Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 32, Number 5, 1 May 2015 — We are Mauna Kea [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

We are Mauna Kea

Aloha mai, In these last weeks since 3 1 brave individuals took a stand to protect Mauna a Wākea, I have proudly witnessed the

birth of a movement. Our lāhui has unihed to say: "No more. Our lands and people have suffered enough under governments that do not value what we hold sacred. Mauna Kea is the line in the sand. No more." Even before the arrests, some 'ohana were moved to take action years ago. For me, my na'au started stirring for the last year. It started when I reluctantly voted with the OHA

Board to withdraw OHA's petition to contest the University of Hawai'i's (UH) request for a new 65-year master lease from the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) for the summit area of Mauna Kea. When I left that meeting, I said to a fellow trustee, "I don't feel good about my vote." I started doubting whether OHA's eall for UH to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) would trigger the right outcome. Today, I realize OHA's eall for an EIS was not enough. Today, I am ready to take a stronger stand to protect Mauna Kea - for many reasons. The summit of Mauna Kea is sacred and must be protected. Places mauka of areas where people would commonly gather is the wao akua - lands reserved for the akua where few people should visit and only for specihc purposes. Mauna Kea's summit is the most sacred wao akua in Hawai'i. Its Lake Waiau and the akua connected to it make this 'āina even more precious. My great-grandmother, Kaluna Ka'inapau, whose name appears on the Kū 'ē Petition, was a close friend of Queen Emma. My tūtū was pregnant when the Queen asked her to accompany her to Lake Waiau. Instead, my great grandpapa, William Miller Seymour Lindsey, escorted the Queen.

When OHA called for UH to complete an EIS, I had hoped the EIS would bring the BLNR to see that the TMT was not appropriately placed on Mauna Kea. Little did I realize that UH and the TMT developers were arro-

gant enough to proceed as if the 65-year lease was a forgone conclusion. And little did I understand how eager the State of Hawai'i has been to move the TMT project forward - at all costs. Even without the completed EIS and long-term lease, the TMT has somehow been deemed "approved." That "approval" eame while there has been an active contested case regarding

the conservation district use permit that the TMT project somehow acquired from the BLNR. Hawaiian practitioners such as Pua Case and Kalani Flores had hled the eontested case to protect wahi pana (storied, sacred sites) along with Hawaiian rights to access, worship and curatorship. Such eager BLNR approvals were granted even in the face of critical audits of the Ofhce of Mauna Kea Management. In 1998, the state audit found that "the university neglected historic preservation." In 2005, the audit found that UH "does not appear to systematically monitor its tenant observatories for eomplianee with conservation district use permit requirements." The audit directed UH to seek administrative rule-making authority to ensure proper management. Still, the 2014 audit notes that "UH does not expect to adopt [administrative] rules until 2017 due in part to avoidable delays." UH has not fulhlled its kuleana to care for Mauna Kea. It is no wonder that our lāhui and the world have viewed with grave eoneem the processes and entities charged with ensuring proper care of Mauna Kea. It is no wonder that we are taking a stand to say, "No more!" ■

Carmen "Hulu" Lindsey TrustEE, Maui