ALOOOOO-HA: A week ago yesterday few knew what or who "Preserve Kauai's Rural Character (PKRC)" was. And apparently no one knows or will say today.
Last Sunday was the day we received an innocent enough yet slick professional email- produced by marketer VerticalResponse- reviving the anti-Kilauea Amphitheater movement in the wake of news of a takeover of the Kalihiwai Ridge Community Association (KRCA) in Kilauea by proponents of the project, causing KRCA to drop it's contested case for the required Special Use Permit before the planning commission.
The mass mailing- replete with one of those "click here to unsubscribe buttons" and a personalized "Dear Andy" salutation- tried to reframe the argument from one of "stay loud already" vs the "nahting for do around hea" mantra to appeal to we professional land use rabblerousers by putting the fear of commercialization of ag land in our green little hearts.
Despite numerous requests this week the originator of these emails remains unknown but not his, her or their intentions.
It didn't take but a few hours for the now ubiquitous developer-Bill-Porter-as-Hitler video to surface, again anonymously. And it didn't take us but a few seconds to identify the style of the short film to be that of a certain local filmmaker who has done a few "who did that" videos.
Not only was the mailing slick- not to mention costly, especially complete with a mailing list- but the PR effort and the knowledge of what pushes the sustainability crowds solar-generated buttons was almost impeccable.
Almost, except that some of the so-called "facts" weren't.
So it was until mid-week when KRCA busted out the big bucks and published a full page ad in the local newspaper and another email announcing it.
The ad proclaimed that approval of a special use permit would be a first-ever for commercial use "on land zoned as 'Agricultural' by the State"- a meaningless phrase that belied the author's lack of sophistication in the ways of land use in the islands.
As we find ourselves explaining way too often the state, under direction of the Land Use Commission, does "districting" while the county does "zoning." It's an important distinction and one that has caused no dearth of legal wangling over the years.
The next move, apparently from the developer, was an email going over and attempting to refute, point by point, the contentions of the ad, although most were semantic arguments as to whether the ad's depiction of an "amusement park" was appropriate, but also attempting to debunk the ad's debunking of the "Six Myths About the Kilauea Pavilion."
And yesterday, once again, the antis were at it again with a debunking of the debunking of the debunking in point by point by point, tri-color regalia.
The real issue here is the same one that's plagued this and the surrounding parcels for generations- what to do with the "light industrial" land- a remnant of the sugar cane mill days- that sits in the middle of agriculturally and districted and zoned land just north and mauka of Kilauea. It's gone through all sorts of designations over the years, reverting back and forth, as plans either fell through or the Kilauea community rose up against the plans.
While we don't have any way of verifying the "first ever commercial use permit for ag land" claim made by KRCA we seriously doubt it although that may have more to do with Preserve Kauai's Rural Character's confusion between county zoning and state districting and what the two different "agricultural" designation actually mean. And rather than stating and quoting any specific section of HRS 205, which lists the allowable- and more importantly the not allowable- uses of ag lands, KRCA just listed a hodge-podge of provisions and a contention... the point being that unless uses are specifically banned they are generally allowed with a special use permit.
What is pretty obvious is that the handful of Kalihiwai Ridge residents- who themselves live on ag subdivisions and "condos"- that were ousted from their community association posts for their opposition to the project are trying to reframe the argument to suck in- and we might say quite successfully noting the many "re-sendings" of their emails- the land use/sustainability crowd even after a buy-in to the project by the apparent majority of both Kilauea and Kalihiwai Ridge (KR) residents.
Will it set a precedent that will forever change the way special use permits are issued for commercialization of ag lands as PKRC claims? Unlikely considering the way the developer went to the community and asked what they'd like to see on the land which is the one thing that the majority of local people require as an act of "aloha."
It doesn't help that the KR folks are seen as a bunch of rich haoles whose use of ag land as "gentleman estates" is seen as far more objectionable- not to mention destructive of agriculture by cutting up and skyrocketing the price of ag land- even by those whom they are enlisting in the fight to stop the project.
Perhaps that's why the PKRC people refuse to identify themselves and answer questions from the press and have rather tried a last ditch effort to rally the usual suspects by casting the issue as a battle for the future of agriculture on Kaua`i.
Aloha has less to do with smiling as you clean toilets for the tourists as the visitor's bureau wants people to think and more to do with respect- you don't just walk up and take the fruit on someone's lawn, you ask first. Same goes with a notoriously hard to develop parcel of land slated for development.
And no matter what Bill Porter is doing, he not only asked but actually listened.
And while we have apprehensions at the commercialization of the already commercialized area, it's the North Shore residents who will have to live with what they bought into.
Tomorrow the sh*t hits the fan at the planning commission meeting where the permit has been recommended for approval by the planning department staff and director. But, depending on what side you're on, fortunately or unfortunately, the genuine of ingenuous efforts of PKRC will likely have been in vain.
Showing posts with label Kilauea ag. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kilauea ag. Show all posts
Monday, April 11, 2011
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, June 26, 2009
(PNN) REPORT: DAM DITCH INTAKE AND RETURN WATER TO MOLOA`A STREAM
REPORT: DAM DITCH INTAKE AND RETURN WATER TO MOLOA`A STREAM
(PNN) -- Moloa`a Stream's flow will be “restored to it’s natural state” if a consultant’s recommendation are followed, the county council was told Wednesday.
But although Moloa`a water activist Hope Kallai, who has pushed for the return of water to Moloa`a residents and farmers, was pleased, she also said not so fast there. She explained that the point of diversion is on conservation land and any effort at all would need permissions and permits to work on the current stream alteration that diverts river water into Moloa`a Ditch.
In addition, although Kallai did not mention it, water course alterations also usually need federal permits.
In a presentation of the final draft of the “Kilauea Irrigation Water Engineering Monitoring Study”, Andy Hood of “Sustainable Resources Group International Inc.” told council members that the water that flows into the Ka Loko Ditch system from the Kalua`a tributary of Moloa`a Stream is “not needed” to sustain agriculture in the area and “recommend(ed) at the point of diversion at Kalua`a stream, the intake to Moloa`a ditch be dammed up and restored to its natural state”.
Hood said that although “Moloa`a Ditch had never been registered to receive a stream works diversion permit nor was the ditch permitted” there was “nothing sinister” in that and there was “no malfeasance”. Rather he theorized that Brewer Inc, who owned the land prior to 1987, “just didn’t need the water” and the permitting “slipped through the cracks”.
He did not mention the part of the original draft report that says that the current condition of the intake dam was apparently the result of work done only about 10 ago, as PNN reported in its series on the Moloa`a Water theft (see left “rail” for links to prior reports).
Hood said that the Mary Lucas Trust (MLT)- which according to a 1987 “allocation” shares the water equally with the Kilauea Irrigation company (KICO) and owns land abutting Ka Loko Reservoir- has agreed to pay for restoring the flow to farmers and residents in Moloa`a Valley who say they have noticed a marked decrease in water flow and area wells ever since the late 90’s around the time the work was allegedly done.
According to that 1987 water rights agreement to serve the 105 acre “Kilauea Farms Subdivision” below the reservoir, KICO and MLT are to share the water “50-50”, Hood told the council.
But State Aquatic Resources Kaua`i Manager Don Heacock said that water rights nowadays are subject to the “pubic trust doctrine”- as established in the Wai`ahole Ditch Hawai`i Supreme Court decision- and should be allocated based on need and use by the “State Commission of Water Resources”.
Hood said that he could not determine use by KICO because it’s owner Thomas Hitch has seemingly disappeared and the current users claim “proprietary information” that “their competitors” would like to get their hands on a survey of the users done for the study drew few responses.
In addition due to the massive and complicated litigation surrounding the March 2006 Ka Loko dam break tragedy that killed seven people downstream, no one wants to talk about anything although he said much of the report would not have been possible without the discovery” process as a result of the suits.
He also said MLT only uses the water they receive to support around a hundred head of cattle.
One discrepancy as stated by Hood is that MLT receives water through a pipe that takes water from the Ka Loko ditch way up valley but also shares a 50-50 use arrangement just above the reservoir implying that MLT may be receiving much more than 50% despite their limited need.
In a power point presentation cut short by the enforcement of the council’s “three minutes” rules, Kallai presented documents showing that prior to the ’87 agreement both the county council in 1979 and the Water Department subsequently, had designs on the water. The council wanted to supply planned “diversified agriculture” in the entire Kilauea area from Kalihiwai to Moloa`a and the Department wanted some for potable water.
As to whether there is sufficient water to serve the Kilauea Farms subdivision- which was the actual subject of the $75,000 study initiated by Councilmembers Jay Furfaro and Darryl Kaneshiro- the answer is “just barely” under the current arrangement and condition of Ka Loko reservoir.
Hood provided a few options for increasing the flow including a limited repair of the breach at the bottom of the reservoir where overflow currently runs down valley into the ocean when the three big pipes that remove the water for irrigation are fully supplied.
Kallai claimed that the overflow is a huge mess that was never investigated by the EPA, and never cleaned up making the damage downstream and to the reef and ocean something that would “make Pila`a look manini.”
Some councilmembers wanted to know if and how the system might serve the entire Kilauea area since it is just barely sufficient in its current state to serve the Kilauea Farms Subdivision. But it was determined that historically there were other components of the entire Kilauea Sugar Company operations irrigation system, including the Kalihiwai reservoir which originally served some lands in that area until sugar production was shut down in the early 70’s.
That area would include the new Kilauea Agricultural Park that the county has recently obtained after a 30 year battle to acquire and set it up. Present plans are to use the potable county water system for the farm rather than a the old gravity driven cane ditch system.
The council discussed briefly whether funding a wider study to get a comprehensive idea of the water resources and needs- and current flows which were not in the report aside from some guesswork on the Ka Loko system- but Heacock recommended contacting the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), the federal Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service and the US Geologic Service in Honolulu to get them to coordinate and possibly fund the study since it was essentially their kuleana.
Heacock said that there are actually 26 streams that feed Ka Loko system, something Hood intimated when saying that the flow intake at the head end of the Ka Loko system was less than the amount flowing at the end, guessing that there were areas where streams fed the ditch at lower elevation although his staff did not observe them.
And of course that net gain includes the previously mentioned “pipe” at higher elevations that removes water for MLT’s cows
Heacock said there needs to be a full disclosure on “what’s being serviced- what crops are being grown” implying that some farms’ claim to “proprietary information” was not going to get them water if the “public trust” involved in water rights is enforced.
Kallai was denied permission by Economic Development and Housing Committee Chair Dickie Chang to use the testimony time of the roomful of KNA members present and was cut off without being able to finish her whole presentation which included documents not in the county report, many from a 1984 federal study of ag in the Kilauea area and water usage stakeholders at that time that were excluded in the ’87 agreement between KICO and MLT.
But as she was being given the bums rush she did mange to blurt out that the intake was on state conservation land and therefore no activity may take place without the DLNR’s permission and no changes to water flow may be effectuated without the OK of the DLNR’s “Commission of Water Resources” which determine water usage based on the Wai`ahole pubic trust doctrine.
Despite the testimony by Hood regarding Moloa`a Ditch, previous to and in anticipation of Kallai’s testimony Councilperson Darryl Kaneshiro and Council Chair Kaipo Asing attempted to limit her testimony because the specific subject of Moloa`a Ditch wasn’t on the council’s official agenda. But councilperson Jay Furfaro countered that under the state sunshine law the public was permitted to speak “off agenda” at the discretion of Committee Chair Chang.
The 155 page PDF file of the report is available on-line. It was funded through the county’s Office of Economic Development.
(PNN) -- Moloa`a Stream's flow will be “restored to it’s natural state” if a consultant’s recommendation are followed, the county council was told Wednesday.
But although Moloa`a water activist Hope Kallai, who has pushed for the return of water to Moloa`a residents and farmers, was pleased, she also said not so fast there. She explained that the point of diversion is on conservation land and any effort at all would need permissions and permits to work on the current stream alteration that diverts river water into Moloa`a Ditch.
In addition, although Kallai did not mention it, water course alterations also usually need federal permits.
In a presentation of the final draft of the “Kilauea Irrigation Water Engineering Monitoring Study”, Andy Hood of “Sustainable Resources Group International Inc.” told council members that the water that flows into the Ka Loko Ditch system from the Kalua`a tributary of Moloa`a Stream is “not needed” to sustain agriculture in the area and “recommend(ed) at the point of diversion at Kalua`a stream, the intake to Moloa`a ditch be dammed up and restored to its natural state”.
Hood said that although “Moloa`a Ditch had never been registered to receive a stream works diversion permit nor was the ditch permitted” there was “nothing sinister” in that and there was “no malfeasance”. Rather he theorized that Brewer Inc, who owned the land prior to 1987, “just didn’t need the water” and the permitting “slipped through the cracks”.
He did not mention the part of the original draft report that says that the current condition of the intake dam was apparently the result of work done only about 10 ago, as PNN reported in its series on the Moloa`a Water theft (see left “rail” for links to prior reports).
Hood said that the Mary Lucas Trust (MLT)- which according to a 1987 “allocation” shares the water equally with the Kilauea Irrigation company (KICO) and owns land abutting Ka Loko Reservoir- has agreed to pay for restoring the flow to farmers and residents in Moloa`a Valley who say they have noticed a marked decrease in water flow and area wells ever since the late 90’s around the time the work was allegedly done.
According to that 1987 water rights agreement to serve the 105 acre “Kilauea Farms Subdivision” below the reservoir, KICO and MLT are to share the water “50-50”, Hood told the council.
But State Aquatic Resources Kaua`i Manager Don Heacock said that water rights nowadays are subject to the “pubic trust doctrine”- as established in the Wai`ahole Ditch Hawai`i Supreme Court decision- and should be allocated based on need and use by the “State Commission of Water Resources”.
Hood said that he could not determine use by KICO because it’s owner Thomas Hitch has seemingly disappeared and the current users claim “proprietary information” that “their competitors” would like to get their hands on a survey of the users done for the study drew few responses.
In addition due to the massive and complicated litigation surrounding the March 2006 Ka Loko dam break tragedy that killed seven people downstream, no one wants to talk about anything although he said much of the report would not have been possible without the discovery” process as a result of the suits.
He also said MLT only uses the water they receive to support around a hundred head of cattle.
One discrepancy as stated by Hood is that MLT receives water through a pipe that takes water from the Ka Loko ditch way up valley but also shares a 50-50 use arrangement just above the reservoir implying that MLT may be receiving much more than 50% despite their limited need.
In a power point presentation cut short by the enforcement of the council’s “three minutes” rules, Kallai presented documents showing that prior to the ’87 agreement both the county council in 1979 and the Water Department subsequently, had designs on the water. The council wanted to supply planned “diversified agriculture” in the entire Kilauea area from Kalihiwai to Moloa`a and the Department wanted some for potable water.
As to whether there is sufficient water to serve the Kilauea Farms subdivision- which was the actual subject of the $75,000 study initiated by Councilmembers Jay Furfaro and Darryl Kaneshiro- the answer is “just barely” under the current arrangement and condition of Ka Loko reservoir.
Hood provided a few options for increasing the flow including a limited repair of the breach at the bottom of the reservoir where overflow currently runs down valley into the ocean when the three big pipes that remove the water for irrigation are fully supplied.
Kallai claimed that the overflow is a huge mess that was never investigated by the EPA, and never cleaned up making the damage downstream and to the reef and ocean something that would “make Pila`a look manini.”
Some councilmembers wanted to know if and how the system might serve the entire Kilauea area since it is just barely sufficient in its current state to serve the Kilauea Farms Subdivision. But it was determined that historically there were other components of the entire Kilauea Sugar Company operations irrigation system, including the Kalihiwai reservoir which originally served some lands in that area until sugar production was shut down in the early 70’s.
That area would include the new Kilauea Agricultural Park that the county has recently obtained after a 30 year battle to acquire and set it up. Present plans are to use the potable county water system for the farm rather than a the old gravity driven cane ditch system.
The council discussed briefly whether funding a wider study to get a comprehensive idea of the water resources and needs- and current flows which were not in the report aside from some guesswork on the Ka Loko system- but Heacock recommended contacting the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), the federal Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service and the US Geologic Service in Honolulu to get them to coordinate and possibly fund the study since it was essentially their kuleana.
Heacock said that there are actually 26 streams that feed Ka Loko system, something Hood intimated when saying that the flow intake at the head end of the Ka Loko system was less than the amount flowing at the end, guessing that there were areas where streams fed the ditch at lower elevation although his staff did not observe them.
And of course that net gain includes the previously mentioned “pipe” at higher elevations that removes water for MLT’s cows
Heacock said there needs to be a full disclosure on “what’s being serviced- what crops are being grown” implying that some farms’ claim to “proprietary information” was not going to get them water if the “public trust” involved in water rights is enforced.
Kallai was denied permission by Economic Development and Housing Committee Chair Dickie Chang to use the testimony time of the roomful of KNA members present and was cut off without being able to finish her whole presentation which included documents not in the county report, many from a 1984 federal study of ag in the Kilauea area and water usage stakeholders at that time that were excluded in the ’87 agreement between KICO and MLT.
But as she was being given the bums rush she did mange to blurt out that the intake was on state conservation land and therefore no activity may take place without the DLNR’s permission and no changes to water flow may be effectuated without the OK of the DLNR’s “Commission of Water Resources” which determine water usage based on the Wai`ahole pubic trust doctrine.
Despite the testimony by Hood regarding Moloa`a Ditch, previous to and in anticipation of Kallai’s testimony Councilperson Darryl Kaneshiro and Council Chair Kaipo Asing attempted to limit her testimony because the specific subject of Moloa`a Ditch wasn’t on the council’s official agenda. But councilperson Jay Furfaro countered that under the state sunshine law the public was permitted to speak “off agenda” at the discretion of Committee Chair Chang.
The 155 page PDF file of the report is available on-line. It was funded through the county’s Office of Economic Development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
