Ah, the perils of the Golden Triangle.
No, not that Golden Triangle, the dark confluence of Burma, Laos, and Thailand notorious for its phenomenal production of opium. We’re referring to Hawai`i’s own 1,100-acre GT in the `Ewa area of O`ahu. Once famous for its high sugar yields, it is fast gaining notoriety for its hazardous waste, legacy of more than a century of agricultural enterprise.
The state purchased the land in a $31-million deal consummated in 1994. Well before the last “t’s” were crossed and “i’s” were dotted, staff at the Department of Land and Natural Resources should have known of the contamination – or, at the very least, should have suspected the strong possibility of contamination on any land with the history of the Golden Triangle.
As it turns out, everyone but the DLNR seemed in on the dirty little secret.
Campbell Estate surely knew. The contract the state signed to purchase the land from the estate required the state to acknowledge that Campbell’s longtime tenant, O`ahu Sugar Company, “may have used fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides and at times the use of oily substances for dust controlÉ State confirms to estate that state has made such investigation of facts concerning the physical condition of the property as state deemed appropriate and is thoroughly familiar with the property.”
O`ahu Sugar and its parent company, Amfac, knew but weren’t telling.
Other occasions where the state might have learned of the contamination passed without event. When R.M. Towill prepared an environmental assessment covering purchase of the parcel, the state Department of Health, investigating a pesticide mixing and storage site, was not included in the list of consulted parties.
The University of Hawai`i and Department of Agriculture had made reports on the contamination well before the DLNR sought Land Board approval for the acquisition. Why did these not turn up in any due diligence investigations – assuming, for the moment, that any was done?
For the three years that it took to complete purchase of the land, the Department of Health was conducting investigations to determine the extent of chemical contamination at the pesticide mixing site. All this time, there was no whiff of trouble at the DLNR, where staff continued to muddle their way through the courts to purchase this prize. Indeed, it took another three years for the DOH to learn that the state itself had become the landowner – and, hence, responsible for cleaning up the site to applicable state and federal standards.
Why didn’t the issue come up at Cabinet meetings? Is it reasonable to think that in six years and two administrations, neither the governor’s director of Health nor his director of Land and Natural Resources mentioned the land’s purchase or its problems? Were matters being handled so far down the ladder that they did not reach the lofty attention of gubernatorial appointees?
No, they were not. From archived records, we know that then-DLNR Director William Paty and then-Governor John Waihe`e were in close contact concerning purchase of the property, which seems to have been driven less by sensible land-use policy than by the acrimonious political rivalry between Waihe`e’s administration and Honolulu’s maverick mayor Frank Fasi.
As Is
Whatever else may be said about Fasi’s administration, it negotiated a far better deal than the state did. Unlike the state, the city refused to enter into a sale contract that clad Campbell in armor plate against any efforts to recover costs of cleaning up the contamination that Campbell’s former sugar tenants left behind. As a result, the city is seeking damages against Campbell, O`ahu Sugar, and other parties, and it may well prevail.
Contrast to that the state’s sad situation. A sweetheart “condemnation” deal with Campbell makes it unlikely that cleanup costs will be borne by anyone other than Hawai`i taxpayers. Staff at the DLNR speak gamely of going after Amfac, but in the years since the land was acquired, the statute of limitations clock has been ticking away, and as each day passes without legal action, the chance of success in the courts grows ever more faint. And the state’s brief against Amfac goes well beyond the `Ewa contamination: state-owned lands in Lahaina and Kaua`i that were part of Amfac’s sugar plantations are probably also fouled. If the state wants to ensure Amfac’s participation in the cleanup of these sites, it must pursue this aggressively and quickly.
What will become of the contaminated land in `Ewa? If the state plans to use it for residential development or a park – uses anticipated in the premium price per acre that the state paid to acquire the land – the costs of remediation will be huge. As it is, the land is unfit even for agriculture. And should the state decide to do nothing at all and leave the land fallow (supposing, for the moment, that the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Health might permit such a thing), the state will still have to bear the burden of ongoing and expensive monitoring of drinking water wells near the site.
Any way the deal is cut, it was a boon for Campbell at an untold cost for the state. As with Maha`iula on the Big Island or Ma`alaea on Maui, the state has been sucker-punched yet again. Will it ever learn?
Volume 12, Number 1 July 2001
Leave a Reply