Editorial

With Empathy and Aloha Impasse at Park Might End

The Pais and the National Park Service could well live in parallel universes, so little do their concepts overlap or their ways of looking at the issues coincide. But a common ground has to be found – and not simply for the sake of protecting the resources (although that would be sufficient reason). A fundamental issue here is the need to find a way of protecting the rights of all people, Hawaiians included, to participate in those decisions that affect us all. How to do this at the same time that Native Hawaiians pursue a course of self-determination will be – is – no mean feat.

Due process is a term that might be helpful here. In the environmental sphere, due process has come to mean full disclosure of impacts, full opportunity for public comment, and full participation (or at least participation to the extent concerned parties desire it) in the deliberations of those political bodies to which the public has, directly or indirectly, charged with protecting its interests.

Admittedly, there are limits and exceptions – areas where, invoking property rights, landowners conduct themselves in a manner that is offensive to the public or destructive of resources that, in a better world, would be husbanded for the welfare and enrichment of all. And there are times when, despite vigorous objection, the public’s own agents engage in actions that are blind both to the needs of the environment and to the requirements of the law.

Despite these breakdowns, the principle of due process is inextricably linked with sound environmental practices. More, it is the backbone of any decision of any authority: it alone bestows legitimacy to the actions of government.

‘Ohana Politics

The efforts of Native Hawaiians to reclaim their culture and their traditions cannot help but elicit sympathy. But sympathy makes a poor basis for concessions of power or land. As much as one might hope to see Hawaiians prosper in the exercise of their traditions, it is hard to accept that the few should do so at the expense of the many.

In this respect, the Pai ‘ohana‘s efforts fall short of earning the endorsement of many people outside their immediate circle. Some family members themselves have been alienated by what they regard as the rather unilateral actions of William Pai. Other Hawaiians, reluctant to criticize openly the Pais, still withhold all but faintest praise for the actions at Ai’opio.

The Pai ‘ohana has allied itself with a larger federation, the ‘Ohana Council. Various members of this federation have in the past acted in a manner that has provoked confrontation. In recent months, groups claiming an affiliation with the council are, as the Pais, moving onto land that they claim should by rights be theirs. A common thread is that most of these occupations occur on public land especially public park land. Private lands have not been targeted, even though many are of surpassing historical value and are still undeveloped.

Evenhandedness

Hawaiians have not been treated fairly. In attempting the redress of historical wrongs, to work for a better future, it is necessary to start with an acknowledgement of the present, however flawed it might be. That means that the fact of Hawai’i’s statehood cannot be escaped. Private property rights are also a given. People from many racial and ethnic backgrounds live here and love the land, too.

How much these, or any other, elements of the present will be part of Hawai’i’s future will be determined by the discussions that must begin today on ways in which past wrongs against one people can be made right in a manner that avoids simply passing the wrongs on to other people. In this discussion, all parties who have an interest in shaping the state’s future must be able to play a part.

In the determination of the course of the Hawaiians, Hawaiians themselves should and will doubtless play the largest hand. But if the rest of us living here are silent when questions of Hawaiian self-determination affect us, will we not thereby risk being party to the rise of demagogues? Many Hawaiians share such concerns. Is it fair to them that those of us in the larger community should withhold disclosure of our support for them?

Back to the Park

So what to do at Kaloko-Honokohau National Park?

While the Park Service does not want a confrontation, it must begin to try to restore relations with the Pais. The Pais are not standing still. They have formed a security council. They are holding workshops. It would seem as though they are planning to have more people move onto the land.

The Pais have a stake in protecting the area. But so does the Park Service. It is the will of the public to save that land from development, and we have paid for it, to the tune of $80 million. No matter how deep their ties to the land, the Pais cannot unilaterally set terms on the management of park resources.

To break the impasse, we would urge that the Park Service engage in informal talks with the Pais. There seems to be enough flexibility in the Park Service’s management plan to allow the Pais an interim role as caretakers of the area around Ai’opio. Would the Pais accept this in lieu of sovereignty? Perhaps not. Might they accept it in lieu of banishment from their Eden? Perhaps so.

If no common ground can be found between now and August, when the Pais’ permits to live in the park expire, what then? The Park Service may decide that it can unilaterally renew their permits, and thus satisfy its own requirements that no one reside on park land without the park’s blessing. That papers over the problem; it is no solution.

The Pais acknowledge that there are many who do not see eye-to-eye with them on the path they have chosen to sovereignty. If for no other reason than respect and aloha for their Hawaiian brothers and sisters, the Pais might want to let their light shine a little less brightly. If they can continue the practice of the ways of the ancients, if they can continue to walk on the land their ancestors walked, might they not be willing to meet the Park Service halfway?

Heptachlor Use: Has It Stopped Yet?

Nearly 20 years ago in 1974 Environmental Protection Agency administrator Russell Train issued the first notice of intent to cancel most use of heptachlor, a powerful but deadly chemical used to kill ants. The cancellation was with fingers crossed; heptachlor could continue to be used on Hawai’i’s pineapple fields, for treatment of seed, and for sundry more limited applications.

In the early 1980s, when heptachlor contaminated pineapple tops were fed to dairy cows, the chemical found its way to the milk of nursing mothers. A class-action lawsuit against pineapple growers resulted in a multi-million dollar settlement.

Although the EPA in 1983, ordered a phaseout of heptachlor’s use in pineapple fields, exceptions continued to be allowed for the use of existing stocks. Most other uses were banned by April 15, 1988. Since then, the only approved commercial use of heptachlor is for the control of fire ants in power transformer boxes.

Should anyone be surprised to learn that Del Monte continued to use heptachlor into the 1990s? A spokesman for the company has said it did so with EPA approval, citing a 14-year-old letter authorizing the indefinite use of existing stocks.

Both the EPA and the State Department of Agriculture say Del Monte’s use of heptachlor is legal. But, as the EPAs product manager for heptachlor said, “Who’d’ve thought their existing stocks would’ve lasted so long?”

In 1993, do they use heptachlor still? Probably so. According to Robert Bosch, of the State Department of Agriculture, Del Monte has a six-year supply of heptachlor remaining.

Three Years Of Environment Hawai’i

With this issue, Environment Hawai’i completes its third year of publishing. Readers who have kept their copies from the beginning have a grand total of 340 solid pages of news about the state’s environmental problems. Our articles take you from South Point to Barking Sands with hundreds of stops in between.

If you have missed out on our earlier newsletters, you can still obtain copies. We have compiled a list of the contents of the first three volumes and will send it to you on request.

Environment Hawai’i has not made a point of asking readers for contributions. However, contributions are needed; subscription revenues cover only about two-thirds of our extremely modest expenses. Environment Hawai’i is a 501(c)(3) corporation; all donations are tax deductible to the extent provided by law.

Help us celebrate. Send your birthday present today! Mahalo!

Volume 3, Number 12 June 1993