On its face, the project proposed by Kip Dunbar of Moloka’i sounds harmless enough, and perhaps even of some benefit. As Dunbar describes it, his project involves rebuilding the ‘Ipuka’iole Fishpond near Kainalu. As his critics describe it, Dunbar is building an entirely new fishpond whose dimensions (including 15-foot-thick walls) and boundaries far exceed anything built at the site by the old Hawaiians.
The Army Corps of Engineers would seem to side with Dunbar’s critics on this point. Dunbar’s first permit from the Corps – a so-called nationwide permit – was issued on the basis of the fishpond being a reconstruction of the former pond. After construction began, the Corps determined that Dunbar’s project went beyond mere reconstruction. It revoked his nationwide permit in July 1991 and required him to apply anew for what is called an individual permit.
According to a spokesman for the Corps, a decision on the individual permit is expected to be made soon – at the latest by July. But with Dunbar still having failed to obtain clearances from the Department of Health that are a condition of Corps approval, it is questionable whether that deadline can be met.
If the Corps denies the permit, Dunbar probably would be unable to complete work on his fishpond. Under the earlier permit, he had built about 300 feet of the 1,100-foot-long wall enclosing his proposed 3-acre pond. It is possible, in fact, that he would be required to remove that portion of the fishpond wall that he did build, which now acts as a groin and which, Dunbar’s neighbors claim, has caused accelerated erosion of the beach in front of their property. Even with Corps approval, Dunbar would still have a number of additional clearances to obtain. Most of these would be from state agencies, however, and to date, Dunbar seems to have encountered remarkably few obstacles from them.
Greased Wheels?
Indeed, so cooperative have state agencies been that some of Dunbar’s critics suspect the wheels have been greased for him by well-placed friends. Leading the critics’ assault is George Peabody, publisher of The Moloka’i Advertiser News. Peabody has been relentless in his questioning. Although Dunbar and state officials have been dismissive of the issues Peabody has raised, many of his points appear to have merit. The list here is far from complete, but may illustrate the scope of problems.
The Department of Land and Natural Resources informed Dunbar in 1987 that he would not need a Conservation District Use Permit for his fishpond reconstruction. The rationale for the determination was that Dunbar was merely rebuilding one that had fallen into disrepair over the years. In fact, Dunbar received a grant of $37,000 from the Historic Preservation Division for his so-called “restoration” of the fishpond.1
In a letter November 13, 1992, to William Paty; DLNR chairman, Peabody’s attorney; Anthony Ranken, states that if the Army Corps of Engineers determined that “Dunbar is doing original construction,” that same rationale “would seem to require a State CDUA permit also, would it not?”
Preservation?
Similar issues arise with regard to the determination by the DLNR’s Historic Preservation Division that Dunbar’s project would be preservation rather than new construction. A field inspection conducted by its own staff in 1991 found that traces of the original ‘Ipuka’iole pond walls indicate that Dunbar’s plans overreach the original confines. That report, dated July 31, 1991, states: “The proposed wall base alignment crosses the gap between the definite edge of the ‘Ipuka’iole Pond wall and the rubble area, thought to be part of a larger pond, Kainalu pond.” The proposed wall, as staked out by Dunbar, “follows a portion of the rubble in a generally NE-SW orientation, then curves to the north, crossing an area currently devoid of rocks. The alignment then connects with an existing N-S double alignment of boulders, then curves sharply to the west to match with a rubble pile that is present along the shoreline. This rubble pile is oriented NW-SE and is adjacent to what looks like a platform remnant. The N-S alignment of boulders that are being followed appear to be the base stones of a wall. This feature differs in construction style and form, as compared to the observed sections of the original ‘Ipuka’iole Pond wall. It is constructed mostly with rounded boulders that are set on the surface end to end. They are not tightly fitted and there is little to no remains of any core filling. This wall appears to be a straight alignment, as opposed to the gently curving form of the pond wall.”
Dunbar and his consultants have claimed that the ‘Ipuka’iole pond shared a wall with the Kainalu Pond to the east. The staff report by the Historic Preservation Division found no evidence of this. Nor did the Corps of Engineers. This was, in fact, one of the reasons for the Corps revoking Dunbar’s permit in 1991, as Dunbar was informed by then Corps chief of operations, Stanley Arakaki. “My site inspection,” Arakai wrote, “revealed that there is no physical evidence of a fishpond wall at approximately 500 feet of the northeast section of the fishpond alignment where you planned to connect to the shoreline. The width and height of any wall that you claim was there was not evident at the site.”
Ancient Hawaiian Dozen
Dunbar has enlisted several of his friends, including folklorist Russ Apple, in his efforts to establish the historical authenticity of his fishpond project. In August 1991, Apple wrote to Dunbar, applauding his efforts to restore “‘Ipukai-‘ole” (sic) fishpond.2 “You are restoring an ancient Hawaiian fish pond wall by combining modern materials-handling equipment with the careful placement of rocks in the exterior wall faces by experienced hands.”
The “modem materials-handling equipment” includes motorized earth-movers quite unlike anything employed by the early Hawaiians. Dunbar’s techniques involve using the rebuilt wall as a causeway over which the earth-movers would be driven to carry foundation boulders to the end-point of construction. Dunbar has insisted throughout the permitting process, however, that “all stone will be set by hand.” In a letter to the Corps dated October 2, 1992, Dunbar continued: “Any machine used will be to transport stones to the site either on the wall or in the fishpond’s interior… In order to insure hakahaka, hio and kupono (the Hawaiian characteristics) that comprise all ancient Hawaiian shore zone ponds, rocks must be set by hand using levers, fulcrums, wedges, etc.”3
Apple further states: “It is fortuitous that the ancient wall width of the west wall of ‘Ipuka’iole is wide enough to admit, and the ancient Hawaiian wall construction technique support, modern equipment such as front-end loaders and backhoes. Some ponds have walls that would be too narrow.”
The width of the original walls is not a point on which there is unanimous agreement, however. Apple’s “fortuitous” finding that the original walls are about 14 feet wide – was challenged by, among others, William K. Kikuchi, an archaeologist who co-authored with Apple a book on Hawaiian shore-zone fishponds. “If the attempt were to bring the fishpond back to its ‘original’ construction,” Kikuchi wrote the Corps of Engineers in July 1991, “then the 14 feet width is a gross violation of the permit requirements. Usually, fishpond walls were approximately 2.5 to 3 feet wide and remain above the level of the sea at high tide.” (A year later, in November 1992, Kikuchi again wrote the Corps. “Formerly, I was most skeptical about the restoration of the fishpond to its original dimensions. Since the applicant is now trying not to restore it to its ancient configuration, and will revitalize the pond for commercial and cultural use, I withdraw my original objection…. [I]f indeed Mr. Dunbar is attempting a commercial venture, then his 10-15 feet wide walls seem to be a good choice.”)
Dunbar has said that the walls he is building are no wider than those of other Moloka’i fishponds. In 1991, however, one of Dunbar’s neighbors opposed to his project inspected “practically all of the fishponds along the southern coast of the island to the east Kaunakakai,” photographing those ponds that were in good or fair condition. According to a memorandum submitted to the Corps by the neighbor’s lawyer, most of the fishpond walls were approximately three feet wide, with two ponds -Kupeke and Ka’opeohina – having walls “slightly wider.”
Ownership
The DLNR originally went along with Dunbar’s claim that he owned the land to be enclosed within the new pond walls. In 1990, a neighbor of Dunbar’s, concerned that the fishpond would accelerate beach erosion on his own property, hired a surveyor to review land title records to determine whether indeed Dunbar owned the pond. The surveyor – John Cline Mann of Austin, Tsutsumi & Associates, Inc. – concluded that the pond had always been under government ownership.
The DLNR launched its own investigation, asking for an opinion from the attorney general and for research by the state’s abstractor and surveyor. In a letter to Senator Russell Blair of September 14, 1992, Paty stated: “We find that the subject pond is owned by the state of Hawai’i. We are in error for not having addressed the ownership question prior to allowing work to commence on the subject fishpond.”
In that same letter, Paty went on to say that Dunbar appears to be eligible for a “direct negotiated lease,” in accordance with a 1992 amendment to Chapter 171-59(b), Hawai’i Revised Statutes. According to staff at the DLNR’s Division of Land Management – the branch responsible for processing lease applications – Dunbar has not yet made any request for a lease.
In October, 1992, Senator Blair asked the Department of the Attorney General whether legislative authorization by concurrent resolution would be required in advance of any lease of the state-owned submerged lands at ‘Ipuka’iole pond The answer was sent to Blair on January 11, 1993. Yes, wrote Randal Y.K. Young, deputy attorney general. “In the end, any attempt to shoehorn the ancient Hawaiian property interest of fishponds into a definition of what is or is not ‘submerged land’, on the current state of the law, would be difficult… Thus, for all state-owned fishponds, legislative approval pursuit to H.R.S.§171-53(c) would seem to be required prior to a lease of those fishponds.”
DOH Permit
The Corps of Engineers informed Dunbar in May 1992 that processing of his second application would not occur until the Corps received “written confirmation that the state Department of Health acknowledges your application for Water Quality Certification as complete.” The certification must be obtained before the Corps issues any other permit.
Dunbar’s original application for Water Quality Certification was returned to him by the Department of Health on February 11, 1992. The application was incomplete. On October 7, 1992, the Department of Health reminded Dunbar to resubmit the application. At press time, however, the Health Department’s Clean Water Branch was still waiting to hear from Dunbar. (Processing time for water quality certifications can take from four to six months.)
Public Funds
In addition to the grant-in-aid from the Historic Preservation Division, Dunbar has received at least $15,000 – possibly as much as $31,000 – from the Hawai’i Fishpond Revitalization project, which Congress, at the behest of Senator Daniel K. Inouye, has financed to the tune of $600,000. The HFR funds come through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farmers Home Administration office in Hawai’i. Locally, HFR is administered by William Monahan of Maui.
Initially, the federal money was channeled through the Maui Economic Development Board, with Monahan, a vice-president of assuming responsibility for grant administration. Last June, Monahan left MEDB and took the federal grant with him – parking it in a California-based non-profit organization called Self-Help of People. SHOP applied for a certificate of authority to operate in Hawai’i in May 1992. According to that application, the purposes of the corporation are to “assist rural residents of Hawai’i by facilitating the application of modern technology to traditional forms of economic activity. At this time the restoration of Hawaiian fishponds is the major activity.”4
In a news release last September, the MEDB announced Monahan’s departure, stating he had left “to form a new corporation, Self Help of People.” The MEDB “was pleased to provide the opportunity for this spin-off company to be created,” the release stated. Calls to Monahan for comment on SHOP’s California roots, its “spin-off” relation to MEDB, and other matters related to the fishpond revitalization project were not returned.
Private Beneficiaries
The method by which SHOP (and before it, MEDB) selects ponds for restoration is not known. According to an article in The Moloka’i Advertiser-News, when Monahan was asked how one went about applying for help, whether there were forms to fill out, and so forth, Monahan ridiculed the questioner.
According to quarterly reports Monahan files with the FmHA, as of mid-1992, five pond restoration projects had received funds from the program. Dunbar’s is one, of course. Two are in Hana. A fourth, at Keawaiki on the North Kona Coast, is owned by Zadoc Brown (an MEDB board member). A fifth, owned by Patsy Wilcox-Sheehan, is in Hanalei, Kaua’i.
1 The grant was ostensibly to the R.W. Meyer Museum and Cultural Center, on whose board Dunbar sits. Dunbar made the application without seeking prior board approval. Of the $37,000 appropriated as a grant-in-aid from the state Historic Preservation Division, Dunbar actually received slightly more than $18,000 before the Corps revoked his permit. No additional funds have been made available to him from this grant since.
2The common translation of the fishpond name is “rat entrance” or “rat’s doorway,” which supports a Hawaiian spelling of “Ipuka`iole. (Ipuka is entrance or doorway, `iole is rat.) A translation of Apple’s spelling makes little sense: gourd of no water (ipu is gourd; kai is water; `ole indicates an absence or lack of something).
3 Russ Apple’s earlier-cited letter listed these three characteristics as essential in the construction of an authentic fishpond. According to Apple, kupono means that “natural rocks are used. No stonemason’s hammer nor any percussion devices are used to alter the natural rocks to ‘make them fit’.” A more common translation of the word is: “Upright, perpendicular, honest, proper, right, just, fair” (Mary Kawena Pukui, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther T. Mo`okini, The Pocket Hawaiian Dictionary). Hakahaka refers to spaces – in the case of the fishponds, Apple states, it refers to the “holes, cracks, crevices and spaces between and among rocks that permit water to percolate and to absorb within the wall the energy ocean waves thrust upon its exterior surface.” Hio, according to Apple, “refers to the lean-in toward the top of the sides of a fishpond wall … In Hawaiian mortarless masonry, wall and platform tops are always smaller in area than their bases for strength and structural stability.” According to Pukui et al, hio (with a macron above the “o”) is a fair translation of the incline.
4 Although SHOP is a California-registered non-profit, its board of directors and its officers are all residents of Kula. Board members are: Paul I. Fagan, chairman; Timothy W. Hodges, vice-chairman; and members Richard L. Nelson, Michael S. Spalding, and Peter T. Wilson. President is Monahan; Fred W. Rohling is vice-president; Pamela S. Monahan (married to Willam) is secretary-treasurer.
Volume 3, Number 8 February 1993
Leave a Reply