Wednesday, October 31, 2007

HI Superferry: House Superferry Honor Roll

This is the only vote tally I could find. These are those who voted against it:

10/31/2007 Passed Third Reading with Representative(s) Berg, Carroll, Hanohano, Morita, M. Oshiro, Saiki, Shimabukuro, Sonson, Takamine, Takumi, Tokioka voting no (11) and Representative(s) Marumoto excused (1). Transmitted to Senate.

Aloha, Brad

HI Superferry: About the Nawiliwili Security Zone

About the Nawiliwili Security Zone, here is a good place to start:

Aloha, Brad

Hawaii Superferry: "Trick or Treat" Oct. 31, 2007‏

Well, here we are. The Legislature passing a bill that is unconstitutional trying to give a "treat" to the Governor and the principals of one company. On this same day I noticed that crude oil/fuel is at $93/barrel. The Superferry already cannot operate at a profit because it is a gas guzzler...burning 4 times as much fuel as an airplane doing the same route. I think all involved will find that this was an unconstitutional (public) and financial (private) "trick" that is being voted on today.

Aloha, Brad

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

HI Superferry: Re: BC's Similar Fast Ferry Fiasco

From: kukui nut
Cowichan Bay, Canada

....Here's something that everyone who has concerns over the HSF....The first link is an early 2000 British Columbia government audit report of the most unfortunate cessation of a nearly identical Austal built group of 3 ferries, all in the same category and type as the Alakai which ultimately were auctioned off, one of which had never been used, in 2000 for a total of 19.6 mil Canadian dollars to Washington marine Marine, a US Company that is deeply involved in the BC shipyards. The winning bidder had offered 60 million US Dollars before the auction and was refused. The auction took place in March 2003, before HSF began. These ferries have remained out of service since. All 3 are superior vessels to the Alakai, built to the same specs but load on one end, discharge on the other, saving time, labor and vastly superior from an operational standpoint. The ultimate result of this failure saw an entire political party removed from office because of public reaction as the failed effort cost the taxpayers in excess of a half billion dollars. The failure of the HSF to be at this auction is hard to understand. And yes, I'm entirely familiar with the US laws which govern US shipbuilder preferences over foreign built vessels. This could very easily have been worked out through seeking special exemptions that would have been endorsed by the Union interests, not to speak of the 110 million excess dollars versus 3 operational vessels in Hawai'i no later than 2004. A BC governmental auditor's report detailing the history and failure, it is very moderately stated: A comprehensive narrative is here: The next link is a privately created website that chronicles the events and gives considerable detail about the specifications of the BC (British Columbia) Ferry failure due, in part, to the same considerations now confronting your HawaI'I Legislature. supplemental validation here:

Aloha, Brad

Monday, October 29, 2007

HI Superferry: Senate Vote Breakdown 10/29/07
The Honolulu Advertiser Posted at 12:56 p.m., Monday, October 29, 2007

Senate Superferry vote breakdown released
The state Senate today voted 20 to 5 to pass a bill that allows Hawaii Superferry to resume service while the state conducts an environmental review.
Here is a breakdown of the vote:

(Yes) -- Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland, D-13th;
Sen. Will Espero, D-20th; Oahu
Sen. Fred Hemmings, R-25th; Oahu

Sen. Lorraine Inouye, D-1st; Big Island
Sen. Sam Slom, R-8th; Oahu
Sen. Paul Whalen, R-3rd. Big Island

(Yes, with reservations) -- ALL Oahu
Sen. Robert Bunda, D-22nd;
Sen. Carol Fukunaga, D-11th;
Sen. Mike Gabbard, D-19th;
Sen. Clayton Hee, D-23rd;
Sen. David Ige, D-16th;
Sen. Les Ihara, Jr., D-9th;

Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, D-14th;
Sen. Ron Menor, D-17th;
Sen. Clarence Nishihara, D-18th;
Sen. Norman Sakamoto, D-15th;
Sen. Brian Taniguchi, D-10th;
Sen. Jill Tokuda, D-24th;
Sen. Gordon Trimble, R-12th;
Sen. Colleen Hanabusa, D-21st.

(No) -- All Neighbor Islands
Sen. Rosalyn Baker, D-5th;
Sen. J. Kalani English, D-6th;
Sen. Gary Hooser, D-7th;

Sen. Russell Kokubun, D-2nd;
Sen. Shan Tsutsui, D-4th.

HI Superferry: A Brief History of How We Got to This Point

From: Hawaii State Senator Gary L. Hooser
(Friends) (User info)Navigate: (Previous 20 entries)
Monday, October 29, 2007 1:35PM -
My floor remarks presented on Superferry 3rd reading vote October 29, 2007
Remarks in opposition to SB1SD1 Re: Hawaii Superferry Special Session

Madame President, I rise in opposition to SB1, SD1.Before I begin my remarks Madame President I would like to offer my thanks to you, to the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and to all of the members who took the time to attend the neighbor island community briefings on this issue, and to truly listen to the people who came forward to share their mana‘o on this important issue.Thank you especially Madame President for showing true statewide leadership by not only agreeing to hold hearings on each of the neighbor islands but in fact insisting that we do so, and then taking that extra time attending them yourself. Madame President, as all of us here today know, I speak today in opposition to SB1 not as the Senate Majority Leader but simply as the Senator who represents District #7 and the people of Kaua‘i and Ni’ihau.And Madame President, I will say upfront and directly…I know full well that people in my district as well as people throughout the state…are divided on this issue. Some believe strongly that it is right, fair and just that we amend the law as is being proposed today and others believe equally as strongly that to do what is being proposed is wrong, terribly unjust and are appalled that we are even considering the Bill now before us.There has been much talk over these past few weeks about how the majority of the people in our State want the Superferry. I do not doubt one bit that this true and I also believe that if done properly, an inter-island ferry system can be good for Hawaii.But I also believe that most people would not be so eager to offer their support if they knew it had the potential to irreparably harm our environment, as was the conclusion of Maui Judge Cardoza. But this question was not asked in the polls that were conducted. Neither was the question asked: Do you believe the Hawaii Superferry should comply with all State and federal laws? If it was asked, I suspect an overwhelming majority would say yes. But yet the Superferry is here today asking us to change the law, just for them.And this is one of the most fundamental points upon which my opposition is based. We are here today to change the law to benefit one particular business, which as we all know, is the Hawaii Superferry. Yes, the Bill does not name a specific business but only refers to “a large capacity ferry vessel” …but the entire reason we are here today in this special session, in my singular and humble opinion, is to save the Hawaii Superferry. And I suspect a majority of people in the room today are ok with that. Many perhaps feel that because of the history, background and significance of this particular business…that it is ok to pass this Bill designed to help this one particular business. I respect that position, however, I personally believe that it is not ok, and in fact believe that the legislation before us clearly violates at the very minimum, both the spirit and the intent of our State constitution.Some will argue I am sure that this is an extraordinary situation that demands extraordinary measures…and I respect that view but I just cannot support it.As most of you know, I was an early supporter of the Hawaii Superferry. In 2004 it seemed like a great idea and I signed and supported like most in the room a Resolution to that effect. I was told by proponents at the time, that the service would provide a low cost inter-island transportation alternative to our residents, that it was environmentally friendly and it would be a boon to our economy…so I said yes…sounds good to me…let’s expedite the permits and get this thing going. Needless to say, I was not aware that they were going to ask the State to provide $40 million in harbor improvements nor was I aware that they intended to bypass the environmental review process. Expedite means hurry up the paper shuffling, it does not mean cut corners, by-pass protections, or make an end run around the law.And certainly expedite does not mean exempt.For the record, I still believe that expanding inter-island travel options including an inter-island ferry operation is probably a good idea…but it needs to be done right, and it needs to follow the law, not make the law. Perhaps…if the Hawaii Superferry was just an unwitting victim of an inept decision by State government I might feel differently. Perhaps if the “mistaken exemption” which created this whole ungodly mess was simply an inadvertent error that no one could have possibly anticipated…perhaps the entire community might feel differently.But as we all know this is not the case. The Hawaii Superferry operation is controlled by very wealthy and extremely politically connected individuals. The primary principal is the former Secretary of the Navy, Mr. John Lehman who served under President Ronald Reagan, is a close friend of Henry Kissenger, an appointee to the 9/11 Commission and is closely associated with the top of the top in military and national security circles of influence. Mr. Lehmans investment group has placed approximately $80 million dollars into this venture and they can easily afford the best lawyers in town…perhaps the best lawyers in the world.So no…the Hawaii Superferry is not an unwitting, naive and innocent victim in this situation.The Hawaii Superferry, the DOT and the Lingle administration have known this outcome was a possibility since day one. And they have worked “hand in glove” since day one to push this project through.The political process according to public records began in 2003 when the Superferry operators began briefing the Lingle administration and various community groups. According to recent testimony, Bob Awana, the former Chief of Staff to Governor Lingle was personally involved in consulting on the process and helped draft the operating agreement between Hawaii Superferry and the State.So how much money does it require for a project to be able to negotiate directly with the Governor's office?In 2004, the PUC began extensive public hearings with strong public sentiment pointing out the need for an environmental review. HSF management and the DOT had to have known at this point that the lack of an EA or EIS would likely pose a problem. But rather than slowing down and doing it right…they chose to plow ahead.In 2005 the Kaua'i County Council, the Hawaii County Council and the Maui County Council all passed Resolutions calling for the requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement. The DOT and the Hawaii Superferry adamantly opposed each of these Resolutions.In 2005 Senate Bill 1785 also demanding an EIS be conducted was introduced and passed out of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee but was defeated in the Transportation committee after intense opposition from both the State DOT and the Hawaii Superferry.If the State and the Hawaii Superferry would have conceded the issue in 2004 or even 2005, the EIS would likely have been completed by now and the Superferry service would be well underway. But as we all know they did not and chose instead to keep their heads down and just push on through, in spite of growing community and legislative opposition to their position.The lawsuits started in 2005, and though the Maui court denied the Plaintifs case, both the Hawaii Superferry and the DOT were well aware that the matter was being appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.During the 2005 and 2006 legislative sessions, further attempts were made in the Senate via budget proviso’s to force the owners of the HSF to be more forthcoming in their dealings with the neighbor-island communities who were expressing increasing concern about potential impacts.In 2006, a community group, People for the Preservation of Kaua'i attempted to present Governor Lingle with a petition containing some 6,000 signatures requesting an EIS and the governor’s office refused to even receive the petition.Again, if the Hawaii Superferry and the DOT had at this point decided to just do things the right way… all of this mess, we find ourselves in today…could have been avoided.Then, in Feb. 2007, the Environmental Council, a group of citizen volunteers appointed by the Governor and responsible for offering input and advice on the environmental review process…again…these are volunteers appointed by the Governor whose job it is to offer input and advice on environmental review matters…including the exemption process. This group issued a 9 votes to 1 decision that stated on no uncertain terms that the DOT had made a mistake when granting the environmental review exemption. Once again both the State’s own attorneys and the Superferry attorneys fought hard in opposition.For three years running many state legislators, County councils and private citizens attempted to convince the DOT and the Hawaii Superferry to undergo an EIS process and finally during the 2007 legislative session we in the Senate passed SB1276SD2, a compromise solution that would have required an EIS while allowing the HSF to operate. Once again…arm and arm and in lockstep… the DOT and the HSF vehemently opposed this requirement…thumbed their noses at the Senate and refused the offer of compromise.While some might suggest that the language of SB1276 needed further clarification…one thing that was very clear…and was made in numerous public statements, by numerous people including myself… right here on the floor of the Senate…What was imminently clear was the intent…and obviously as is routine in the legislature, language corrections and amendments if needed, could have easily been made in the House.Once again, if the DOT and the HSF had accepted our compromise, we would not be where we are today.All along the way, the State administration and the Hawaii Superferry have fought and resisted the requirement for proper environmental review of this project. They have been together…locked together, arm in arm, like two peas in a pod….every single step of the way.So no. The Hawaii Superferry is not an innocent and unwitting victim deserving of special dispensation in the form of a special session and this pending legislative bailout. They are highly influential, sophisticated, and very wealthy business operators who knowingly and willingly worked closely with the Lingle Administration in an effort to avoid…at all costs it seems…to avoid and circumvent the proper and legally required environmental review process.The Hawaii Supreme court ruled unanimously, 6 to 0, that the DOT erred and should not have exempted the project.The Hawaii Superferry knew full well what they were doing, they took a calculated risk and on August 23 they rolled the dice and lost. Blaming the protestors for this debacle, and attempting to fault those in the community who believe in protecting the environment is nothing short than pathetic.No doubt, we will hear repeated here today the mantra of how this is all the result of “a small vocal minority”. That mantra my friends is simply shibai.For the record it was the egregious mistake made by the DOT and confirmed by a decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court which ultimately led to the stop of the Hawaii Superferry - not some mythical and all powerful “small vocal minority group”. The truth is much simpler than that:The Lingle Administration working hand in glove with the Hawaii Superferry owners…made a bad decision and have been called on it by the highest court in our State.In addition to being unwilling to support special interest legislation on principal…I also believe given the history of this particular situation, a bail out of this nature is totally unwarranted…and quite frankly they don't deserve it.Again for those who believe this is the only way we can fix this sorry state of affairs…I respect your opinion, I do not question your integrity, your principals nor your intent but I do disagree. I believe that good people, people of good will and intelligence can agree to disagree. I believe that good people can look at the same set of facts and circumstances and come to different conclusions.However in my heart, I also believe that in this particular situation we are poised on the edge of making a grave error. If passed, this legislation…in my singular and humble opinion…has the potential to seriously undermine our existing environmental laws and establishes a new standard that is sure to encourage other businesses follow.Worst of all… is the message this decision sends to those in our community who believe that playing by the rules is important. What do we tell those folks on Maui who fought so hard in court, against overwhelming odds and the tremendous combined legal resources provided by the State and the Hawaii Superferry? What do we tell those in my district whose community and political awareness has been incredibly galvanized by this issue? What do we tell our youth, young adults in their 20’s and 30’s who up until now most would have considered “disenfranchised”…young adults who up until this point have had little faith in government…until that is the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in their favor…proving to them…at least for a little while anyway.. that the “fix was not in” and that the system did in fact “work”.What do we tell those folks who played by the rules, fought against overwhelming odds, finally were awarded a victory… and then we come along and change the rules…and yank that victory away before the ink is even dry on the paper it was written on.Yes…technically it is true that the Court judgment stopping the HSF from sailing to Maui does not apply to Kaua'i and there is no legal impediment at this time preventing the HSF from going to Nawiliwili…tomorrow if they like. But to most in my community…this legal technicality does not dampen nor detract from the truth…and the truth is that the DOT should not have granted the exemption and the Hawaii Superferry should not have been allowed to sail prior to conducting the required environmental review.So what now? It is inevitable that this Bill or some version of it will pass…and the Hawaii Superferry will sail soon once again…without the EIS but yes with some conditions that should help…and I thank my colleagues for the significant effort it took to amend this legislation.This issue has drained our spirit and divided our community. It is time now for all of us to move on.Before I close I have two requests to make…one of my community and one of the Hawaii Superferry. I am asking those in my community and on Maui and elsewhere…those who may be outraged at the legislative action that is taken this week … please know that I share your outrage, your anger and your disappointment. I agree, the system has let us down. But I ask you to please…please take a deep breath and think about the future before acting in haste. Jumping in the water, putting yourself and your friends in physical danger, risking arrest…it is just not worth it. Protest and boycott if you must…but please do so peacefully and within the bounds of the law. Better yet, I urge you to focus your positive energy and join with others of like mind to help change and improve the system.To the owners of the Hawaii Superferry I ask that you also help heal the rifts and calm the tempers by participating in and embracing a community centered Hooponopono process of conflict resolution, prior to launching service. I urge you to accept the assistance and participation of an independent third party facilitator who might gather community leaders together for positive collaborative dialogue, without the presence of government.Put off your launch date for now and work instead to help mend the wounds that have been created in our communities and around our state.Madam President, colleagues and friends…I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me extended time to share with you my deepest thoughts on this issue…this issue which has taken so much from each and every one of us.As you know already, my vote will be NO…but as I hope you also understand, I do respect and honor your decision and your vote, whatever it may be on this issue. Thank you. gh

Saturday, October 27, 2007

HI Superferry: Bills Status and Texts

Status and Text link for Senate and House Superferry Bills:

Hawaii State Legislature
Bill Status
Generated on 10/29/2007 9:17:27 PM
Measure Title:
Report Title:
Environmental Law; Transportation; Ferry Operations
Requires the Department of Transportation to perform an environmental impact statement (EIS) for certain improvements made to commercial harbors. Permits operation of large capacity ferry vessel company prior to completion of EIS upon meeting certain minimum conditions. Establishes a temporary Hawaii Inter-island Ferry Oversight Task Force. (SD1)
Current Referral:

Status Text
Passed First Reading and referred to JDL/TIA/ENE.
The committee(s) on JDL/TIA/ENE deferred the measure until 10-25-07 at 3:00 pm in conference room 229.
The committee(s) on JDL recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in JDL were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Slom; Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) Taniguchi, Hee, Gabbard, Nishihara ; 1 No(es): Senator(s) Kokubun; and 0 Excused: none.
The committee(s) on TIA recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in TIA were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s) Espero, Inouye; Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) Gabbard, Trimble ; 3 No(es): Senator(s) English, Hooser, Tsutsui; and 0 Excused: none.
The committee(s) on ENE recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in ENE were as follows: 3 Aye(s): none; Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) Menor, Ihara, Trimble ; 2 No(es): Senator(s) Hooser, Kokubun; and 0 Excused: none.
Reported from JDL/TIA/ENE (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 3) with recommendation of passage on Second Reading, as amended (SD 1) and placement on the calendar for Third Reading.
Report adopted; Passed Second Reading, as amended (SD 1).
48 Hrs. Notice 10-29-07.
Bill scheduled to be heard by TRN/FIN on Monday, 10-29-07 at 1:30 pm in House conference room Auditorium (pending receipt from the Senate and referral to TRN/FIN).
Passed Third Reading, as amended (SD 1). Ayes, 20; Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) Bunda, Fukunaga, Gabbard, Hanabusa, Hee, Ige, Ihara, Kim, Menor, Nishihara, Sakamoto, Taniguchi, Tokuda, Trimble . Noes, 5 (Senator(s) Baker, English, Hooser, Kokubun, Tsutsui). Excused, 0 (none). Transmitted to House.
Received from Senate (Sen. Com. No. 1).
Broadcast of hearing/briefing available. See:

Hawaii State Legislature
Bill Status
Generated on 10/29/2007 9:24:55 PM
Measure Title:
Report Title:
Environmental Law; Transportation; Ferry Operations
Requires the Department of Transportation to perform an environmental impact statement (EIS) for certain improvements made to commercial harbors. Permits operation of large capacity ferry vessel company prior to completion of EIS upon meeting certain minimum conditions. Establishes a temporary Hawaii Inter-island Ferry Oversight Task Force.
Current Referral:

Status Text
Pending introduction.
Introduced and Pass First Reading.
Referred to TRN/FIN, referral sheet 1
Broadcast of hearing/briefing available. See:
Bill scheduled to be heard by TRN/FIN on Thursday, 10-25-07 at 9:00 am in House conference room AUDITORIUM.
The committees on FIN recommend that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED. The votes were as follows: 14 Ayes: Representative(s) Lee, Brower, Chong, Har, Magaoay, Manahan, Mizuno, Nakasone, Rhoads, Sagum, Awana, Meyer, Ward; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) M. Oshiro; 3 Noes: Representative(s) Carroll, Hanohano, Tokioka; and 1 Excused: Representative(s) Belatti.
The committees on TRN recommend that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED. The votes were as follows: 11 Ayes: Representative(s) Souki, Nishimoto, Evans, Har, Lee, Nakasone, Meyer, Pine; Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) McKelvey, Sonson, Takamine; 0 Noes: none; and 2 Excused: Representative(s) Luke, Takumi.
Reported from TRN/FIN (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 2), recommending passage on Second Reading and placement on the calendar for Third Reading.
Passed Second Reading; placed on the calendar for Third Reading with Representative(s) Berg, Carroll, Hanohano, Morita, Shimabukuro, Tokioka voting no (6) and Representative(s) Cabanilla, Chang, Marumoto, Nakasone, Saiki, Takai, Takumi excused (7).
Floor Amendment No. 1 offered by Rep. Morita.
Floor amendment failed following Roll Call vote: Ayes, 11. Noes, 35 (Representative(s) Awana, Brower, Caldwell, Carroll, Ching, Chong, Evans, Finnegan, Har, Herkes, Ito, Karamatsu, Lee, Magaoay, Manahan, McKelvey, Meyer, Mizuno, Nakasone, Nishimoto, B. Oshiro, M. Oshiro, Pine, Rhoads, Sagum, Say, Sonson, Souki, Thielen, Tokioka, Tsuji, Ward, Waters, Yamane, Yamashita). Excused, 5 (Representative(s) Cabanilla, Chang, Marumoto, Takai, Takumi).
Passed Third Reading with Representative(s) Belatti, Berg, Carroll, Hanohano, Morita, Saiki, Shimabukuro, Takamine, Tokioka voting no (9) and Representative(s) Cabanilla, Chang, Marumoto, Takai, Takumi excused (5). Transmitted to Senate.
Received from House (Hse. Com. No. 1).
Passed First Reading and referred to JDL/TIA/ENE.

Boston Tea Party...Nawiliwili Ti Party...Kahului Ti Party

These events really gained attention with the Supreme Court decision and also the first public efforts in Nawiliwili Harbor. The repercussions of that in public involvement will be far reaching, I believe.

This made me think of the Boston Tea Party. It seemed like a small event at the time. Dumping tea bags into the harbor to protest taxation without representation. There seems to be quite a few similarities with current events. That event became known world-wide and throughout history for what it signified.

It would be important to have hundreds if not thousands of people involved. People with ti leaves, people with video cameras, and people able to protest outside the edges of the illegal security zone.
I propose a pono Nawiliwili Ti Party and Kahului Ti Party should it become necessary.

Aloha, Brad

Friday, October 26, 2007

HI Superferry: Stryker Brigades and DU?

From: Pono
Date: Oct 28, 2007 4:34 PM
Three days till deadline for No Stryker Hawai'i comments...
This just published in internet news please pass forward far and wide.
NO STRYKERS HAWAI'I by Lindafaye Kroll RN BSN Friday Oct 26th, 2007 9:33 AM
O'ahu has nearly 800 military caused contaminated sites, seven of which are superfund sites. Many Hawai'i residents and visitors voice their concerns against the U.S. Army plans to bring a Stryker Brigade to Hawai'i. The U.S. Army is moving forward despite a recent discovery of spent radioactive spotting rounds used here from the 1960's. military_occupation_of__h...Please help us Protect Hawai'i. Pass this information forward. U.S. Army DEIS comment deadline is Oct. 30, 2007. Send comments to: and cc a copy to
No Stryker Brigade build-up in Hawai'i. Clean-up all live-fire artillery ranges. The following public comments sent to the U.S. Army are reprinted here with permission. No Stryker Brigade Combat team in Hawai'i. No DU anywhere in the world! The more we learn about the real activities of our military here on the Big Island the more credibility you are losing. Lee Bowden Hilo, Hawai'i I am concerned about Strykers located on Hawai'i as well as depleted uranium and other toxic weapons substances located in the ocean and on lands in and around Hawai'i. I would like to see military activities on Hawai'i, especially the Strykers, cease and desist. Please consider doing war games and training in Alaska where the public openly welcomes this sort of activity. Hawaii is not the place for this and Hawaiians are not as welcoming. John Lyle Volcano, Hawai'i I lived in Hawai'i for several years (on the Big Island) and it was truly a paradise. We owe it to the native people, the birds, animals and trees to keep it safe, clean and healthy for all. I am writing to express that I strongly oppose the idea of storing anything related to DU and/or Strykers being brought to any of the islands. It simply isn't worth the risk!!! Please listen to the people and remember, you cannot undo the serious damage to our Mother Earth and the planet once a mistake as grave as this is made (at least not in our lifetimes). L. Sierra Brookes New Hampshire, USA We do not want Stryker Brigade in Hawaii! No Depleted Uranium. In a recent Hawaii Star-Bulletin poll, 75% of residents oppose stationing the Strykers here. Hawaiians are known by travelers worldwide as the keepers of Aloha, and locals believe that spreading the Aloha is a better health, ecological and economic choice for the islands. Hawaiians want the U. S. Army to clean up its lethal pollution and stop using illegal weapons of mass destruction here and elsewhere. Do not ruin Hawaii's special status as a healing place for all people. Stop military expansion! Jill Wagner Hawai'i resident Please learn more. Help Us Save Hawai'i and sign the following petition at:
Then, please forward to everyone you know! READ WHY the Stryker Brigade must not stay in Hawaii! Ten Reasons to Oppose the Stryker Brigade in Hawaii
Army Regulation AR 700-48 "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities," Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002, Section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation 700-48 dated Sept. 16, 2002, specifies these requirements.
Hawaiian Islands Are Radioactive
Depleted Uranium Contamination By Strykers In Hawaii
Death By Breath
Hawaiian Islands Contaminated With Ballistic Uranium
No Peace in Paradise by Kyle Kajihiro
Army's Environmental Impact Statement for the Stryker Brigade Invasion of Hawaii:
Go to Demilitarize Hawaii
Go to Protect Hawaii website:

From: Pono
Date: Oct 26, 2007 5:18 PM
Subject: Depleted-Uranium-Outrage-is-Sweeping-Hawai'i
The inhabitants and the land of the Marshall Islands and the Bikini Islands were poisoned in the forties due to nuclear testing. Look at Kaho’olawe, still polluted despiteover $400 million in cleanup effortsThe Strykers and the legacy they would leave are not welcome on Hawai’i.”Krisztine Samu is an outraged Hawai’i resident and tells the Army so during public testimony at the U.S. Army Stryker Brigade Public Hearings in Waimea, on September 26, 2007. She is outraged by the military’s shameless and continued contamination of her home, Hawai’i Island…Please help us Protect Hawai’i. Write the Army before October 30, 2007.
Army at:
No Stryker Brigade build-up in Hawai’i. Clean-up all live-fire artillery ranges. Cc comments to
This statement written by Krisztine Samu and is reprinted with permission and submitted by Lindafaye Kroll RN BSN as follows…PLEASE accept my statement of OPPOSITION to the presence of the Stryker Brigade on the island of Hawai’i. Being familiar with the U.S. military’s legacy in the Pacific Islands, there is no reason to expect anything different this time.The inhabitants and the land of the Marshall Islands and the Bikini Islands were poisoned in the forties due to nuclear testing. Look at Kaho’olawe, still polluted despite over $400 million in cleanup efforts.Look at the Vieques Puerto Rico where the bombing practice resulted in a bomb being dropped on a civilian by mistake; the Navy was eventually forced to leave due to public opposition.DEPLETED URANIUM contamination is comfirmed at Schofield Barracks, Oahu and at Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawai’i Island.The Army has admitted the presence of this toxin, and further training/detonations will simply stir more of this dust into the air, blow it downwind into Kona with serious health implications for residents and soldiers alike.Kona already has higher than normal rates of cancer, diabetes and birth defects. We cannot allow the Strykers to aggravate the situation any further. We need cleanup, not buildup.Private citizens on the island of Hawai’i are independently monitoring airborne radioactivity spikes and this will continue in an even greater capacity if the Strykers are stationed here.If the radioactive spikes continue the citizens will surely not stand for it. We can guarantee a grave media backlash and local activism to stop the destruction.The Strykers and the legacy they would leave are not welcome on Hawai’i.Krisztina SamuHawi, Hawai’iREAD WHY the Stryker Brigade must not stay in Hawaii!
Ten Reasons to Oppose the Stryker Brigade in Hawaii
Army Regulation AR 700-48 “Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities,” Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002, Section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation 700-48 dated Sept. 16, 2002, specifies these requirements.
Hawaiian Islands Are Radioactive
Depleted Uranium Contamination By Strykers In Hawaii
Death By Breath
Hawaiian Islands Contaminated With Ballistic Uranium
Army’s Environmental Impact Statement for the Stryker Brigade Invasion of Hawaii:
Go to Demilitarize Hawaii website:
Go to Protect Hawaii website:

Monitoring depleted uranium Protecting the public against exposure By Kristine KubatWednesday, February 28, 2007 9:10 AM HSTLeimaile and Kamoa Quitevis - Kristine Kubat While weapons made with depleted uranium can penetrate any substance known to man, the issues surrounding the use of this radioactive, heavy metal are having a much harder time sinking in.Here in Hawai..i, Linda Faye Kroll is a retired nurse who has dedicated her life to educating the public about the dangers of military toxics. When Representative Josh Green introduced H.B. 1452 this legislative session, he created a forum for Kroll and others to voice their concerns."Don't believe anything I tell you," Kroll cautions, "look into it for yourself." Advice that seems to be gaining momentum at the local and state levels as U.S. Senator Inouye once again pushes for an increase in the military presence here and citizens are raising concerns about the increase of pollution that, inevitably, comes with the deal. "Make no mistake, everything having to do with preparing and making war is toxic," says Kroll.In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense is the single largest producer of pollution in the world.H.B. 1452 originally called for testing soil outside the military's live-fire ranges in the state of Hawai..i to determine if DU is present. The bill passed out of the Energy and Environmental Protection Committee and was heard for the second time last Saturday, this time by the Finance Committee chaired by Marcus Oshiro. Here it was amended to include air and water testing. The only opposition to the bill thus far has come from the Department of Health, which has taken the position that it can't afford the testing, estimated by DOH at $5 million per year. Rep. Green believes the federal government should share the cost because "any DU we're being exposed to must have come from the military."All decision makers at the hearing voted in favor of passage, there were 17 ayes. Now H.B. 1452 is headed for the senate.Depleted uranium (DU) is the by-product of the process that yields nuclear fuel. For decades, the U.S. government has been quietly converting stockpiles of it into weapons. The use of DU munitions in our own country is prohibited, a fact which does not keep the Pentagon from deploying them abroad, primarily in Iraq. They have also been used extensively in Serbia and Bosnia.The Pentagon claims that the low levels of radiation emitted from DU weaponry pose no health risks. Many scientists disagree with the way this conclusion is drawn. The military looks only at how the trillions of healthy cells that comprise the human body are affected by exposure to low dosages when handling the munitions. They ignore the fact that as DU munitions are exploded, they burst into flames and vaporize.Dr. Helen Caldicott is the co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization of 23,000 doctors committed to educating their colleagues about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear war. She also founded an international umbrella group called International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. Caldicott herself was personally nominated for the Nobel Prize by Nobel Laureate, Linus Pauling.According to Caldicott, up to 70% of the uranium released when DU munitions are exploded is converted into microscopic particles that can be inhaled or ingested immediately or when air, soil and water get contaminated. Once inside the human body, these particles kill or mutate the cells they come in contact with. Photographs of DU particles in living lung tissues show them as tiny sun-like, radiating objects. The half-life of this radioactive substance is 4.5 billion years.Over 375 tons of DU was released into the Iraq environment during the first Gulf War. Since that time, scientists, doctors and soldiers have been trying to understand how a war that lasted 100 hours and left 148 killed in action could have resulted in 10,324 veterans dead and another 221,502 disabled.DU is the prime suspect in any independent investigation of the situation. As research continues, the military is slowly shifting from its once adamant position that DU was not involved. Recent publications from the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) and the Army Environmental Policy Institute reflect the change.The AFRRI published its findings that DU transforms cells into tumorigenic phenotypes, is mutagenic, induces genetic instability and induces oncogenes, suggesting carcinogenicity. AFRRI's conclusion: "Strong evidence exists to support detailed study of DU carcinogenicity." In 1995, the AEPI admitted that DU may cause liver, lung and kidney damage.A recent Army report to Congress sheds light on DOD's predicament: If a link between the use of DU and the deaths and disabilities resulting from the Gulf War were established, the costs to the government would be astronomical. Here disabilities would also include the birth defects that are found in the returning soldiers' offspring.The name of the organization Kroll founded to educate the public about the risks of DU is called "Ten Fingers, Ten Toes" -- a reference to the alarming incidence of birth defects found in areas where DU weapons have been used in Iraq and Kosovo. AFRRI also found DU produced chromosome damage and caused delayed reproductive death.In 2002, the United Nations declared DU a weapon of mass destruction and its use a breach of international law. So far America has used over 2000 tons in the second Gulf War.Until August of 2005, when DU munitions were found at Schofield Barracks, people in Hawai..i who had concerns about the use of the radioactive substance were looking at this bigger picture. With the local discovery, the issue has hit home.The EIS that was prepared for the Stryker Brigade stated that DU was never used in Hawai..i. Evidence to the contrary turned up after Kyle Kajihiro, of the American Friends Service Committee, made repeated FOIA requests and dredged through endless stacks of documents. He discovered a single paragraph revealing that DU was present in the ground at Schofield, forcing the Army to admit that they misrepresented the facts to the community, including Senator Daniel Inouye.For a long time, the Navy has stored DU at Lualualei on O..ahu under its Naval Radioactive Materials permit. In 1994, two DU rounds were accidentally fired from Pearl Harbor; they landed above Aiea and have never been recovered.Leimaile and Kamoa Quitevis are literally on the front lines of the DU issue. The couple was hired by Garcia and Associates to monitor construction related to the expansion of Schofield to accomodate the Stryker Brigade. Their job was to ensure that sacred Hawaiian sites were not disturbed. Along with others who assisted the Quitevises in their fieldwork, the couple has been exposed to DU. Kamoa has photographic evidence that ordinances known to contain DU were open-air detonated. He testified before the house committee hearing H.B. 1452 that he has seen thousands of shards from Davy Crocketts, as the ordinances are called, scattered about Schofield.None of the cultural monitors were ever told about the dangers related to DU exposure. Whether or not the Army agrees that such dangers exist, their own guidelines require the use of protective gear for DU clean-up, including respirators. None of the personnel on base wore protective gear; none of the cultural monitors were informed about the presence of DU; none of them knew they should be taking precautions against exposure.Just recently, Leimaile's sister who was assisting on site and pregnant at the time, gave birth to a child with a serious birth defect. The baby was born with it's intestines outside its body."We can't say for sure that the baby's defect came from DU," says Leimaile, "but there's a chance. We need to start monitoring."

HI Superferry: Legal Case Regarding Seperation of Powers

Who Stole the Power? by Lanny Sinkin

In the Plaut case, the United States Supreme Court discusses at length and quite forcefully the requirement that each branch of government act within the scope of its powers and not usurp the powers of another branch. You can read that analysis in the Opinion that accompanied the Cease and Desist Order.

Does the Plaut case apply to a state legislature?

Section 1. The legislative power of the State shall be vested in a legislature, which shall consist of two houses, a senate and a house of representatives. Such power shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with this constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

The Plaut case illuminated the history and general principles underlying the Separation of Powers doctrine, examined the expression of those principles in the United States Constitution, and applied those principles and the constitutional scheme to the facts of the Plaut case.

That is the general judicial process when constitutional issues arise.

Plaut is applicable to the state analysis, particularly because the State Constitution says that the legislative "power shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with this constitution or the Constitution of the United States." Article III, Section I.

The Supreme Court in Plaut is enunciating a general principle as well as applying that principle to the United States Constitution and its implementation within the United States Government. That general principle is that, when a document defining the structure of government separates the powers of government into different branches of government, each branch must respect the integrity of the other branches and the system as a whole by exercising only the power given to that branch.

The Hawai'i Constitution contains almost exactly the same words in delineating the separation of powers as does the U.S. Constitution. See the Addendum to the Opinion accompanying the Order to Cease and Desist. The same analysis would apply in a state court as applied in Plaut.

In this case, the Governor showed a complete lack of respect for the Judicial Branch and the decision of the Hawai’i Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court made a very simple decision: Section 343-5 applied to the question of whether the State should have prepared an environmental assessment for the harbor improvements necessary to allow the Hawai’i Superferry to operate and to the operation of Superferry, which would not happen absent the State improvements.[1]

Applying that law to the facts of the case, the State was required to prepare such an environmental assessment.

Once the Supreme Court announced that decision, the law was clear. Under 343-5, the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment triggered the section of the law that requires completion and acceptance of that assessment prior to the implementation of the project.

That should have been the end of the matter. The only lawful action possible after that decision was initiation of the environmental assessment and cessation of all operations by the Hawai’i Superferry.

Unfortunately, the Director of the Department of Transportation stepped in to render his opinion that the Hawai’i Superferry could continue to operate while the State prepared the environmental assessment.

While this position directly contradicted the law, the Governor embraced this opinion.[2]

The Governor, the Department of Transportation, and the Hawai’i Superferry then engaged in a conspiracy to violate the law by putting the boat into operation.

At that point, the Executive Branch supplanted the decision of the Hawai′i Supreme Court with a contradictory decision. This act was the first major violation of the separation of powers doctrine. With the law and its implications clear beyond question, the Executive Branch took it upon itself to both create new law (the boat can operate without a complete environmental assessment) and to overturn a final judicial decision (the boat cannot operate without a complete final environmental assessment).

The usurpation of both the legislative power and the judicial power by the Executive Branch is simply dictatorship, violated the Constitution and laws of both the State and Nation, and violated the Governor’s oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws.

The usurpation of the legislative and judicial power for purposes of engaging in a conspiracy to violate the law is an impeachable offense.

The Legislature sat silently watching the Governor steal their power.

The Supreme Court had no action before it allowing it to protect its power.

Finally, the Circuit Court in Mau′i stopped the conspiracy by entering an injunction and voiding the harbor use agreement for that jurisdiction.

Now the Governor wants the Legislature to legitimize the Governor’s illegal and unconstitutional actions by granting a special exemption to the Hawai′i Superferry that will allow the Superferry to continue operating without the State having completed an environmental assessment.

The Attorney General, who joined in the Governor’s conspiracy, is now proposing to the Legislature a bill for that purpose.

[1] The Governor and other proponents of the Hawai′i Superferry consistently ignore the fact that the Supreme Court found that even if the only question was whether the harbor improvements should have been subject to an environmental assessment, excluding the operations of the boat, the State Department of Transportation erred in not requiring an environmental assessment just for those improvements.
[2] Apparently without consulting the Attorney General or warned by the Attorney General not to consult him.

Illusions as Law by Lanny Sinkin

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

The Attorney General, who joined in the Governor’s conspiracy to continue Superferry operations in violation of the law, is now proposing to the Legislature a bill to legitimize the continued operation of the Hawai′i Superferry.

In essence, this bill would remove the harbor improvements made for the operation of “large capacity ferry vessels” from the projects falling within the existing environmental laws and place such improvements within a new law. The new law would allow the use of such improvements by such vessels while an environmental analysis is prepared, i.e. abolish the “condition precedent” requirement of the old law.

As a practical matter, such a law would invalidate all agreements made, certificates of operation issued, and other administrative procedures and actions taken under the old law.

The Attorney General tries to glide past this point by stating:
Agreements with respect to the operation of a large capacity ferry vessel company, including a large capacity ferry vessel company operating agreement, entered into between the State and a large capacity ferry vessel company, may be enforced as written or as executed or re-executed.
Proposed bill at page 5, lines 7-12.

The problem for the Attorney General and the Legislature is that there is no such thing as an existing agreement made between the State and a large capacity ferry vessel company. The concept of a “large capacity ferry vessel company” had no legal meaning until this new law was proposed and will not have any such meaning unless this new law is passed. So today there cannot be an agreement “between the State and a large capacity ferry vessel company.” There is, therefore, no such agreement that “may be enforced as written or as executed or re-executed.”

In an effort to hide what is being done, the Attorney General left out the only real possibility – an agreement that is made in the future, if this law is passed. If “large capacity ferry vessel company” is defined in a new law, such a company can seek to be considered as falling under the new law and not the existing environmental laws.

Under the new law, any such agreements would have to first determine that the Hawai′i Superferry met the criteria for application of the law, i.e. qualified as a large capacity ferry vessel. Such a determination was not part of the earlier processes, so a new process would have to be undertaken.

The Attorney General knew that passing a law specifically for Superferry would look too much like special legislation to overturn a court ruling and probably be a violation of the privileges and immunities section of the Constitution, so he made the law generally applicable to boats of the Superferry type.

In doing so, however, he made qualification for application of this law, rather than the normal environmental law, conditioned upon a determination that the boat in question fits the general category.

There are no administrative rules for implementing this new law. Those rules must be adopted before the law can be implemented. Those rules will define how a boat qualifies to be under the new law and the procedures by which such qualification is determined.

Otherwise, any boat could come into Hawaiian waters claiming to be a large capacity ferry vessel and not subject to environmental laws and the burden would be on the general public or the State government to disprove that claim and stop the boat’s operation.

Ask yourself: If Company B shows up and says “We operate large capacity ferry vessels and claim the exemption from the need to prepare environmental studies prior to operation”, how will it be determined that such a company falls within the new law, unless there are administrative procedures and rules for implementation of the new law first?

If such administrative procedures and rules are required, will the Legislature have to pass another law or amend the Attorney General’s law to exempt the Superferry from the application of the new procedures and rules in order for Superferry to operate before such procedures and rules are adopted? That is what the Attorney General tries to do by including agreements made under the old law, as if they automatically fall within the new law.

If the legislation automatically qualifies the Hawai′i Superferry, Inc. and its boats for the special treatment of this law and requires other similar boats and companies to go through a qualification process before receiving the benefits of the new law, then the new law violates the special privileges and immunities clause of the Hawai′i Constitution and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

Alternatively, “large capacity ferry vessel” is synonymous with the Hawai′i Superferry. Then the law is a poorly disguised attempt to overturn a final ruling of the court and, thereby, violate the separation of powers requirement.

How tangled the web becomes.

HI Superferry: Possible Legal Courses of Action

PNN News Analysis: Making a federal case out of it.
by Andy Parx on 25 October 2007 - Opponents may be making a federal case of the idea the Legislature can just pass a state law to let the Hawai`i Superferry (HSF) sail without an EIS and other permitting.Any law the State could pass during it’s special session would violate no less than four major national environemenal acts. But Harbor’s Chief Mike Formby has failed to even provide any paperwork or evidence of any specific exemptions nor has he claimed any exist. And he has flatly refused to answer any question on the SF and Federal law.There’s an acronymic array of Congressional dictates that Governor Linda Lingle has already violated even before the legislature conspired to outrageously exacerbate the suspension of the rule of law- NEPA, CZMA, MMPA, ESA....Seems the Feds control coastal zones in this country and have quite a system for doing it. It’s called the Coastal Zone Management Act. (CZMA). Exemptions are rare other than for the military and even they must be sponsored by a federal agency and file for an exemption with a written project.The neither the state nor the Superferry have one of these exemptions.Another is the National Environmental Protection Act which requires environmental impact studies too And it can’t be changed by a state law.So how did the state do this?- it seems like a lot of these acts would require states to write their laws to comply. As a matter of fact they do.The CZMA – the trickiest thicket of State convolutions and contortions- has a specific Federal sign- off system for individual state laws which are required to determine the nuts and bolts of regulation and permitting. .Hawai`i State law- HRS 205- dictates a specific process for obtaining Special Management Area (SMA) Permits, to be issued by the counties. Most shoreline activists consider it a great law and, of course it complies with the CZMA.HRS 205 say the counties issue SMA permits. Not unexpectedly, the Kauai Planning Department has confirmed there is no permitting paperwork for the SF and no exemptions are recordedOK, the pea was in the Federal shell and it moved to the state shell which gave it to the county shell. Didja see that?But unbeknownst to all but the most observant gamer, the Legislature changed State’s shell. While no one was looking a piece of legislation called HRS 266-2 hit state law books.That measure gives the state power of “approval” over “county permitting” when it comes to “harbors”.So let’s see- where exactly is that pea? The State takes the Fed’s environmental protection pea and loans it to the county which doesn’t really have it because the state can magically “disappear” the pea without shifting it back to the Feds or actually having it themselves if the Feds were to ask for it backPoof- no matter which shell you pick, guess what? No pea... kinda of like quantum theory. Better luck next time, Wendell.Maybe youze’ll have better luck wit’ that “Red Queen” game down the block on toidy-toid street.The Kaua`i Planning Department will not return any more calls or discuss anything to do with local Superferry permitting matters. The county’s only response to a flurry of calls over a week’s span was “266-2” and the name and email address for Formby. Formby also cites 266-2 and has refused to discuss any federal implications or provide federal exceptions for the state or state exemptions for the counties.It may be that it’s because the CZMA is quite clear- there are few if any exemptions and none for private enterprises or even states. They must be applied for by federal agencies and those agencies even have to go through a similar process including public hearings and other examinations of data.But though the CZMA violations are the most complicated the others are relatively simple. It is unfathomable with all the legal defenses- and all the people who base their opposition to the ferry on misconduct and malfeasance by the HSf and the state- no one has sought a Federal injunction, especially since the state has been found in violation of 343- the law written to comply with the NEPA NEPA? Oh- it’s the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the bible of the EIS and it’s processes It sets out the basic laws states must follow in order comply with Federal law. It says that all state EIS laws are invalid without Federal approval through a detailed review process of state EIS laws.Federal courts have constituently and famously opined that states must follow the Federal standard if a state legislature or court doesn’t follow the NEPA..It’s one of the most likely reasons for the Hawai`i Supreme Count ruling as it did. The state laws they were imposing- HRS 343, 205 and others- were based on federal laws that the State legislature can’t change without Federal approvalThe Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMA) requires those who even plan on approaching marine mammals get permits to do so. To touch one is the same as killing one as far as penalties if you don’t have a permit to “take” them. They don’t even give those to all the scientists that apply.There is no such permit.And the MMA parent law, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), requires an EIS if there are threats to them and also require permission before action.No one in Hawai`i government has provided any evidence of any such application much less permits or actual approval regarding any compliance with the four laws listed here and all those asked have refused to discuss the matter despite repeated PNN attempts to secure them.[Although there is reportedly $10,000 sitting around to pay lawyers in the People for the Preservation of Kaua`i coffers, PKK honcho Rich Hoepner has refused to speak with PNN on this and a number of matters.PNN has not received any communication with any attorney currently involved with the case regarding the possibility of filing a Federal case or obtaining an injunction to prevent the legislature from illegally changing the law, as it plans to do next week according to legislators themselves and all media reports.]HRS 205
HRS 343
HRS 266-2
NEPA of 1969
MMPA of 1972
Hawaii Supreme Court ruling:
Maui Judge Cardoza’s ruling:
View the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Judgment Requiring Environmental Assessment by Prohibiting Implementation of Hawaii Superferry Project, for Temporary, Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction for the case involving The Sierra Club v. The Department of Transportation of the State of Hawai`i (2CC05-1-0114(3))
NEPA of 1969:(D) Any detailed statement required under subparagraph (C) after January 1, 1970, for any major Federal action funded under a program of grants to States shall not be deemed to be legally insufficient solely by reason of having been prepared by a State agency or official, if:(i) the State agency or official has statewide jurisdiction and has the responsibility for such action,(ii) the responsible Federal official furnishes guidance and participates in such preparation,(iii) the responsible Federal official independently evaluates such statement prior to its approval and adoption, and(iv) after January 1, 1976, the responsible Federal official provides early notification to, and solicits the views of, any other State or any Federal land management entity of any action or any alternative thereto which may have significant impacts upon such State or affected Federal land management entity and, if there is any disagreement on such impacts, prepares a written assessment of such impacts and views for incorporation into such detailed statement.

HI Superferry: Kauai Post Superferry

POSTED: 19 OCTOBER 2007 - 12:30pm HST
What if the Superferry comes to Kauai?
by Juan Wilson on 19 October 2007 - The Hawaii State Legislature dominated by representatives from Oahu, has a tailwind of popular support, and will overturn the court decisions that ruled Hawaiian law requires an Environmental Assessment be completed before the Superferry operates.The Superferry will begin operations after oil passes $90/barrel, on its way at year-end toward $100/barrel. The fuel surcharge the HSF Corporation passes along to customers will hurt. It will dampen what little interest there was for outer island travel to Oahu, but it won't put much of a dent in interest from Oahu to the outer islands.Sure, people on the outer islands want to visit family on Oahu. Some may want to shop at a bigbox store we don't have on Kauai; like Target, Best Buy or Office Depot. But the shear numbers of people on Oahu indicate that the exchange will be quite lopsided. Just look at the scheduling. It favors Oahu outbound trips for a reason. This however does not touch the real reason the outer islands appeal to folks on Oahu. It is namely uncrowded fishing, camping and surfing spots. To Oahauans the outer islands, like Kauai, have natural resources of maile, opii, kiawe, mokehana, and a safe relatively crime free culture with air to breath and room to move. Hawaiiana still exists, but not so much on Oahu.The Utopia inside the BubbleFor a while we will see the Superferry operate under this "utopian" fantasy about the outer islands. People will cough-up the big bucks for a round trip for the family, and a loaded 4x4, to take a vacation they can nolonger find on Oahu. The legislators will point to their wisdom in making the hard decision to let the ferry run without restrictions. There expertise in environmental science will have been proven correct; no PHD's required for their testimony. They had a gut feeling and went with it.In no time we will see the darker side of utopia. It does not make much sense to pay $1,000 for transportation to get the family over to Kauai for just a weekend. It makes more sense to amortize that cost over a couple of weeks.Some will take more supplies along on the truck and camp out for a couple of weeks at Lydgate.
"Hey, my brother Tony, the drywaller, is laid-off. He could stay at our camp site for six weeks and hold our spot until we can all come back again. And while we are at it, might as well fill a couple of buckets of opii and put them under the tarp for the trip home to help cover the cost of the fuel surcharge. Didn't Kathy need some maile for the kids next weekend?"There will be an increase of problems related to resource plundering. It won't take much to really screw things up on an island as delicately poised as Kauai.This will be the status quo for a period until the US economy completely tanks. Tourism will fail somewhere between the $100 and $200 a barrel for crude. Unemployment will skyrocket in Hawaii. Food prices will double and keep rising.This feeling of a "utopian fantasy" about the outer islands will be mirrored by the anxiety that the people on Oahu have about their long term plight. Overcrowding, barbarism and starvation are only weeks away if the ships and planes stop coming with food.Man the lifeboats! We’re Going Down!We will soon see that the mission of the ferry is a redistribution of Oahu's population and problems throughout the state. Even before there is a panic, we will see a net increase in the population of Kauai. At 800 passengers a day, the Superferry has the capability to double the population of Kauai in less than three months. If there is a panic that could happen.When you are on a ship that is going down it is important to have an orderly and equitable evacuation to the lifeboats. Certainly, social justice is an important part of the reason for this. But this also ensures that the most people survive. A panic can cause lifeboats to be lost and or overcrowded. A swamped lifeboat does not live up to its name. There may come a point where the people in power on Oahu realize that "swamping" the outer islands will not save Oahu. In fact,they may already know and may already have plans for relocation.There is little that the residents of Kauai can do to avert the problems that are coming to the state as the Post Peak Oil Wave hits us like a tsunami. Getting on boogie boards in front of the USCG protected Superferry guarded by National Guard troops will be ineffective.But, even if you could move half the population of Oahu to the outer islands would Oahu be sustainable. Not under the present system of economics. Richard Heinberg has reevaluated Post Peak Oil politics. He foresees three possible futures for us. Two require strong central governing authority, one does not. The latter is barbarism. Starving roaming tribal hordes lead by warlords. Not acceptable.The other two alternatives are a function of how quickly we act to solve our long term problems. The case where we are late to the game will require a "Hail Mary" play. "Feudal Fascism". People working as indentured slaves on military operated plantations in order to feed themselves. Kind of like plantation living without the fun.The best scenario Heinberg envisions is one that requires early strong leadership backed up by central authority with an eye on ecological preservation. An "Eco New Deal". He evokes images of the New Deal to save us from the Great Depression before WWII; and the Marshal Plan to rebuild Europe after WWII. Although we had a strong central government and military leadership facing unprecedented crises, we did not lose our democracy and were able to thrive. After reading the draft proposal for the legislative special session to begin Superferry operation one can only laugh or cry. The state leadership is anything but leaders. They have no perspective, vision or clue. The legislature's 2050 Plan is toast already. There won't be any 2050 if we follow these dimbulbs.Take your foot of the gas peddle!The longer the current "pretend" economy of the United States staggers on, the more likely we will be living in Feudal Fascism when the bubble pops and people realize we've been living in la-la-land. The facts are that the housing boom is a bust. The American consumer is tapped out. And the US credit in the world is headed south. It is time to accept the cooling off of our economy. Iif you want to survive, dependance on growth (requiring more population and resources) is not an option on a finite island. The dimbulbs still mumble about "Smart Growth"; but they really mean just easing up a little on the gas peddle, not applying the brakes. One way we can look at it is that the Superferry is just as another tool. It might end up a floating as an offshore casino in Honolulu. It might end up in Pearl Harbor as part of the US Navy. It could be a Blackwater Attack Vessel roaming the world for conflicts. It might even end up a passenger ferry, maybe somewhere in Indonesia. But, if it stays in Hawaii, the question is how it will be used to get us to a future worth living in. Certainly, we will lose many things we treasure about Kauai after the ferry begins service. How can we minimize the damage?The least we can demand of the Oahu legislature representatives is that they take a few precautions to protect the outer islands and the ocean environment. Their current plan is the equivalent to going ahead with unprotected sexual relations while awaiting the results of an AIDS test. For the sake of the Aina the rules for the Superferry should be to:1) Follow courses away from whale populations.2) Travel at speeds that don't endanger threatened sea creatures. 3) Do not take personal vehicles onboard until the EA completed.

HI Superferry: Dr. Lee Tepley on Likely Whale Strikes

POSTED: 15 OCTOBER 2007 - 7:00pm HST - The Dirty Little Secret of the Superferry
Secret of the Superferry and Six dead whales by Lee Tepley on 15 October 2007 - A recent e-mail states that Governor Lingle’s Attorney General is proposing that the Superferry be permitted to operate without restriction regardless of any existing or future laws or court decisions.In the hope that this attempt to legalize Executive Branch tyranny will not prevail, I will continue my modest effort to clarify the threats to marine life - and especially to Humpback whales - that will be caused by the Superferry.This letter will be concerned only with vessel-whale collisions. The term “Dirty Little Secret” used below refers to the fact that the Superferry will be far more dangerous to Humpbacks and other marine mammals than any other vessel in Hawaiian waters and there is no practical way to eliminate this danger.When any large vessel strikes a whale, the whale is likely to be seriously injured or killed unless the vessel is moving at a very low speed (on the order of 10 knots). As the vessel speed increases, the risk of death by collision increases rapidly. This has been demonstrated in many scientific papers - the most recent of which is called “Vessel Collisions with whales: The Probability of Lethal injury based on Vessel speed” by Vanderlaan and Taggart. A PDF copy of this paper is attached.Also, at very low vessel speeds - like 10 knots - a whale will have more time to react and get out of the vessel’s way. Sometimes the whale will react and avoid collision and sometimes it will not. Baby Humpbacks are less likely to react than adults who may have had more experience in avoiding ships. Furthermore, at very low speeds, the vessel will have more time to slow down or turn to avoid a collision; that is, if anyone on board should see the whale. Then, it will take at least 5 seconds (probably a lot more) before the Pilot can react and start to slow down or turn the ship.
If the ship is traveling slowly, this might be enough time to avoid a collision. But if the ship is traveling at high speed – say 37 knots – it would have moved at least100 yards before the pilot even reacts. And then how long would it take to slow down or turn the ship?? So a vessel moving at high speed will probably hit a whale unless it surfaces many hundreds of yards away.To summarize, low vessel speeds are obviously safer for whales than high speeds in terms of collision avoidance but when a ship-strike does occur, it is likely to be deadly at any speed above 10 knots –and will even be more deadly at higher speeds.So how does the above apply to the Superferry?If the Superferry is to travel at a low enough speed to minimize the risk of a fatal whale-strike, it would take all day to travel between islands. HSF could not possibly operate under this condition and stay in business. Therefore, it must travel fast and is inherently a serious threat to marine life. This is the “Dirty Little Secret” of the Superferry. In contrast, inter-island cruise ships can run at relatively low speeds because they have all night to travel between the islands.But the above is only part of the Superferry’s “Dirty Little Secret”. In fact, the Superferry is far more dangerous than a conventional large vessel (like a cruise ship) even when it is running at the same speed as the conventional vessel because:(1) The Superferry has two bows - as opposed to one bow for a conventional vessel. This doubles the probability of a collision with a whale.(2) The Superferry will push less water out the way than a conventional vessel and is therefore much less likely to push a whale out of the way. Instead, it will slice into the whale.So how does HSF try to cover up the Superferry’s “Dirty Little Secret”. Here are three ways:COVER-UP #1. HSF claims that it has exotic detection methods to permit the Superferry to avoid colliding with whales. It does not!! It has no way of detecting whales that suddenly surface in front of the Superferry - or maybe don’t surface at all. It’s pontoons extend down to 14 ft. Also, in rough water, observers are not likely to detect the whale’s dorsal fin which may break the surface for only a few seconds as the Superferry approaches. The likelihood of spotting a baby whale in even moderately rough seas is extremely small.COVER-UP #2. HSF has argued that there is no evidence that cruise ships traveling at 25 knots kill whales – so why worry about the Superferry. However, I demonstrated some time ago that inter-island cruise ships mostly travel at speeds much less than 25 knots – so they are much less likely to kill whales than the Superferry which will travel at 37 knots in open water. Still, large vessels do not always travel slowly and the fact that 6 dead whales (5 Humpbacks and 1 Sperm whale) have been found in Hawaiian waters in the last 3 years suggests that large vessels have been killing whales – maybe lots of whales. See my Superferry web site for details.
Go to
Then go to the page on Vessel/Whale collisions. If fast moving conventional vessels have indeed been killing whales, it follows that the Superferry will kill a lot more – partly because of it’s two bows and partly because it will travel much faster than even the largest fastest conventional vessels in Hawaiian waters. COVER-UP #3.HSF has also argued that small boats hit 6 Humpbacks last year - so, again, why worry about the Superferry. This is another way of trying to cover up the “Dirty Little Secret”. But the fact is that the 6 Humpbacks struck by small boats last year suffered only propeller cuts. They bled but, apparently, all survived. They will rarely survive when hit by a large fast vessel like the Superferry.So – in what appears to have been incredible favoritism - and which may now be turning into Executive Branch tyranny - the legislature may be pressured into permitting the Superferry to operate without restriction during the environmental assessment process and beyond. But no environmental studies can cover up the “Dirty Little Secret” of the Superferry – which is that it is inherently far more dangerous to whales and other marine mammals than any other vessel in Hawaiian waters.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

HI Superferry: Speaker Say Already Has a Conflict of Interest

Speaker Say's conflict of interest is not with his vote
by Larry Geller

Today's Advertiser story Say brings up son's Superferry employment adds one more layer to the problems with a special legislative session to exempt the Superferry from protective environmental regulations.

State House Speaker Calvin Say's son was one of the 249 Hawaii Superferry workers furloughed last week, and Say said he would ask his colleagues whether he has a conflict of interest before voting on any Superferry legislation in a possible special session.

The article stopped short of exploring the extent of Say's entanglement with the ferry company. Not only was his son employed by the company, Say himself was the recipient of the largest share of Superferry handouts in the Legislature.

If Superferry legislation comes before the House in special session — or in the next regular session — the speaker said he would step down from presiding over the House and ask the vice speaker whether he has a conflict.

The conflict already exists because Say has been pushing for a special session.

If Say calls a special session after the revelation that his son was (and would again be) a Superferry employee and after accepting campaign contributions from the company, it doesn't matter whether he presides or votes. He'll have repaid the company's investment in him.

Wouldn't it have been refreshing if Say (and others) had refused money coming from the Superferry company? But they didn't.

Permalink posted by Larry @ 2:39 PM

Monday, October 15, 2007

HI Superferry...Would Lose Money w/Private Sector Business Only

The activists on Kauai helped me find the following.
It is a thumbnail income statement on the Superferry
based on information disclosed in the recent court case.
Larry's got a great blog on this.


Monday, October 15, 2007
Superferry as Trojan horse
by Larry Geller

Why didn't I think of that? Joan Conrow's post today on KauaiEclectic, Musings: Ferry Fiascos, describes ferry disasters in other places such as Vancouver, BC. Please read her entire article, but here is the closing paragraph:

These scenarios could be flukes in the ferry world, or cautionary red flags that we might want to consider. Of course, it’s hard to know, without a full Environmental Impact Statement, whether Hawaii Superferry is a true gift, or a Trojan horse.

Trojan horse! That's the phrase my brain could not come up with the other day when I wrote about how the Superferry may be coming here as a civilian vehicle but may have a larger military purpose.

How can we tell if the Superferry is really a military operation? Short of being a fly on the wall or an NSA phone tapper, we can't know what secret talks have been held. But should the ferry ply our waters at a loss, it's a hint that the money will be coming from somewhere.

Earlier I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on how profitable the ferry could be. But here is another, and better, analysis done by Prof. Dick Mayer that has been circulating via email. Follow along and see how the Superferry could well operate at a loss for the civilian portion of its business. I'll come back at the end with my take on the numbers.

Ok, here are the estimates (paraphrasing the original email):

According to the company, they expect an average load of about 400 people, and 110 vehicles per trip.
400 passengers x $72 = $28,800 110 vehicles x $65 = $7,150
Total $35,950 per trip
Total trips scheduled per week 26
Therefore estimated revenue per Superferry would be $35,950 x 26 = $934,700 per week.

John Garibaldi, Superferry's president and chief executive, stated that the weekly operating cost while the ship is idle and docked at Honolulu Harbor is $650,000 per week.
The current price for marine diesel fuel in Honolulu is $740/metric ton or at least $2.07 per gallon.

If fuel consumption per one way trip is about 6,600 gallons, Kauai or Maui, so the average fuel cost (one way trip) is 6,600 x $2.07 = $13,662 At 26 trips per week x $13,662 = $355,212 per week for fuel.

So the operating cost including fuel would be $1,005,212 per week.


So based on Superferry's projected load factors, there is an operating loss of $70,512 per week, or $3,666,624 per year.

Even today, a few million bucks is real money. How could the Superferry break even or turn a profit? You got it—pick up that military business.

Or raise fares, of course. Since I can't rent a car at the other end of a ferry ride, I would probably stick with cheaper air fares if the ferry charges too much.

Or maybe civilian passengers aren't the point here. If it's aTrojan horse, then maybe this whole thing is just a way to get those presumably lucrative military contracts. A Pacific Business News article from 2004 (yes, three years ago) revealed that part of the business model was to
Seek defense business, hauling vehicles between islands at night for military exercises. The ferries are being built with specially reinforced vehicle decks especially for this, though the reinforcement also means that big rigs can be driven onto the ferries and it won't matter in which lane they park.

If the Legislature let's them in without restrictions, Strykers will have a new way to get around, but we may not. The Superferry is made for them, as the article reveals.

HI Superferry Great Article

Great web page and article on the HI Superferry:

Aloha, Brad

HI Superferry Good Commentary

By trying to move the issue of the HI Superferry from the learned judgement of the courts to a Special Session of the Legislature, Linda Lingle seeks to rely upon the "tyranny of the majority" population of Oahu versus what should be the "Home Rule" of Kauai and Maui to determine what happens on their own islands. That's what this would be in the Legislature...

"the tyranny of the majority of Oahu against the pono home rule of Maui and Kauai."--Brad

That is my commentary.

Here is some more good commentary:

Aloha, Brad

HI Superferry: Conditions to Operate

Until an EIS is completed and approved:

First, the Superferry should not be allowed to operate between the Hawaiian islands any faster than 15 knots per hour.

Second, until an EIS is completed the Superferry should be a POFF which is an industry standard that means Passenger Only Fast Ferry. Vehicles should not be allowed to go interisland on the HI Superferry until the EIS is completed. If cars are allowed then there has to be a high powered undercarriage wash of each vehicle at the harbor before it boards the ferry.

Third, the Superferry should not be allowed to dump its refuse in Hawaiian waters.

Fourth, "Martial Law" in Nawiliwili Harbor should be lifted and the canoe clubs there and the canoe clubs in Kahului Harbor should be allowed to operate uninterrupted under their prior schedules.

These are the conditions, HI Superferry, take it or leave it!

Aloha, Brad

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Superferry: John Lehman...sell it to the Navy or Army!

Today, John Lehman was quoted for the first time in a while in the Honolulu papers saying something like the HI Superferry are reviewing their options and that a lot of other places would love to have a unique boat like this. Mr. Lehman, you have the contacts...just sell it to the Navy or Army at a little mark-up. That's who you wanted to use it anyway. There are fast ferries already operating along the East Coast. It could be used for troop transport along the eastern seaboard. I am sure the Navy or Army can pay you what you need for it. Use your contacts, Mr. Lehman. Maybe Inouye can help facilitate the DoD buying it. I'm sure they've got the money...they're spending multiple times your cost every day in Iraq. Aloha, Brad

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Superferry Lingle declines to accept petition

Superferry Lingle declines to accept petition

There is also good information here about fast ferry effects between Tahiti and Mo'orea:

Why wouldn't the governor or a senior staffer just accept the petition???

Aloha, Brad

Superferry: Repeal Security Zone for Kauai’s Harbor

Superferry: Repeal Security Zone for Kauai’s Harbor

This is unfinished business. This Security Zone in Nawiliwili Harbor has to be repealed. Why the f**k should canoe clubs not be allowed to practice after certain hours?!! The Superferry's agreement with the state is now "null and void!"

Also, Ka'iulani's LA Times article for background:,1,1110980.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

Aloha, Brad

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

HI Superferry....No means NO!

The problem is that the Superferry's speed is incompatable with the whale sanctuary here...there are 5000 humpback whales in immediate Hawaiian water in the winter. There would be NO way the Superferry could avoid hitting them. The Superferry does NOT belong here at all.

I suggest they try to move to somewhere like Seattle.

Aloha, Brad

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Superferry NO!...Thank you Judge Cardoza

Judge Blocks Superferry From Maui

Written by KGMB9 News
Monday, October 08, 2007 12:01 PM

It's a no-go for the Hawaii Superferry.

That's the ruling this morning from Judge Joseph Cardoza, who has blocked the high-speed vessel from sailing to Maui until the Department of Transporation prepares a legally acceptable environmental assessment.

Cardoza also ruled the operating agreement between the Superferry and the State is null and void.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:09 PM )

Friday, October 5, 2007

HI Superferry and "15 knots" in court yesterday...

The Superferry and "15 knots" in court yesterday...

Posted on: Friday, October 5, 2007

Hawaii Superferry warns it must sail soon
By Christie Wilson, Advertiser Neighbor Island Editor

Quoting from the above article:


Garibaldi testified that if allowed by Cardoza to resume service, the company would accept a court condition to adopt the practices during the entire time it takes the state to complete the assessment, not just during whale season. But he said the Hawaii Superferry would not be able to work with a court-imposed speed restriction of 15 knots, in the range recommended by marine mammal experts to reduce the risk of whale strikes and the severity of injuries to any animals that are hit.

The company tariff approved by the state Public Utilities Commission set a schedule of one daily roundtrip each between Honolulu and Maui, and Honolulu and Kaua'i. The sailing time for each one-way leg is set at three hours.

Garibaldi said the schedule was based on the ferry's cruising speed of 37 knots, or about 43 mph.

If forced to slow to 15 knots, Garibaldi said the company would not be in compliance with its tariff, and would not be able to make its two daily roundtrips. "Our business plan wouldn't be a viable business plan," he said."

And another place that 10 to 15 knots speed limit has recently shown up:

I'll just comment what should be obvious. The PUC can approve a different tariff and travel schedule for the HI Superferry. A 15 knots speed limit is an outstanding idea that the judge could use, and that is precisely why Garibaldi felt compelled to comment on it now.

Aloha, Brad