawaii — the sole creator, proponent and implementer of the CMP — simply can’t have it both ways. Either the CMP meets the legal requirements for construction in a conservation district and therefore does “something”… a “something” for which rightholders like the Mauna Kea hui can ask a court review. OR… the CMP doesn’t actually do anything, and therefore doesn’t meet the pre-requisite that a conservation district have comprehensive management before anything is built there … thus prohibiting the construction of a new massive telescope.
Here is the introduction to the hui’s opening brief:
This case is about the Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (“BLNR”) preferential treatment of the University of Hawai‘i’s astronomy program and its complete disregard for the protected rights of Native Hawaiian and other users of the summit of Mauna Kea. On its face, the University of Hawai‘i’s Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan (“CMP”) purports to broadly and actively regulate all uses of the Conservation District of Mauna Kea’s summit, including the religious, cultural, and recreational activities of the Mauna Kea Appellants. But the BLNR chose to completely ignore the CMP’s impact on Mauna Kea Appellants’ rights, duties and privileges. Contrary to its obligations under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) Chapter 91 and Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”) regulations, (Hawai‘i Administration Rules (“H.A.R.”) §§ 13-1-28 – 13-1-40), the BLNR issued its final decision to approve the CMP without holding a full and formal contested case proceeding. Record on Appeal, 2009 (“ROA-2009″) at 20-27.
The Mauna Kea Appellants appealed the BLNR’s final decisions to the Third Circuit Court of Hawai‘i (“Circuit Court”). ROA-2009 at 1-15. Appellees BLNR and the UH entities refused to transmit the administrative record to the Circuit Court and instead filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal. ROA-2009 at 254-265, 268-282. Incredibly, the Circuit Court determined, without ever reviewing the CMP or the rest of the administrative record, that the CMP was a harmless “unimplemented” document and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ROA-2009 at 369-372; Record on Appeal, 2010 (“ROA-2010″) at 1-9.
The Mauna Kea Appellants respectfully request that this Court reverse the Circuit Court’s order and remand this case to the Circuit Court: (1) with a finding that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, under HRS § 91-14 and/or H.A.R. § 13-5-3 to review Appellants’ appeal from the BLNR’s final decisions; or, alternatively, (2) with a finding that the Circuit Court misapplied the standard of review for a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, particularly where the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is intertwined with the merits of the Appellants’ appeal.
In other words, please give the Mauna Kea hui its day in court. Here is a link to the full opening brief.
Big mahalo to our attorneys, Colin Yost and Elizabeth Dunne, for working so hard on our behalf.
Leg 2010: Post-Mortem
From Marti:
This legislative session didn’t turn out to be as bad as it could have been for our natural and cultural resources. By mid-session this year, there were proposals to drastically weaken our EIS law, transfer 54% of the Division of Aquatic Resources to HIMB for groundskeepers (really, Dr. Leong? You know, City Mill has a sale on lawnmowers), and grant corporations extended leases to exploit our ocean. Thanks to the advocacy of so many, none of these proposals passed.
Not only that, legislators did manage to pass some good bills (in addition to HB 444). Sitting on the Governor’s desk for approval right now are laws that make it a felony to intentionally kill Hawaiian monk seals, require solar water heaters on new homes, and prevent beachfront landowners from using naupaka to block public access to and along the shoreline. It’s about time! Thanks also to your efforts, an audit will happening for Mauna Kea–albeit a self-audit. And while we still believe a self-audit is really no kind of audit at all, we do see it as a step in the right direction by the legislature. A very small, very weak and very tentative step, but a step nonetheless.
Mahalo to all those whose late nights, phone calls, petition gathering, and committed advocacy helped keep this 2010 legislative session from going off the rails.
