Controversies surrounding F. Newell Bohnett’s tenure as lessee of state-owned Pu’uwa’aw’a Ranch date back to the early 1970s, when he assumed the lease. The disputes came to a head most recently in 1991, when the state House of Representatives appointed a special committee to look into the matter. Following that, Bohnett seemed chastened, promised to clean up the dumps he had placed on state-owned land and work with state agents to make sure the ranch was managed in accordance with lease terms.
To the east of the ranch lies land owned in fee by Bohnett and which he is converting to a luxury subdivision of gentleman-farmer estates – Pu’u Lani Ranch, as he calls it. Phase I of the subdivision was built several years ago. Phase II under way, but criss-crossing the area are old government roads, ownership of which lies with the state. The roads are an impediment to development, so Bohnett requested they be sold to him by the state.
Unencumbered Lands
According to the Division of Land Management’s submittal to the Land Board at its meeting of October 23, 1992, the DLM asked the state attorney general to review the legal aspects of the request. Last June, the attorney general issued a memorandum finding that the roads were not “public highways,” but were instead “paper roads.” “Accordingly,” the memorandum continued, “paper roads may be considered as ‘unencumbered state lands’, subject to the jurisdiction of the Department” of Land and Natural Resources.
On that basis, the Land Board approved the sale, as Bohnett requested. Before Bohnett was to be granted a construction right-of entry however, the Board required that he obtain Department of Health approval for plans to close the dumps on state land at Pu’uwa’awa’a Ranch and “comply with the mitigating measures” contained in the approved plans.
To date, Bohnett has not obtained approval for any dump closure plans. But he has apparently proceeded to undertake site preparation work on the “paper roads.” Following complaints from a number of parties (including state Representative Virginia Isbell), the Division of Land Management ordered one of its Big Island agents to conduct a site inspection. At press time, that inspection report had not been submitted. According to the report of one eye-witness, “all of the survey work and approximately 75 percent of the site work has been completed” for Pu’u Lani phase II.
Lost Opportunities
Apart from its mention in a Land Board agenda, the public was not informed prior to Board action. Only in December 1992, after Board approval, did the Office of Environmental Quality Control publish in its Bulletin notice of the “proposed acquisition” of state land by Bohnett. The brief notice of sale there indicated that “the remnants are unimproved, have generally not been used as roads or utility corridors for many years and currently serve no practical purpose.”
Several people have taken exception to that characterization of the roads.
Keith Wallis, writing on behalf of the board of directors of E Mau Na Ala Hele (a private group advocating preservation of trails), responded to the OEQC Bulletin notice with a list of the group’s objections to the sale. “Several community groups,” Wallis wrote, “are strongly recommending the use of this and other old road beds as part of a system of bike paths and trails that will connect communities across the Big Island… These transportation corridors would be usable by equestrians, hikers, joggers, as well as bicyclists in a much safer manner than the existing bike lane on the highway combination….
“When the proposed Waimea/ Pu’uwa’awa’a bike path is completed, the access to the south end of the old road at Pu’u Anahulu Homesteads could be provided partially by this ‘remnant’ proposed for sale. Without this parcel, an alternate public access agreement would need to be negotiated with Pu’u Lani Ranch, or a new roadway would have to be built over about one-quarter mile across rough lava terrain at much greater expense than sprucing up the existing right of way.”
A Bill for an Act
Wallis further objected to the description of the sale parcel as a “paper” road, “which wrongly implies that there was never a roadway or publicly used right of way on the site. In fact, part and possibly the entire section proposed for sale was the main thoroughfare between Hu’ehu’e in Kona and Waimea in Kohala for nearly one hundred years…. The main characteristic of this road is the hand placed, lava stone retaining walls with rubble and cinder fill. An example of this can be seen on the proposed sale property.”
Representative Isbell expressed the same concerns in her letter of January 7, 1993, to Land Board Chairman William Paty. “I am very concerned about the proposed sale,” she wrote. “I am planning to introduce legislation banning the sale of road remnants since these remnants are former roads or trails which should remain with the public in perpetuity…. I request that all proposed sales of government road parcels in the state be held in abeyance as legislation is discussed and debated by the House and Senate.”
As initially drafted, Isbell’s bill has the stated purpose of keeping “remnant roads or right-of ways in the public domain.” The bill has at least six co-signers: Mike O’Kieffe, David Morihara, Mazie Hirono, Jackie Young, Tom Okamura, and Barbara Marumoto.
And Furthermore…
Two of the new members to the Hawai’i County Council weighed in with their objections. Keola Childs urged the Division of Land Management to consider developing an alternate route for a public trail. “In the future,” Childs wrote, “the potential of such corridors and remnants for bikeway use deserves to be explicitly addressed prior to any sale commitment being made, especially because these resources are so precious.” Council member Jim Rath echoed Childs’ concerns, emphasizing the need to protect the “significant historical or archaeological value” of many of the existing road remnants.
Among other parties objecting to the sale are the West Hawai’i Sierra Club and the National Park Service, which urged the DLNR to “take a closer look at your community needs and examine the potential you now possess in these remnant road segments. They may indeed be the foundation for an off-road, intraisland trail network for commuting, exercising, recreation and as a means to link communities to one another.”
Glenn Abe of the Division of Land Management acknowledged that his agency “dropped the ball” by not having the sale proposal published in the OEQC Bulletin prior to board action. “It was an oversight on our part,” he stated. In any case, he said, the comments received as a result of the notice will have to be addressed. Although it would be an unusual step, he said, it was always possible for the land Board to rescind its prior approval.
If the DLM’s inspection determines site work to have occurred, “we will issue a cease-and-desist order” to Bohnett, Abe said. It was also possible that the division would recommend that the Board impose fines for violating terms of the approval of sale, he added.
Abe stated that Bohnett had come in with yet another request to purchase remnant road parcels from the state. This time, he said, the DLM would be sure to publish notice of the proposed sale before presenting it to the Land Board for action.
Volume 3, Number 8 February 1993
Leave a Reply