Peter Young, the new director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, recently granted interviews to Environment Hawai`i editor Patricia Tummons and staff writer Teresa Dawson. Here are excerpts:
What are your goals, your vision for the department?
As I learn more about the department, my ideas change, but it is clear to me that what must be our Number 1 priority is to work on an educational program, in whatever we do, to let people know that our resources are not limitless nor are they resilient. That they are scarce and they are fragile. That we need to do all we can now to protect our resources for the future, and that what we do is not about us, but it’s about generations to come. That it’s prevention of problems is far better than reaction to problems. It’s cheaper, faster, easier to address a prevention issue than it is a reaction.
Just looking at salvinia as one example, miconia as another example. If we were able to prevent those introductions, if we had acted sooner, they would be easier to deal with.
That’s true with any problem. That’s a motherhood and apple pie statement.
But it is a true statement.
Nonetheless, how is that going to translate into on the ground programs? Are you going to be giving more money to your line division managers, are you going to be pushing the Legislature?
As we know about the financial condition of the state right now, it is tough times. We are cutting back rather than adding programs or adding people. We have about 150 vacancies at the department right now. We’ve gone to each of the divisions and asked them to prioritize each of their vacancies. We are working with [the Department of] Budget and Finance right now to try to get those filled. There’s been a hiring freeze statement, so we go back to Budget and Finance to review our priorities.
The state average for managing lands in the Natural Area Reserves is about $11 an acre, and far less than that for Forest Reserve land. Are you in a position to lobby the administration for increasing that, or are you going to be accepting of whatever the administration decides?
I haven’t seen the number, but department-wise, we’re approximately one percent of the overall general fund budget. At this time, we have agreed with our budget, and it means we are looking at other ways to get funding.
My view of the money is that money is a means of getting things done. It’s not necessarily the money we need, it’s the products and services money will buy. So if we can’t get the money through the Legislature, through the budget, through the general fund, are there other ways to get the goods and services, either through other funding sources or possibly looking at partnering with other departments within the state or with county and federal agencies or the private sector, where there are opportunities for cost sharing?
An example right now, in addressing the salvinia issue at Lake Wilson and ultimately around the state: the Department of Land and Natural Resources is tasked with the lead role. The governor has said, ‘your department – you – are in charge of this response.’ We are not financially or personnel-wise capable of doing the response on our own. We had been working with the City and County and immediately asked them for further assistance, in addition to assistance from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We even looked at the Department of Public Safety and the private sector in trying to take the big problem, the big workload, and break it into smaller component parts. We’ve separated three extraction sites at Lake Wilson. One’s assigned to the City and County of Honolulu, one’s to the state, one’s to the federal.
Let’s look for a moment at the issue of salvinia. What do you see as the urgent need to clean up Lake Wilson as opposed to, say, managing a Natural Area Reserve that doesn’t even have fences around it?
There are challenges of all types, of all natures.
Lake Wilson is an artificial body of water, where non-native fish are threatened by a non-native weed. Salvinia is perhaps unsightly. It may be a nuisance for those companies that take tourists out to fish, but is this going to be the Number 1 problem for you? How much of your decision-making is based on a problem being in the headlines versus it being a reasonable risk to native species unique to Hawai`i?
It is an opportunity and obligation for us to spread the message to everyone that situations like this are not good. Ultimately it gets back to that education program of having people understand that our resources are at risk from a variety of sources. And if we can remind people about being sensitive about the resources, using Lake Wilson as an example, and Kawainui Marsh and other areas, then we can move forward and have people have a better understanding about how we deal with other resources.
Going back to your priorities – you said you’re trying to partner with other agencies.
The priority is having people understand the importance of protecting the resource. That’s the way I phrased it. It’s an obligation of us to make sure people understand the situation – Lake Wilson, going back to Lake Wilson. That’s an example of what can happen when we allow the import of an inappropriate type of plant material that can have an impact on our resources.
Let’s suppose that salvinia at Lake Wilson is a good opportunity to educate the public. It’s not technically easy for you to clean it up, but it’s an easy decision for you to make to devote the resources to cleaning up that problem – as opposed to some remote area that nobody ever sees but which is being devastated by pigs. You’ve got native species at risk there. You’ve got fences that need to be built, but nobody to build them. How do you weigh what gets your first priority for attention and resources? These are problems you’re encountering right now. One is high profile and you’re getting pressured to do it. The other one, no one seems to care.
I would not characterize it that way. To suggest that all we do at the DLNR is worry about salvinia at Lake Wilson is a gross overstatement.
So tell me how I’m wrong.
The Invasive Species Council is a way to again understand where some of these issues are. Our department is working on a fencing program on Lana`i to separate deer from a resource area.
Castle & Cooke was originally supposed to build that fence. And it’s galling to some in the environmental community that the state has taken on the burden and the cost of building that fence.
We are assisting with some funding, we are not building the fence. It is not us going out to build it. That’s my understanding. The Legislature is suggesting further funding to complete it. That’s the Legislature’s prerogative, to address issues as they see fit.
When you don’t have a partner out there who is willing to provide goods and services that you cannot otherwise afford, what are you going to do? Are you going to conduct a triage, make those decisions about protecting areas in Natural Area Reserves versus devoting money to building new catwalks in harbors?
It’s hard to characterize a response. I don’t know the specific requirements. As I learn more about the department I know that there are people tasked with certain specific issues, like Natural Area Reserves, like whale sanctuaries, like coral reefs. I am getting input on the issues that they are facing and the challenges they are facing.
We are trying to look at things differently. My feeling is, if you keep doing the same things the same way, you’re going to continue to get the same outcomes. If we don’t like the outcomes we’ve been getting, then we need to change what we’re doing.
Let me go to an example of a partnership that was completely shot down by the Land Board – and that concerns Pu`uwa`awa`a. Here you had private funds, deep pockets in the grant-making community, that were willing to finance a management plan at Pu`uwa`awa`a that would have allowed multiple uses – hunting, ranching, conservation. The Land Board decided, no, we’re going to turn our backs on that, we’re going to do it ourselves. What are your plans for Pu`uwa`awa`a?
Pu`uwa`awa`a is an area that I’m familiar with. As an appraiser on rental reopenings of the pasture lease that used to exist on that, I’ve been on the site as a working ranch. As a boy, I was on the site hunting. The opportunity that exists at Pu`uwa`awa`a should be a model for other similarly state-owned and maybe state and privately partnered areas where that suggestion had come forward. A public-private partnership and multiple use and addressing the needs or at least the interests of the public, preserving the resource, are things that I support. I support that idea. It is a good model. It is a good example.
I don’t think it is available to the state any longer because as soon as the state decided that it would develop its own management plan, the funders walked away.
As some suggest, this is a new beginning. There are new opportunities. What used to not be able to happen maybe can happen.
So you have a plan?
I don’t have a plan at this time, but I have an interest in and understanding of it. It’s the type of model that I think is appropriate.
Over the 40 year period of the most recent lease at Pu`uwa`awa`a, the entire rent came to about $1.5 million, or about enough to cover the cost of 341 days of intensive management under the plan that DOFAW has now prepared. Do you think that we are not getting enough money from state pasture lands, especially in consideration of the lost resources, to begin to cover the costs of restoration?
There’s a business model that should be considered in lease rent, what a reasonable lease rent is. And if a lease rent will force everyone out of business, then it’s not necessarily an appropriate lease rent to charge. It’s looking at a fair return based on use.
But if you look at the value of the resources that are being eaten up by the business that is paying the rent, and the cost of restoring those resources, or the priceless cost of those resources if they go extinct, then is it justifiable to continue the use that is so destructive, regardless of the amount of rent paid?
In the case of Pu`uwa`awa`a, here you had a ranch that was bitterly complaining that its lease rents were too high, for years and years and years. But let’s just suppose that $1.5 million over 40 years was a fair rent in terms of the ranching activity that that land could support. That means that right now, there are some areas where no ranch can be profitable without the state subsidizing it through the loss of rare and endangered species. So at what point do you say, sorry ranchers, you can’t have that land anymore?
There are certain areas where it clearly is inappropriate to have pasture use. And there are other areas where it clearly becomes a resource protection measure because it controls fuel, fire fuel. Not only does it create a business opportunity, but it also controls fuel. Range fires can be devastating to the resource immediately.
In this discussion, I’m suggesting that it doesn’t mean that the whole land area must or should be in pasture use, but maybe some of it should be, just as the Pu`uwa`awa`a model had some pasture use for fire control and some preservation areas.
Is that the only reason for grazing leases? Simply for fuel control?
No, it isn’t simply fuel control. I have seen over the years some evolution within ranching, from the traditional large pasture use to the intensive grazing, Savory system, cell system – however you want to describe it. That now is the predominant model more than open grazing.
That requires construction of fences. And usually what happens on state land is that people will not put in fences. They won’t even put in boundary fences, which is a huge problem that the state has on Mauna Kea. Lessees on state land won’t maintain boundary fences, their cattle get into state forest reserves.
I’m not aware of this.
You’re chairman of the Water Commission. What is your thought on the conflict between your duties to carry out the mandate of the Water Commission and the administration’s efforts to undermine it?
I wouldn’t characterize it as efforts to undermine the commission as the position of the administration. I would more characterize it as maybe some of the functions may be more appropriately handled at the county level. It doesn’t mean regulation stops, it means there may be a transfer of responsibility. There’s no mandate to do away with anything, but there clearly is a mandate to look at ourselves and our departments and what we do and what we have done, and is there a better way of doing it.
I don’t know if an organization based in Honolulu that has statewide representation, whether a well should be drilled in Mililani or Miloli`i, whether they have enough information or understanding on a statewide basis, on whether a well could serve each of those communities appropriately. Water departments know more about water needs on each island than do others outside the islands.
They may know about water needs, but knowing about water supplies is something that’s tricky. They’re underground, you can’t see them, you can’t put a dipstick in and see how much you’ve got. Counties don’t have that kind of expertise.
And it’s maybe those assessments that we maintain on a statewide level, but some of the regulations may be handled on a county level. We should look at everything, we should evaluate everything. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to necessarily change anything, but let’s look at what we’re doing. And it may mean that the analysis, studies, monitoring, may happen on a statewide basis. But possibly regulation, how a well is built, what construction technique is used in that particular area – maybe that can be handled at the county level.
There are a lot of other functions that the Water Commission has been slow to move on. One of them is updating the state Water Plan, another is adopting rules for Native Hawaiian water rights, another is adopting rules for stream protection. I’m not saying it’s your fault that these rules haven’t been adopted, but do you have a timetable to look at these issues?
Next week, there will be a new water deputy who has expertise on water, who has a relation with the commission and staff.
Will you be looking at Native Hawaiian rights and other issues?
Absolutely. We are going to fulfill our obligations and we are going to exceed people’s expectations.
One of the problems with respect to stream protection is that streams are channelized, and you don’t get any kind of native aquatic life in channelized streams. And they contribute to runoff. Do you have plans to require restoration of stream buffers, to remove channelized streams?
That’s not an issue that has come up yet.
How do you propose to balance the need to conserve some Hawai`i’s rare species, some of the most endangered in the world, against the demands of hunters and hunters and ranchers and other people who think every acre of state land should support multiple use?
In certain areas, it’s not appropriate to have multiple use. I’m a hunter, but I know it’s not appropriate to go hunting in certain areas. If we can create some game management areas and still protect the resource, we can hopefully work toward some compatible agreement that we all can’t have it all.
What about Natural Area Reserves? This is a program that the Legislature established to protect the rarest of the rare. There has been resistance in the past to the idea that every Natural Area Reserve should be fenced and ungulate free.
I don’t have enough information about that. But I realize that that reserve system was set up to help preserve special places.
You’ll be working with the Natural Area Reserves Commission, which will be making proposals to expand NARS around the state.
That’s a commission that I think I sit on. There’s about 18 commissions I’m supposed to sit on. In many cases I have a designee. I still don’t have a complete list of all the boards, committees and commissions I sit on.
What about the bill to double the conveyance tax to give more support to state Natural Area Reserves?
As an administration, we are not supporting increases. As a department, we support the intent of many of the bills. At this time, we’re not supporting increases.
Changing people’s viewpoints is difficult. Do you have a plan?
It’ll always be a part of my message. I have said to everyone that I’ve talked to that there is this perception that our resources are limitless and resilient and they’re not and that they are scarce and fragile. That line I have used with everyone and I will continue to use it. And I will continue to use the reference of the idea that we need to talk better with each other. The people who we perceive as opponents or of unlike mind, if we really sit and talk about stuff we will find that we have very similar goals.
Volume 13, Number 10 April 2003