Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 14, Number 11, 1 November 1997 — Hahai Pono [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Hahai Pono

Throughout the contested case before the State Land Use Commission in whieh Ka Lāhui Hawai'i, the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club, and Protect Kohanaiki 'Ohana intervened as a eoalition known as Ka Pa'akai o ka 'Āina, the failure of the process to properly report cultural practice and analyze impacts to it, as related to the applieahon to reclassify 1 ,000 acres of conservation land to the urban designation at Ka'ūpūlehu, became abundantly clear. lnterviews conducted with individuals were synthesized and presented as a composite in the social impacts section of the Environmental lmpact Statement. Both important personal information and resource documentation was lost in this way. Archival research, though utilizing Hawaiian language newspapers, did not incorporate known references to wahi pana

(remarkable places) in Ka'ūpūlehu. Though a number of the wahi pana ean be seen from the subject property, reporting methodology limited research to the boundaries of the subject property. Though extensive analysis was made of impacts of the proposed action to ground and oeean water quahty, there was no analysis of impacts to the quality of the pa'akai (salt) whieh we collect for food preparation and consumption. Perhaps if the State Historic Preservation Office had promulgated rules for reporting on eultural practices, the preparers of the EIS would have addressed the concems noted above and the others raised during the eontested case process. Understanding this, Ka Pa'akai o ka 'Āina participated in the effort to provide for cultural impact statements through legislative means. During the course of repeated legislative ses-

sions, we eame forward, advancing the notion that proper reporting benefits not only the resource and the practitioners, but also the applicant.

While the complaint is made that more comprehensive reporting of cultural impacts will add to the cost of the permitting process, our on-going experience

indicates that failure to report these impacts may result in lengthy and expensive contested cases. The cost of a contested case in terms of time and money is greater than the cost of proper reporting. Despite failure at the legislature, the Office of Environmental Quality Control began its administrative review and amendment of the rules relating to EIS preparation. Progress seemed likely when the testimonies were prepared and presented. However, the govemor did not approve any of the amendments addressing Hawaiian culture and variables that would impact it. Though again disappointed, we had, during the course of our contested case and the legislative and administrative campaigns, received tremendous inspiration and validation from the Supreme Court decision in the Public Access Shoreline Hawai'i (Kohanaiki) case. The ramifications of the

Kohanaiki case are indeed far reaching. We have witnessed the plethora of articles decrying its impact upon land ownership and property rights. We have witnessed the 1997 legislative session produce House Bill 1920 and Senate Bill 8, whieh were so offensive to practitioners. We have also witnessed the Office of Environmental Quality Control retum to the topic. It has prepared draft guidelines for assessing cultural impacts whieh clearly reflect the efforts of Ka Pa'akai o ka 'Āina and others. Though these guidelines are intended as a policy, not a rule or law, they do address both the content of reports prepared under HRS 343 (the EIS law) and the methodology used to assess eultural impacts. Kudos to them. Our work and our mo'olelo are far from concluded, but hahai no ka pono i ka hana ho'opa'a. No laila, e mau kākou i ke ea o ka 'āina i ka pono. ■

[?]

trustee messages

[?]