While the Pōhakuloa lease extension and related issues are of huge importance to all Hawaiʻi, it’s in Hawaiʻi County where the rubber meets the road.
It is the people and the lands of Hawaiʻi County where the most direct impacts will be. This is where the guns are fired and the bombs exploded. It’s in this community where depleted uranium and other toxic chemicals lie buried in the dirt, sometimes blowing far and wide in the dust. This is where the fires burn at night, where valuable cultural resources are being trampled upon, and where endangered species are at risk.
And yet, at a Hawaiʻi County Council Committee meeting held specifically to discuss Pōhakuloa, neither the Army nor the Governor sends a representative to listen or to share the Army or State perspective?
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll was recently quoted in the media expounding upon his deep respect for Hawaiʻi, the Hawaiian culture, and the importance of preserving and protecting our natural environment.
He then also makes clear that the Army is having “near daily discussions with the governor’s team” with a goal of securing an agreement with the State in 60 days.
They both say they are committed to following the lawful process and ensuring the community has an opportunity to provide input.
But the truth is both the Governor and the Army have already agreed to break the law and are negotiating now on the terms of the law-breaking.
Hawaiʻi law HRS343 says any action proposed on state lands and or within conservation district lands must complete an environmental assessment and/or environmental impact statement (EIS).
The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) has voted to reject the Army’s environmental impact statements, citing numerous flaws and inadequacies.
These lands thus cannot be legally leased to the Army until they comply with HRS343.
Governor Green did an extensive television interview on August 19th in which he said clearly that the Army intends to force the issue under the guise of national security and so the best option for the state is to negotiate a lease with the best terms possible.
Translation: The U.S. Army doesn’t give a rip about Hawaiʻi law, Hawaiian culture or lands, or what the people of Hawaiʻi County or what anyone, anywhere in Hawaiʻi has to say.
AND the Governor of the State of Hawaiʻi believing he has no other options available, is willing to break the law if the lawbreaker pays enough money to make it worthwhile.
AND neither one is particularly concerned or cares enough to even show up and engage with the community which is most impacted.
AND the Army and the Governor says we should trust them, and that we have no other choice anyway.
Trust them to use the land responsibly in any way shape or form they desire. Trust that they will clean up and repair the damage caused to the natural environment. Trust that they will honor and protect cultural artifacts and endangered species now on these lands.
Yes, trust them and I’ve got a bridge to sell you too.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) by definition is essentially a disclosure document. The purpose of an EIS is to disclose impacts of the proposed land lease, including direct impacts, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts. Also included would normally be “proposed mitigation” of negative impacts.
The potential and likely impacts of the Army’s planned use of Pōhakuloa must be disclosed and properly analyzed prior to the State entering into any agreement.
It’s simply not possible to draft a credible, responsible, or legal land lease without the proper completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
We must say no to the U.S. Army, AND we must call (808) 586-0034 and encourage Governor Green to reconsider his support of fast-tracking this important decision. We must also insist that the Governor comply with State law HRS343 and the State Constitution Article XI.
Note: Article XI of our constitution says clearly “the State and its political subdivisions” which makes County government equally responsible…
Mahalo again to Hawaiʻi County for stepping up to fulfill this responsibility.
Section 1. For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State.
All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.
Gary Hooser
Former Director Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC)…among other things
GaryHooser's Blog 
In view of “AND the Governor of the State of Hawaiʻi believing he has no other options available, is willing to break the law if the lawbreaker pays enough money to make it worthwhile.”
He should be notified decisively that impeachment will be sought if he betrays Hawai’i in this manner.
Interesting…guess I need to dive into the State constitution and see what it says about impeachment!
Indeed, and encourage others to spread he word as well. Further, look into the possibility of criminal statutes that may be violated. Best to PRECLUDE a complicit action on Green’s part than try to rectify later.
I have no idea where this “reviewexuberant” comes from. NOT my origin. Jon
I also have no idea. Technology…
Hi Gary,
I’m trying to find Ewan McKeon’s article but it has disappeared. Do you have a working link?
Unfortunately I do not have a working link either but I’ll do some digging around and try to find a copy.
Hi Gary
I am definitely no lawyer but I read the HRS and it appears to me that the Governor might not be breaking the law. It reads
The office, when requested by the agency, may make a recommendation as to the acceptability of the final statement. The final authority to accept a final statement shall rest with:
(1) The governor, or the governor’s authorized representative, whenever an action proposes the use of state lands or the use of state funds or whenever a state agency proposes an action within the categories in subsection (a); or
(2) The mayor, or the mayor’s authorized representative, of the respective county whenever an action proposes only the use of county lands or county funds.
Acceptance of a required final statement shall be a condition precedent to implementation of the proposed action. Upon acceptance or nonacceptance of the final statement, the governor or mayor, or the governor’s or mayor’s authorized representative, shall file notice of such determination with the office. The office, in turn, shall publish the determination of acceptance or nonacceptance pursuant to section 343-3.
So he hasn’t accepted the submitted EIS which suggests to me that he is still trying to figure out what he is going to do. But it doesnʻt look as though he would need to break the law to move forward on a new leased. Happy to be contradicted
Jon Osorio
Thanks for the note and discussion. I’m also not a lawyer but was the Director of OEQC for a little over a year and one of my jobs was educating various agencies and preparing a “introduction to the HRS 343 law” handbook…At the end of the day the question we are addressing will only be resolved in court. The definition for acceptance is:
“Acceptance” means a formal determination that the document required to be filed pursuant to section 343-5 fulfills the definition of an environmental impact statement, adequately describes identifiable environmental impacts, and satisfactorily responds to comments received during the review of the statement.”
The agency responsible for evaluating the proposed action and FEIS…the BLNR…has already formally and publicly said the previously submitted FEIS does not fulfill the requirements or adequately describe the impacts etc.
The Governor I suppose could say that he knows better than the BLNR and related DLNR staff…and could over-ride the BLNR determination…Whether this would then comply with the law or not I do not know.
At the present time, because the proposed lease action or any action to transfer the land or swap or whatever…any such action requires HRS343 compliance…AND no such compliance has occurred…which means any action by the Governor to complete such a transfer without compliance would violate State law. Yes, the U.S. Military may submit an amended or new FEIS and hope for approval and YES I think but not absolutely sure the Governor could disregard the BLNR and other multiple State agencies opinions and findings…and just accept the Army’s FEIS that was soundly rejected by the BLNR. But until the Governor either takes unilateral action to disregard the findings of his own state agencies…or until the Army actually submits a FEIS that is adequate…any lease or transfer would violate state law IMHO
Wait…had another thought. If the governor “accepted” the current FEIS in spite of the BLNR’s determination…by law he would be saying that the FEIS fulfills the definition of an environmental impact statement, adequately describes identifiable environmental impacts, and satisfactorily responds to comments received during the review of the statement” which of course is not true…and would make the Governor a lier.
I seem to recall that the Army signed an agreement with ICE to use Pohakuloa, or part of it, as a detention camp for migrants and other “undesirables”. (Trump reportedly wants one in every State.)If so, this may be why the Secretary of the Army is so eager to get an agreement with the State signed. I don’t know why this has not been part of the discussion.
Can you track down the origin of that agreement, or a news report or something? I have not heard of this before. Thank you Barbara!