The Hawai`i Superferry presents a classic case of how not to do business in Hawai`i. Superferry’s lack of planning and violation of the Hawaii Environmental Protection Act has created a public debacle, inconvenienced their customers, and put Hawaii’s environment at risk. Three years ago the Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow, and Kahului Harbor Coalition asked the Hawai`i Superferry and the Lingle Administration to complete an environmental review of the Superferry. Unknown environmental risks, concerned neighbor island communities, and a clear reading of the law demanded it. The review would have occurred while other planning proceeded. The Administration and Superferry corporation, however, decided to gamble and chose to skip this mandatory environmental disclosure process.
A unanimous Supreme Court decision – announced just hours after oral argument– called their bluff. Then, despite the decision from Hawaii’s highest court, Superferry decided to roll the dice again and start service early. Again, they lost when a judge ordered them to cease service to Maui.
A responsible company doesn’t allow a problem to get to the point where they receive a restraining order. They lost in court, lost neighbor island support, and lost credibility.
Poor planning and lack of community involvement angered some Kaua`i residents to the point of taking justice into their own hands, risking arrest (or their lives) to block the arrival of the Superferry. The Sierra Club does not condone lawbreaking – neither by the Superferry nor by the protesters. The protests, however, surely reflect the deep sense of injustice many neighbor islanders feel toward the Superferry – contempt that has been irresponsibly inflamed by proceeding in open disregard of the law.
This is why the public review process is so important in the first place: to understand the environmental tradeoffs, to involve the affected communities, to separate fact from fiction, and to protect the environment against unintended consequences. Unintended conssequences like the spread of mongoose to Kaua`i. Or the disastrous varroa bee mite to Maui. Or coqui frogs everywhere. These pests can easily become stowaways underneath car or truck bodies or inside the bushels of produce being transported. And with the Superferry shuttling hundreds of private vehicles and farm trucks daily, spreading these pests is all but guaranteed – unless proper protections are put in place and funded. For neighbor island farmers, the cost of new invasive species brought by the Superferry could be their livelihood.
The high-speed vessel operation itself may pose a threat to the marine mammals. Traveling at 35 knots through known whale calving areas may make riders sick in more ways than one. Environmental reviews are used to fix problems before they occur. They don’t just look at wildlife but at social consequences such as unbearable traffic, curtailment of traditional Hawaiian activities, and costly freight increases to small businesses. What are the best ways to minimize harm to Hawaii’s unique environment and communities? That’s what we’ll learn with an environmental review. Ultimately, the review process produces a better outcome for all involved, island-style.
When public taxpayer dollars are used as they are with the Superferry, the public has a right to ask questions – and get answers. Otherwise we might all be taken for a ride.
The environmental review process is a routine procedure. Private companies and State and Federal agencies complete reviews all the time. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has completed numerous such reviews in the past year. New roads, harbor improvements, airport upgrades: they all go through the process. Significantly, the DOT even required and conducted a full environmental impact statement when a ferry system just on the Island of O`ahu was proposed.
Three decades ago when the Hawai`i Environmental Protection Act was enacted, State elected leaders made clear that the environmental review be a “condition precedent” to implementation of the proposed action. In other words, the study must be complete before the project starts. We must look before we leap. It’s not only common sense, it’s the law.
Yes, the review process can be messy because you have to deal with real science – not soundbites and promises – and real public input. Superferry would actually have to respond to questions in writing and publish the answers. Yes, it takes a few months to complete. But the resulting document provides clear answers on what the adverse impacts are expected – and how best to prepare for them.
So why did the Superferry and the Administration chose to skip this process three years ago? Why did they chose not to complete an environmental review after the community groups asked, after neighbor island lawmakers asked, after the Maui, Kaua`i, and Big Island county councils asked, even after the State’s own Environmental Council ruled that it was required. Why not? Were they worried about disclosing something the public wouldn’t like to hear?
Hawai`i is like no other place on Earth, with hundreds of species found nowhere else on the planet and deep community values. To protect this uniqueness, the Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow and Kahului Harbor Coalition requested Superferry and the DOT to comply with our keystone environmental law years ago. They chose to ignore the law. Our position hasn’t changed: if the Superferry is going to operate in Hawaii’s waters, it must to be done right. The first step is to comply with our state laws.
Superferry Facts and Myths
Refuting the Myths: Hawaii Superferry
by Ron Sturtz, President of Maui Tomorrow Foundation, Inc
Many people have asked that I provide a factual overview of the potential environmental impacts of the Hawaii Superferry, and the status of current legal challenges. I hope that the following facts – in response to a few well-intentioned and passionate, but misinformed letters, editorials and news reports – will be helpful to the discussion.
Myth: The State and Federal Courts have ruled that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary:
Fact: To quote Attorney General Mark Bennett in a published interview on February 6 by KGMB-9 TV: “No court has ruled against the argument that an EIS was required in this case.”
Myth: All legal challenges are behind the Superferry.
Facts: The Maui Circuit Court has granted legal standing to Maui Tomorrow Foundation, Inc., the County of Maui, and the Kahului Harbor Coalition to seek an EIS encompassing the entire Kahului Harbor and all its users, including the Hawaii Superferry. This case is ongoing and the parties are in negotiation. An earlier case which challenged the exemption from an EIS, given to the Hawaii Superferry by the Department of Transportation, has been appealed to The Hawaii Supreme Court. This action followed an initial ruling that Maui Tomorrow did not have legal standing in the case, and that the exemption could stand. That case is still open and an EIS may still be required.
Myth: That this is an “11th Hour” claim by environmentalists seeking to stop the Superferry.
Facts: The public requested an EIS as early as the PUC hearing of November 19, 2004. Efforts to mediate disagreements over legal requirements of addressing environmental impacts led to litigation on March 21, 2005. There has been plenty of time – well over two years – for the Superferry to conduct an EIS.
The goal of an EIS is to study and address the potentially harmful economic, social and environmental impacts of the Superferry, and not to run it aground. The Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai County Councils all passed resolutions last year to require an EIS. The Maui County Council also directed County Attorneys to join in the current lawsuit against the State. Testifiers and sign-holding protesters on Maui have included a broad coalition of harbor workers, farmers, canoe paddlers, construction workers, residents from all parts of the island, as well as state and local governmental representatives.
Myth: The Hawaii Superferry is no more dangerous to whales than other vessels and ferries that regularly travel in oceans around the world, including Alaska, where humpback whales spend their summers. The Superferry’s Whale Avoidance Policy will adequately address potential collisions.
Facts: Hawaii has never seen a vessel like this twin hull, 350 foot craft, traveling at speeds up to 40 knots. Just last month, a cruise ship in Alaska was fined $750,000 for killing a pregnant humpback whale, while traveling at a speed estimated at only 17-20 knots. The much-touted Whale Avoidance Policy (WAP) promised use of “forward looking sonar”, however it wasn’t ever installed in the vessel, and isn’t deemed practical. Their reduced speed of 25 knots is almost double the NOAA recommended safe speed of 13 knots. Furthermore, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, which adopted the WAP, is chaired by Terry O Halloran, HSF’s hired spokesperson. This represents a clear conflict of interest.
Myth: Law enforcement and agricultural inspections will be stringent, and will stop the spread of drugs and invasive species.
Facts: The time allotted for vehicle inspection will be insufficient to conduct adequate security and agricultural screening, due to the sheer numbers of vehicles loading and off-loading the giant ferry. 250 cars loading in 15 minutes leaves 3.6 seconds to thoroughly inspect each vehicle. With even 6 inspectors, that leaves 21.6 seconds per car.
Myth: The Hawaii Superferry is being unfairly singled out when nobody else has been required to due an EIS .
Facts: The last time a ferry was proposed, an EIS was required by the State. In 1988, the Oahu Intra-island Ferry System proposed to set sail. It, too, proposed the use of State lands and State funds. On January 19, 1989, the State DOT director Edward Y. Hirata prepared a 561 page Final Environmental Impact Statement that was directed to the Governor’s office for consideration. And that EIS didn’t even have to deal with inter-island issues of invasive species and sailing through whale-laden waters. That Ferry proposal had far fewer environmental challenges facing it, and yet, the DOT saw fit to prepare an EIS for the State Governor.
Myth: The State will incur millions of dollars in penalties if an EIS in required.
Facts: The Operating Agreement between the DOT and the Super Ferry, dated September 7, 2005, clearly protects the State from all damages for delays caused by an EIS.
Conclusion: Public discourse is valuable. It is helpful to remove the emotions and myths from the discussion, and focus on the facts. They speak for themselves. Mahalo for letting me share mymana`o.
Ron Sturtz is the President of Maui Tomorrow Foundation, Inc, a non—profit organization committed to protecting Maui’s future through wise land planning, responsible growth, and environmental protection.