ANOTHER HOLDUP: As a five-year-old pup growing up in the concrete canyons of the northeast megalopolis we were quite sure of our reply when we answered a teacher’s query as to where milk came from by saying “the A&P”.
Not that we were technically wrong given the way the question was asked but we soon came to find that it’s a little more complicated and indeed, the farmer is the man that feeds them all (with apologies to all the hard working women farmers).
Here on Kaua`i it’s even more complicated because despite lip service about preserving agricultural lands they’ve been cut up in little pieces and the resulting “fake farms” make sure the only thing that grows is the bank accounts of the shysters who used land use law loopholes to line their pockets.
The fact is that because of this the cost of farm land is already so high that no one can afford to successfully farm it if they have to pay off a mortgage on it from the proceeds of the farm.
So when a few years back farmers started asking for a Farm Worker Housing Bill it sent up all sorts of red flags as just another loophole-ridden legislative initiative to increase the density on all this used-to-be ag land destined to drive the prices of ag land higher still.
When the bill (#2318) hit the council floor over a year ago that’s exactly what it was- even those legitimate farmers who asked for the measure were saying so.
But to make a long story short after many hours of work by farmers and politicians a bill that has a long list of really tight restrictions is about to be passed into law tomorrow... maybe.
In Sunday’s newspaper a guest column by one of the true farmers on Kauai, Louisa Wooten, along with farm advocate Andrea Brower of Malama Kaua`i details why they have come around and what the bill does to make sure only legitimate farms will be able to put up “temporary” worker housing.
The point out that the bill says that:
- Farmers would have to show receipts of $35,000 from gross sales for two consecutive years. This level would have to be maintained each year in order to keep qualifying;
- The land would have to already have a county agriculture dedication;
- Only certain crops would qualify, with tree and turf farms excluded. Those crops have had a history of abuse under the ag dedication program;
- Farmers must have a viable commercial plan that clearly defines a need for worker housing;
- Farmers must appear before the Planning Commission;
- Only current CPRs can apply;
- In case of sale or transfer of land, the Planning Commission must be notified and the permit reviewed;
- Annual fillings and regular inspections will ensure compliance;
- Structures, which will sit on stilts, must be removed within six months of non-compliance;
- Possible fines and liens could bring stiff financial repercussions.
Sounds pretty restrictive. And in most places these things might insure that the bill doesn’t give fake farms- the ones that with no farms just “farm dwellings” as state law requires they be- the added “density” to put up another house on their lot.
And in just about any other place the bill, as it stands right now, might pass muster.
But this is Kaua`i and the last two of those restrictions give us pause.
Because the success of this measure. like others before it. lies in our planning department’s ability to enforce the law and, from past experience, anyone who pays attention knows that the requirement that “(s)tructures... must be removed within six months of non-compliance” is a joke waiting to be told.
This was the main point made by Council Chair Kaipo Asing in a convincing presentation at the last council meeting and is the main reason why the bill may not pass tomorrow.
The article states that “Maui has had a less stringent farm worker housing bill in place for ten years. It has been a great boost for farmers on that island with no documented history of abuse.”.
But then again Maui has had a real planner in charge of their planning department for the last 10 years.
There is hope though. Brower and Wooten write:
If there are concerns about potential abuse of the bill, let’s work together to close the loopholes.
There is one more thing that might insure that these “temporary” structures are removed- a requirement that farmers put up a bond in the amount of the cost to remove the structure and be required through the conditions on the use permit to allow the county to use the bond money to do the removal... and sign legal documents allowing the county to do so.
Even then we have reservations given the track record of the planning department to enforce council-passed ordinances such as the botched transient vacation rental bill that has become it’s own joke since it went into effect almost two years back.
The fact that legitimate farmers and farm organizations who saw the problem and opposed the original bill have signed off on it says much in its favor. But legitimate farmers have waited years for the bill’s enactment and can wait another couple of weeks to include a provision to assure that the houses will be removed when they are no longer called for.
Showing posts with label diversified agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diversified agriculture. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Friday, September 18, 2009
IT’S NOT A TURD- IT’S OUR LIVELIHOOD
IT’S NOT A TURD- IT’S OUR LIVELIHOOD: It’s been nothing short of nauseating to watch the way the western-settler, fat-cat, gentlemen-farmers have screwed any chance of an agriculturally successful future and thus rural island culture for the island by spewing their sense of false entitlement in front of the council and planning commission as they whine and snivel that they should be allowed to violate the state law banning vacation rentals on ag land.
Yet who can blame them for taking advantage of scofflaws like Councilperson Jay Furfaro who introduced the bill to somehow make the illegal legal and once-and-we-hope-not-future Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who drew up the bill?
We still haven’t seen the cablecast of this week’s disgusting installment of “Screw the Public” (aka Furfaro’s Council Planning Committee meeting) due to the usual Ho`ike incompetence and catch-22 runaround – somehow apparently the captioning wasn’t done at the meeting and is being done now by Ho`ike although the only one who can say exactly what the heck is going on and when it might be on is the always out-of-the-office and incommunicado J Robertson... who in the middle of this mess took Friday off and is, as usual, unreachable until Monday, if then.
But thus far no one that we’ve caught at any meeting considering the bill – either at the planning commission or council- has mentioned that state law- HRS 205- specifically bans overnight accommodations for tourism related ag activities, which former Councilperson Mel Rapozo pointed out and later, at our urging, posted on his new “Straight From the Spleen- er, Heart” blog that replaces his now deleted Kaua`i Politics entry that disappeared after he lost the mayoral election in 2008.
It reads in pertinent part:
(b) Within agricultural districts, uses compatible to the activities described in section 205‑2 as determined by the commission shall be permitted; provided that accessory agricultural uses and services described in sections 205‑2 and 205‑4.5 may be further defined by each county by zoning ordinance. Each county shall adopt ordinances setting forth procedures and requirements, including provisions for enforcement, penalties, and administrative oversight, for the review and permitting of agricultural tourism uses and activities as an accessory use on a working farm, or farming operation as defined in section 165‑2; provided that agricultural tourism activities shall not be permissible in the absence of a bona fide farming operation. Ordinances shall include but not be limited to:...
(2) Requirements and restrictions for accessory facilities connected with the farming operation, including gift shops and restaurants; provided that overnight accommodations shall not be permitted;
That’s why the bill originally called for “non-enforcement agreements” even though the bill didn’t mention what was not being enforced in an hilarious-if-it-weren’t-so-asinine provision that had to be changed because the lobbyists and lawyers couldn’t ask for it without doubling over with laughter.
It’s hard to say who the worst jerkwad- or wads- in all this is/are. But when you look at the ag VCR owners who testify it’s hard not to start by blaming them for their own so-called predicament.
After flying in from LA on their magic wallets and cutting up most of the non-subdividable prime ag lots for their luxury homes driving prices for ag land beyond all farming business viability, they now are all suddenly “po' workin’ folk” who regurgitate-on-cue this “oh pity me- and in this bad economy no less- I’ll lose my land if I can’t have my illegal vacation rental- nooo oooone ever toooold meeeee” and similar drivel that just makes you want to scream.
Apparently if you have been illegally running, oh let’s say a drug ring and the cops failed to bust you then we need to let you keep up your trade because it feeds your family or some other irrelevant bullshit.
Next thing you know we’ll be grandfathering in all those who have been breaking into tourist’s cars – we have certainly not been enforcing that law either as the guy who, it was reported this week, has been arrested 74 times and is still on the loose can testify.
But worse is that we haven’t even heard a peep out of any councilperson challenging these chuckleheads as they file before them and blame everyone but themselves after they bought their land presumably with the required full disclosure so knowing full well what the rules were.
Of course the same goes for some of the requests for farm worker housing- or some who even want to put their own house on land they bought on the cheap precisely because it came without any “density” to build a house- and even the ones who, like Councilperson Tim Bynum, live on an “ag condo” so have apparently been violating the law requiring houses on ag land to be “farm dwellings” and so presumably have some nexus to a farming operation other than a mango tree in the yard.
Actually before any of these bills, as the law cited above says, what the county needs to do is to enact an ag tourism bill although even then state law specifically bans overnight accommodations in any ag tourism venture.
But instead of fulfilling that state mandate we’re the first to identify “unimportant” ag lands so we can sell of the rest of our agricultural capability to the next California cretin.
Oh and of course there’s plenty of blame left over for the local newspaper which so far has yet to quote HRS 205’s provision banning overnight tourist accommodations on ag land in the half dozen articles on the bill.
And in case anyone forgets, ALL TVRs outside the designated Visitor Destination Areas, no matter what the zoning, are and always were (since 1976) illegal no matter what Yukimura said and did in trying to make the existing ones legal by grandfathering them in rather than redoubling enforcement efforts.
But then of course the county is noted if not famously persistent for fixing what they don’t like under state law or our charter with an illegal ordinance as in the case we cited Wednesday.
Finally all this couldn’t be done without the complicity of the Planning Commission and Planning Director Ian Costa- along with his hand picked staff of sycophants- whose incompetence and out-and-out corruption has been well documented in this and other spaces.
But apparently this bill trying to make the illegal legal is sailing right along because the last person to blame- all the members of the public- have sat on their thumbs and let the stream of asshole gentleman farmers trying to cash in on the stumblebums in county government, to dominate testimony on the bill.
With once again apologies to Casey Stengle, can’t anyone here play this game?
Yet who can blame them for taking advantage of scofflaws like Councilperson Jay Furfaro who introduced the bill to somehow make the illegal legal and once-and-we-hope-not-future Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who drew up the bill?
We still haven’t seen the cablecast of this week’s disgusting installment of “Screw the Public” (aka Furfaro’s Council Planning Committee meeting) due to the usual Ho`ike incompetence and catch-22 runaround – somehow apparently the captioning wasn’t done at the meeting and is being done now by Ho`ike although the only one who can say exactly what the heck is going on and when it might be on is the always out-of-the-office and incommunicado J Robertson... who in the middle of this mess took Friday off and is, as usual, unreachable until Monday, if then.
But thus far no one that we’ve caught at any meeting considering the bill – either at the planning commission or council- has mentioned that state law- HRS 205- specifically bans overnight accommodations for tourism related ag activities, which former Councilperson Mel Rapozo pointed out and later, at our urging, posted on his new “Straight From the Spleen- er, Heart” blog that replaces his now deleted Kaua`i Politics entry that disappeared after he lost the mayoral election in 2008.
It reads in pertinent part:
(b) Within agricultural districts, uses compatible to the activities described in section 205‑2 as determined by the commission shall be permitted; provided that accessory agricultural uses and services described in sections 205‑2 and 205‑4.5 may be further defined by each county by zoning ordinance. Each county shall adopt ordinances setting forth procedures and requirements, including provisions for enforcement, penalties, and administrative oversight, for the review and permitting of agricultural tourism uses and activities as an accessory use on a working farm, or farming operation as defined in section 165‑2; provided that agricultural tourism activities shall not be permissible in the absence of a bona fide farming operation. Ordinances shall include but not be limited to:...
(2) Requirements and restrictions for accessory facilities connected with the farming operation, including gift shops and restaurants; provided that overnight accommodations shall not be permitted;
That’s why the bill originally called for “non-enforcement agreements” even though the bill didn’t mention what was not being enforced in an hilarious-if-it-weren’t-so-asinine provision that had to be changed because the lobbyists and lawyers couldn’t ask for it without doubling over with laughter.
It’s hard to say who the worst jerkwad- or wads- in all this is/are. But when you look at the ag VCR owners who testify it’s hard not to start by blaming them for their own so-called predicament.
After flying in from LA on their magic wallets and cutting up most of the non-subdividable prime ag lots for their luxury homes driving prices for ag land beyond all farming business viability, they now are all suddenly “po' workin’ folk” who regurgitate-on-cue this “oh pity me- and in this bad economy no less- I’ll lose my land if I can’t have my illegal vacation rental- nooo oooone ever toooold meeeee” and similar drivel that just makes you want to scream.
Apparently if you have been illegally running, oh let’s say a drug ring and the cops failed to bust you then we need to let you keep up your trade because it feeds your family or some other irrelevant bullshit.
Next thing you know we’ll be grandfathering in all those who have been breaking into tourist’s cars – we have certainly not been enforcing that law either as the guy who, it was reported this week, has been arrested 74 times and is still on the loose can testify.
But worse is that we haven’t even heard a peep out of any councilperson challenging these chuckleheads as they file before them and blame everyone but themselves after they bought their land presumably with the required full disclosure so knowing full well what the rules were.
Of course the same goes for some of the requests for farm worker housing- or some who even want to put their own house on land they bought on the cheap precisely because it came without any “density” to build a house- and even the ones who, like Councilperson Tim Bynum, live on an “ag condo” so have apparently been violating the law requiring houses on ag land to be “farm dwellings” and so presumably have some nexus to a farming operation other than a mango tree in the yard.
Actually before any of these bills, as the law cited above says, what the county needs to do is to enact an ag tourism bill although even then state law specifically bans overnight accommodations in any ag tourism venture.
But instead of fulfilling that state mandate we’re the first to identify “unimportant” ag lands so we can sell of the rest of our agricultural capability to the next California cretin.
Oh and of course there’s plenty of blame left over for the local newspaper which so far has yet to quote HRS 205’s provision banning overnight tourist accommodations on ag land in the half dozen articles on the bill.
And in case anyone forgets, ALL TVRs outside the designated Visitor Destination Areas, no matter what the zoning, are and always were (since 1976) illegal no matter what Yukimura said and did in trying to make the existing ones legal by grandfathering them in rather than redoubling enforcement efforts.
But then of course the county is noted if not famously persistent for fixing what they don’t like under state law or our charter with an illegal ordinance as in the case we cited Wednesday.
Finally all this couldn’t be done without the complicity of the Planning Commission and Planning Director Ian Costa- along with his hand picked staff of sycophants- whose incompetence and out-and-out corruption has been well documented in this and other spaces.
But apparently this bill trying to make the illegal legal is sailing right along because the last person to blame- all the members of the public- have sat on their thumbs and let the stream of asshole gentleman farmers trying to cash in on the stumblebums in county government, to dominate testimony on the bill.
With once again apologies to Casey Stengle, can’t anyone here play this game?
Monday, August 3, 2009
HERE A WOOF, THERE A WOOF, EVERYWHERE A WOOF WOOF
HERE A WOOF, THERE A WOOF, EVERYWHERE A WOOF WOOF: You’d have to search long and hard to find someone who opposes “sustainability” and then you’d probably come up empty anyway.
That may be because there is an almost unlimited number of categories of sustainability and within each of them there are as many definitions as there are people giving them.
Here on Kaua`i where we have a preponderance of agriculturally state-districted, county-zoned land, most think first about growing food- and nowadays biofuels too- for the day when “the boat no more come”.
That’s led to a budding small farm movement- for the most part organic- on the north shore where the area of Moloa`a to Kilauea has become what one councilperson called “our breadbasket”.
But the planning department decided recently that, although they scream about being so short staffed that they can’t even properly enforce the new restrictions on transient vacation rentals in residential areas, they’ll make the time to crack down on “illegal” farm worker housing, especially in Moloa`a.
So to save the day the Kaua`i County Council is now considering a bill (#2318) to create a special use permitting process to allow farm worker housing where the legitimate farm that has “used up” it’s allowable density- the number of dwelling units permitted on the land- can house for their workers.
Sounds good, eh? Well maybe. But if the bill goes through in its current “original” form it could well be the last nail in the coffin of diversified agriculture.
Though the bill would seemingly allow extra worker housing on a handful of actual working farms it would also allow the hobby and gentleman farms- which have left us on, what most agree is, the precipice of the end of agriculture on Kaua`i- to also add to their now-limited density on their already subdivided and further condominiumized lots as well.
Let’s back up a little to the claim in the “findings and purpose” of the bill”
(F)arm labor is an essential component of farming... Despite the numerous benefits bestowed on the community by the agriculture industry, however, agricultural work is strenuous and historically low paying... Finding and keeping labor is thus one of the biggest challenges for agricultural businesses. This can make the difference between survival and failure, struggle and success, in an agricultural enterprise.
Many claim that there’s just nobody left that wants to do the “strenuous and historically low paying” work and say that is what is killing farmers in our increasingly office-work oriented society and the laziness of “these kids today”.
But overall there is one factor on Kaua`i that is not just distinctively unique but is the real reason why farming is out of the question for any young person who tries to obtain land and devote their lives to farming it- the cost of the land.
We would, well, “bet the farm”, that there isn’t a farmer on Kaua`i whose business plan included taking out a loan to buy the land and repaying it out of the income derived from the farm.
Every single farmer we’ve seen succeed somehow had the resources to obtain the land before they decided to farm it and that “investment” is not something they have to worry about in determining if they are to be, to use that word again, “sustainable”.
Why is that? It doesn’t take a land use genius to know that since Benji Garfinkle and his Kilauea area land-baron friends discovered the applicability of the state condominium laws to agricultural lands, the ban on multiple “subdivisions” of ag land became a joke.
Though we’ve gotten laughs from mainland denizens by mentioning our “agricultural condominiums” they are primarily responsible for the proliferation of sliced and diced ag parcels with residential houses that magically became “farm dwellings” when they put in a mango tree or bought a horse.
There isn’t anyone who will disagree that this de facto rezoning from ag to residential- usually at a land and house price that is just out of the reach of working people- has been the prime factor in making farm land unavailable to farmers at a price they can afford to incorporate into their business plan.
And no matter how you slice and dice it, this bill will undoubtedly make it worse.
Although there are some so-called “circulated amendments” proposed to try to close some of the “loopholes”- ones that will most likely be introduced at the planning committee meeting a week from Wednesday (Aug 12)- all of them will at best simply tinker around the edges and some of will even lower the threshold for what makes a farm a real farm as opposed to a “fake farm”.
The problem is that almost all of the amendments fall into the latter category They include lowing by a third or even eliminating the “gross income” that represents a farm from $35,000 per acre, lowering the number of hours a farm worker must work per week from 19 to 12 and trying to devise a precise “crop-to-land coverage” formula to supplant the income requirement entirely so that it will suffice for long term “crops” like hardwood or fruit trees, while nixing the fake farmer’s application.
Each one of the watering-down requests from small farmers have the land sharks drooling at the prospect of putting up an unlimited number of houses on their now single density- or even no density- ag condos.
One of the scariest things is some of the statements from some councilmembers amounting to “whatever we do we will make mistakes and leave big loophole but that this is so important to the future of ag if we have to give the fake farmers a break too, that’s ok.”
Given the fact that (to pull a number out of nowhere but observation- it’s actually probably more) 90% of the ag condos are purely residential or fake farms when you do the math on the pressure to expand that use and therefore jack up the price of “ag land”, the question is, will it be likely to generate more food and fuel sustainability or simply contribute to the land rush that has already destroyed the viability of ag on that 90% forever.
The problem as we see it does have a solution, one rooted in the purpose of the bill- to provide for assistance on farms that really need worker housing.
There has to be a direct nexus between the farm worker and work that the farm requires.
And it should apply only to full time workers on that farm.
Some of the testimony before the council from the people who are doing things like growing hardwoods and even fruit trees implied that they should be included in the bill because they have to have labor to plant and harvest the trees. But where’s the actual work?
In the hardwoods case it may take a few months to plant them and then what? Do they need a full time worker to watch them grow? And the fruit grower needs intensive labor at harvest time- usually once a year- and virtually none at other times... and in the case of things like mangos or avocados none for at least seven years.
So if someone owns one house on their parcel all they need to do is pay someone to put in a bunch of baby trees and they get to build another house, something that might cost $50-100,000... a low price to pay for that otherwise unavailable-at-any-cost density.
Of course working papaya or banana farms might qualify but that’s the point- there must be a nexus between the actual work and the need for a permanent dwelling for bone-fide workers on the land. Even though the bill calls for removal of the dwelling if farming ends or they no longer adhere to the “farm plan” that presupposes that the need was established by the “plan” which need not be the case under the bill.
Supposedly the bill is not for hobby farmers or even subsistence farming which is presumably- perhaps by definition- a family operation. But the worker at 12 hours a week as a popular amendment requires- or even 19 as the current bill calls for- make the farm worker into essentially a hobbyist who presumably has another job.
A full time employee is easy to document too- they would be filing taxes and have the farm job as their prime if not sole source of income. Not so the 12 hour a week worker who could well be a family member who occasionally helps out on ag condo farm where the density has run out and. Is that the purpose of the bill?
That brings up another amendment being proposed- one that would allow farm worker units where the density of the parcel is not “used up” yet.
We actually heard ag condo owners who have a density of two houses testify that they don’t want to use the second density because they are saving that for when their children grow up so they can build their house there.
The fact is that by saying such they are almost admitting that they are breaking the law because to build a house on ag land, according to state law, it must be a “farm dwelling’ and have a direct nexus to the “farm” upon which it sits.
Then there’s an amendment to say that if someone has an ag condo and they bought it without any density at all, they should be allowed to build “worker housing” because they have “no control” over the density that was given to the other condo owners when the bigger parcel was “condominiumized”. Some even want it to be applied to themselves so they can build a house on their farm.
The bill as it stands now would not allow farm worker houses to be built until the density of the whole parcel was used up- in other words only if all the other condo owners had built all the houses they were permitted.
The fact is that they could go back and try to negotiate with other owners for that density. But the real issue is that the fact that their parcel didn’t have density led to a much lower price paid for that no-density condo.
Imagine someone who has an ag parcel with a five house density. That means they usually set up five condo units if the size of the original is big enough, and give one house to each. Sometimes if the “parcel” is big enough they may not just have five condos with houses but some additional “land-only” or “remnant parcel” condos.
Now, under the amendments, they could simply make one condo unit with five houses and sell however many zero density lots they can and those that buy them will have de facto density if they set up a farm that fits the criteria.
That’s just one scenario but there are dozens that would fit under the bill as written that have real estate moguls rubbing their greedy little hands with glee.
Some councilmembers have said they want to pass the law with vague generalities, loopholes or not, and hope that the planning department works out the bugs in the administrative rules they will have to promulgate to grant and enforce the “use permits”.
Well the “loopholes and all” factor aside, who is it that trusts the planning department to do that job?- the same planning department that seems incapable of enforcing, as we said, the transient vacation rental law and also many other ordinances where the administrative rules are inadequate- like the definition of a farm dwelling itself- or when their enforcement team is overworked and understaffed (always).
We haven’t heard a good reason why part time workers should be accommodated- this isn’t a density giveaway although some fake farmers seem to think it is. We can’t think of a real farm that really needs housing for full time employees that would object to it covering full time workers only.
Then finding the nexus between the actual work that needs to be done by hired hands would be all that’s left- something that should be no problem for a real farm but poses nothing but headaches for fake ones.
The fact that farms need farm workers is a given. And the fact that farm wages do not provide enough income for market price housing on Kaua`i is too.
Homes for fulltime workers at real farms are what we need to provide. But if we just open the floodgates and hope for the best we’re providing what may be the final “et tu Brute” stab in the back of any sustainability we might envision.
That may be because there is an almost unlimited number of categories of sustainability and within each of them there are as many definitions as there are people giving them.
Here on Kaua`i where we have a preponderance of agriculturally state-districted, county-zoned land, most think first about growing food- and nowadays biofuels too- for the day when “the boat no more come”.
That’s led to a budding small farm movement- for the most part organic- on the north shore where the area of Moloa`a to Kilauea has become what one councilperson called “our breadbasket”.
But the planning department decided recently that, although they scream about being so short staffed that they can’t even properly enforce the new restrictions on transient vacation rentals in residential areas, they’ll make the time to crack down on “illegal” farm worker housing, especially in Moloa`a.
So to save the day the Kaua`i County Council is now considering a bill (#2318) to create a special use permitting process to allow farm worker housing where the legitimate farm that has “used up” it’s allowable density- the number of dwelling units permitted on the land- can house for their workers.
Sounds good, eh? Well maybe. But if the bill goes through in its current “original” form it could well be the last nail in the coffin of diversified agriculture.
Though the bill would seemingly allow extra worker housing on a handful of actual working farms it would also allow the hobby and gentleman farms- which have left us on, what most agree is, the precipice of the end of agriculture on Kaua`i- to also add to their now-limited density on their already subdivided and further condominiumized lots as well.
Let’s back up a little to the claim in the “findings and purpose” of the bill”
(F)arm labor is an essential component of farming... Despite the numerous benefits bestowed on the community by the agriculture industry, however, agricultural work is strenuous and historically low paying... Finding and keeping labor is thus one of the biggest challenges for agricultural businesses. This can make the difference between survival and failure, struggle and success, in an agricultural enterprise.
Many claim that there’s just nobody left that wants to do the “strenuous and historically low paying” work and say that is what is killing farmers in our increasingly office-work oriented society and the laziness of “these kids today”.
But overall there is one factor on Kaua`i that is not just distinctively unique but is the real reason why farming is out of the question for any young person who tries to obtain land and devote their lives to farming it- the cost of the land.
We would, well, “bet the farm”, that there isn’t a farmer on Kaua`i whose business plan included taking out a loan to buy the land and repaying it out of the income derived from the farm.
Every single farmer we’ve seen succeed somehow had the resources to obtain the land before they decided to farm it and that “investment” is not something they have to worry about in determining if they are to be, to use that word again, “sustainable”.
Why is that? It doesn’t take a land use genius to know that since Benji Garfinkle and his Kilauea area land-baron friends discovered the applicability of the state condominium laws to agricultural lands, the ban on multiple “subdivisions” of ag land became a joke.
Though we’ve gotten laughs from mainland denizens by mentioning our “agricultural condominiums” they are primarily responsible for the proliferation of sliced and diced ag parcels with residential houses that magically became “farm dwellings” when they put in a mango tree or bought a horse.
There isn’t anyone who will disagree that this de facto rezoning from ag to residential- usually at a land and house price that is just out of the reach of working people- has been the prime factor in making farm land unavailable to farmers at a price they can afford to incorporate into their business plan.
And no matter how you slice and dice it, this bill will undoubtedly make it worse.
Although there are some so-called “circulated amendments” proposed to try to close some of the “loopholes”- ones that will most likely be introduced at the planning committee meeting a week from Wednesday (Aug 12)- all of them will at best simply tinker around the edges and some of will even lower the threshold for what makes a farm a real farm as opposed to a “fake farm”.
The problem is that almost all of the amendments fall into the latter category They include lowing by a third or even eliminating the “gross income” that represents a farm from $35,000 per acre, lowering the number of hours a farm worker must work per week from 19 to 12 and trying to devise a precise “crop-to-land coverage” formula to supplant the income requirement entirely so that it will suffice for long term “crops” like hardwood or fruit trees, while nixing the fake farmer’s application.
Each one of the watering-down requests from small farmers have the land sharks drooling at the prospect of putting up an unlimited number of houses on their now single density- or even no density- ag condos.
One of the scariest things is some of the statements from some councilmembers amounting to “whatever we do we will make mistakes and leave big loophole but that this is so important to the future of ag if we have to give the fake farmers a break too, that’s ok.”
Given the fact that (to pull a number out of nowhere but observation- it’s actually probably more) 90% of the ag condos are purely residential or fake farms when you do the math on the pressure to expand that use and therefore jack up the price of “ag land”, the question is, will it be likely to generate more food and fuel sustainability or simply contribute to the land rush that has already destroyed the viability of ag on that 90% forever.
The problem as we see it does have a solution, one rooted in the purpose of the bill- to provide for assistance on farms that really need worker housing.
There has to be a direct nexus between the farm worker and work that the farm requires.
And it should apply only to full time workers on that farm.
Some of the testimony before the council from the people who are doing things like growing hardwoods and even fruit trees implied that they should be included in the bill because they have to have labor to plant and harvest the trees. But where’s the actual work?
In the hardwoods case it may take a few months to plant them and then what? Do they need a full time worker to watch them grow? And the fruit grower needs intensive labor at harvest time- usually once a year- and virtually none at other times... and in the case of things like mangos or avocados none for at least seven years.
So if someone owns one house on their parcel all they need to do is pay someone to put in a bunch of baby trees and they get to build another house, something that might cost $50-100,000... a low price to pay for that otherwise unavailable-at-any-cost density.
Of course working papaya or banana farms might qualify but that’s the point- there must be a nexus between the actual work and the need for a permanent dwelling for bone-fide workers on the land. Even though the bill calls for removal of the dwelling if farming ends or they no longer adhere to the “farm plan” that presupposes that the need was established by the “plan” which need not be the case under the bill.
Supposedly the bill is not for hobby farmers or even subsistence farming which is presumably- perhaps by definition- a family operation. But the worker at 12 hours a week as a popular amendment requires- or even 19 as the current bill calls for- make the farm worker into essentially a hobbyist who presumably has another job.
A full time employee is easy to document too- they would be filing taxes and have the farm job as their prime if not sole source of income. Not so the 12 hour a week worker who could well be a family member who occasionally helps out on ag condo farm where the density has run out and. Is that the purpose of the bill?
That brings up another amendment being proposed- one that would allow farm worker units where the density of the parcel is not “used up” yet.
We actually heard ag condo owners who have a density of two houses testify that they don’t want to use the second density because they are saving that for when their children grow up so they can build their house there.
The fact is that by saying such they are almost admitting that they are breaking the law because to build a house on ag land, according to state law, it must be a “farm dwelling’ and have a direct nexus to the “farm” upon which it sits.
Then there’s an amendment to say that if someone has an ag condo and they bought it without any density at all, they should be allowed to build “worker housing” because they have “no control” over the density that was given to the other condo owners when the bigger parcel was “condominiumized”. Some even want it to be applied to themselves so they can build a house on their farm.
The bill as it stands now would not allow farm worker houses to be built until the density of the whole parcel was used up- in other words only if all the other condo owners had built all the houses they were permitted.
The fact is that they could go back and try to negotiate with other owners for that density. But the real issue is that the fact that their parcel didn’t have density led to a much lower price paid for that no-density condo.
Imagine someone who has an ag parcel with a five house density. That means they usually set up five condo units if the size of the original is big enough, and give one house to each. Sometimes if the “parcel” is big enough they may not just have five condos with houses but some additional “land-only” or “remnant parcel” condos.
Now, under the amendments, they could simply make one condo unit with five houses and sell however many zero density lots they can and those that buy them will have de facto density if they set up a farm that fits the criteria.
That’s just one scenario but there are dozens that would fit under the bill as written that have real estate moguls rubbing their greedy little hands with glee.
Some councilmembers have said they want to pass the law with vague generalities, loopholes or not, and hope that the planning department works out the bugs in the administrative rules they will have to promulgate to grant and enforce the “use permits”.
Well the “loopholes and all” factor aside, who is it that trusts the planning department to do that job?- the same planning department that seems incapable of enforcing, as we said, the transient vacation rental law and also many other ordinances where the administrative rules are inadequate- like the definition of a farm dwelling itself- or when their enforcement team is overworked and understaffed (always).
We haven’t heard a good reason why part time workers should be accommodated- this isn’t a density giveaway although some fake farmers seem to think it is. We can’t think of a real farm that really needs housing for full time employees that would object to it covering full time workers only.
Then finding the nexus between the actual work that needs to be done by hired hands would be all that’s left- something that should be no problem for a real farm but poses nothing but headaches for fake ones.
The fact that farms need farm workers is a given. And the fact that farm wages do not provide enough income for market price housing on Kaua`i is too.
Homes for fulltime workers at real farms are what we need to provide. But if we just open the floodgates and hope for the best we’re providing what may be the final “et tu Brute” stab in the back of any sustainability we might envision.
Monday, June 29, 2009
MADNESS TO THE METHODS
MADNESS TO THE METHODS: A small notice in today’s local paper announced what may seem to malihini to be about a ho-hum blessing of the new papaya disinfection plant on Kaua`i.
But in simply rewriting a county press release the paper’s editor allows more questions to be raised than answered for many kama`aina who remember the history of the papaya “industry” and the issues of disinfection.
The press release conveniently fails to answer the big question- exactly how will the papaya’s be disinfected?
There was a time in the 70’s when papaya was “the future of ‘diversified’ agriculture” on Kaua`i. The export market seemed so unlimited that farmers were actually tearing out fields of bananas in Kilauea to plant papaya.
All it would take was a disinfection facility,
That led to one of the biggest political protest battles in Hawaiian history- the fight against “irradiation facilities”- exposing them to nuclear material- and the efforts of the state backed by University of Hawai`i and some large farms to construct the facilities.
Long story short, the people won their fight against irradiation, especially on the Big Island, buy only after it became academic because the people of Japan said they wouldn’t eat them. Eventually the movement went nationwide where people refused to buy irradiated foods when they were labeled as such.
That led to a “hot water disinfection” method which never worked and destroyed the papayas. Eventually these “hot water dip” facilities that had been built- including one on Kaua`i- went defunct and ours was actually demolished.
So naturally this peaked our interest- what kind of disinfection process was to be used in the new plant?
We called Bill Spitz, who was listed in the article as Agricultural Specialist with the county’s Office of Economic Development and he told us that the plant would use a “hot air” process which would heat the fruit to 117 degrees with a big fan and a little bit of water.
Wow, we thought- a new method and one that could have saved everyone from a lot of pilikila over the past 20 years if we had it then.
But guess what? Spitz told us that this method not new and indeed was developed at UH more than 20 years ago.
Of course at the time many irradiation opponents claimed there were other safer methods of fighting bugs and disease and that the state was being sold a bill of goods by the burgeoning irradiation industry.
Even though the label was an innocuous looking symbol that told you nothing if you didn’t already know what it was, people learned fast enough, and rejected such fruits and vegetables.
Gee it’s great they learned their lesson and haven’t tried to use any unproven potentially harmful methodologies developed in UH labs to “save” the papaya and other produce industries.... not.
What they have learned is to fight like hell against current efforts to require labeling of genetically modified products, including of course papayas.
Overseas in Japan and across Europe they do require labeling and many governments have banned the importation of GM produce entirely- meaning now that we have a way to disinfect them no one will accept our GM papayas.
There are many ways other than genetic modification to control plant diseases and insect vulnerabilities, as sustainability experts will tell you. Maybe in 20 years state policy makers and UH researchers will listen.
Currently though the facility isn’t the only thing that’s full of hot air.
But in simply rewriting a county press release the paper’s editor allows more questions to be raised than answered for many kama`aina who remember the history of the papaya “industry” and the issues of disinfection.
The press release conveniently fails to answer the big question- exactly how will the papaya’s be disinfected?
There was a time in the 70’s when papaya was “the future of ‘diversified’ agriculture” on Kaua`i. The export market seemed so unlimited that farmers were actually tearing out fields of bananas in Kilauea to plant papaya.
All it would take was a disinfection facility,
That led to one of the biggest political protest battles in Hawaiian history- the fight against “irradiation facilities”- exposing them to nuclear material- and the efforts of the state backed by University of Hawai`i and some large farms to construct the facilities.
Long story short, the people won their fight against irradiation, especially on the Big Island, buy only after it became academic because the people of Japan said they wouldn’t eat them. Eventually the movement went nationwide where people refused to buy irradiated foods when they were labeled as such.
That led to a “hot water disinfection” method which never worked and destroyed the papayas. Eventually these “hot water dip” facilities that had been built- including one on Kaua`i- went defunct and ours was actually demolished.
So naturally this peaked our interest- what kind of disinfection process was to be used in the new plant?
We called Bill Spitz, who was listed in the article as Agricultural Specialist with the county’s Office of Economic Development and he told us that the plant would use a “hot air” process which would heat the fruit to 117 degrees with a big fan and a little bit of water.
Wow, we thought- a new method and one that could have saved everyone from a lot of pilikila over the past 20 years if we had it then.
But guess what? Spitz told us that this method not new and indeed was developed at UH more than 20 years ago.
Of course at the time many irradiation opponents claimed there were other safer methods of fighting bugs and disease and that the state was being sold a bill of goods by the burgeoning irradiation industry.
Even though the label was an innocuous looking symbol that told you nothing if you didn’t already know what it was, people learned fast enough, and rejected such fruits and vegetables.
Gee it’s great they learned their lesson and haven’t tried to use any unproven potentially harmful methodologies developed in UH labs to “save” the papaya and other produce industries.... not.
What they have learned is to fight like hell against current efforts to require labeling of genetically modified products, including of course papayas.
Overseas in Japan and across Europe they do require labeling and many governments have banned the importation of GM produce entirely- meaning now that we have a way to disinfect them no one will accept our GM papayas.
There are many ways other than genetic modification to control plant diseases and insect vulnerabilities, as sustainability experts will tell you. Maybe in 20 years state policy makers and UH researchers will listen.
Currently though the facility isn’t the only thing that’s full of hot air.
Friday, May 29, 2009
DIGGIN’ UP THE DIRT
DIGGIN’ UP THE DIRT: Public Broadcasting likes to tell us they “do what the commercial networks won’t”. And in Hawai`i they do, on the surface, with regularly scheduled local “public affairs” programming three nights a week where the local broadcast networks average about, well zero.
It’s questionable how topically relevant two of those programs are, like the local sports talk of “Leahey and Leahey” and Leslie Wilcox’s amazing ability to turn interviews with the most politically fascinating individuals in the state into fluff pieces in her “Long Story Short”.
But Dan Boylan’s “Island Insights” usually cooks up at least a promise of a wide ranging, panel discussion of the burning issue of the day.
That promise would be fulfilled if the panel actually pitted those who took diametrically opposed positions. But instead all too often the producer rounds up the usual suspects who represent the state’s corporate controlled oligarchy.
Never was that more so than last light’s installment on the “future of agriculture in Hawai`i”.
Promos promised discussion of “sustainability” and land issues and the political will to make diversified agriculture more than the empty campaign promise of aspiring pols.
But instead three of the four represented large corporate industrial money-driven farms and the fourth, Aussie transplant Gary Maunakea-Fort from the Big Island, an inarticulate organic farmer and opponent of what he called “industrial farms” who serves high end restaurants on Kona side with arugula on 4 acres there, although he is trying to expand to 16 acres.
The three corporate farmers included Adolph Helm of Moloka`i who represented the “Hawai`i Crop Improvement Association” and heads up the GMO-corn seed operation there, the Chair of the Hawai`i Board of Agriculture Sandra Lee Kunimoto and Richard Ha whose 600 acres Hamakua Farms plants 600 chemically-fertilized acres of whatever makes him the most money.
The sustainably discussion was a joke. Apparently none had any idea of what the movement toward sustainability was all about.
Ha was straightforward in re-defining sustainability as being economically based repeatedly saying whatever makes money is what is sustainable. Worse was Helm who not just agreed with Ha’s economic model but who claimed that “everyone has a different idea of what sustainability means” and went on to say how GMO corn seed is our best hope for sustaining agriculture”
Kunimoto seemed equally as clueless claiming that “best management practices” are the key.
The GMO discussion was equally obtuse with the three industrial farmers providing the tired old lies of “strict government oversight” and “higher yields” along with the “fully tested” and “strictly regulated”. The only real discussion was about how to deal with the “cultural” objections to GMO taro with the understanding among themselves that science” was on their side.
The fact that GMO products have never been fully tested and that science has been thrown under the bus with the precautionary principle—the main guiding standard in real science- getting the shortest of shrifts. Products are assumed safe with little scrutiny and voluntary compliance and self regulation providing for non-compliance- as violations and resulting fines across the county have shown- being the norm under the “deregulation” regimes of the last few decades.
When a viewer asked about labeling issue all they could do is repeat the “strict government regulation means it’s as safe an any other product” dodge.
Forth was not even asked to answer the question.
But if discussion on those two subjects were dismally one-sided the one on land use was doubly perverse.
The cost of land was never mentioned as a deterrent to farming even though any young aspiring farmer will tell you that that’s impediment number one. Even when the pressure to develop ag land came up the fact that, in order to farm one must invest more in land than one could ever possibly recover in order to start, never came up.
As a matter of fact they lauded the new “identification of important ag lands” study as the key to the future of agriculture, although none ventured a guess as to how reclassifying tons of ag land as urban and residential would help drive down ag land prices.
In an age when we are increasingly looking for ways to “grow” energy with solar wind and biomass “farming” to call any ag land at all “unimportant” is absolute insanity. Identifying land for development just squeezes that energy production onto more arable land, driving prices up not just for the land but the resulting food and energy even further.
That’s because every successful farmer in Hawai`i, for one reason or another, whether through inheritance subsidized lease or through some other circumstance, has not had to factor in land cost into the viability of their farm.
While some mentioned county regulation none recognized the state’s role in allowing “ag condominiums” over which the counties have zero control. That is what has driven prices sky high as ag land becomes “gentleman farms”.
None, including Forth, talked of sustainable small family farms. So of course the problems of hiring “agricultural workers” was the answer when Boylan asked why “young people don’t want to farm”.
That seems to be the mantra of corporate farmers almost all of whom started being land ag rich so never had to factor that cost into their profit equation. They simply seek to hire people to do the seasonal work at low wages rather than taking in partners or forming co-ops.
The fact is that there are hoards of young people who would love to become farmers- Forth says he hires them “for a few years” just so they can have the experience and had 75 applicants for 24 positions last year. But the cost of land is prohibitive because no crop and no amount of work can produce enough to sustain those who do the work and also pay off the exorbitant cost of obtaining land with prices that have been driven by making ag land in small de facto residential lots for rich mainland folks
The real solution to sustainable ag is multi pronged but not very complicated. It starts with bring down the cost by restricting use. Counties can easily remove density from ag land and open land and the state can just as easily eliminate agricultural condominiums making land useless for anything but agriculture.
The more of that “strictly ag use” land there is the lower the price will be. Every rezoning and ag subdivision drives prices higher still. Those need to stop entirely.
Once that is in place the business plan of the young farmer becomes easy to construct and one that, with hard work and knowledge, would make a career in farming a possibility.
The corporate model relies on “workers” and “jobs” that nobody wants- do you want to work for minimum wage (or less as farm workers may be paid)?
The fact that no one wants to do hard work for peanuts doesn’t mean young people don’t want to farm or do hard work at all. They just don’t want to farm for low wages for someone who somehow acquired land at a way-below-market-cost that they didn’t have to factor into their business plan.
The problem is that lip service to ag is all we get from short sighted pols who still think of sustainability in terms of an economically-driven industrial model of operation.
With people like Kunimoto overseeing and cheerleading factory farmers like Ha and “GMO is our future” Monsanto henchmen like Helm no one is holding their breath that our elected officials will remove the corporate yoke from farming by reforming our land use polices.
But we may never even get that far. When the “unimportant ag lands” study is done and most of the ag land is developed there may not be anything to reform.
It’s questionable how topically relevant two of those programs are, like the local sports talk of “Leahey and Leahey” and Leslie Wilcox’s amazing ability to turn interviews with the most politically fascinating individuals in the state into fluff pieces in her “Long Story Short”.
But Dan Boylan’s “Island Insights” usually cooks up at least a promise of a wide ranging, panel discussion of the burning issue of the day.
That promise would be fulfilled if the panel actually pitted those who took diametrically opposed positions. But instead all too often the producer rounds up the usual suspects who represent the state’s corporate controlled oligarchy.
Never was that more so than last light’s installment on the “future of agriculture in Hawai`i”.
Promos promised discussion of “sustainability” and land issues and the political will to make diversified agriculture more than the empty campaign promise of aspiring pols.
But instead three of the four represented large corporate industrial money-driven farms and the fourth, Aussie transplant Gary Maunakea-Fort from the Big Island, an inarticulate organic farmer and opponent of what he called “industrial farms” who serves high end restaurants on Kona side with arugula on 4 acres there, although he is trying to expand to 16 acres.
The three corporate farmers included Adolph Helm of Moloka`i who represented the “Hawai`i Crop Improvement Association” and heads up the GMO-corn seed operation there, the Chair of the Hawai`i Board of Agriculture Sandra Lee Kunimoto and Richard Ha whose 600 acres Hamakua Farms plants 600 chemically-fertilized acres of whatever makes him the most money.
The sustainably discussion was a joke. Apparently none had any idea of what the movement toward sustainability was all about.
Ha was straightforward in re-defining sustainability as being economically based repeatedly saying whatever makes money is what is sustainable. Worse was Helm who not just agreed with Ha’s economic model but who claimed that “everyone has a different idea of what sustainability means” and went on to say how GMO corn seed is our best hope for sustaining agriculture”
Kunimoto seemed equally as clueless claiming that “best management practices” are the key.
The GMO discussion was equally obtuse with the three industrial farmers providing the tired old lies of “strict government oversight” and “higher yields” along with the “fully tested” and “strictly regulated”. The only real discussion was about how to deal with the “cultural” objections to GMO taro with the understanding among themselves that science” was on their side.
The fact that GMO products have never been fully tested and that science has been thrown under the bus with the precautionary principle—the main guiding standard in real science- getting the shortest of shrifts. Products are assumed safe with little scrutiny and voluntary compliance and self regulation providing for non-compliance- as violations and resulting fines across the county have shown- being the norm under the “deregulation” regimes of the last few decades.
When a viewer asked about labeling issue all they could do is repeat the “strict government regulation means it’s as safe an any other product” dodge.
Forth was not even asked to answer the question.
But if discussion on those two subjects were dismally one-sided the one on land use was doubly perverse.
The cost of land was never mentioned as a deterrent to farming even though any young aspiring farmer will tell you that that’s impediment number one. Even when the pressure to develop ag land came up the fact that, in order to farm one must invest more in land than one could ever possibly recover in order to start, never came up.
As a matter of fact they lauded the new “identification of important ag lands” study as the key to the future of agriculture, although none ventured a guess as to how reclassifying tons of ag land as urban and residential would help drive down ag land prices.
In an age when we are increasingly looking for ways to “grow” energy with solar wind and biomass “farming” to call any ag land at all “unimportant” is absolute insanity. Identifying land for development just squeezes that energy production onto more arable land, driving prices up not just for the land but the resulting food and energy even further.
That’s because every successful farmer in Hawai`i, for one reason or another, whether through inheritance subsidized lease or through some other circumstance, has not had to factor in land cost into the viability of their farm.
While some mentioned county regulation none recognized the state’s role in allowing “ag condominiums” over which the counties have zero control. That is what has driven prices sky high as ag land becomes “gentleman farms”.
None, including Forth, talked of sustainable small family farms. So of course the problems of hiring “agricultural workers” was the answer when Boylan asked why “young people don’t want to farm”.
That seems to be the mantra of corporate farmers almost all of whom started being land ag rich so never had to factor that cost into their profit equation. They simply seek to hire people to do the seasonal work at low wages rather than taking in partners or forming co-ops.
The fact is that there are hoards of young people who would love to become farmers- Forth says he hires them “for a few years” just so they can have the experience and had 75 applicants for 24 positions last year. But the cost of land is prohibitive because no crop and no amount of work can produce enough to sustain those who do the work and also pay off the exorbitant cost of obtaining land with prices that have been driven by making ag land in small de facto residential lots for rich mainland folks
The real solution to sustainable ag is multi pronged but not very complicated. It starts with bring down the cost by restricting use. Counties can easily remove density from ag land and open land and the state can just as easily eliminate agricultural condominiums making land useless for anything but agriculture.
The more of that “strictly ag use” land there is the lower the price will be. Every rezoning and ag subdivision drives prices higher still. Those need to stop entirely.
Once that is in place the business plan of the young farmer becomes easy to construct and one that, with hard work and knowledge, would make a career in farming a possibility.
The corporate model relies on “workers” and “jobs” that nobody wants- do you want to work for minimum wage (or less as farm workers may be paid)?
The fact that no one wants to do hard work for peanuts doesn’t mean young people don’t want to farm or do hard work at all. They just don’t want to farm for low wages for someone who somehow acquired land at a way-below-market-cost that they didn’t have to factor into their business plan.
The problem is that lip service to ag is all we get from short sighted pols who still think of sustainability in terms of an economically-driven industrial model of operation.
With people like Kunimoto overseeing and cheerleading factory farmers like Ha and “GMO is our future” Monsanto henchmen like Helm no one is holding their breath that our elected officials will remove the corporate yoke from farming by reforming our land use polices.
But we may never even get that far. When the “unimportant ag lands” study is done and most of the ag land is developed there may not be anything to reform.
Friday, May 15, 2009
BREWER CONTEMPLATED REPAIR TO DEFUNCT MOLOA`A DITCH IN ’86
(PNN) BREWER CONTEMPLATED REPAIR TO DEFUNCT MOLOA`A DITCH IN ’86
MEMO SAYS DITCH HAD NO WATER FLOW BUT COULD “DURING PERIOD OF HIGH RAINFALL”
(PNN) A 1986 internal C. Brewer memo indicates that repairs to the Moloa`a Ditch were contemplated when the Ka Loko Ditch was repaired to provide water to the first “diversified agriculture” project in Kilauea after sugar cane operations in the area ceased in the early 1970’s .
The memo indicates that there was a cost “estimate” for re-establishing the Moloa`a Ditch prepared and is one of a series of memos (contained in one of the appendices of the state’s “Godby Report”) that indicate that it was written after extensive repairs to Ka Loko Ditch were completed in order to provide water for Brewer and it’s subsidiary Hawaiiana Investment Co to establish a prawn farm in Kilauea.
The prawn operation failed reportedly because the area was too wet and Brewer subsequently used the water to supply a guava farm in Kilauea that only recently went defunct.
Though the repairs to Moloa`a Ditch were apparently contemplated there is no indication in the memos- the last of which described more repairs to Ka Loko Ditch after a 1991 flood that killed three people in Anahola- that Brewer or anyone worked on the Moloa`a Ditch prior to the work that seemed to have been done in the late 90’s apparently by Jimmy Pflueger.
PNN reported a week ago Wednesday that a recent county study found that Moloa`a Ditch had been re-established about 10 years ago and now feeds a series of underground pipes above Ka Loko Reservoir in the area where Pflueger had been fined for land moving violations in 2001. Though the report did not speculate about the purpose of the ditch, PNN also reported that it was probably re-built to provide more water for a Pflueger-planned “water resort” that, according to sources close to Pflueger, was to center around Ka Loko Reservoir and use other “lakes” he had established in the area for water and jet-skiing.
That would explain the sudden drop in water flow in Moloa`a stream that, according to area residents and farmers, occurred 10 years ago- the same time the report estimated the work re-establishing Moloa`a Ditch was done.
As PNN reported last Friday an undated anonymous letter to the EPA indicates that Pflueger may have not only re-established the Moloa`a Ditch but may have reversed it’s flow direction to put water into the Ka Loko system rather than take it out as, the letter alleges, the ditch originally did when it was built in the late 19th and early 20th century for sugar cane operation in the area.
The May 20, 1986 memo that mentions Moloa`a Ditch is on C. brewer letterhead and addressed to R.L. Herberg, part-owner of Hawaiiana Investment and is from Brewer’s Gordon C. Wentworth.
It reads:
In preparing my May 18, 1986 memo to you on the Ka Loko Repairs I inadvertently failed to include the attached estimate for repair to the Moloa`a Ditch Flume which I had set aside while preparing a submission to DLNR.
In addition to the repair to the flume the Moloa`a Ditch needs clearing of the trail and ditch although the magnitude of the job is much smaller than was encountered in a similar length of Ka Loko Ditch.
Although the Moloa`a Ditch does not carry flow of water under normal conditions it can provide a contribution to the system during period of high rainfall. (emphasis added)
Though the memo presumes the flow was into the Ka Loko system there is no indication whether that supposition was based upon observation during a high rainfall incident or is based upon speculation or presumption.
The rest of the memos detail extensive restoration of the Ka Loko Ditch, which is the primary ditch feeding Ka Loko Reservoir which failed during a 2006 storm killing seven people and leading to manslaughter charges against Pflueger as well as numerous civil suits.
The work on Ka Loko Ditch was done by hydrologist John Weirheim and had been completed sometime between February 12, 1981- when the first memo indicates they had received DLNR permits for the work on Ka Loko Ditch- and November 15, 1985 when the second in the series of memos described the amount water flow in Ka Loko saying “(n)ow that the KaLoko Ditch repair is completed, and water is again flowing in the system...”
None of the memos describe any work to the Ka Loko Reservoir itself, nor do they refer to any actual Brewer work done on Moloa`a Ditch, only to an estimate of cost to re-establish it. It does however confirm that it was not carrying any water in 1986.
The memos do refer a spillway in Ka Loko Ditch which was designed to relieve the flow into Ka Loko reservoir but does not indicate where that spillway emptied nor if it was in the vicinity of the Moloa`a Ditch.
It has been publicly alleged by the state and plaintiffs in the civil suits that Pflueger covered the spillway of the Ka Loko Reservoir itself apparently leading to the dam break, but the contribution of any flow from Moloa`a Ditch has not been established nor mentioned publicly by the state or any of the plaintiffs.
MEMO SAYS DITCH HAD NO WATER FLOW BUT COULD “DURING PERIOD OF HIGH RAINFALL”
(PNN) A 1986 internal C. Brewer memo indicates that repairs to the Moloa`a Ditch were contemplated when the Ka Loko Ditch was repaired to provide water to the first “diversified agriculture” project in Kilauea after sugar cane operations in the area ceased in the early 1970’s .
The memo indicates that there was a cost “estimate” for re-establishing the Moloa`a Ditch prepared and is one of a series of memos (contained in one of the appendices of the state’s “Godby Report”) that indicate that it was written after extensive repairs to Ka Loko Ditch were completed in order to provide water for Brewer and it’s subsidiary Hawaiiana Investment Co to establish a prawn farm in Kilauea.
The prawn operation failed reportedly because the area was too wet and Brewer subsequently used the water to supply a guava farm in Kilauea that only recently went defunct.
Though the repairs to Moloa`a Ditch were apparently contemplated there is no indication in the memos- the last of which described more repairs to Ka Loko Ditch after a 1991 flood that killed three people in Anahola- that Brewer or anyone worked on the Moloa`a Ditch prior to the work that seemed to have been done in the late 90’s apparently by Jimmy Pflueger.
PNN reported a week ago Wednesday that a recent county study found that Moloa`a Ditch had been re-established about 10 years ago and now feeds a series of underground pipes above Ka Loko Reservoir in the area where Pflueger had been fined for land moving violations in 2001. Though the report did not speculate about the purpose of the ditch, PNN also reported that it was probably re-built to provide more water for a Pflueger-planned “water resort” that, according to sources close to Pflueger, was to center around Ka Loko Reservoir and use other “lakes” he had established in the area for water and jet-skiing.
That would explain the sudden drop in water flow in Moloa`a stream that, according to area residents and farmers, occurred 10 years ago- the same time the report estimated the work re-establishing Moloa`a Ditch was done.
As PNN reported last Friday an undated anonymous letter to the EPA indicates that Pflueger may have not only re-established the Moloa`a Ditch but may have reversed it’s flow direction to put water into the Ka Loko system rather than take it out as, the letter alleges, the ditch originally did when it was built in the late 19th and early 20th century for sugar cane operation in the area.
The May 20, 1986 memo that mentions Moloa`a Ditch is on C. brewer letterhead and addressed to R.L. Herberg, part-owner of Hawaiiana Investment and is from Brewer’s Gordon C. Wentworth.
It reads:
In preparing my May 18, 1986 memo to you on the Ka Loko Repairs I inadvertently failed to include the attached estimate for repair to the Moloa`a Ditch Flume which I had set aside while preparing a submission to DLNR.
In addition to the repair to the flume the Moloa`a Ditch needs clearing of the trail and ditch although the magnitude of the job is much smaller than was encountered in a similar length of Ka Loko Ditch.
Although the Moloa`a Ditch does not carry flow of water under normal conditions it can provide a contribution to the system during period of high rainfall. (emphasis added)
Though the memo presumes the flow was into the Ka Loko system there is no indication whether that supposition was based upon observation during a high rainfall incident or is based upon speculation or presumption.
The rest of the memos detail extensive restoration of the Ka Loko Ditch, which is the primary ditch feeding Ka Loko Reservoir which failed during a 2006 storm killing seven people and leading to manslaughter charges against Pflueger as well as numerous civil suits.
The work on Ka Loko Ditch was done by hydrologist John Weirheim and had been completed sometime between February 12, 1981- when the first memo indicates they had received DLNR permits for the work on Ka Loko Ditch- and November 15, 1985 when the second in the series of memos described the amount water flow in Ka Loko saying “(n)ow that the KaLoko Ditch repair is completed, and water is again flowing in the system...”
None of the memos describe any work to the Ka Loko Reservoir itself, nor do they refer to any actual Brewer work done on Moloa`a Ditch, only to an estimate of cost to re-establish it. It does however confirm that it was not carrying any water in 1986.
The memos do refer a spillway in Ka Loko Ditch which was designed to relieve the flow into Ka Loko reservoir but does not indicate where that spillway emptied nor if it was in the vicinity of the Moloa`a Ditch.
It has been publicly alleged by the state and plaintiffs in the civil suits that Pflueger covered the spillway of the Ka Loko Reservoir itself apparently leading to the dam break, but the contribution of any flow from Moloa`a Ditch has not been established nor mentioned publicly by the state or any of the plaintiffs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
