Taking Action to Kokua Kauai
Critical Bills on Land Use Policy
From Jeff Mikulina of the Hawai'i Sierra Club:
> Farmland sprawl bills pass at legislature
> Votes today move energy package forward, but support for developer-friendly land use bills belie opening day “sustainability” mantra
>
> STATE CAPITOL – Dozens of measures to increase Hawaii’s energy security, improve recycling, and provide protection for Hawaii’s unique species received the ‘green’ light to continue at the legislature today. But lawmakers also forwarded bills that may hasten farmland sprawl, decrease opportunities for public input on projects, and increase corporate influence of elections. This Thursday is the deadline for measures to cross from one chamber to the other.
>
> Bills to increase Hawaii’s energy efficiency and encourage clean energy use are having a strong showing at the state capitol. Measures alive today would increase funding for renewable energy programs, provide rebates for clean energy use, phase out the use of incandescent lights, require solar water heating on all new homes, and remove restrictions on the use of clotheslines in community associations.
>
> “The package of smart energy solutions decrease Hawaii’s contribution to climate change while keeping our hard-earned energy dollars at home,” said Jeff Mikulina, Director of the Sierra Club, Hawai‘i Chapter. “Like it or not, global climate change and $100 per barrel oil have changed the rules of the game. It’s time for our laws to catch up.”
>
> The Sierra Club is frustrated, however, that a package of bad land use measures received majority support, particularly from the House. One bill could dramatically increase piecemeal development of agricultural lands statewide by eliminating Land Use Commission oversight of development up to 50 acres. Another measure would allow residential development on up to 20% of farmlands designated as “important.” And yet another measure would allow moving land to the urban district to bypass the regular Land Use Commission process if the request came concurrent with a request to designate “important agricultural land.”
>
> “Support for these sprawl-inducing bills belies the ‘sustainability’ focus offered on opening day of the session,” said Mikulina. “Given the speculative pressure driving up the cost of land in Hawai‘i, the last thing we want to do is make it easier to develop farmlands into luxury subdivisions.”
>
> The Sierra Club was surprised that the Senate forwarded measures to remove the cap on corporate campaign contributions and to weaken Hawaii’s environmental review law.
>
> Citizen groups believe SB 2204 inappropriately increases the level of corporate influence in elections by allowing a corporation to give hundreds of thousands more to candidates over an election cycle than the status quo. The Senate passed SB 2204 with senators 7 voting “no” and 8 voting “with reservations”an inconsequential way of expressing displeasure with the bill. The companion version of the measure was defeated in the House last week.
>
> “We already have too much money in politics,” said Mikulina. “This isn’t legislation that senators can proudly take back to their district and boast about to their constituentsparticularly with the recent excitement for change in politics.”
>
> The Sierra Club is disappointed that a bill to weaken Hawaii’s three-decade old environmental review law passed out of the Senate. The measure, SB 2808, would remove one of the current actions that trigger environmental review for a project. The bill was introduced at the urging of the Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Transportation.
>
> “The Department of Transportation has gone from one extremeexempting the Superferry from environmental reviewto the other, requiring that minor projects go through review,” said Mikulina. “They seem to believe that court decisions somehow tie their hands from exempting minor projects. This is delusion. A clear process currently exists to exempt projects from review if they are truly minor.”
>
> NOTE: A listing of environmental billswith links to the bill’s textwill be available at www.hi.sierraclub.org/capitol.
>
> MEASURES THE SIERRA CLUB OPPOSES IN CURRENT FORM
>
> Urban and Rural development without proper Land Use Law process (HB 2807 HD2)
> This allows landowners who designate agricultural lands as “important” the option of designating other lands as urban or rural by bypassing the existing deliberative land use law process. We believe this measure is unnecessary, fosters poor planning, and may have unintended consequences. Our existing process is essential for thorough decision making and public involvement. Nothing prevents landowners with ostensibly “rural” lands currently from petitioning to reclassify those lands through the existing public process before the Land Use Commission (LUC). Given the incredible speculative real estate pressures on Hawaii’s limit lands, there is no good reason to expedite the conversion of farmland to developable landparticularly if such a process reduces public input. This measure will only foster greater speculative investment in Hawaii’s undeveloped lands and could further drive up the price of land for farming and local housing. Finally, what this measure seems to overlook is the sprawl-preventing aspects of our state Land Use Law and the processes it provides. The founders of Hawaii’s Land Use Law were the first in the nation to establish de facto “urban growth boundaries” and use comprehensive zoning as a way to keep unbridled development in check statewide. Our current law helps to prevent costly urbanization of lands far from existing urban areas where additional development is more efficient. In other words, when agriculturally designated lands restrict urban uses outside of the urban core (i.e., by prohibiting “residential” uses), they serve their purpose even if they are not actively farmed. Agricultural designation is a critical tool to contain urban growth and focus development where it makes the most sense.
>
> Increasing urban sprawl (HB 2522)
> Despite the bill’s rhetoric about “smart growth,” this measure has the potential to dramatically increase piecemeal development of agricultural lands statewide. The bill eliminates Land Use Commission control over development up to 50 acres. The current law allows counties to be the sole decision maker on land use decisions up to 15 acres only. The Land Use Commission protects open space, agricultural, natural resources, native Hawaiian rights, taxpayers’ money and the long-term health of our economy. County land use decision-makers do not consider impacts on many issues of statewide concern. Further, a parcel by parcel LUC review of proposals to take land out of the agricultural district allows for natural and cultural resources to be protected and prevents scattered, premature development. It also ensures that the community’s concerns will be heard, as public input is often limited before county decision makers.
>
> Lifting the corporate contribution cap (SB 2204 SD1)
> This bill lifts the $1000 aggregate donation cap on corporations, increasing the ability of corporations to influence our electoral process. We are surprised thatdespite all of the rhetoric of good government and reducing the influence of money in politicsthe legislature would consider increasing corporate donation limits. We reject the argument that the purpose of this measure is simply to provide clarity on the intended donations caps. It is not. Senate Bill 2204 SD1 is a new policy direction, lifting the existing $1000 aggregate donation limit. If clarity in the original policy is warranted to aid the ongoing appeal, that clarity should make the $1000 donation limit explicit. A floor amendment could accomplish that. Better yet, an outright prohibition on corporate campaign donations should be considered. Some 22 states have banned corporate donations in elections. Such a clarification would also go a long way in improving the perception of our democratic election process and reduce the unfair influence of corporate money in politics. We know the proposed policy change in SB 2204 is not popular with the publicparticularly with recent excitement for change in politics.
>
> Residential housing on important agricultural lands (SB 2646 SD2, HB 2357 HD1)
> The Sierra Club’s opposition to this “Important Ag Lands” incentive measure only pertains to the part of this measure regarding the allowance of residential housing on a percentage of lands deemed “important.” Some counties have been fairly lax in enforcing any type of housing restrictions on farmland, so this opens up the door to abuse a bit further. Due to weak enforcement of agricultural land protection, farmland has been subject to the type of real estate speculation that drives up the price of land further out of reach for local residents and local farmers. It has made it difficult to effectively plan Hawaii’s future and ensure orderly development. Further, residential developments on ag-zoned lands do not allow for adequate public input on the impact on our community. And why put residential housing of any kind on important farmland? If absolutely necessary, it should be put on adjacent rural lands or non-important ag lands.
>
> Weakening Hawaii’s environmental review law (SB 2808 SD2)
> This measure would weaken our three-decade old Hawaii Environmental Protection Act, not only by eliminating the environmental review of potentially damaging projects, but upsetting the current process that is in place with the Environmental Council and the exemption requirements. Department of Transportationafter exempting the Superferry from environmental reviewis again misinterpreting the law and now overzealously requiring environmental review. This is an administrative problem, not a legislative problem. The amendment proposed to HRS 343 in SB 2808 SD2 is unnecessary, as a process exists to deal with minor projects. While the Sierra Club is sympathetic to those who are concerned about the potential for complete environmental reviews being required on projects with little real impact, the law already wisely provides for an exemption process. If a triggered project is truly minor, then it would be excluded via categorical exemption. Further, we strongly believe that any changes to our EIS law are premature before a thorough analysis of the entire law is complete. We appreciate that the legislature has decided to fund such a study through the legislative appropriations bill.
>
> Permits for renewable energy projects (HB 2863 HD2)
> While we greatly appreciate the intent behind the measureostensibly to expedite the development of renewable energy sources in Hawai‘iwe fear that faulty decision making may result if agencies and commissions are forced to expedite energy permits at the expense of reduced public input and deliberation. The State or our environment may be liable if a critical environmental issuesay a habitat conservation plan for an endangered birddelays a project. First, it has been our experience in tracking clean energy developments in Hawai‘i that the environmental disclosure and permitting hurdles are lower on the list than obstacles such as financing, land acquisition, and interconnection agreements with the electric utility. In fact, interconnection agreements seem to be the biggest roadblock. Second, our existing permitting process protects the environment and the public’s right to provide input in the decision making. This usually makes for better siting and development decisions. Given that many of our indigenous energy resources will be harnessed in remote or ecologically sensitive areas, proper permitting and analysis are crucial. In the case of Kaheawa Pastures on Maui, the existing permitting process produced an agreement to protect the Nene and other species. But expediting permitting of new renewable energy facilitiesparticularly those that are located in wild areasmay cause important resource protection measures to be overlooked. Third, some of the “renewable energy facilities” contemplated in HB 2863 HD1 may be truly fossil fuel facilities in disguise. A recent proposal to produce biofuel by Kauai Ethanol LLC sought a covered source air permit to burn imported coal at the facility to convert molasses to ethanol. In lieu of this measure, the Sierra Club would fully support bills to provide a renewable energy facilities coordinator at DBEDT (an ombudsman of sorts) to help shepherd projects, priority processing of renewable energy permits, and any other measures to cut bureaucracyas long as the existing public input and environmental protection processes remain intact.
>
> Mining in the agricultural district (HB 3286 HD1)
> We do not support making mining an approved activity in the agricultural district. Mining is an intensive activity requiring special conditions to deal with noise, dust, traffic, explosives, and other potential negative impacts. These issues would need to be addressed if residents live nearbya situation the existing special use permit process addresses. But if mining is made simply a right in the agricultural district, this decision making and public input process would not occur.
>
> “One size fits all” endangered species protection (SB 3103 SD1)
> Senate Bill 3103 sets up a procedure for the state and county to establish a programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) that landowners can join without having to go through the scrutiny of their particular project. Endangered species issues cannot be resolved in this “one size fits all” manner. The existing law already allows multiple landowners to enter into a single HCP or SHA (HRS 195D-21(a), 195D-22(a)). In contrast, SB 3103 SD1 would allow incidental take to be authorized when you have no idea which or how many landowners would ultimately participate and what the total contribution to a joint effort ultimately would be. Thus, if you needed $100,000 from each of 10 landowners to reach the $1 million necessary for effective colony protection, under the existing law, you would grant the incidental take only after you knew 10 landowners were on board. Under this bill, you might grant incidental take authority to the first 5 landowners who sign up, and never get all the funds needed to carry out mitigation. The species could die with no offsetting benefit.
>
> Allowing solar in ag without permit (HB 2502 HD2, SB 2847)
> While we fully support the rapid deployment of solar energy (photovoltaic and collector) in Hawai‘i, our concerns with this measure are similar to the concerns with allowing mining in agwe need the existing permit process to ensure proper public input and appropriate conditions. The House draft 1 of HB 2502 struck an appropriate compromise in limiting the effect of this measure.
>
> MEASURES SUPPORTED BY THE SIERRA CLUB
> ENERGY MEASURES
>
> Expanding opportunity for home-grown power through net metering (HB 2550 HD2)
> After wisely being passed in 2001, net energy metering slowly began with a handful of renewable energy generators. As more homeowners learn about the program and its impacts on the payback period for renewable energy devices, the subscription rate will increase. In fact, we may be nearing a “tipping point” where many residential customers invest in renewable energy devices because of their relative cost and environmental advantages. House bill 2550 picks up where prior legislation left offincreasing the size of the allowed system and increasing the total amount of net metered energy on the grid. Net metering provides numerous benefits, including reducing Hawaii’s dependency on imported oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, diversifying Hawaii’s economy, reducing the need for powerlines, and increasing Hawaii’s energy security. Hawaii’s clean energy future will be powered by solar rooftops statewide.
>
> Solar rebate for limited income (HB 3064 HD2, SB 2986 SD2)
> Hawaii’s renewable energy tax credits have proven incredibly successful in helping to promote the use of solar and other renewable energies in the state. Hawai‘i currently leads the nation in the number of solar water heaters installed per capita (although 80% of homes still lack this basic renewable energy device). Currently, however, residents with limited income, such as senior citizens, do not benefit from such renewable energy tax credits. House Bill 3064 HD2 would provide the same amount of tax credit but in the form of a refundable credit to residents with taxable income less than $20,000 annually, encouraging even greater adoption of home-grown power.
>
> Right to Dry Clothes (HB 3211 HD2, SB 2933 SD2)
> This common sense legislation would help ensure that Hawai‘i homeowners have the choice to save money and save energy by using the hot sun and trade winds to dry their clothes. This may sound frivolous, but when you consider that the average family produces over one ton of greenhouse gas annually from typical electric clothes dryer usage, any restriction on clothesline use sounds criminal. Clotheslines also save money. A family switching to a clothesline on Kauai can expect to save about $450 annually, while a family on O‘ahu would save about $250. Yet many homeowner associations prohibit or restrict the use of clotheslines for aesthetic reasons. While this may have been acceptable 20 years ago, it makes no sense today to restrict smart energy-saving behavior given what we now know about global climate change. This bill would prohibit such sweeping restrictions on clothesline usage, although the Senate measure still unfortunately restricts the use of a clothesline in one’s carport.
>
> Funding through fair pollution fees (HB 3213)
> A loophole exists in Hawaii’s clean air law that inadvertently provides an incentive for large polluters. Under Chapter 342B-29, covered source permit holders pay per ton of pollution emitted annually. These fees fund the Department of Health’s (DOH) Clean Air Branch and other programs. Covered source permit holders, however, are not assessed fees for any tons of pollutants beyond 4,000 tons. The current law is not only unfair to covered source permit holders that emit less than 4,000 tons, it provides disincentive to reduce pollution that exceeds 4,000 tons annually. Eliminating this clause would eliminate another subsidy for fossil fuels. In establishing sustainability policies, one of the first places to correct is laws that provide a perverse incentive to do unsustainable behavior.
>
> Carbon fund for clean energy programs (HB 3444 HD2, SB 2932 SD3)
> Funding is desperately needed to support clean energy research in Hawai‘i and to provide funding to achieve Hawaii’s new greenhouse gas cap (Act 234 of 2007). There is a clear nexus between oil consumption and greenhouse gas and environmental impacts. Currently, a nickel fee is charged for every barrel of oil sold in the state. The fee currently raises roughly $2 million annually. A slight increase in this fee could provide needed funding for the new greenhouse gas law as well as other critical energy and environmental programs. These measures increase this barrel fee, or carbon fund, for these clean energy and climate change initiatives. The House bill increases the funding to $0.20 per barrel while the Senate increases it to an unspecified amount. While we all likely agree that we need to aggressively increase our clean energy use in Hawai‘i and decrease our reliance on imported crude, we cannot do it with funding for research, development, and policy implementation. These bills wisely tap the source of our problemimported oilto fund clean energy programs.
>
> Funding for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Task Force (HB 2507 HD1)
> While enactment of Act 234 in 2007 was a bold step in reducing Hawaii’s contribution to global climate change, the hard work of achieving the new greenhouse gas standard remains. The task force has held three monthly meetings thus far and has begun to plot out the timeline for objectives to fulfill the law’s mandate and provide workable policy solutions for the Department of Health to codify through rulemaking. It is clear, however, that additional resources are needed to accomplish these tasks. The academic and analytical work involved in calculating and setting fair sectoral emissions limits and determining the optimal policy framework (cap and auction, carbon tax, command and control, etc) is daunting. Additional staff and funding to support contract work (to University of Hawai‘i or other consultants) is needed to get the policy right.
>
> Solar for all new homes (SB 644 SD3)
> Solar hot water is perhaps the easiest, most cost effective means of reducing household electricity use. Senate Bill 644 would require solar hot water heaters for all new homes in Hawai‘isomething that Israel has mandated since 1957. The measure also increases the limits for renewable energy tax credit for residential solar systems. Some exemptions to the solar mandate apply.
>
> Hawai‘i Lighting Efficiency Act (HB 2504 HD2, SB 2842 SD2)
> By vastly increasing the efficiency of lightbulbs sold in Hawai‘i, this measure will significantly decrease household electricity use, likely saving the average homeowner upwards of $100 per year. This bill mandates that general purpose lights sold in the state after January 1, 2012 produce at least 30 lumens per watt of electricity consumed (the equivalent of 4.4% efficiency for the light) and then 50 lumens per watt after January 1, 2014 (2016 in the Senate bill). Most compact fluorescent lights (CFL) achieve 45 to 60 lumens per watt efficiency, and new light emitting diode (LED) bulbs can achieve over 130 lumens per watt. If the measure passes, the average Hawai‘i home will decrease its greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 800 pounds annually from avoided electricity use. This bill also provide for a CFL recycling program. The House measure needs to be amended to place the lighting efficiency standard in the appropriate chapter: HRS 196.
>
> Photovoltaic Rebates (SB 988 SD2 HD1)
> While the price of fossil fuel-based electricity in Hawai‘i is increasing about 5.1% annually, the cost of residential photovoltaic power is decreasing about 5%. These two trends are quickly converging, making residential photovoltaic power a cost-effective solution for Hawai‘i residents. Senate Bill 988 hastens this transition to clean, decentralized power by directing the Public Utilities Commission to consider requiring a small, per-watt “buy down” or rebate for new photovoltaic systems.
>
> SOLID WASTE
>
> Electronic waste recycling program (HB 2509, SB 2843 SD2)
> This timely measure will establish an electronic waste (or e-waste) recycling program. E-waste from computers, televisions, and other high-tech devices is an increasing problem. This type of waste frequently contains toxic materials, such as lead in the circuit board soldering or in the cathode ray tube. Moreover, with landfill issues on nearly every island, policies to divert waste from landfills should be encouraged. Starting the process to establish and fund a state e-waste recycling program is critical now as more and more residents purchase high definition televisions and decide to scrap their older sets.
>
> Improved bottle law with retailer take-back (SB 2841)
> This measure would improve the convenience of Hawaii’s successful bottle law by requiring certain retailers to provide redemption opportunities. The single best way to ensure easy, convenient recycling of beverage container is require that grocery stores and retailers of a certain size take back the bottles and cans that they sell, just like every other deposit law state. Residents have rightfully complained about the cumbersome redemption process, with infrequent redemption centers and spotty hours of operation (and service). This problem would be solved by simply requiring that grocery stores and retailers take back the bottles and cans that they sell. Hawai‘i is currently the only state with a bottle law that does not require grocery stores to ‘close the loop’ on recycling. While this measure only requires recycling at “big box” stores with over 75,000 square feet of interior space, it could be amended to apply to most grocery stores (stores greater than 10,000 square feet). Stores would not need to staff a redemption center; they could simply install “reverse vending machines” at the store or in the parking lot. Such an improvement to our bottle law will streamline the redemption process and provide residents with convenient recycling where they shop, when they shop.
>
> BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
>
> Funding for biosecurity and invasive species (HB 2501 HD2, HB 2843 HD2, HB 2516 HD1, and SB 2850 SD2).
> These critical measures increase funding for the control and prevention of invasive species. Invasive pests from the Asia and the US mainland wreck havoc on native ecosystems. The costboth economic and environmentalof introduced species in Hawai`i is astronomical. Tourism, agriculture, native species, and citizens’ way of life are threatened with each new introduction. Sufficient funding to reduce introductions is clearly warranted; this is one issue where an once of prevention is worth many pounds of cure.
>
> Prohibit sale of noxious weeds (HB 2517 HD1, SB 2523 SD1)
> Existing law requires that the department of agriculture establish criteria and procedures for the designation of plant species and restricts their importation. The sale of such invasive plants, however, is not forbidden. This measure will help prevent further introductions of invasive species in the State by preventing the sale of plants designated on the restricted plant or noxious weed list.
>
> Increasing penalties for conservation violations (HB 3177 HD1)
> This measure increases the maximum penalty that can be assessed for violations in the state conservation district and providing the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) flexibility in setting the penalties. These penalties serve both as a deterrent and as a means to provide resources to repair resource damage done by the violator. Penalties for violations in Hawaii’s most environmentally sensitive landsthe conservation districtshould not simply be part of ‘the cost of doing business.’ Strong, meaningful penalties are necessary to punish offenders and send a signal to potential offenders of the consequences of their actions. Increased pressure on conservation lands and habitat raises the need for strong deterrents to illegal activities on these lands. House Bill 3177 HD1 not only increases the maximum penalty allowed to $10,000 per violation, it wisely provides the DLNR flexibility in setting the penalty based on the scale of the damage, the market value of the resources lost, or other factors.
>
> GMO taro ban (SB 958 SD1 HD1)
> This bill places a 10-year moratorium on developing, testing, propagating, cultivating, growing, and raising genetically engineered taro in Hawai`i. While decision makers are just beginning to understand the effects of wide-scale genetic manipulation of organisms, taro, with its deep cultural roots is one important crop immediately at risk.
>
> LAND USE
>
> Land use classification “use it or lose it” (SB 1368 SD2)
> This measures establishes a “use-it-or-lose-it” policy for land use reclassifications. This measure would vastly improve “smart growth” policies on our islands, help ensure proper allocation of finite infrastructure resource dollars, and help prevent land speculation by discouraging large landowners from simply seeking to reclassify their land to sell it at a higher value. Too often, large developments that require the reclassification of agricultural land to urban are approved by the state land use commission (LUC) but then shelved for many years, if not decades, for various reasons. Waiawa on O`ahu is a prime example, where planning was completed in the 1980s but no homes have been built decades later. When reclassifications are made but the land goes unused, planning becomes difficult, as decisions regarding future growth and infrastructure needs for an area become uncertain. Some developments were planned under conditions different from today, and the conditions applied by the LUC may no longer make sense.
>
> Ensuring public access (SB 2835 SD1)
> Senate Bill 2835 would strengthen our existing access tradition by ensuring access as a condition prior to the approval of a permit for a development project, subdivision, or zoning change. This would help to ensure safe access along the coastline and to public inland areas and prevent abuses of Hawaii’s access laws. Projects that aren’t likely to threaten public accesslike building a new lanai on a housedon’t trigger the new access provision.
>
> Environmental review law comprehensive review (HB 2510 HD2, SB 2848 SD1)
> These measures provide funds for study to modernize Hawaii’s environmental review law. While we believe that Hawaii’s environmental review law has served our state well for the past three decades, we support the idea of an objective, thorough analysis of the law and recommendations of how it can improve planning for a sustainable future.
>
> # # #--
> Jeffrey Mikulina
> Director, Sierra Club, Hawai'i Chapter
> tel: 808.538.6616
> www.hi.sierraclub.org
> mikulina@lava.net
Delete Reply Forward Spam Move...
Previous | Next | Back to Messages
> Farmland sprawl bills pass at legislature
> Votes today move energy package forward, but support for developer-friendly land use bills belie opening day “sustainability” mantra
>
> STATE CAPITOL – Dozens of measures to increase Hawaii’s energy security, improve recycling, and provide protection for Hawaii’s unique species received the ‘green’ light to continue at the legislature today. But lawmakers also forwarded bills that may hasten farmland sprawl, decrease opportunities for public input on projects, and increase corporate influence of elections. This Thursday is the deadline for measures to cross from one chamber to the other.
>
> Bills to increase Hawaii’s energy efficiency and encourage clean energy use are having a strong showing at the state capitol. Measures alive today would increase funding for renewable energy programs, provide rebates for clean energy use, phase out the use of incandescent lights, require solar water heating on all new homes, and remove restrictions on the use of clotheslines in community associations.
>
> “The package of smart energy solutions decrease Hawaii’s contribution to climate change while keeping our hard-earned energy dollars at home,” said Jeff Mikulina, Director of the Sierra Club, Hawai‘i Chapter. “Like it or not, global climate change and $100 per barrel oil have changed the rules of the game. It’s time for our laws to catch up.”
>
> The Sierra Club is frustrated, however, that a package of bad land use measures received majority support, particularly from the House. One bill could dramatically increase piecemeal development of agricultural lands statewide by eliminating Land Use Commission oversight of development up to 50 acres. Another measure would allow residential development on up to 20% of farmlands designated as “important.” And yet another measure would allow moving land to the urban district to bypass the regular Land Use Commission process if the request came concurrent with a request to designate “important agricultural land.”
>
> “Support for these sprawl-inducing bills belies the ‘sustainability’ focus offered on opening day of the session,” said Mikulina. “Given the speculative pressure driving up the cost of land in Hawai‘i, the last thing we want to do is make it easier to develop farmlands into luxury subdivisions.”
>
> The Sierra Club was surprised that the Senate forwarded measures to remove the cap on corporate campaign contributions and to weaken Hawaii’s environmental review law.
>
> Citizen groups believe SB 2204 inappropriately increases the level of corporate influence in elections by allowing a corporation to give hundreds of thousands more to candidates over an election cycle than the status quo. The Senate passed SB 2204 with senators 7 voting “no” and 8 voting “with reservations”an inconsequential way of expressing displeasure with the bill. The companion version of the measure was defeated in the House last week.
>
> “We already have too much money in politics,” said Mikulina. “This isn’t legislation that senators can proudly take back to their district and boast about to their constituentsparticularly with the recent excitement for change in politics.”
>
> The Sierra Club is disappointed that a bill to weaken Hawaii’s three-decade old environmental review law passed out of the Senate. The measure, SB 2808, would remove one of the current actions that trigger environmental review for a project. The bill was introduced at the urging of the Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Transportation.
>
> “The Department of Transportation has gone from one extremeexempting the Superferry from environmental reviewto the other, requiring that minor projects go through review,” said Mikulina. “They seem to believe that court decisions somehow tie their hands from exempting minor projects. This is delusion. A clear process currently exists to exempt projects from review if they are truly minor.”
>
> NOTE: A listing of environmental billswith links to the bill’s textwill be available at www.hi.sierraclub.org/capitol.
>
> MEASURES THE SIERRA CLUB OPPOSES IN CURRENT FORM
>
> Urban and Rural development without proper Land Use Law process (HB 2807 HD2)
> This allows landowners who designate agricultural lands as “important” the option of designating other lands as urban or rural by bypassing the existing deliberative land use law process. We believe this measure is unnecessary, fosters poor planning, and may have unintended consequences. Our existing process is essential for thorough decision making and public involvement. Nothing prevents landowners with ostensibly “rural” lands currently from petitioning to reclassify those lands through the existing public process before the Land Use Commission (LUC). Given the incredible speculative real estate pressures on Hawaii’s limit lands, there is no good reason to expedite the conversion of farmland to developable landparticularly if such a process reduces public input. This measure will only foster greater speculative investment in Hawaii’s undeveloped lands and could further drive up the price of land for farming and local housing. Finally, what this measure seems to overlook is the sprawl-preventing aspects of our state Land Use Law and the processes it provides. The founders of Hawaii’s Land Use Law were the first in the nation to establish de facto “urban growth boundaries” and use comprehensive zoning as a way to keep unbridled development in check statewide. Our current law helps to prevent costly urbanization of lands far from existing urban areas where additional development is more efficient. In other words, when agriculturally designated lands restrict urban uses outside of the urban core (i.e., by prohibiting “residential” uses), they serve their purpose even if they are not actively farmed. Agricultural designation is a critical tool to contain urban growth and focus development where it makes the most sense.
>
> Increasing urban sprawl (HB 2522)
> Despite the bill’s rhetoric about “smart growth,” this measure has the potential to dramatically increase piecemeal development of agricultural lands statewide. The bill eliminates Land Use Commission control over development up to 50 acres. The current law allows counties to be the sole decision maker on land use decisions up to 15 acres only. The Land Use Commission protects open space, agricultural, natural resources, native Hawaiian rights, taxpayers’ money and the long-term health of our economy. County land use decision-makers do not consider impacts on many issues of statewide concern. Further, a parcel by parcel LUC review of proposals to take land out of the agricultural district allows for natural and cultural resources to be protected and prevents scattered, premature development. It also ensures that the community’s concerns will be heard, as public input is often limited before county decision makers.
>
> Lifting the corporate contribution cap (SB 2204 SD1)
> This bill lifts the $1000 aggregate donation cap on corporations, increasing the ability of corporations to influence our electoral process. We are surprised thatdespite all of the rhetoric of good government and reducing the influence of money in politicsthe legislature would consider increasing corporate donation limits. We reject the argument that the purpose of this measure is simply to provide clarity on the intended donations caps. It is not. Senate Bill 2204 SD1 is a new policy direction, lifting the existing $1000 aggregate donation limit. If clarity in the original policy is warranted to aid the ongoing appeal, that clarity should make the $1000 donation limit explicit. A floor amendment could accomplish that. Better yet, an outright prohibition on corporate campaign donations should be considered. Some 22 states have banned corporate donations in elections. Such a clarification would also go a long way in improving the perception of our democratic election process and reduce the unfair influence of corporate money in politics. We know the proposed policy change in SB 2204 is not popular with the publicparticularly with recent excitement for change in politics.
>
> Residential housing on important agricultural lands (SB 2646 SD2, HB 2357 HD1)
> The Sierra Club’s opposition to this “Important Ag Lands” incentive measure only pertains to the part of this measure regarding the allowance of residential housing on a percentage of lands deemed “important.” Some counties have been fairly lax in enforcing any type of housing restrictions on farmland, so this opens up the door to abuse a bit further. Due to weak enforcement of agricultural land protection, farmland has been subject to the type of real estate speculation that drives up the price of land further out of reach for local residents and local farmers. It has made it difficult to effectively plan Hawaii’s future and ensure orderly development. Further, residential developments on ag-zoned lands do not allow for adequate public input on the impact on our community. And why put residential housing of any kind on important farmland? If absolutely necessary, it should be put on adjacent rural lands or non-important ag lands.
>
> Weakening Hawaii’s environmental review law (SB 2808 SD2)
> This measure would weaken our three-decade old Hawaii Environmental Protection Act, not only by eliminating the environmental review of potentially damaging projects, but upsetting the current process that is in place with the Environmental Council and the exemption requirements. Department of Transportationafter exempting the Superferry from environmental reviewis again misinterpreting the law and now overzealously requiring environmental review. This is an administrative problem, not a legislative problem. The amendment proposed to HRS 343 in SB 2808 SD2 is unnecessary, as a process exists to deal with minor projects. While the Sierra Club is sympathetic to those who are concerned about the potential for complete environmental reviews being required on projects with little real impact, the law already wisely provides for an exemption process. If a triggered project is truly minor, then it would be excluded via categorical exemption. Further, we strongly believe that any changes to our EIS law are premature before a thorough analysis of the entire law is complete. We appreciate that the legislature has decided to fund such a study through the legislative appropriations bill.
>
> Permits for renewable energy projects (HB 2863 HD2)
> While we greatly appreciate the intent behind the measureostensibly to expedite the development of renewable energy sources in Hawai‘iwe fear that faulty decision making may result if agencies and commissions are forced to expedite energy permits at the expense of reduced public input and deliberation. The State or our environment may be liable if a critical environmental issuesay a habitat conservation plan for an endangered birddelays a project. First, it has been our experience in tracking clean energy developments in Hawai‘i that the environmental disclosure and permitting hurdles are lower on the list than obstacles such as financing, land acquisition, and interconnection agreements with the electric utility. In fact, interconnection agreements seem to be the biggest roadblock. Second, our existing permitting process protects the environment and the public’s right to provide input in the decision making. This usually makes for better siting and development decisions. Given that many of our indigenous energy resources will be harnessed in remote or ecologically sensitive areas, proper permitting and analysis are crucial. In the case of Kaheawa Pastures on Maui, the existing permitting process produced an agreement to protect the Nene and other species. But expediting permitting of new renewable energy facilitiesparticularly those that are located in wild areasmay cause important resource protection measures to be overlooked. Third, some of the “renewable energy facilities” contemplated in HB 2863 HD1 may be truly fossil fuel facilities in disguise. A recent proposal to produce biofuel by Kauai Ethanol LLC sought a covered source air permit to burn imported coal at the facility to convert molasses to ethanol. In lieu of this measure, the Sierra Club would fully support bills to provide a renewable energy facilities coordinator at DBEDT (an ombudsman of sorts) to help shepherd projects, priority processing of renewable energy permits, and any other measures to cut bureaucracyas long as the existing public input and environmental protection processes remain intact.
>
> Mining in the agricultural district (HB 3286 HD1)
> We do not support making mining an approved activity in the agricultural district. Mining is an intensive activity requiring special conditions to deal with noise, dust, traffic, explosives, and other potential negative impacts. These issues would need to be addressed if residents live nearbya situation the existing special use permit process addresses. But if mining is made simply a right in the agricultural district, this decision making and public input process would not occur.
>
> “One size fits all” endangered species protection (SB 3103 SD1)
> Senate Bill 3103 sets up a procedure for the state and county to establish a programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) that landowners can join without having to go through the scrutiny of their particular project. Endangered species issues cannot be resolved in this “one size fits all” manner. The existing law already allows multiple landowners to enter into a single HCP or SHA (HRS 195D-21(a), 195D-22(a)). In contrast, SB 3103 SD1 would allow incidental take to be authorized when you have no idea which or how many landowners would ultimately participate and what the total contribution to a joint effort ultimately would be. Thus, if you needed $100,000 from each of 10 landowners to reach the $1 million necessary for effective colony protection, under the existing law, you would grant the incidental take only after you knew 10 landowners were on board. Under this bill, you might grant incidental take authority to the first 5 landowners who sign up, and never get all the funds needed to carry out mitigation. The species could die with no offsetting benefit.
>
> Allowing solar in ag without permit (HB 2502 HD2, SB 2847)
> While we fully support the rapid deployment of solar energy (photovoltaic and collector) in Hawai‘i, our concerns with this measure are similar to the concerns with allowing mining in agwe need the existing permit process to ensure proper public input and appropriate conditions. The House draft 1 of HB 2502 struck an appropriate compromise in limiting the effect of this measure.
>
> MEASURES SUPPORTED BY THE SIERRA CLUB
> ENERGY MEASURES
>
> Expanding opportunity for home-grown power through net metering (HB 2550 HD2)
> After wisely being passed in 2001, net energy metering slowly began with a handful of renewable energy generators. As more homeowners learn about the program and its impacts on the payback period for renewable energy devices, the subscription rate will increase. In fact, we may be nearing a “tipping point” where many residential customers invest in renewable energy devices because of their relative cost and environmental advantages. House bill 2550 picks up where prior legislation left offincreasing the size of the allowed system and increasing the total amount of net metered energy on the grid. Net metering provides numerous benefits, including reducing Hawaii’s dependency on imported oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, diversifying Hawaii’s economy, reducing the need for powerlines, and increasing Hawaii’s energy security. Hawaii’s clean energy future will be powered by solar rooftops statewide.
>
> Solar rebate for limited income (HB 3064 HD2, SB 2986 SD2)
> Hawaii’s renewable energy tax credits have proven incredibly successful in helping to promote the use of solar and other renewable energies in the state. Hawai‘i currently leads the nation in the number of solar water heaters installed per capita (although 80% of homes still lack this basic renewable energy device). Currently, however, residents with limited income, such as senior citizens, do not benefit from such renewable energy tax credits. House Bill 3064 HD2 would provide the same amount of tax credit but in the form of a refundable credit to residents with taxable income less than $20,000 annually, encouraging even greater adoption of home-grown power.
>
> Right to Dry Clothes (HB 3211 HD2, SB 2933 SD2)
> This common sense legislation would help ensure that Hawai‘i homeowners have the choice to save money and save energy by using the hot sun and trade winds to dry their clothes. This may sound frivolous, but when you consider that the average family produces over one ton of greenhouse gas annually from typical electric clothes dryer usage, any restriction on clothesline use sounds criminal. Clotheslines also save money. A family switching to a clothesline on Kauai can expect to save about $450 annually, while a family on O‘ahu would save about $250. Yet many homeowner associations prohibit or restrict the use of clotheslines for aesthetic reasons. While this may have been acceptable 20 years ago, it makes no sense today to restrict smart energy-saving behavior given what we now know about global climate change. This bill would prohibit such sweeping restrictions on clothesline usage, although the Senate measure still unfortunately restricts the use of a clothesline in one’s carport.
>
> Funding through fair pollution fees (HB 3213)
> A loophole exists in Hawaii’s clean air law that inadvertently provides an incentive for large polluters. Under Chapter 342B-29, covered source permit holders pay per ton of pollution emitted annually. These fees fund the Department of Health’s (DOH) Clean Air Branch and other programs. Covered source permit holders, however, are not assessed fees for any tons of pollutants beyond 4,000 tons. The current law is not only unfair to covered source permit holders that emit less than 4,000 tons, it provides disincentive to reduce pollution that exceeds 4,000 tons annually. Eliminating this clause would eliminate another subsidy for fossil fuels. In establishing sustainability policies, one of the first places to correct is laws that provide a perverse incentive to do unsustainable behavior.
>
> Carbon fund for clean energy programs (HB 3444 HD2, SB 2932 SD3)
> Funding is desperately needed to support clean energy research in Hawai‘i and to provide funding to achieve Hawaii’s new greenhouse gas cap (Act 234 of 2007). There is a clear nexus between oil consumption and greenhouse gas and environmental impacts. Currently, a nickel fee is charged for every barrel of oil sold in the state. The fee currently raises roughly $2 million annually. A slight increase in this fee could provide needed funding for the new greenhouse gas law as well as other critical energy and environmental programs. These measures increase this barrel fee, or carbon fund, for these clean energy and climate change initiatives. The House bill increases the funding to $0.20 per barrel while the Senate increases it to an unspecified amount. While we all likely agree that we need to aggressively increase our clean energy use in Hawai‘i and decrease our reliance on imported crude, we cannot do it with funding for research, development, and policy implementation. These bills wisely tap the source of our problemimported oilto fund clean energy programs.
>
> Funding for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Task Force (HB 2507 HD1)
> While enactment of Act 234 in 2007 was a bold step in reducing Hawaii’s contribution to global climate change, the hard work of achieving the new greenhouse gas standard remains. The task force has held three monthly meetings thus far and has begun to plot out the timeline for objectives to fulfill the law’s mandate and provide workable policy solutions for the Department of Health to codify through rulemaking. It is clear, however, that additional resources are needed to accomplish these tasks. The academic and analytical work involved in calculating and setting fair sectoral emissions limits and determining the optimal policy framework (cap and auction, carbon tax, command and control, etc) is daunting. Additional staff and funding to support contract work (to University of Hawai‘i or other consultants) is needed to get the policy right.
>
> Solar for all new homes (SB 644 SD3)
> Solar hot water is perhaps the easiest, most cost effective means of reducing household electricity use. Senate Bill 644 would require solar hot water heaters for all new homes in Hawai‘isomething that Israel has mandated since 1957. The measure also increases the limits for renewable energy tax credit for residential solar systems. Some exemptions to the solar mandate apply.
>
> Hawai‘i Lighting Efficiency Act (HB 2504 HD2, SB 2842 SD2)
> By vastly increasing the efficiency of lightbulbs sold in Hawai‘i, this measure will significantly decrease household electricity use, likely saving the average homeowner upwards of $100 per year. This bill mandates that general purpose lights sold in the state after January 1, 2012 produce at least 30 lumens per watt of electricity consumed (the equivalent of 4.4% efficiency for the light) and then 50 lumens per watt after January 1, 2014 (2016 in the Senate bill). Most compact fluorescent lights (CFL) achieve 45 to 60 lumens per watt efficiency, and new light emitting diode (LED) bulbs can achieve over 130 lumens per watt. If the measure passes, the average Hawai‘i home will decrease its greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 800 pounds annually from avoided electricity use. This bill also provide for a CFL recycling program. The House measure needs to be amended to place the lighting efficiency standard in the appropriate chapter: HRS 196.
>
> Photovoltaic Rebates (SB 988 SD2 HD1)
> While the price of fossil fuel-based electricity in Hawai‘i is increasing about 5.1% annually, the cost of residential photovoltaic power is decreasing about 5%. These two trends are quickly converging, making residential photovoltaic power a cost-effective solution for Hawai‘i residents. Senate Bill 988 hastens this transition to clean, decentralized power by directing the Public Utilities Commission to consider requiring a small, per-watt “buy down” or rebate for new photovoltaic systems.
>
> SOLID WASTE
>
> Electronic waste recycling program (HB 2509, SB 2843 SD2)
> This timely measure will establish an electronic waste (or e-waste) recycling program. E-waste from computers, televisions, and other high-tech devices is an increasing problem. This type of waste frequently contains toxic materials, such as lead in the circuit board soldering or in the cathode ray tube. Moreover, with landfill issues on nearly every island, policies to divert waste from landfills should be encouraged. Starting the process to establish and fund a state e-waste recycling program is critical now as more and more residents purchase high definition televisions and decide to scrap their older sets.
>
> Improved bottle law with retailer take-back (SB 2841)
> This measure would improve the convenience of Hawaii’s successful bottle law by requiring certain retailers to provide redemption opportunities. The single best way to ensure easy, convenient recycling of beverage container is require that grocery stores and retailers of a certain size take back the bottles and cans that they sell, just like every other deposit law state. Residents have rightfully complained about the cumbersome redemption process, with infrequent redemption centers and spotty hours of operation (and service). This problem would be solved by simply requiring that grocery stores and retailers take back the bottles and cans that they sell. Hawai‘i is currently the only state with a bottle law that does not require grocery stores to ‘close the loop’ on recycling. While this measure only requires recycling at “big box” stores with over 75,000 square feet of interior space, it could be amended to apply to most grocery stores (stores greater than 10,000 square feet). Stores would not need to staff a redemption center; they could simply install “reverse vending machines” at the store or in the parking lot. Such an improvement to our bottle law will streamline the redemption process and provide residents with convenient recycling where they shop, when they shop.
>
> BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
>
> Funding for biosecurity and invasive species (HB 2501 HD2, HB 2843 HD2, HB 2516 HD1, and SB 2850 SD2).
> These critical measures increase funding for the control and prevention of invasive species. Invasive pests from the Asia and the US mainland wreck havoc on native ecosystems. The costboth economic and environmentalof introduced species in Hawai`i is astronomical. Tourism, agriculture, native species, and citizens’ way of life are threatened with each new introduction. Sufficient funding to reduce introductions is clearly warranted; this is one issue where an once of prevention is worth many pounds of cure.
>
> Prohibit sale of noxious weeds (HB 2517 HD1, SB 2523 SD1)
> Existing law requires that the department of agriculture establish criteria and procedures for the designation of plant species and restricts their importation. The sale of such invasive plants, however, is not forbidden. This measure will help prevent further introductions of invasive species in the State by preventing the sale of plants designated on the restricted plant or noxious weed list.
>
> Increasing penalties for conservation violations (HB 3177 HD1)
> This measure increases the maximum penalty that can be assessed for violations in the state conservation district and providing the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) flexibility in setting the penalties. These penalties serve both as a deterrent and as a means to provide resources to repair resource damage done by the violator. Penalties for violations in Hawaii’s most environmentally sensitive landsthe conservation districtshould not simply be part of ‘the cost of doing business.’ Strong, meaningful penalties are necessary to punish offenders and send a signal to potential offenders of the consequences of their actions. Increased pressure on conservation lands and habitat raises the need for strong deterrents to illegal activities on these lands. House Bill 3177 HD1 not only increases the maximum penalty allowed to $10,000 per violation, it wisely provides the DLNR flexibility in setting the penalty based on the scale of the damage, the market value of the resources lost, or other factors.
>
> GMO taro ban (SB 958 SD1 HD1)
> This bill places a 10-year moratorium on developing, testing, propagating, cultivating, growing, and raising genetically engineered taro in Hawai`i. While decision makers are just beginning to understand the effects of wide-scale genetic manipulation of organisms, taro, with its deep cultural roots is one important crop immediately at risk.
>
> LAND USE
>
> Land use classification “use it or lose it” (SB 1368 SD2)
> This measures establishes a “use-it-or-lose-it” policy for land use reclassifications. This measure would vastly improve “smart growth” policies on our islands, help ensure proper allocation of finite infrastructure resource dollars, and help prevent land speculation by discouraging large landowners from simply seeking to reclassify their land to sell it at a higher value. Too often, large developments that require the reclassification of agricultural land to urban are approved by the state land use commission (LUC) but then shelved for many years, if not decades, for various reasons. Waiawa on O`ahu is a prime example, where planning was completed in the 1980s but no homes have been built decades later. When reclassifications are made but the land goes unused, planning becomes difficult, as decisions regarding future growth and infrastructure needs for an area become uncertain. Some developments were planned under conditions different from today, and the conditions applied by the LUC may no longer make sense.
>
> Ensuring public access (SB 2835 SD1)
> Senate Bill 2835 would strengthen our existing access tradition by ensuring access as a condition prior to the approval of a permit for a development project, subdivision, or zoning change. This would help to ensure safe access along the coastline and to public inland areas and prevent abuses of Hawaii’s access laws. Projects that aren’t likely to threaten public accesslike building a new lanai on a housedon’t trigger the new access provision.
>
> Environmental review law comprehensive review (HB 2510 HD2, SB 2848 SD1)
> These measures provide funds for study to modernize Hawaii’s environmental review law. While we believe that Hawaii’s environmental review law has served our state well for the past three decades, we support the idea of an objective, thorough analysis of the law and recommendations of how it can improve planning for a sustainable future.
>
> # # #--
> Jeffrey Mikulina
> Director, Sierra Club, Hawai'i Chapter
> tel: 808.538.6616
> www.hi.sierraclub.org
> mikulina@lava.net
Delete Reply Forward Spam Move...
Previous | Next | Back to Messages
Comment
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Malama Kauai on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Kauai Roundtable to add comments!
Join this Ning Network