Editorial on Pohakuloa
Saturday, May 25th, 2019Editorial: All eyes on Pohakuloa Training Area
Today Updated 6:50 p.m.
The Hawaii Supreme Court hears oral arguments last week Thursday, in a case in which the DLNR is accused of failing to ensure that the military does not trash the Pohakuloa Training area on the Big Island in violation of its lease with the state.
It seems like deja vu all over again — and not in a good way. The Hawaii Supreme Court is now deliberating whether the state upheld its duty to protect public trust land over a military-leased training site — namely, Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) on Hawaii island. Oral arguments were heard last week.
This case evokes a history of failed stewardship of Hawaii’s aina involving the military. Makua Valley, a training range for nearly a century, has drawn legal fights, including a 2001 court settlement over cultural access and a 2016 lawsuit over unexploded ordnance. Waikane Valley, which underwent munitions remedial investigation and removal after more than 30 years of artillery training. And of course, Kahoolawe, which was so known for bombing practice over decades that it was dubbed the Target Island.
In their lawsuit over Pohakuloa, Hawaiian cultural practitioners Clarence “Ku” Ching and Mary Maxine Kahaulelio claim, compellingly, that the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) failed in its duty to protect the land. Since 1964, when DLNR entered into a 65-year lease allowing the Army to use nearly 23,000 acres, it has provided scant oversight over use of the site. Just two inspections to ensure military compliance with lease terms have occurred over the past 55 years — one in 1984; and one in 1994, an unsigned one-pager with barely any information.
In ruling against DLNR last year, Oahu Circuit Judge Gary Chang ordered the state to provide a stewardship plan, regular monitoring, inspection reports with procedures for addressing violations and debris removal plans. All this would seem the right thing to do — but the state appealed. It’s now up to the Supreme Court to affirm that Chang’s directive is, indeed, the right thing to do.
