Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 18, Number 11, 1 November 2001 — MĀKUA MOBILIZED [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

MĀKUA MOBILIZED

By Naomi Sodetani Two Kiowa Warrior attack helicopters roar above these golden and green hills, as 110 troops storm "enemy" embattlements amidst thick plumes of dust and smoke. The thunder of mortars and artillery and staccato of machine-gun fire onee again boom through a valley that many Hawaiians hold sacred. After three years of protests, hearings, legal battles, lengthy negotiations, and, most recently, court injunctions, the sounds of war have returned to Mākua. On the heels of a settlement reached on Oct. 4 between the Army and a group of Wai'anae coast residents, the group's lawsuit was withdrawn, and U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway's prelimitrary injunction against the Army, imposed in July, was lifted. The national crisis effectively broke the impasse between the U.S. Army and Mālama Mākua, who had pressed

the Army to produce a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement analyzing the impact of live-fire exercises conducted here since WWII. Reluctantly, the group agreed to drop its lawsuit if the Army agreed to take substantive steps to address residents' concerns. "We won far more than we could've gotten in court," said the group's attorney, David Henkin of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund. "We now are able to watchdog the Army's activities. And if there's ever a problem, we ean go straight to court and say they haven't done what they said they'd do." "It took a lot of dialogue and eompromise on everybody's part," said Maj. Gen. James M. Dubik, who eommands the 25th Infantry Division (Light) in Hawai'i, said. "This agreement permits the Army to prepare for any mission our leaders may give us, while at the same time reaffirming our commitment to preserve the lands entrusted to our care." Eight days after the Sept. 1 1 attacks,

the Army had wamed it might seck to overturn the court's ban against livefire training in Mākua. It was a move expected to prevail, given the naūonal need for military readiness; the eommunity might then have been left with no agreement with the Army on any aspect of Mākua's welfare. The legally binding consent decree requires the Army to eomplete an EIS within three years, limits the number of live-fire exercises in the valley, and opens up community access and participation in the Army's EIS process and training protocols. (See sidebar for settlement details.) The decision to settle was "painful," admitted Sparky Rodrigues, a board member of Mālama Mākua. "But at least now we're at the table and in the gates." Rodrigues said the settlement affords the community new leverage toward securing the valley's eventual return to peaceful purposes in an ordnance-free condition by the time the Army's lease expires in 2029. As the first step of its EIS preparation, the Army must hold "scoping meetings" to obtain public input onissues to be addressed in the study. "This is a critical time for people to eome out and express their concerns," See MAKUA on page 3

Barrett moves up to appellate court By Manu Boyd Anotice of appeal was filed Oct. 10 by attorneys William S. Helfand and Patrick W. Hanifm to the United States District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on behalf of plaintiff Patrick Barrett. In October of last year, Barrett v.v. State of Hawai'i challenged the constitutionality of Section XII of the Hawai'i State Constitution that provides for Native Hawaiian rights and entitlements. On July 12, U.S. District Judge Ezra dismissed the case reasoning that Barrett was not ready and able to utilize benefits at OHA, not able to show that he had any interest in native Hawaiian gathering, and unable to obtain relief against DHHL because it was a federal as well as a state program. Barrett's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. OHA attorney Sherry Broder explained that the Barrett case was dismissed on technical grounds. "However," she said. "OHA is prepared to defend these types of cases on their merit." As of press time, no dates had been set for Barrett's appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. OHA has also filed a motion for summary Judgement in Carroll vs. Nakaiani, the case earlier joined with Barrett. That hearing is set for Jan. 14, before Judge Ezra. ■

ln light of the Sept. 1 1 tragedies, Wai'anae residents and Army declare truce to allow troops to i re-enter valley.