How long must federal taxpayers wait to see their purchase of land for a wildlife refuge in South Kona bear fruit?
As Environment Hawai’i reported last October and November, the Fish and Wildlife Service had been so entangled in litigation over the purchase with the land’s former owners that it had been prevented from undertaking any meaningful management measures that could protect the native forests and birds on the 5,300-acre site. The service had been unable to come to terms with the former owners – sisters Nohea Santimer and Moani Zablan, heirs to a part of the once-expansive McCandless Ranch – over an easement that would allow the service overland access to the South Kona unit of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the former landowners were demanding that the Fish and Wildlife Service pay exorbitant costs for relocating their claimed private property on the refuge land – claimed property that included more than a hundred head of wild cattle.
The dispute over relocation costs ended up in U.S. District Court more than two years ago. Finally, on March 19, the parties reported to Judge Susan Oki Mollway that they had reached a settlement – one that resolved not only the dispute over relocation costs, but also would give the Fish and Wildlife Service a legal easement over the Santimer-Zablan land permitting access to the otherwise landlocked parcel.
The settlement’s cost to taxpayers would be $120,000. That’s in addition to the $7.8 million paid in 1997 for the land and untold tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) in litigation costs, to say nothing of the diminishment in value of natural resources on the site that had suffered from little or no active management for years.
Of the $120,000 settlement, the Department of Interior agreed to pay $30,000 “as of the immediate access to the easement,” assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Yee told Judge Mollway. Of the remainder, the plaintiffs would receive early payment of $20,000 if they managed to remove whatever personal property they wished to retain within 45 days. Otherwise, Yee said, the plaintiffs agreed to move everything of theirs out within 90 days – that is, by mid-June – with payment of the balance due on the signing of the agreement and the filing of a stipulation of dismissal with the court.
The transcript of the proceedings in Judge Mollway’s court shows that the plaintiffs clearly agreed to the settlement, which included consent to extinguish a waterline easement that had crossed the refuge. After the settlement was described to Judge Mollway, she polled the plaintiffs:
“Could I have the three persons each state their name and tell me whether the agreement stated by the attorneys is indeed what you are agreeing to?”
Nohea Santimer replied, “I’m Nohea Santimer and yes, I agree to this settlement agreement.” Her husband, who’s taken an active part in the direction of the case although not a plaintiff, echoed the same sentiment: “I’m in agreement with what Andrew Springer and the other attorney’s saying in part of this case.” (Springer was the attorney with Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation representing the plaintiffs.)
Finally, Moani Zablan agreed: “My name is Moani Zablan and I agree to the terms of the settlement.”
“Okay, then, you have this settlement on the record,” Judge Mollway noted. “It’s going to be put into a written document, but the written document has to follow the terms that have been set forth today.” She went on to set a deadline of July 6 for filing of a stipulation to dismiss the case.
Still Negotiating?
But, as one might expect given the history of disappointments and dashed hopes associated with this particular piece of land, things have once more bogged down.
The 90-day deadline for removal of the personal property passed in mid-June. The deadline for filing a stipulation to dismiss with the court came and went in July.
In the meantime, the plaintiffs have a new attorney in the case, Michael W. Gibson of the firm Ashford & Wriston. “We are still in settlement negotiations with FWS,” Gibson wrote in response to an email query. “Because the matter is still pending before Judge Mollway, that is all I will comment on the case.”
Georgia Shirilla, head of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s real estate division in Portland, Oregon, also said she could make no comment for the record. She did, however, say that the parties had been in negotiations.
The former owners still have cattle on the service’s land. “We’ve considered the cattle abandoned,” Shirilla says.
For all intents and purposes, the land has been abandoned, too. Richard Wass, manager for the Hakalau refuge, notes that the only access to the South Kona property for the service is via helicopter. “We had a helicopter trip in within the last month,” he told Environment Hawai’i. “Biologists went in to continue with a weed and vegetation survey. Every two or three months we fly in to show the flag and see what’s happening.”
No significant management measures, such as fencing or eradication of weeds or cattle (wild and otherwise) can occur without overland access.
But someone is going up pretty regularly, Wass said. When Fish and Wildlife people go in, “they see salt licks, water structures. There’s indications that some cattle” – belonging to the former owners – “have been removed, but there’s still plenty remaining. Damage continues to accrue.”
For background:
[url=http://www.environment-hawaii.org/1003government.htm]http://www.environment-hawaii.org/1003government.htm[/url]
[url=http://www.environment-hawaii.org/1103ranchers.htm]http://www.environment-hawaii.org/1103ranchers.htm[/url]
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 15, Number 4 October 2004
Leave a Reply