Sellers Threaten Lawsuit Over Cattle, Submit Bills for Millions in Lost Income

posted in: November 2003 | 0

More than three years after the Fish and Wildlife Service took possession of the 5,300 acres of land constituting the Kona unit of the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, discussions between the service and the sellers still had not borne fruit with respect to a number of outstanding issues.

On June 1, 2001, Bill Rosehill, a spokesman for the sellers, attempted to cut through the red tape with an appeal directly to Secretary of Interior Gale Norton. Identifying himself as one of the owners (along with Joe and Nohea Santimer and Moani Zablan), he complained that the federal government “took the best (economically and culturally) 66 percent of our refuge, livelihood, and family lands in Kona for what we perceive as selfish reasons.”

The owners’ “well-intentioned plans” to restore the forest via a “multi-agency ecosystem restoration program” were thwarted by legal challenges brought by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (now known as Earthjustice), he said, and “left us no other alternative but to give in to the government’s forceful taking.” (The government’s condemnation was made at the owners’ request, after years of negotiations.)

The purchase agreement “failed to assure the government a legal access easement to the landlocked 5,300-acre parcel,” he continued. “As a result, FWS continues to threaten further condemnation of our land despite offers of an access easement over our property.”

“Your appointment as Interior Secretary came as a relief to a prior administration mindset too heavily favoring the irrational, self-serving environmental groups,” he wrote. “Such groups stifle our economy, lifestyles, culture, and traditions.”

Still, to force the Fish and Wildlife Service to move forward on the various outstanding issues, Rosehill proposed turning to just such a group for relief. “We are now contemplating notifying Earth Justice [sic] of cattle within the federal refuge destroying native habitat.”

Rosehill ended with a request for a face-to-face meeting with the secretary. So far as Fish and Wildlife records indicate, it was not granted.

Lost Income Opportunities

The threat to bring a lawsuit against the service over the presence of cattle (including, presumably their own) on refuge land may be one of the more bizarre twists in the six years of correspondence between the agency and the sellers or their associates reviewed by Environment Hawai’i. It is far from the only example of behavior that would probably strike a disinterested party as odd, if not outrageous.

Take, for example, the claims to own all the wild game birds on refuge land and “all contents within all lava tubes (caves) including but not limited to: all living organisms, bones, remains of any kind, artifacts, petroglyphs, etc.”

Or the bills that Rosehill submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting payment for time and expenses he said were associated with the sellers’ having to deal with the service. One dated July 13, 1999, charges the service $11,342,060. The billing period covers about a year and a half, since the December 31, 1997 expiration of a cooperative agreement with the service. (Under that agreement, Kai Malino Ranch was paid just over $100,000 for road maintenance.)

The bill reflects $780,000 for Nohea Santimer’s time (assuming she worked 40 hours a week for 75 weeks, that would be $260 an hour). Moani Zablan’s time was worth $650,000, Rosehill claimed, and that of the third sister, Noenoe Lindsey, was worth $400,000. Rosehill claimed another $178,000 for his time, and $52,000 for that of Joe Santimer. Two other individuals had contributed time Rosehill valued at $110,000. Airfare costs came to more than $25,000, while attorney’s fees were “to be tabulated.” Unspecified “penalties and interest” came to $590,520.

Lost income opportunities represented the bulk of the bill: $168,000 in cattle operations, $240,000 the apparent value of lost commercial hunting, and a whopping $8.1 million in foregone logging opportunities.

Rosehill continued submitting bills, adding late fees and interest at 1.5 percent a month. By February 18, 2000, the total had mounted to $12,588,037.44.

In March 2000, the service put a stop to the claims. The cooperative agreement Rosehill was invoking to justify the billing had expired, wrote assistant regional director David J. Wesley. In any case, it did not provide for reimbursement of income loss. If Rosehill wanted to pursue the issue, he would need to provide “necessary documentation.” The claims ceased.

Cattle Maintenance Fees

Then there are Rosehill’s bills for “cattle maintenance.” As if it were not galling enough that the service had to endure the presence of cattle from Kai Malino Ranch continuing to graze on refuge lands, without payment of grazing fees or other rentals that would customarily be required, Rosehill began billing the service more than $6,200 a month “for the maintenance of our cattle.”

As of January 31, 2002, Rosehill claimed an unpaid balance for cattle maintenance, late fees, and interest charges of $89,398.59. As with the billings for time, the service did not pay these claims.

— Patricia Tummons

Volume 14, Number 5 November 2003

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *