In Kona the forest must be right in the line of settlement, and not on the tops of mountains as in other districts, for there is no watershed here. We must have moisture for water, and naturally we must have the forest as near to us as possible. Between 2,500 and 4,500 feet elevation is where the dense forest now is, and it will be an easy matter to preserve, although I think it will be hard to obtain the consent of private owners of land along that line, as in some parts of that location the best pasture lands lie, but government lands which are there can be easily reserved.
– J.A. Maguire, District Forester
First Report of the Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry of the Territory of Hawai`i (1905)
The land above Kona has been intensely developed since J.A. Maguire’s first report to the Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry. As he predicted, private lands have not been reserved as forests. And while it should be possible to reserve government lands more easily, this has not proven to be the case at Pu`uwa`awa`a. There, state government has been as poor a steward of its lands as any that has ever disgraced the private sector.
The land is on the slopes of Hualalai and Mauna Loa, in the area of an ancient cinder cone called Pu`uwa`awa`a. The name means furrowed hill in Hawaiian. Deep vertical crenellations give it a striking resemblance to a huge madeleine that has plopped onto the earth from a giant baking tin. English-speaking settlers called it Muffin Hill.
The noted botanist Joseph F. Rock wrote in 1913 that native vegetation “reaches its culminating point at Pu`uwa`awa`a, the richest floral section of any in the whole Territory.” In 1932, territorial forester C.S. Judd called it a “botanical bonanza.” Until recently, Pu`uwa`awa`a was one of the few areas on the Big Island where the `alala, Hawai`i’s endangered raven, nested.
From Bonanza to Ponderosa
In 1960, the state leased about 106,000 acres in the Pu`uwa`awa`a area to members of the Dillingham family. Term of the lease is 40 years. During that time, the land is to be used exclusively as pasture, with other activities permitted only to the extent they enhance pasture. Lease rent was set for the first 20 years at $30,000 (28 cents per acre per year). Rents after that are to be renegotiated every 10 years. In September of 1972, the lease was sold to F. Newell Bohnett and his wife, Nada.
Long before Bohnett took over, the native flora and fauna of Pu`uwa`awa`a were in precarious health. Since Bohnett’s acquisition of the lease, they have been in a tailspin.
The koa-`ohia forest where `alala used to be abundant has been logged extensively. The area surrounding a tree known to have been an `alala nest site was taken out in the commercial harvest of koa. By the time the Board of Land and Natural Resources finally, in 1984, voted to remove from Bohnett’s lease 3,400 acres for an `alala sanctuary, the only `alala believed to inhabit the area was a lone, aging female. The remnant stands of dryland native forest were consumed by fire in 1986.
Deluxe Improvements
Terms of the lease for Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch require the lessee to obtain advance written permission from the Land Board before undertaking any improvements related to pasturage. (Improvements unrelated to pasturage were not anticipated in the lease; should the lessee put the premises to any other use, it could only occur with the lessor’s consent and be “upon such terms and conditions as set by the lessor, including … an increase in rent.”)
Without prior authorization, however, Bohnett undertook a series of elaborate improvements almost as soon as he took over the lease. The Division of Land Management appears to have learned of them from complaints made by nearby residents, who observed what they took to be illegal grading and road-building in Conservation District land.
“Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch is installing pipeline, uprooting trees and letting rocks fall on the road in the process,” according to a complaint made December 6, 1974, by Mrs. Ah Nee, of Pu`u Anahulu.
An agricultural specialist with the Division of Land Management inspected parts of the ranch January 9, 1975. The agent, Herbert K. Yanamura, was impressed with the quality of the work and the obvious, albeit unusual, effort to make it visually pleasing. A reservoir, for example, “is beautifully designed with rock-lined exposed surfaces that yield a natural appearance.” “The tremendous outlay of capital may be difficult to justify in some cases,” he wrote.
“The improvements have not had prior approval of the Chairman,” Yanamura noted. Among other things, Bohnett had cleared and paved an airstrip, built hangars, and installed a pump at the state-drilled Kiholo well. “Only the water system project is referenced in a communication from the lessee dated February 21, 1973. Said letter refers to three other communications which are not in the files.”
Yanamura closed with a recommendation that Bohnett be asked to submit “as-built plans covering all the improvements installed by him” and that, upon receipt of the plans, “a careful analysis be made to establish justification, feasibility, and compliance of said improvements with the intent of this lease.”
A Crop of Houses
In March of 1975, Bohnett submitted to the Division of Land Management his plan for improvements in the water system, the transportation facilities at the ranch, and the pastures — improvements that, for the most part, had already been accomplished. Yanamura was asked to comment on the plan and did so in a memo to DLM administrator James J. Detor dated March 17, 1975.
Again, Yanamura gently questioned the appropriateness of the lavish improvements for pasture purposes. “Where the system is intended for irrigation purposes, particularly for irrigated pasture, it is doubtful that the operation can be justified or deemed feasible,” Yanamura wrote. The cost of pumping sufficient water to irrigate about 20 acres over a distance of more than 22,000 feet was not indicated by Bohnett, he wrote, “but it would probably run very high.”
“The site proposed for irrigation is owned by the lessee,” Yanamura said. “The lessee has not indicated what crops are to be grown, which information should be a vital part of the plan for said irrigation system.” Seven years later, in an application Bohnett submitted to the county Planning Commission, the crop became apparent. It was houses — 35 of them in a subdivision to be called Pu`u Lani (Hawaiian for heavenly hill), where prices for lots alone ran well into six figures, and where if you had to ask the price of the water, you couldn’t afford it anyway.
Yanamura’s assignment was to evaluate the utility of the improvements to the underlying purpose of the land lease: pasturage. He strove mightily to find the connection.
The 2,700-foot airstrip (with 600-foot overruns at both ends) “is unquestionably a very convenient facility for the lessee’s frequent trips from his home on O`ahu. However, … many useful purposes can be served by said landing strip, particularly on a ranch as large as this.” Referring to his earlier report, he suggested that the airstrip “may be highly beneficial for such purposes as aerial application of fertilizers and pesticides, aerial seeding for pasture improvements, aerial inspection of pasture conditions, fire fighting, and the like.”
As expensive and expansive as the improvements obviously were, the after-the-fact plan that Bohnett had submitted to the DLM lacked engineering specifications or construction details. “Of concern to the state are, for example, the slope gradients of reservoir dams both outside and inside,” Yanamura wrote. “Also of importance are the degree and method of compaction and the material used to construct said dams. Then, also, of concern is the adequacy of overflow or spillway design. The overall design criteria in terms of acreage to be irrigated, well and pump capacities, storage capacities and the like all need to be documented.”
Sixteen years later, the details Yanamura was asking for are absent from the DLNR’s files. There is no indication that the Division of Land Management ever requested he provide them.
And as for the complaints registered in December 1974 and again in March 1975 over unauthorized work in the Conservation District land? DLNR files contain a memo dated March 20, 1975, disposing of those complaints without action. Author of the memo was Tom K. Tagawa, district forester for the Big Island. Recipient was Ed Hamasu, deputy DLNR director. Tagawa found that the bulldozing on Conservation District land had occurred as “Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch was installing a pipeline from a 9 million gallon reservoir to a proposed irrigated pasture. Also, it was found: (1) the area is used for pasture and the project will enhance an existing use, and (2) the area was formerly zoned agriculture” before it was placed in the Conservation District. “Recommendation: … that the matter be filed.”
A Cover-up?
In spring of 1975, some of the “improvements” on Conservation District land came to the attention of then-state Senator Jean King, chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Ecology, Environment and Recreation. King’s letter of inquiry is not in the DLNR files, but evidently she wanted to know what was going on at Pu`uwa`awa`a and what the department was doing about it. She also raised anew the idea of establishing a sanctuary for rare and endangered species in the Pu`uwa`awa`a area.
A memo to then-DLNR Chairman Christopher Cobb from Big Island forester Tagawa covered a draft letter to King. In the memo, dated April 21, 1975, Tagawa wrote: “We believe that this response to Senator Jean King will answer her request without providing her details of the circumstances surrounding the unauthorized improvements being made by Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch.”
In the letter to King, Cobb wrote that “grazing and improvements accessory to grazing are allowed” as a non-conforming use in the Conservation District. “A landing field for small aircraft has been built,” he acknowledged, and “during a site preparation for the landing field, some species of native trees were removed. … Also, some native trees are being removed by the improvements of the water system. Mr. Bohnett of Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch is now aware of the situation, and we feel that he is endeavoring to keep removal of native species to a minimum.”
Cows or Crows?
In 1976, Jon Giffin, a biologist working for the DLNR, was seeking Bohnett’s permission to conduct a census of `alala in the Pu`uwa`awa`a area. Permission was a formality. Under the lease terms, the state retains the right to conduct research, among other things, with or without the lessee’s permission.
Be that as it may, Giffin’s request elicited a pungent letter from Bohnett to Ernest Kosaka, then working in the DLNR’s Division of Fish and Game. “The last time I allowed somebody permission to look at crows in that area,” Bohnett wrote, “the state condemned some 3,000 acres as a bird reserve. Let’s not let this thing get out of hand.” (Bohnett was mistaken about the “bird reserve.”)
The letter continues: “They are still killing crows in Iowa because of the damage they do to crops. Parts of Southern California are now being invaded by crows. Irradication [sic] measures are under consideration. So why are we so overly concerned over their preservation in Hawai`i?”
“Please contact your friend [Giffin],” Bohnett implored Kosaka, “and suggest he keep his findings quiet, until we can find out our crows here are actually an asset to the area or a liability.”
Kosaka thanked Bohnett for indicating his “tentative approval” for Giffin’s study. And he reassured Bohnett on the matter of keeping the findings quiet. Giffin’s report would not be widely dispersed, Kosaka wrote, “because of the possibly increased harassment and shooting of `alala if information on their distribution were widely known.”
Kosaka’s concerns that people continued to harass and shoot `alala were well grounded. In 1984, Bohnett himself was investigated by the federal government for harassment and the possible death of an `alala on Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch. No charges were filed because, as the U.S. Attorney wrote, “the Hawaiian crow, which experts have determined is missing from the Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch and is believed dead, has not been recovered… [I]t appears that the government could not sustain its very heavy burden of proof in a criminal case.” (As an aside, the U.S. Attorney noted that “certain information … concerning management of state-owned lands which are leased to Mr. Bohnett raise[s] serious questions concerning possible criminal conduct which is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” In September 1984, the FBI was asked by the U.S. Attorney to investigate possible corruption and to provide the U.S. Attorney’s office with a report of its findings.)
Does The DLNR Care?
Elsewhere in this issue, some of the more serious charges of lease violations by Bohnett are discussed. But other apparent infractions should not go unmentioned.
On hunting: Bohnett’s lease requires public hunting be allowed under conditions to be determined by the DLNR. No hunting outside of DLNR auspices is to be permitted. Nonetheless, in the early 1980s, the DLNR repeatedly had trouble with private parties hunting on ranch lands and with members of the public being denied access to ranch areas where hunting was to be allowed. Bohnett, the Division of Land Management, and even the Board chairman were made aware of this problem by DLNR staff. No enforcement action was taken.
On access by state agents: Bohnett’s lease specifically gives the state the right to have its agents enter the ranch “for the purpose of examining the work carried on by the Lessee or to cross any portion of said land for the purpose of performing any public or official duties or for experimental, administrative or research purposes.” In 1976, as noted earlier, Bohnett refused entry to a state biologist charged with surveying `alala habitat. On April 13, 1982, Ono was writing Bohnett to “solicit your reason on difficulties recently encountered by [Division of Forestry and Wildlife] personnel in obtaining your permission for entry.” On February 3, 1983, a note in DLNR files shows that officers from the Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement were “having difficulty getting permission to enter property.” At no time, however, was Bohnett reminded that the request was but a courtesy — that, in fact, lease terms guaranteed state agents full access.
On annual reports: The lease requires the lessee to provide each year a report on ranch activities. Bohnett has not met this condition once. The DLM has been made aware of this omission on several occasions — the earliest on record in 1975, in a query made by the acting chairman of the Natural Area Reserves System. In DLM files, however, there is no record of Bohnett ever having been asked to comply with this requirement. In 1984, at the Land Board meeting where Bohnett’s violations were considered, Bohnett said, according to board minutes, that he “did not submit any annual reports … because he did not realize it was important.” In March 1990, Board Chairman William W. Paty informed state Senator Andrew Levin that the DLNR has “not, as yet, requested annual reports from Mr. Bohnett. We will, however, after the withdrawal is made.”
On bonds and liability: A performance bond in the amount of twice the initial annual rent (that is, $60,000) is required to be posted by the lessee. No one in the DLM in Hilo or Honolulu can find it. Liability insurance is also required. No record of any policy for the lease can be found by the DLM since 1981.
Volume 1, Number 9 March 1991
Leave a Reply