Apparently HECO is coming up dry when it comes to their mainland supplier of so-called “green fuel”–Imperium–for their new $164-million dollar biodiesel power plant on Leeward Oahu.

Keep in mind that when they say “green fuel” and “biodiesel,” what they are actually talking about is palm oil. Yes, that stuff that is the most significant cause of rainforest loss in Malaysia and Indonesia, and associated with human rights violations and worker exploitation. THAT green fuel.

From Pacific Business News:

Hawaiian Electric Co. is seven months away from starting up Oahu’s first new power plant in nearly 20 years, but its “green” fuel supplier may not deliver.

The plant is on schedule to be fired up in August at Campbell Industrial Park. HECO had expected its first shipment of biodiesel to run the plant on Jan. 1.

But getting that clean-burning fuel — a requirement regulators had imposed in approving the project — is proving to be more difficult than expected.

Despite the original January delivery date, the state Public Utilities Commission has yet to approve HECO’s contract with Seattle-based Imperium Renewables to provide between five million and 12 million gallons of biodiesel annually through 2011.

Financial troubles that have hobbled Imperium over the past year are raising red flags at the PUC, which has asked HECO for a contingency plan should the deal fall through.

Meanwhile, a challenge by a local environmental advocacy group that questioned the supply contract is further prolonging the process.

But HECO is still moving forward with construction of the $164 million plant, where workers this week completed pouring the cement foundation. The huge 110-megawatt generator for the plant, which will act as a backup power source during peak hours or in the event of a power outage, has already been delivered to the site.

PUC Chairman Carlito Caliboso told PBN the commission is giving HECO until Jan. 30 to amend its biodiesel supply contract with Imperium, which originally planned to build a biodiesel production plant down the street from HECO’s new power station.

Now, Imperium will have to ship biodiesel from its plant in Grays Harbor, Wash., HECO spokesman Peter Rosegg said.

Although HECO stresses its confidence in Imperium to make good on the contract, Rosegg said the utility has alternative suppliers in mind.

“We know there are other potential suppliers,” he said. “For example, we recently received bid proposals for biodiesel for Maui Electric Co. to use in performing operational tests.”

Imperium spokesman John Williams declined to comment.

The utility obviously wants the plant to go online as scheduled since it has invested millions up front and cannot pass those costs on to customers until it is operational.

In a worst-case scenario, the new plant’s generators are “fuel flexible,” meaning they can run on traditional diesel, Rosegg said.

But the PUC said HECO would need to resubmit paperwork in order to run it on anything but clean-burning biofuel, and essentially start the approval process from scratch.

“The plant had been approved under the condition that it be 100 percent biofuel,” Caliboso said. “I know that physically it can be run on regular oil, but that was not part of the approval. HECO would need to ask for permission to run it on anything else.”

The supply contract challenge by environmental group Life of the Land, a frequent HECO critic that has opposed the plans for the Campbell plant from the beginning, was granted a hearing in October.

At that Oct. 6 hearing, Caliboso, PUC commissioner Leslie Kondo and its chief legal counsel, Stacey Djou, repeatedly questioned HECO executives about a contingency plan from Imperium.

“The fact that there is a missing contingency plan, technically Imperium is in default,” Djou said. “Without that, how do we know this contract is just, reasonable, and in the public interest?”

Caliboso said if HECO’s amendments to the supply contract are “significant,” the review process will take even longer.

“We haven’t seen the amendments, but at this stage in the proceeding, if there are significant contract amendments made, it likely will require further hearing on the case,” Caliboso said.

From yesterday’s Garden Isle News:

After many months of waiting, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public today, revealing many impacts the Superferry could have on the four main Hawaiian islands if operation were to continue.

The EIS assesses the direct impacts the ferry could have to the islands caused by new construction needed to support a large-capacity ferry vessel, and indirect impacts, such as affects on Hawaiian waters and cultural practices.

The report declares that the cumulative effects of the Superferry would significantly and adversely affect traffic within the vicinity of Nawiliwili, Kahului, Kawaihae and Honolulu Harbors. The large-vessel ferry could potentially impact the number of endangered humpback whales, the dispersal of inter-island invasive species and the traditional cultural practices conducted on the islands, the EIS said.

The comprehensive report declares that cultural activities within the vicinity of West Harbor in Kahului would significantly and adversely be impacted due to “new harbor improvements.” New pier construction at Kawaihae Harbor would also result in significant and adverse impacts, including those to nearby Pu`ukohola Heiau National Historic Park, obstructing views and affecting not only the rock walls of the heiau, but ceremonial activities as well, due to noise and construction.

Indirect impacts noted in the report include activities such as fishing, surfing and diving, including the potential loss of natural resources as stated in the cultural impact analyses.

The only reportedly beneficial impact reviewed in the environmental draft is that the large-capacity ferry vessel would provide to all harbors a “superior” mode of transportation for disaster planning and emergency response. The statement concludes that the vessel would increase the capabilities and response times of first responders and relief efforts.

To view the EIS in its entirety and to leave comment, visit the Department of Transportation’s Web site, hawaii.gov/dot/harbors

Urge the County Councilmembers to once-again stand with the people, override the Mayor’s veto!!
Click and send your letter to the Council!
Letters of support are due by Monday, Nov. 10th.

The Star-Bulletin’s report on why Mayor Kim vetoed, with commentary from KAHEA community-coordinator and pa’i'ai lover, Bryna:

Kim vetoes ban on gene-modified taro, coffee
By Rod Thompson
Oct 31, 2008

HILO » Big Island Mayor Harry Kim vetoed a bill yesterday that would make it a criminal violation punishable by a $1,000 fine to research or grow genetically engineered coffee or taro on the Big Island.

The bill was passed 9-0 by the Hawaii County Council on Oct. 8, meaning there are more than enough votes to override the veto.

Kim cited two general concerns: that police cannot enforce such a law and that the world needs research on genetically modified crops to ensure food supplies.

“How would the Police Department make a determination on which taro or coffee has been genetically engineered?” Chief Lawrence Mahuna wrote to Kim. The department has no equipment or personnel who know how to test for genetically modified organisms, and no money to upgrade its capabilities, Mahuna said.

Hmmm. If the police can’t detect the presence of GMOs, how will local people & pollinators be able to prevent spreading GMOs? Or unknowingly consuming them?

Maybe the feds should require that all GMOs must also be engineered to glow in the dark. Biotech can do it with jellyfish genes. Not sure what the longterm effect on the rest of the natural world would be though. Then again, at least those GMOs could be traced.

Kim added, “There is global demand for new, improved, safe and dependable plant genetics, and Hawaii is a special place for research because of its location and its year-round growing environment.”

Where is there a global demand for GMOs? I have never heard of rallies of people begging for GMOs, or consumer inititatives to support GMOs. Weird. I’ve only heard of international biotech corporations demanding laws to allow them to operate experiments & business without public informed consent. In fact, I dont think most americans even know what GMOs are, or that they are eating GMOs without labels or fair choice.

Over a thousand people wrote in support of this bill– to protect their local coffee and taro. How important are our local needs & demands to the Mayor?

There are many successful & emerging programs to develop sustainable farming practices and natural varieties of traditional plants to encourage drought resistancy, etc. Here’s a great example. No need for GMOs to feed the planet.

Council Chairman Pete Hoffmann scoffed at both statements.

In the case of a violation, scientists would report anyone undertaking forbidden research, and police would act on that information, Hoffmann said.

Regarding research on other crops, the bill does not impose a ban on them, and there is no intention of widening the ban to include other crops, he said.

Such a widespread ban has been the fear of opponents of the bill. On Oct. 8 the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce testified, “This bill is just the beginning of an anti-science agenda.”

Hoffmann called such fears “a bunch of nonsense.”

Indeed. It makes me sad when they say we hate science, cause really we don’t. I love science, especially agronomy & botany. Taro growers practice science for a living. We’re not stupid.

Its kind of like saying that spraying chemicals is science, so if you don’t want to inhale pesticides then you must be anti-science, and you must be against progress too!

Hoffman is looking into calling a special meeting of the Council to override the veto, since he anticipates public testimony would last all day, he said. Previous testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, he said.

Kim repeated a call for more public education about genetic modification, including the strict state and federal regulations it must meet.

Ok. Right, kinda. Education -around TRUTH- starts with labelling, consumer choice and political transparency. Those “strict” regulations were designed and put in place by the biotech industry itself with the purpose of reducing restrictions on their risky business. The biotech industry now corruptly influences the federal FDA & EPA. For example, they are allowing a 1500% increase (!) in approved levels of glyphosphate chemical herbicide applications, all for the recently developed RoundUp Ready GMO-sugar beets. That is not strict, that is simply special interest political favors.

Mayor Kim should know better. We’re still cleaning up heptachlor from the pineapple days… lets be careful about what these biotech chemical corporations may forget to tell us about exactly what they are doing to our ‘aina.. and our economy.

The only truly strict laws to protect food safety are those that regulate Organic certification. And no, GMOs do not qualify for Organic certification.

Representatives of the Biotechnology Regulatory Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and from the state Department of Agriculture have offered to discuss these matters with the Council, Kim said.

Will these powerful biotech-backed agencies be appearing at a public hearing? If what they have to discuss wasn’t or couldn’t be explained at the past 3 public hearings, then what are they up to?

Its not over yet, YOU can help! Please send the county council a letter of support for the GMO-ban today- its quick & easy! Take a minute to demonstrate your support for protecting Hawaii’s local agriculture, people, and culture from genetic modification.

Letters of support are due by Monday, Nov. 10th.

From Jim Quirk’s article in Hawai’i Island Daily West Hawaii Today:

The Hawaii County Council voted 9-0 Wednesday in favor of a bill from North Kona Councilman Angel Pilago on its second reading to ban genetically modified taro and coffee.

It was a circus-like atmosphere Wednesday in Hilo’s Ben Franklin building, where the meeting was held. Children played in the hallways outside of the council chambers waiting for their chance to speak along with their parents. A man standing in the hallway corner sang as he strummed the strings of a guitar.
The council, meanwhile, listened to a different tune, one delivered by the seemingly endless convoy of residents who took turns at the microphone to give their two cents on the proposed ban.

About 70 residents testified in Hilo, while about 30 testified via teleconference from the council offices in Waimea and Kona. There have been no major complaints about banning genetically modified taro, but with coffee it’s a different story.

On one side of the debate are those who believe genetic modification of coffee could eventually spell disaster for the island’s coffee industry. Off-island buyers would not be interested in Kona coffee that has been purposely or accidentally genetically modified, the proponents believe.

Then there are residents who believe, among other things, without genetic modification of coffee, there will be no scientific answers when disease strikes and destroys Big Island coffee.

A vast majority of residents who spoke Wednesday said they were in favor of the ban.

Dr. Hector Valenzuela, a vegetable crops extension specialist with the University of Hawaii at Manoa, said he — unlike all of his peers at the college — supports the bill.

He said the scientific community should be concentrating on aspects of agricultural research, such as teaching farmers how to sustain crops without having to rely on chemicals, rather than genetic modification.

Bill proponent Chuck Moss, a Kona coffee farmer, said one potentiality of genetically modified coffee is that experiments in creating coffee trees without caffeine could spread to other trees. If that happened, it would be hard to market Kona coffee, he said.

“How can you tell the difference from a regular tree from a decaf tree, or a regular bean from a decaf bean?” Moss asked.

Hamakua Councilman Dominic Yagong furnished results of a poll he conducted recently that shows 82 percent of 89 Big Island coffee farmers support the bill.

He said during a separate interview that his office identified isle coffee farmers using the phone book, Internet and personal knowledge.

During a previous meeting, representatives of the Hawaii Coffee Council indicated a majority of island coffee farmers are against the bill, Yagong said, which is why he wanted to conduct a poll to find out for sure.

Hilo Councilman Stacy Higa, who voted against the bill on its first reading, said Yagong’s survey changed his mind.

Mayor Harry Kim, who is still not back to work full time because of his recent heart attack, made an appearance early in the meeting and expressed concerns that the bill wouldn’t allow genetic testing of coffee in the lab setting.

He requested the council consider developing a system where research at places like the University of Hawaii at Hilo would be able to continue.

Kim could attempt to veto the bill, but it seems unlikely it would succeed because of the unanimous council vote Wednesday.

It’s Time!
Love local Hawaiian food and agriculture? Here’s your opportunity to voice your support for a historic, groundbreaking new law that would ban GMO (genetically modified) Taro and Coffee on Hawai’i Island!

Click and send testimony of support, no matter where you live!

MUST Submit Testimony by TUESDAY October 7th

This Oct. 8th will be the final Hawai’i County Council vote on Bill 361
If you are on the Big Island, please attend this crucial hearing!
Public hearing in HILO- Ben Franklin Building, 2nd Floor. County Council Office
Day-long hearing begins 10:30AM

So Much Support So Far!
- Introduced by Council Member Angel Pilago, Bill 361 would ban the growing of genetically modified Taro and Coffee on the Big Island.
- This bill has received overwhelming public and political support, and has already successfully passed through two Council votes to make it to this FINAL VOTE.
- If the bill passes this last vote it will go on for final approval by Mayor Harry Kim of Hawaii County.

At this critical moment this effort needs massive support more than ever- the local farmers and consumers need help standing up against the strong-arming by huge multinational corporations.

Art kindly donated by Solomon Enos, Hawaiian Artist/Farmer. You can support Native Art at www.HawaiianArtPlaza.com

Kalo and Kona Coffee are perfect as they are!
If allowed, GMO taro could threaten taro’s important status as the world’s only hypoallergenic carbohydrate source! Taro farming in Hawaii is an unique local tradition. There are now innovative and successful agricultural efforts underway to improve the local taro industry and perpetuate valuable Hawaiian taro varieties.

Long-term studies have shown that the best way to comprehensively protect taro from disease blights is to grow many different varieties, improve soil quality and provide adequate water. There is no need or demand for GMO interference and industry control of local taro farming.

Genetic modification of this indigenous plant is also extremely disrespectful to the sacred genealogy of taro to Hawaiians, who view taro as an ancestral family member, Haloa.

If allowed, GMO coffee would erode the demand, drop prices, and destroy the local economy for pure Kona coffee. It would also make organic coffee growing virtually impossible.

Lessons learned: The local papaya industry was economically devastated by the introduction of GMO-papaya. Rejection of Hawaiian grown GMO-papaya by Japan dropped the value of the local papaya industry by over 50%. Sadly, about 40% of papaya farmers were forced out of business. Meanwhile, the value of the organic and conventional (non-GMO) papaya industry has increased.

What is a GMO?
GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are plant mutants created by inserting genes from one species into another unrelated species, using virus and bacteria to transfer the genes. For example, forcing wheat genes into taro, or bacteria genes into corn. These man-made organisms can be patented and owned. Organic food growers have rejected GMO, and GMO food cannot be certified organic. This experimental technique is crude and imprecise, unsafe, unnatural and rejected by the governments of most nations and the majority of the world’s population.

More about the GMO problems, read the Bill 361, and click-and-send testimony.

While multi-national corporations seeking GMO patents and profits have deep pockets and resources, local communities depend on committed citizens to defend our rights to a clean environment and safe food.  It is the dedication of those who care deeply about the future of food, culture and agriculture in Hawaii that makes the difference!

Let us learn from the economic and environmental destruction already caused by the GMO industry in the Philippines, Mexico, India, South America and farming communities all across America! Let’s make sure it doesn’t happen in Hawaii! We can and must show that Hawaii Island wants sustainable, pono, non-GMO agricultural job opportunities and will stand-up to protect our local agricultural economy and environment!

We Know Better, So Let’s Tell ‘Em!
Bill 361 is a very important step to maintaining local control over our island food resources, consumer safety, environmental protections and economic opportunity. We have a real chance to create meaningful reform, to protect taro, and our heritage coffee for all future generations that are to come. Pests and disease in agriculture can be solved by ecological and sustainable means; we need to move in that direction.  It is time for everyone to speak for community food self-reliance, and GMO coffee and taro does not move us in that direction.  We need the Council to send a strong and unanimous message on this bill to the Mayor: Hawai’i Island wants protection and preservation for our unique heritage crops, that sustain our life, our families, and our communities.

Art kindly donated by Solomon Enos, Hawaiian Artist/Farmer.
Support Native Art! www.HawaiianArtPlaza.com

A big MAHALO! is due to the hundreds of people who responded to the call from taro farmers! They submitted testimony in droves and packed the room at the Water Commission hearing last Wednesday in Haiku–to demand that East Maui Irrigation Company (EMI) stop diverting every last drop of water from the streams of East Maui.

The Commission took two days’ worth of public testimony and ultimately agreed with the taro farmers, scientists, and general public that EMI is diverting too much water from at least 8 of the 27 streams at issue.  The Water Commission ruled that EMI must return at least 12 million gallons of water a day to those 8 streams in order for the native stream life to survive.

This is a historic decision was made possible only by the consistent and growing public pressure to uphold the constitutional rights of taro farmers and the legal obligations of the state to protect native ecosystems against the profit-seeking interests of corporations.  Mahalo piha to everyone who took the time to participate.  This decision will serve as a model for water restoration efforts throughout the islands.

Here is the mahalo we got from the attorney for the taro farmers in East Maui, Alan Murakami with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation:

Mahalo nui loa for all the help…  I think it really helped get the word out and I was impressed by the hundreds that responded to our call for help.

There is still much to do during the so-called “Adaptive Management System” being overlaid on this decision.  It simply means that the staff will use the next year to do what it was supposed to do before the decision on appurtenant rights…

In short, I think the community pressure put on the company and the commission worked wonders.  You should congratulate yourself for the supportive work you did.  Now the implementation… more work to do and I hope I can count on all of you to post the updated information as it becomes available – both good and bad.  I certainly think the news of the almost miraculous restoration of conditions at the muliwai is one of the headline things to report.

The fight continues today with a contested case hearing in Haiku to invalidate the leases improperly issued to EMI and its parent corporation, Alexander & Baldwin, for use of the land where the diversions are located.  Whatever the outcome of this contested case, history has already been made in East Maui and nothing can stop the people-powered momentum towards restoring all the streams that have been improperly and immorally diverted from their nature course for far too long by multi-national industrial agriculture corporations. Stay tuned for updates on this string of historic decisions.

Mahalo nui loa to the people of East Maui for continuing this historic fight, and their legal team at the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation.

Life is where the water is.
As the Hawaiian kupuna and natural resource experts had foretold- just one month after restoring stream flow to Waikane stream, in Wailuanui East Maui, native marine life has already re-inhabited the stream, estuary (muliwai) and bay. The local community can finally return to their traditional practices such as farming, fishing, and enjoying the cool water recreationally. It had been 30 years since the Waikane native ecosystem existed in its natural healthy state. It is hoped that coming generations will not have to experience the environmental devastation that the community has suffered without water.

Public Hearing to Restore Water to East Maui Streams
Wednesday Sept. 24th at 1:00 pm till testimony is pau
Haiku Community Center, Maui.

From Marti:

Tomorrow the taro farmers of East Maui will confront (for the umpteenth time) the corporation(s) stealing water from their communities. Taro patches and native streams are dry all through the Hawaiian Islands because former sugar plantation/corporations continue to divert water from their natural course – selling the water back to users and banking the water for future housing developments (note: “water banking” is a nice way of saying “water wasting”).

The Hawaii Constitution specifically grants traditional taro farmers the right to water over newcomer users like these big corporations.  But the state has not enforced the law.  It’s been more than five years since the taro farmers of East Maui won their case in court and water still has not been released from the diversions.

Tomorrow’s hearing before the Commission on Water Resources Management is another attempt to get the state government to uphold the law and protect Hawaii’s natural and cultural resources by establishing minimum in-stream flow standards, which will require the release of water currently being illegally diverted by East Maui Irrigation Co. (a subsidiary of Alexander & Baldwin, one of “The Big Five” corporations that once dominated Hawaii during the days of sugar plantations).

Keep watching. The next hearing will be on October 1, 2008, when the taro farmers argue their motion to compel the state government to follow the law and release the water.

To learn more, visit www.nhlchi.org/highlights2.htm

From West Hawaii Today:

Hawaii County is a step closer to being able to prevent the introduction of genetically modified taro and coffee.

The County Council Environmental Management Committee unanimously sent a bill to prohibit growing genetically modified versions of those two crops to full council with a positive recommendation. Council Vice Chairman Angel Pilago, North Kona, introduced the bill, which provides for criminal prosecution of anyone bringing in and growing the genetically modified plants. He previously introduced a resolution, which passed, asking the state Legislature to prohibit genetically modified taro and coffee; that measure failed earlier this year.

The bill “protects cultural practices,” as well as protects the taro and coffee industries “via county home rule,” Pilago said.

Under the bill, it will be illegal to “test, propagate, cultivate, raise, plant, grow, introduce or release” genetically engineered taro and coffee.”

County Corporation Counsel and the county prosecutor’s office both reviewed the bill before it was presented to the council, Pilago said.

“We all know if this goes to the state Legislature, they’re not going to do anything as a body,” South Kona Councilwoman Brenda Ford said.

Hamakua Councilman Dominic Yagong asked a representative of the Corporation Counsel’s office what would happen if state legislators enacted a law to allow genetically modified taro and coffee to be produced in Hawaii. That law might supersede the county’s law, depending on the wording, the deputy corporation counsel said.

Barring that, “it would be legal?” Yagong asked. “It would have jurisdiction over the scientific community and companies, they would be banned from bringing it in?”

Upon hearing an affirmative answer, Yagong noted that he isn’t necessarily opposed to scientists changing genetic makeup of plants, but when farmers ask for it, not when they oppose it.

More than a dozen people testified in support of the bill, while two testified against it.

How did the Task Force come to be?
As a food crop, taro is a multi-million dollar industry in this state. Its importance in Hawaiian culture is beyond measure. As are its contributions to health, education, family and community economics, the arts, and the visitor industry. Ensuring that taro and poi will be around in the future has become increasingly difficult with lack of water, access to taro-growing lands, and crop diversity; the apple snail, taro diseases; a shortage of taro farmers; and competition from taro imports.

In 2006 under Senator Russell Kokubun’s SCR206 the Department of Agriculture was tasked with opening a dialogue to look at non-gmo alternatives to research, policy, education, crop and market issues for taro.  One of the desired outcomes expressed by all of the participants in the effort launched under SCR206 was a Task Force to continue the to reach taro farming communities, set priorities, make recommendations and implement initial projects. Based on that recommendation, SB2915 was drafted by taro farmers and introduced by Senator Kalani English in 2008. This bill proposed a two-year, funded, Taro Security and Purity Task Force. The bill and its budget received unanimous ‘aye’ votes from the legislature and was passed into law, becoming Act 211, on July 3rd, 2008.

However, Governor Lingle used her line-item veto power to delete the funding for the Task Force, which forced the Task Force to pursue its work without the necessary financial support in spite of the fact that taro remains an icon to the State’s identity and was officially designated as the State Plant in 2008 (Act 71). OHA has agreed to provide initial funding as a partner and administrator of the Task Force. It will be necessary to find additional resources to fulfill all the goals of the Task Force.

What and Who is the Task Force?
Act 211, the Taro Security and Purity Task Force represents the first time that guidance for taro and the problems farmers are facing will come from the real experts – farmers – and from the taro itself, as odd as that may sound to many. It is precisely this guidance that has been missing from the table for decades.

• The Task Force is NOT an “anti-gmo advisory group”. Its task is to find, prioritize and support non-gmo alternatives to taro farmers’ issues in Hawaii. A working definition of “taro purity” and “taro security” is necessary to guide Task Force decisions over the next two years.
• It is also NOT an Hawaiian-only task force. Taro farmers in Hawaii are Hawaiian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Portuguese, Caucasian, etc. Collectively we want taro, the lifestyle of taro farming and the value of taro in our communities to survive.

So, who is this Task Force for? It is for the taro itself; for the survival of a lifestyle that is fast disappearing in these islands; and for the economic survival of the smallest taro patches to the largest. They all feed us.

What are the goals of the Task Force?
There are nine goals outlined for the Task Force under Act 211, subject to the priorities identified by its members:

1. Develop guidelines, protocols, and recommendations for taro policy, non-gmo based taro research, and the allocation of resources to ensure that taro is saved and protected in Hawaii.

2. Develop a program of incentives and projects that have the support of a broad spectrum of taro growers that will enhance taro security, protect taro purity, provide support to taro farms and farmers, and improve taro markets for the long-term.

3. Support the recovery of traditional Hawaiian taro cultivars throughout the State.

4. Increase public awareness of the value of taro and its role culturally, socially, in health and well-being, environmentally, and economically in the State.

5. Develop a program to provide taro education and training opportunities.

6. Develop a program for commercial taro growers to maximize business viability and success.

7. Develop a taro farming grant program to assist taro farmers in need to preserve the cultural legacy of taro farming for future generations.

8. Discuss the feasibility and impact of requiring the Department of Land and Natural Resources to provide reduced lease rent rates for taro farmers on state-leased land.

9. Develop taro research and outreach for the control and eradication of apple snails.

Who is the Task Force?
The Task Force will have a minimum of 17 members. Act 211 states that the Task Force shall have one representative from each of the following agencies and organizations:

Department of Agriculture
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation
University of Hawaii
Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Onipaa Na Hui Kalo

It shall have a minimum of two representatives from each of the following islands: Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Oahu and Kauai.

At least one representative from the botanical garden community involved in the cultivation and protection of the traditional Hawaiian varieties of taro will also be a member of the task force.

Most importantly, Act 211 states that “at no time shall less than 50 percent of the Task Force be comprised of taro farmers.”

Island representative qualifications:
1. A minimum of three years as a taro farmer.
2. A commitment to attend all Task Force meetings for a minimum of one year; the life of the Task Force is two years.
3. A commitment to communicate with all taro growers on your island; not just those in your own network. The success of the Task Force depends on this.

A broad group of taro representatives are sought that include commercial, sustenance, cultural and educational growers.

Why house the Task Force at OHA?
A state recognized entity was administratively necessary to house the task force. It was taro farmers’ requests that placed it under OHA rather than the DOA or UH for a number of reasons, not the least of which were issues of trust and the conflict over gmo taro research. Some also felt that OHA was a culturally appropriate place for the task force to be located. For some, Haloa, is the first kanaka maoli, and OHA carries its namesake, the “oha”, or children, of Haloa.

OHA also recently purchased Makaweli Poi Mill on Kauai and is now a member of the lo’i-to-table flow to market. They need to expand their understanding of what incentives and projects will better support taro, farmers and millers to be successful. By working with all taro farmers, OHA helps improve the chance that taro, luau and poi can get to every Hawaiian.

As the administrator of the group, OHA will select the best qualified kalo farmer applicants to serve as representatives. In addition, OHA will cover the costs of holding the task force meetings, as well as member travel fees for kalo farmer representatives.

The deadline to send applications is September 15, 2008.

Applications must be written and include the applicants’ full name, address, a brief description of their fulfillment of the four qualifications, what they believe they will be able to contribute to the task force and a short list of what they believe are the most important issues facing kalo.
You can send applications to Sterling Wong of OHA’s Native Rights, Land and Culture division by email to sterlingw@oha.org or by regular mail to 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 500, Honolulu Hi, 96813.  For more information call 594-0248.

For more information please see: http://www.oha.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=691&Itemid=227

Who is Onipaa Na Hui Kalo?
Onipaa Na Hui Kalo is a statewide organization formed more than 10 years ago, with over 300 practitioners and enthusiasts who grow kalo in backyard gardens, on reclaimed kuleana lands, and large scale farming operations. Members come from all the islands. Onipaa Na Hui Kalo operates as a hui that works by consensus rather than as a formal organization. Members help each other to increase knowledge of growing kalo and kalo issues, to encourage more taro farmers on the land and to reactivate loi kalo to productive use.

From Marti:
Big Mahalos to the people of Molokai for making the journey to Honolulu to raise awareness about Molokai Ranch’s new ploy to exploit cash for water.  I was shocked to hear that Gov. Lingle allowed Molokai Ranch to raise residents’ water rates 178% or risk losing all water services.  HEWA!  Access to clean water is a basic human right.  Molokai Ranch took on the responsibility of providing water to people (for a profit) all these years and now that profits are down they just want to close up shop.  That’s just wrong.

Rep. Carroll (D-Molokai) said it herself, “Molokai Ranch should not simply walk away from legal and moral obligations” to provide water service to the residents of Molokai.

There is word for what Molokai Ranch is doing, it’s called: extortion.  Good for Molokaiians for sticking up for themselves.  If this ridiculous rate increase is allowed to stand, then it sets a bad precedent for all of us in Hawaii who pay to have water pumped into our homes. Someday soon they are going to come knocking on all of our doors threatening to cut off our water if we don’t pay them a hundred times more.

A statement from the residents of Molokai:

In May, Molokai Ranch, citing financial impossibility but providing no financial evidence, suddenly announced the company would terminate its water and sewage utility services at the end of August. In July, The Department Of Health said: “The lack of a sustained and reliable source of safe drinking water in West Molokai will create a substantial danger…an imminent peril to the public health and safety.” By threatening to cut off an essential lifeline to the Molokai community, Molokai Ranch created a manmade and calculated crisis in order to avoid financial responsibility.

Without conducting a physical or financial audit of the utilities, the PUC bought into the Ranch’s threats, sided against the ratepayer, and claimed it “had no choice” but to raise the rates of Waiola O Molokai, Inc water utility by an unprecedented 178%.  The people of Molokai cannot afford to pay such exorbitant rate increases, and should not be forced to subsidize mismanaged utilities.

Not only was the rate increase unprecedented and unjustified, but the rate review and approval process was fundamentally flawed.  The PUC, which should be acting as a regulatory agency for the utilities, assumed an unprecedented role and filed for the rate increase on behalf of the utilities, as the Ranch claimed poverty (while still refusing to disclose financial records) and refused to file its own proceedings for a rate increase.  The PUC also disallowed Molokai ratepayers to intervene as a formal party to the proceedings.

Compounding the PUC’s procedural errors, the DCCA then failed to advocate on behalf of the affected ratepayers.  A 25% increase is normally the cap for a rate increase; instead of upholding this policy on behalf of the local consumer, the government agencies appeased the demands of a foreign-owned business and arbitrarily approved a 178% increase knowing that Molokai ratepayers cannot afford to pay such an egregious rate increase.

The Molokai community has filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate the PUC for breaching a duty to ensure that all rates, fares, and charges are “just and reasonable” and to investigate the DCCA for breaching a duty to “represent, protect, and advance the interests of all consumers, including small businesses, of utility services”. The Molokai community asks that the August 14, 2008 rate increase approval be considered null and void.

The Molokai community asks that Governor Lingle, who oversees both the PUC and the DCCA, overturn the PUC’s rate approval and demand a fair and just rate review process. Molokai Ranch should be asking for a rate increase instead of the PUC, and the people of Molokai should be granted legal standing as a participant in the rate review process.

(photo by Trevor Atkins)

From Alan Murakami of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, on behalf of East Maui Taro farmers and Na Moku Aupuni O ko`olau Hui:

Background. The law provides for various appropriate remedies for dealing with and managing serious conflicts over uses of stream water. The biggest conflicts over stream water uses have festered for years because of the massive diversions of East Maui streams by East Maui Irrigation Company for decades. EMI diverts as much water for its plantation uses in central Maui as the average amount that all of O`ahu consumes. The biggest conflict involves the water EMI is taking illegally from streams that feed taro patches and support native stream life vital to the preservation of Hawaiian traditional and customary practices in the cultural landscapes of Wailuanui and Honopou Valleys.

State Agency Delays. After 7 years of patiently waiting for the implementation of the appropriate administrative remedies theoretically available to it, Na Moku Aupuni O Ko`olau Hui’s leadership has been repeatedly frustrated by the inaction of both the Board of Land and Natural Resources and the Commission on Water Resources Management in performing its public trust functions designed to protect the public interest and the water rights of East Maui taro farmers and subsistence gatherers.

Those functions are based on the presumption that these agencies will respect and enforce clear law on water rights held by these farmers and gatherers, which are explicitly protected by the Hawai`i Constitution, the state Water Code, and a long line of water case law. These laws not only respect these practices of these cultural practitioners, but provide the basis for demanding that EMI demonstrate the ABSENCE of injury to these practitioners BEFORE diversions are allowed. Despite holding all the legal advantages of these laws, the BLNR and the Water Commission have delayed, without explanation or justification, the timely implementation of these laws, leading to chronic and severe cultural and monetary damages amongst farmers and gatherers trying to enforce their rights.

Frustration. For example, the CWRM has, without explanation or legal justification, delayed action on Na Moku’s pending request to restore stream flows to support constitutionally protected water rights of taro farmers and subsistence gatherers since 2001, although the governing statute demands action within 6 months. Similarly, like its sister agency, the BLNR has allowed EMI to continue diversions from East Maui without regard for these same farmers and gatherers, even after a year since it supposedly acted to direct its staff to protect the water rights of those affected. The DLNR has failed to fully implement the year-old order of the BLNR, which was designed to provide farmers immediate interim relief from the effects of the existing EMI diversions.

Self Help. On July 9, 2008, taro farmers observing water being improperly diverted from Wailuanui Stream unilaterally released water from EMI diversions. The affected practitioners could not wait any longer, having suffered failed taro crops due to insufficient irrigation water, while EMI diversions took the water that would have savedand supported their crops. This exercise of their constitutional rights did not follow the procedure outlined in either agency’s timetable for action.

Nevertheless, the releases from EMI’s diversion works are entirely consistent with the continuation of traditional and customary practices followed by their ancestors for growing taro and gathering from the streams. It is just that the BLNR and CWRM did not, and apparently chose not to, promptly protect the superior water rights of these practitioners as the law would otherwise require. Their failure to timely implement the law directly resulted in the level of frustration felt by all practitioners in East Maui who have attempted to patiently wait for the water to which they are entitled in the affected streams.

Na Moku position. The taro farmers and subsistence gatherers who took this unprecedented action in the midst of the delayed proceedings did so without prior approval of Na Moku. Na Moku has continued to make itself available to state agencies, in all available administrative processes, in efforts to seek the orderly restoration of streams illegally diverted by EMI. However, it cannot and does not condemn the unilateral releases of water into the streams last week by taro farmers frustrated by long, and unexplained, delays by state agencies. After all, tenants of an ahupua`a do have the reasonable right to access areas within the same ahupua`a to continue their traditional and customary practices, including taro growing and subsistence gathering.

Na Moku affirms its belief that these releases reflect the reasonable and overdue exercise of these rights, protected under the Hawai`i Constitution, statutes, and case law, with which responsible state agencies cannot and should not interfere. This responsibility for this resort to self help rests entirely with the BLNR/DLNR and the CWRM. Na Moku and the taro farmers who are now acting are all frustrated by these agencies failure to act timely enough to save their taro crops. Moreover, successful taro farmers contribute heavily to enhancing Hawai`i’s food supply, its food security and long-term sustainability. Each agency should not exacerbate building tensions by any heavy-handed means to reacting to these farmer actions. The farmers are only reacting to belated processes each agency has not timely nor properly implemented.

In the spirit of moving forward in this unprecedented circumstance, Na Moku stands ready to cooperate with the CWRM and the BLNR/DLNR to continue any reasonably prompt process to assure that the rights of its members are respected and timely enforced.

“Waiki`i Ranch Dust Samples Show No Depleted Uranium” is apparently receiving a skeptical response from local and international scientific experts, according to our friends at Malu `Aina on Hawai`i Island.

The report posted a “statistically insignificant” amount of depleted uranium (DU) in the community of Waiki`i, 8 – 10 miles downwind of Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), where the Army admitted in 2006 to using DU spotting rounds for its Davy Crockett nuclear weapons system. The test is based on a sample taken by Waiki`i Ranch Depleted Uranium Project Manager, David Bigelow, and sent to a laboratory in England for analysis.

From Malu `Aina guys:

Dr.Rosalie Bertell, PhD, remarks that the lab report “actually says that there IS DU in the sample. There should be zero. It is irrelevant that it is ‘not significant.’” Dr. Bertell — who has been honored by the U.N.as a statisticisn, epidemiologist, and member of the Science Advisory Board, International Joint Commission of the U. S. and Canada — goes on to say: “What you really want to know is whether or not the uranium found in the sample has been fired. This means electron spectroscopy.” Dr. Pang is also skeptical about the term “statiscally insignificant.” He claims that the laboratory’s reading of 1/100 DU, allowing for a measurement error of 1%, could mean the presence of 2% DU in the sample instead of its “zero” interpretation.

Dr. Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH, comments: “it is hard to do statistics with a sample of one,” referring to the single dustpan sample depicted on the front page of the newspaper’s July 22 issue. Dr. Pang, speaking as private citizen, is retired from the Army Medical Corps, is on the Best Doctors of America list 2006-8, and a consultant to the World Health organization (WHO) since 1985. Russell Takata, state radiation chief, is also on record as questioning WRHOA’s methodology.

To label tests a “bust” and conclude that “preliminary results find no health hazard” is simply not supported by fact. Closer to the truth is that we have been told little or nothing about whatever tests may have been conducted by the state or federal governments. Mr Takata refers to “preliminary reviews of about 90% of test results” but gives no data. What about the other 10%? The Army allegedly tested 800 dust samples, but these results have yet to be made available to the state or the public. All of this adds up to sweeping claims of safety, while providing no hard data to back them up. This has been a repeated pattern over the past several years: claims but no data.

The Hawaii County Council by a vote of 8-1 on July 2nd, passed resolution 639-08, calling for the halting of all live-fire that could spread military radiation and independent, comprehensive, testing

Join hosts Andrea Brower and Keone Kealoha as we discuss the sources of our food and how it gets into our kitchens with author Ann Vileisis joining us by phone. Ann has written an extraordinary book on the last 200 years of food history in the United States, titled Kitchen Literacy. She starts with a simple meal and its context from 1796 and leads us through the next 200 years of change. She illuminates the impact of urbanization, immigration, industrialization (both in the larger sense and in the context of food systems). . KKCR can be found at 91.9 FM or online at www.KKCR.org.

The military finally admitted in 2006 that depleted uranium (DU) spotting rounds for the Davy Crockett nuclear weapon system have been used at Schofield Barracks, the Pohakuloa Training Area, and possibly Makua Valley between 1962 and 1968.

The Army long denied ever using DU in Hawai‘i; reassuring residents in countless public hearings and environmental impact statements that “a records search for depleted uranium rounds was conducted and determined that these types of munitions were never part of the Army’s inventory in Hawai‘i… .”

The U.S. military has an obligation to be candid with the public about its activities in Hawaii because they have far-reaching implications for our health and welfare. The people of Hawaii will be left to suffer the consequences of U.S. military activities long after they have moved on to other fronts. That is why we must be vigilant and demand answers to our questions: Have other DU spotting rounds and the more hazardous DU armor penetrating rounds been used as well? What don’t we know about existing military contamination? What should we know before we even begin to consider pending expansion of live fire activities?

From friends on the Big Island:
The Hawaii County Council will be hearing Resolution 639-08 Urging the U.S. Military to address the hazards of depleted uranium (DU) at the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The hearing is set for Wednesday, July 2nd 8:30 AM at the Council room on the 2nd floor of the Hilo Ben Franklin building.

You can support by submitting this letter to all Hawaii County council members, urging their support of resolution 639-08.

A growing number of people feel it is time to stop all live-fire and shut down PTA and get to the root of the problem. Stopping all live-fire at PTA is a key public safety and environmental conservation issue. Any live-fire training increases the risk of spreading the radiation contamination. There needs to be a thorough independent assessment and clean-up of the existing contamination before live-fire training can even be considered!

Unfortunately, Council Chair Pete Hoffmann has already prepared an amendment to delete the call for a complete halt to all live firing at PTA which is the heart of the matter. Don’t let this happen!

“… Just as smoking affects the primary user as well as those inhaling second hand smoke, the airborne products of DU burning remain suspended for long periods and travel great distances in the atmosphere. We do not know all the toxicity of the airborne DU products (nano-toxicity) but some forms (DU oxides) we do know can persist in the body for decades. When internalized DU emits the most dangerous type of radiation, alpha radiation. Animals with implanted alpha emitters have shown high cancer rates and birth defects – which can pass on to subsequent, UNEXPOSED generations.

- Lorrin Pang, MD, MPH (speaking as a private citizen). Dr. Pang was born and raised in Hawaii, and is Retired Army Medical Corp, Best Doctors of America list 2006-8, Consultant to the World Health organization (WHO) since 1986, Consultant Glaxo Smith Kline

Since the announcement late last week about the attempt to corrupt and co-opt traditional farmers’ attempt to secure a simple 10-year moratorium on GMO taro, we’ve heard your outrage! Many of you have written to ask for details about the vote. You’re getting ready to plant your vote, and you’re taking names!

NINE Ayes (Voted pro-GMO in favor of amendments)
Rep. Clift Tsuji, Committee Chair (South Hilo to Kurtistown, Big Island) reptsuji@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Tom Brower (Waikiki/Alamoana, Oahu) repbrower@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Jerry L. Chang (Keaukaha to South Hilo, Big Island) repchang@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Robert Herkes (Puna to Kona, Big Island) repherkes@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Joey Manahan (Sand Island, Mokuea, Kalihi Kai, Kapalama, Oahu) repmanahan@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Ryan I. Yamane (Waipahu/Mililani, Oahu) repyamane@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Kyle T. Yamashita (Pukalani to Ulupalakua, Maui) repyamashita@Capitol.hawaii.gov

TWO Ayes with reservations
Rep. Glenn Wakai (Moanalua to Salt Lake, Oahu) repwakai@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Corinne Ching (Nuuanu/Alewa Heights, Oahu) repching@Capitol.hawaii.gov

THREE Nos (Voted in support for true protection of Haloa)
Rep. Lyla Berg (Kahala to Hahaione, Oahu) repberg@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Faye P. Hanohano (Puna to Pahoa, Big Island) rephanohano@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Rep. Colleen Rose Meyer (Kaneohe to Laie, Oahu) repmeyer@Capitol.hawaii.gov

The “poison pill” amendments prohibit any future moratoriums on any GMO, even at the county level. At the same time, these legislators reduced the moratorium to 5 years and limited the protected taro plants to the Hawaiian varieties only. Read the amendments:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/CommReports/SB958_HD2_HSCR1769-08_.htm

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Call Your Representatives:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/members/members.asp

Call Your Senators:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/senate/members/members.asp

You can also copy and paste the email addresses below, to email all of them:

reps@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repawana@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repbelatti@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repberg@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repbertram@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repbrower@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repcabanilla@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repcaldwell@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repcarroll@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repchang@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repching@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repchong@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repevans@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repfinnegan@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repgreen@Capitol.hawaii.gov, rephanohano@Capitol.hawaii.gov, rephar@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repherkes@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repito@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repkaramatsu@Capitol.hawaii.gov, replee@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repluke@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmagaoay@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmanahan@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmarumoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmckelvey@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmeyer@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmizuno@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmorita@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repnakasone@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repnishimoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repboshiro@capitol.hawaii.gov, repmoshiro@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reppine@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reprhoads@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsagum@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsaiki@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsay@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repshimabukuro@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsonson@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsouki@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptakai@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptakamine@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptakumi@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repthielen@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptokioka@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptsuji@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repwakai@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repward@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repwaters@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repyamane@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repyamashita@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sens@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senbunda@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senchunoakland@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senenglish@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senespero@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senfukunaga@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sengabbard@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senhanabusa@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senhee@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senhemmings@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senhooser@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sendige@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov, seninouye@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senkim@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senkokubun@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senmenor@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sennishihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sensakamoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senslom@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sentaniguchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sentokuda@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sentrimble@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sentsutsui@Capitol.hawaii.gov, senwhalen@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Again, we are NOT giving up. With your help, we are all our telling our elected representatives that Hawaii’s traditional farmers and those who support them KNOW their humble, grassroots efforts have been stolen and co-opted in favor of biotech corporations. We can do better!