Kekaha wai `ole o na Kona. Waterless Kekaha of the Kona district. Kekaha in Kona, Hawai`i, is known for the scarcity of water, but is dearly loved by its inhabitants.
Mary Kawena Pukui
At the end of May, the state Land Use Commission voted to place into the urban land use district more than a thousand acres of land in the ahupua’a of Ka’upulehu, Kekaha, North Kona, island of Hawai’i. Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate owns the land; holding the right to develop it is Ka’upulehu Developments, a partnership made up of Barnwell Hawaiian Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Cambridge Hawai’i Limited Partnership.
Plans call for building a 36-hole golf course, a commercial center, and more than 1,000 residences on the land, much of which is now covered with lava from flows as recent as 1801. According to testimony of the developer’s agent, the total cost of the project is in the neighborhood of $350 million. The project was described throughout the hearing as a stand-alone resort. However, it is generally acknowledged as being Phase II of a project whose first phase, involving about 600 acres, has as its centerpiece the not-yet-opened Four Seasons Hotel and a Jack Nicklaus golf course.
The LUC’s deliberations lasted two and a half years. In many respects, they constitute a milestone in LUC history. During the course of the deliberations, the state Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in a dispute over a planned Kona Coast resort at Kohanaiki1 (what has become known as the PASH/Pilago decision), which determined that native Ha waiians have identifiable, legally protected rights to use undeveloped lands in the exercise of traditional practices.
Even before the Kohanaiki decision, a coalition of groups calling itself Ka Pa’akai O Ka ‘Aina (salt of the earth) had been granted intervener standing in the LUC contested-case hearing on Ka’upulehu Development’s petition. Members of the coalition are the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club, Ka Lahui Hawai’i, and Protect Kohanaiki ‘Ohana. Also intervening in the case, although not as apart of Ka Pa’akai, was Plan to Protect, a group that advocates moderate, thoughtful growth in West Hawai’i.
Throughout the hearings, much of the testimony and discussion focused on issues central to the Kohanaiki PASH/Pilago decision – that is, the rights and interests of native Hawaiians in the area known as Ka’upulehu. In the end, the Land Use Commission, under the leadership of departing Chairman Allen Hoe, gave deference to these concerns, but with a strange twist: Rather than having the state ensure the protection of these rights, the LUC in effect turned respon sibility for this over to Bishop Estate.
While Bishop Estate had never sought nor been granted standing as a party in the redis tricting petition, at the last possible moment in the hearings, its representative claimed that the estate, as konohiki of the ahupua’a, the rightful overseer of the land, had developed a plan for managing the resources in the area. The plan was never produced for the com mission or interveners to review.
On May 30, when the commission voted to approve the petition, Hoe admonished Bishop Estate to protect the rights of Hawai ians, saying that the estate was answerable to the Hawaiian community, but not to the LUC. Bishop Estate, as an ali’i landowner, “should not have to answer to a non-Hawai ian entity who has created processes that are completely non-Hawaiian,” said Hoe, who has sat on that self-same “non-Hawaiian entity” for eight years and who has been its chairman for nearly two. “And yet we sit here in judgment, prejudgment, post-judgment on their ability to accept their responsibility,” he continued.
The vote was six to two. By law, the minimum number of votes needed to ap prove a redistricting petition is six.
In the final order of the LUC, dated June 17, the same theme is sounded, albeit in more muted fashion. Bishop Estate’s claim to have adopted an ahupua’a plan is accepted as act, as is the assertion that Bishop Estate “will form a non-profit entity in perpetuity to oversee the formulation and implementation of the Ka’upulehu ahupua’a plan.” In addi tion, the developer is ordered to implement a resource management plan that “shall be consistent with and further the objectives of [Bishop Estate’s] ahupua’a plan.”
Ka’upulehu. The very name bespeaks the cultural significance of the place. It is an abbreviation of Ka’ulu-pulehu (the roasted breadfruit), but also of Kau-pulehu-imu-akua (God placed in an oven and cooked). And therein lies a legend.2
“In very ancient times, there were many people living upon these lands… The chiefess Kumukea-Kalani, her lesser chiefs and many people lived in the region now called Kaupulehu, and this chiefess was the sister of the god Kane. During this chiefess’ rule there was an abundance of food grown upon the land. And one time, though, for an unknown reason, a period of drought and famine fell upon the land and people. All of the resources from the mountain ridges to the shore were used, and the people were hungry.”
Kumukea-Kalani gave her people leave to abandon her and search for food elsewhere, but they would not leave her side. Eventually, they were so weak they could not move. The chiefess’ elder brother Kane then descended from the uplands and instructed Kumukea -Kalani to prepare a great imu, or oven pit. “Kane then stood at the edge of the imu and told the people to spread a covering of ‘akulikuli, pohuehue, and makaloa upon the hot imu. Kane then lay upon the imu and had the people close it. In a short time, the people saw Kane rise up from the shore and approach the imu. He commanded that the imu be uncovered, and the people found all manner of foods: taros, sweet potatoes, yams, bread fruit, bananas, pigs, dogs, chickens, and such, cooked within the imu…. The chiefess, her retainers, and people all ate and regained their health.”
Intangibles
The legends of the place are by no means shrouded in the mists of time. In 1800 and 1801, Hualalai erupted, sending great flows of pahoehoe lava to the sea at Ka’upulehu and Kiholo, in what came to be regarded as Pele’s reproach to Kamehameha the Great for his failure to give the gods the respect and offer ings due them.
Even into the present, Hawaiians use the many resources of Ka’upulehu. Witnesses in the LUC proceedings spoke of how they gathered salt from the natural salt pans at the shoreline, for use in ceremonies or in day-to -day cooking. Others told of how they gath ered kupe’e, or fished, or used the natural features of the land in their worship.
In the wake of the PASH/Pilago decision, the Land Use Commission seemed at a loss as to how to take account of these intangible cultural assets, values, and practices. In the past, developers paid consultants to prepare archaeological surveys in satisfaction of state law regarding protection of significant his toric sites. When the LUC and other agencies accepted environmental assessments or environmental impact statements, they asked for little more than such surveys. In the Ka’upulehu case, however, it became clear that protection of cultural resources, as re quired by the PASH/Pilago decision, would involve far more than an inventory of the physical evidence of occupation by Hawaiians who lived two centuries or more ago.
Commissioner Casey Jarman expressed these concerns in summarizing a statement of Ka Lahui’s kia ‘aina, Mililani Trask: “So you’re saying as a minimum under… there has to be a cultural resource inventory of sufficient comprehensiveness … in order to identified as many of the resources and users of those resources and how they’re being used and the importance of them before PASH can be met.” Trask agreed.
Not all cultural resources are man-made, Trask noted. They include “geophysical fea tures that are wahi pana, sacred sites… Not all are heiau. Some like the caldera [at Kilauea] or Puhi-a-Pele [at Ka’upulehu] are sacred places, they’re geophysical features, natural features.”
By their very nature, some of the resources of Ka’upulehu described by Ka Pa’akai o ka ‘Aina’s expert witnesses defy easy, unambigu ous identification. The noted kumu hula Puanani Kanaka’ole Kanahele described the qualities of waoakua, the realm of the gods, as opposed to waokanaka, the places of men. “The waokanaka was always that place where man would be permitted or permitted him self to go and gather,” Kanahele testified. “And the waoakua was where man would not go and gather because in his sense, he has to leave some places for the gods.”
While some of the developers’ witnesses spoke of the waoakua existing in the highland forests, Kanahele and others described the barren lava flows of Ka’upulehu as a waoakua – specifically, a waoakua of Pele.
Standardization
Virginia Goldstein, planning director for Hawai’i County (and an archaeologist by training), later commented on Kanahele’s testimony. Acknowledging that more than a decade ago she had helped draft a cultural resources management plan for Hawai’i County that has yet to be adopted, Goldstein described some of the inherent difficulties in addressing cultural values:
“One of the reasons why [the plan] didn’t get adopted even back then was that although it had a very good framework for archaeologi cal evaluation, and it had a pretty good his torical framework for evaluating historical sites, the one thing that was missing – and it was very difficult for us to come to any kind of conclusions and to essentially adopt the framework – was those sites of cultural significance, those kinds of sites that have essentially spiritual value or are culturally important. How does one judge which ones are really so?
“Let me give you an example of what I mean. Yesterday Pua Kanaka’ole Kanahele talked about the waoakua. I think I have a pretty good sense of what she means. I think out in the field maybe I could have a pretty good sense of which ones, which areas she would say is waoakua and which ones were waokanaka.
“How do we put this in writing? How do we standardize this?… Those are the kinds of things… we had difficulty in addressing in the draft cultural resources management plan. That’s one of the reasons why it was not adopted.”
Still, Goldstein testified that, in today’s climate, “given the recent decisions, it’s almost imperative that we, meaning the collec tive whole, come to some kind of develop ment of these kinds of standards. We have to do it. Otherwise, what I see happening is pitting Hawaiian against Hawaiian.”
‘Not Instructive’
As important as the Kohanaiki-PASH/Pilago decision was for all other parties in the case, Chairman Hoe had a different take on things. As the Ka’upulehu case wound to a close on May 30, 1996, Hoe remarked: “I want to state for the record: I’m very proud that that decision was not instructive to this commission.
“For almost the entire eight years that I have had the responsibility to perform on this commission, that has been one of the driving principles of this commission. That decision merely has come to validate what we have for almost eight years been telling people who appear before us.
“Some people have taken that message that we have sent and worked with it. Other people have rejected that message. So, I’m very pleased that during my tenure on this body, that the Supreme Court felt that it was their time to make a very clear statement which, in fact, validates how we conduct our proceedings and how we perform our functions as provided by law.”
* * *
In an effort to address the intervenors’ con cerns, the developer promised to set aside a recreational area and cultural park, consisting of about 70 acres on the northern end of the resort. The area is near the southern terminus of state-owned land at Kiholo that the state hopes eventually to develop as a park. Plans for the park were vague during testimony. Agents for the developer described the park as including recreational areas, “interpretive dis plays of cultural resources,” and “a place of culture where Hawaiians could be Hawaiians and do the things they want to be able to do.”
Witnesses for Ka Pa’akai o ka ‘Aina were not supportive of the idea, maintaining that for purposes of cultural practice, developed lands are all but worthless.
Maile David of the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club brought this point out early on in the hearings when she asked Bob Lindsey, land manager for Bishop Estate on the island of Hawai’i, whether he truly believed that many of the maka’ainana from the Kona area would frequent the cultural park. “Do you think they will be comfortable in a setting surrounded by a development in order to practice their traditional customs?” she asked. “Because when I practice my traditions the area and the serenity has a lot to do with how I practice.”
Lindsey, who is part-Hawaiian, responded: “You know, I don’t know how comfortable our people would feel. I would guess that some might feel comfortable in a place like this and some of us will not be comfortable. But I think as a way for the project to give something back to our folks, this might be an opportunity for those folks who feel comfortable being in a busy place, being in a resort area- it could be useful to those people.”
Later, Mililani Trask gave a concrete ex ample of what happens when development intrudes on sacred sites:
“Right down in Kona, right on the Three Mile Drive, there’s a very sacred spring that is next to the shoreline in one of the hotels. It used to be used quite a bit. But after the hotel was built you can’t really. It’s hard to do your cultural practice in the middle of a concrete development with people walking by.”
At one point, soon after the developer had petitioned the LUC, the developer and Lindsey attempted to work out an agreement with native Hawaiian groups concerning such is sues as access and protection of cultural re sources. The talks broke down, however, and the groups that were approached opted to pursue their goals through the route of inter vention in the LUC contested case.
In the end, the LUC ordered the developer to prepare a “resource management plan,” without mentioning cultural resources at all. And, despite the Bishop Estate’s “ahupua’a plan” never having been disclosed to the LUC, the commission required the developer to make its resource management plan “consis tent with” and in furtherance of the objectives of the estate’s ahupua’a plan.
Konohiki Claims
Whenever a petition for redistricting of land comes before the Land Use Commission, state law requires the LUC to hold a contested case hearing. In addition to the petitioner, parties automatically include the Office of State Plan ning and the appropriate county government. Other parties may be allowed to intervene, provided they demonstrate to the LUC’s satisfaction that they have an interest in the peti tion apart from that of the general public. Another LUC requirement is that the party bringing the petition have sufficient control over the land to be able to ensure compliance with any conditions that the LUC may attach to the redistricting. In other words, if the LUC requires certain actions of the developer, the developer alone bears ultimate responsibility for carrying out those actions. If it turns out that the developer’s use of the land is contin gent upon the approval of another party, then that party by rights should be a participant in the contested case hearing.
Parties to the Ka’upulehu petition con tested case were the developer, OSP, Hawai’i County through its Planning Department, Plan to Protect, and the three groups forming Ka Pa’akai o Ka ‘Aina. At no time did Bishop Estate seek to be a party.
Throughout the two and a half years that the contested case hearing lasted, however, Bishop Estate’s interest in and control over the land was repeatedly brought out. In addition, the LUC has imposed conditions that, it would appear, the developer cannot satisfy indepen dent of Bishop Estate.
At one of the earliest hearings on the peti tion, in March 1995, Bob Lindsey asserted that Bishop Estate, as owner of most of the lands in the ahupua’a of Ka’upulehu, was its konohiki, referring to the overseer of land in ancient Hawai’i. Al Lerma, an attorney representing Ka Pa’akai o ka ‘Aina, asked Lindsey about how the estate intended to exercise its konohiki duties in the area of the petition.
“You talked about being the konohiki of the ahupua’a,” Lerma said. “At this point, is there any enforcement capability on the part of Bishop Estate as far as shoreline manage ment and resource management down in Ka’upulehu?”
Lindsey: “We would abrogate that respon sibility to our lessee and it’s basically a resource issue for us.”
Strings?
The lease between Bishop Estate and Ka’upulehu Developments was not made public at the hearing – an issue that eventu ally was taken to court by Plan to Protect. The judge hearing the matter refused to order production of the lease. As a result, the specific terms under which Ka’upulehu Develop ments is obligated to develop the land are not a matter of public record.
Still, during the hearing, agents for Bishop Estate and the developer insisted that the developer had full control over the land to see the project through to its conclusion. At the same March 1995 meeting cited earlier, Lindsey was asked by LUC Chairman Hoe whether the developer “must seek any further authorization from Bishop Estate before it can complete its proposed development on this project?”
Lindsey responded, “No, I don’t believe so.”
Hoe repeated the question: “At this point, there’s no further involvement on the part of Bishop Estate with regard to their proposed development?”
Lindsey: “At this point, no, none that I can think of.”
But a year later, in March 1996, Lindsey appeared before the LUC again, this time testifying that he had taken a draft ahupua’a plan to Bishop Estate’s board of trustees in October 1995. The plan was not shown to the LUC or any of the interveners in the case, although Lindsey did say the developer had seen it.
In testimony, he offered a few hints about the plan’s contents. First, it was for the whole ahupua’a, not just the area proposed for development, as emerges in this exchange between Lindsey and the attorney for Plan to Protect, John Powell:
Powell: “Forgive my ignorance, but can you explain to me how a gated community of very expensive homes, very expensive condominiums, private golf course, is consistent with Hawaiian land planning and the Hawai ian concept of ahupua’a?”
Lindsey: “I may respond this way to you, Mr. Powell. I think that Ka’upulehu as – or Ka’upulehu as an ahupua’a is a very, very big place, and, you know, I’ve talked with our lessee along the way about opportunities maybe where an Hawaiian place could be created within that ahupua’a at some point in time, perhaps not in this area but in another place within the ahupua’a.”
‘Tremendous Leverage’
Mike Matsukawa, attorney for Ka Pa’akai o ka ‘Aina, asked Lindsey about the objectives of the ahupua’a plan.
Economic objectives were the first men tioned by Lindsey in his response. “You know,” he said, “fundamentally, to assure that – economics is one. And when I say economics, I’m talking primarily about the makai piece, which is part of a resort node. The other piece, of course, is creating value and, of course, protecting our natural, his toric and cultural resources.”
Leimana Damate of the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club asked Lindsey if the konohiki concept would be part of the ahupua’a plan and, if so, who would be the konohiki.
“The answer is yes,” Lindsey responded, “and I guess I would, you know, be the konohiki for our trustees here.”
In any event, Lindsey’s statement that no further approvals were needed by the devel oper from Bishop Estate were contradicted by Alexander Kinzier of Barnwell Hawaiian Properties, the managing partner in Ka’upulehu Developments. Under questioning by commissioner Casey Jarman, Kinzler acknowledged that, “assuming – it’s a big assumption – that we do receive an approval in this [LUC] process, then we would … yet again go through another set of consents of theirs” before moving on to the county per mitting stage.
“And before development can occur”, Kinzier continued, “there’s a significant number of other consents, including the entry into development agreements and other major documentation, which would lead to the eventual development…
“They [Bishop Estate] have always had a keen interest in their own resources and the management of them separate from – I guess the better way of putting it is they have tremendous leverage to get things done and have input into this. It’s not a matter of only showing it to them when it’s convenient to us. We must show them all that we do and share with them the information as it develops, and have their input as we prepare our plans, go forward, and reach development stages.”
On hearing this, Jarman observed that, if Bishop Estate had such leverage, it should perhaps be a party to the proceeding:
“My concern is if essentially anything that you can agree to in regards to this proceeding and in regards to any agreements you might make with the intervenors, or any other com munity groups, requires Bishop Estate ap proval, it almost seems to me that they should be a party to this proceeding. Because it seems to me you really don’t have sufficient author ity to make certain types of binding commitments… And I would suggest that, perhaps, we ought to look into the possibility that Bishop Estate under the circumstances should become a party.”
Jarman’s suggestion died without action.
Disputed Claims
Some witnesses were skeptical about the le gitimacy of Bishop Estate’s claim to have konohiki responsibilities. Mililani Trask of Ka Lahui Hawai’i was questioned on this point by Ben Tsukazaki, attorney for Ka’upulehu Developments:
Tsukazaki: “Now, do you consider Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate to be the konohiki in this ahupua’a?”
Trask: “Not at all.”
Tsukazaki: “Not at all?”
Trask: “Not at all. I’m also aware of Bishop Estate’s attempts to allege konohiki rights for native rights to water and other native entitlements to our people. Absolutely we do not agree with that. The Bishop Estate is a land owner in this matter. To try to give them konohiki rights I think is stretching the konohiki theory, to try and say that a corpo rate entity is a konohiki. But I don’t consider the Bishop Estate even in traditional terms to be the konohiki. If they were, they would be protecting the resources of the land. That was the job of the konohiki. But clearly they don’t perform in that respect, either.”
Trask, who is a 1969 graduate of Kamehameha Schools, acknowledged she re ceived “an excellent Western education” from that institution, but received no instruction whatsoever in “na mea Hawai’i, things that were of Hawai’i.” In fact, Trask went on to recount the difficulty she had had in trying to get Bishop Estate to protect cultural resources on land it owned in Halawa Valley, on O’ahu, before the building of H-3.
* * *
Bishop Estate’s claim to konohiki rights grow out of its ownership of almost all land in the entire Ka’upulehu ahupua’a. Commission Chairman Hoe indicated how significant this was to him in a question he posed to Pua Kanahele. Referring to Ka’upulehu as “the classic example of an ahupua’a,” Hoe said: “Not only does it appear to be a classic ahupua’a in terms of its location and geogra phy, but also in terms of ownership. And for me this is perhaps the most -… it is a very important part, if not equal to the other aspects that have been focused on so far.” He then went on to ask Kanahele what she felt were the obligations of the konohiki, “which is an ali’i with regard to this specific land,” while noting that “this statutory scheme right now” – the same statutory scheme Hoe was sworn to uphold “is alien to the Hawaiian land management scheme.”
Kanahele ducked the question. When asked by Hoe if she had “an opinion as to whether or not the konohiki specifically in regard to this ahupua’a is doing this the right way,” she said: “Yeah, I cannot answer that.”
Of the 25,000 acres in the ahupua’a owned by the estate, about 18,000 are under lease to parties intending to develop the land in one way or another. Should the estate sell off its fee interest in the land, the konohiki claim would be diminished, if not extinguished altogether.
Questions over ownership and control of the land, then, became a critical element in LUC deliberations on the Ka’upulehu peti tion.
Initially, testimony suggested that title to the area proposed for residential development would eventually be conveyed to homeowners. In March 1995, Bob Lindsey was asked whether Bishop Estate would sell the land. He acknowledged that in Phase I of the development (involving construction, nearly complete, of the Four Seasons Hotel, a golf course, and surrounding residential units), the estate’s trustees had agreed “to convert the fee for the residential pieces.”
For the proposed development, which is the second phase of the resort complex, Lindsey said: “I would hate to second-guess our board, our current board, on what will happen with Phase 11. I say that because we have four new members, really, on our cur rent board of five, and they were not involved with the agreements and understandings reached in Phase I. But my thought is that a similar understanding would probably be reached on this particular petition.”
More than Oral Agreement
If Lindsey hedged a little on this point, there was no doubt on the subject in the minds of the developers. Alexander Kinzler, testifying on behalf of Ka’upulehu Developments, ac knowledged that an underlying assumption in all of their marketing studies and economic feasibility studies was the idea that the resi dential sites would be sold as fee simple properties. “The fee is an integral part of this project,” he testified.
“There’s no intent to develop this as a leasehold residential project… We know there’s no demand for leasehold residential, so there’s no point in going forward” with any studies on the feasibility of a leasehold project, he stated. When asked whether the developer had an agreement with Bishop Estate for conversion of the leasehold to a fee interest, he answered:
“There’s an agreement in place for the purchase of the fee simple residential areas in the entire Phase I area. And we have had pre liminary discussions with them and in effect there’s an agreement to agree on the terms of what those provisions would be with respect to Phase II. Bishop has agreed that this project will go forward. It’s clear in our discussions with all Bishop representatives, including the trustees, this is going to have to be a fee simple project. It cannot be sold in leasehold.”
Kinzler stated that in Bishop Estate’s view, it was premature to negotiate the brass tacks of a purchase of the fee interest. However, he went on to suggest that the estate had indeed committed to the sale: “We have a general agreement of more than an oral nature with Bishop that they are prepared to see us go forward with the fee. And I submit that implicit in their approval of this project, and the trustees’ subsequent actions to approve and see this go forward, is an understanding this would be done in fee simple.”
By March of 1996, however, Bishop Estate’s public position was that there was no commitment whatsoever to convey the fee title. The estate’s Bob Lindsey was asked whether the estate would be selling the land fee simple. “The decision to sell the fee under the residential component in this plan, that decision has not been made,” Lindsey said-repeating, as if for emphasis, “That decision has not been made.”
John Powell, attorney for Plan to Protect, pressed Lindsey on the issue, noting that past testimony from witnesses for the developer had testified that a leasehold project would not be economically viable. “There’s no com mitment, contractual or otherwise, on Bishop Estate’s part to make the fee title available to the petitioner?” Powell asked.
“At this point in time, no,” was Lindsey’s response.
* * *
On June 17, the Land Use Commission issued its final, written decision in the matter of Ka’upulehu Developments’ petition. The formal Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision and Order runs to 46 pages, the last nine of which contain 25 separate condi tions of approval. Conditions range from a requirement to “make available adequate golf tee times at affordable rates for public play to State of Hawai’i residents” (condition 13), to a complex, three-page long requirement for public shoreline access and minimum shore line setbacks (condition 19).
On the matter of native Hawaiian rights and protection of cultural resources, there’s condition 18, which reads in its entirety: “Petitioner shall preserve and protect any gathering and access rights of native Hawai ians who have customarily and traditionally exercised subsistence, cultural and religious practices on the subject property.” In addi tion, one clause (paragraph B) of condition 19 requires the petitioner to “develop and imple ment the Resource Management Plan which shall be consistent with and further the objectives of KSBE’s ahupua’a plan…”
Mike Matsukawa, attorney for Ka Pa’akai o ka ‘Aina, told Environment Hawai’i, “The decision left us in the same state of confusion we were in when it all began,” referring to his clients’ rights to use the land. The Land Use Commission ducked the issue, he said, by saying in effect, “Hawaiians ought to be able to work it out among themselves.” Yet there’s nothing binding on Bishop Estate or anyone else, he said.
No decision had been made by press time to appeal the LUC action. State law provides 30 days from the date the decision was issued for filing an appeal.
- 1. The Kohanaiki case involves a resort planned for West Hawai`i in an area immediately to the north of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Park. The land was earlier placed into the Urban land use district, and the developer, Nansay Hawai`i, was at the point of seeking county approvals for the project. The Hawai`i County Planning Commission gave the project the green light, and in so doing denied a request for a contested case by Angel Pilago, a native Hawaiian, and Public Access Shoreline Hawai`i (PASH), a group whose members include Hawaiians seeking to exercise traditional gathering rights, PASH and Pilago appealed the denial all the way to the Supreme Court. The court has remanded the case back to the county Planning Commission. No further action has taken place on the Nansay project since the Supreme Court ruling.
2. This legend was related by J.W.H.I. Kihe in the Hawaiian-language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawai`i, April 2, 1914, in an article entitled “Ka Imu a Kane.” The translation has been made by Kepa Maly. This story and many others relating to Ka`upulehu are contained Maly’s report, “Historical Documentary Research,” which is Appendix C to the archaeological report contained in the environmental impact statement for the Ka`upulehu development.
Volume 7, Number 1 July 1996
Leave a Reply