Putting Out Fires at Pu'uwa'awa'a

posted in: August 1991 | 0

The [url=/members_archives/archives1991.php]March 1991 issue[/url] of Environment Hawai`i looked closely at management of state lands at Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch on the Big Island. Our reports indicated that the lessee of those lands, F. Newell Bohnett, had not lived up to the terms of his lease in at least the following areas: submittal of annual reports; prior approval from the state for improvements; and compliance with applicable county ordinances (with special regard to building permits). We also noted concerns by DLNR staff that the bulldozing of a reservoir by Bohnett might constitute destruction of state property and violate state Conservation District laws as well.

Several members of the Legislature responded by introducing resolutions asking the DLNR to enforce lease terms and investigate possible lease violations by Bohnett. We’ll pick up the story at this point:

Circling the Wagons

Prior to publication of Environment Hawai`i, there would seem to have been little love lost between the Division of Land Management and Bohnett. In an early March memo from DLM Administrator Mason Young to a deputy attorney general, Young complained of the difficulty he was having in getting a signed copy of an agreement to fulfill the order of the Board of Land and Natural Resources in 1984 to withdraw about 80,000 acres from the area of Bohnett’s lease. “It appears to me that Mr. Leas” – Phil Leas, Bohnett’s attorney- “is stalling and trying to use the withdrawal agreement to renegotiate the rent.” (The lease calls for rental fees to be renegotiated for the last 10 years of the lease, starting August 15, 1990).

Young continued: “The Board’s action to withdraw did not, in my mind, call for renegotiation of the lease rent. This is a separate item that we will address individually. I recommend that Mr. Leas be informed of this and requested to submit the executed withdrawal document within a specified period of time. Should he fail to comply then the matter will be referred to DLNR for possible default action.

To judge from DLNR’s statements to the Legislature, however, problems between Bohnett and the agency were nonexistent. The protection of native flora and fauna “was not of great public concern” when the land was leased in 1960, Land Board Chairman William Paty testified. “The lease was and is being enforced as written.”

As to the report of Environment Hawai`i that the DLNR could not produce evidence of Bohnett’s compliance with bonding and insurance requirements, Paty said that “the current lessee has had a $6,000 bond on deposit with the state since October 12, 1973, and carries the required insurance.

But Paty had no way of knowing this. Not until April 10, 1991 (after the resolution had its first, explosive hearing in the House of Representatives) did Bohnett write Mason Young stating that he would have one Mrs. Lila Jones “send you a copy of our insurance policy.” (For all the years the policy has been in effect, it did not include the state as an insured party until March of this year. Additionally, the levels of protection set forth in the policy would appear to fall short of what is required by the lease.) The department itself apparently lost proof of the performance bond and had to ask Bohnett to supply same once more.

Whereas the DLNR told the Legislature it knew nothing of unauthorized improvements, Bohnett himself acknowledged their existence. In the same letter cited above, he stated that “Frank Hulce (president of Big Isle Construction) is working on the permits that you requested… I will get more detailed information … on the type of engineering drawings that you need for the reservoir” (the one he didn’t raze).

Among the structures built on the leased property without permission from the state or the county were two houses alongside a 9-million-gallon reservoir; two hangar buildings alongside his airstrip (for which a permit was obtained, but only after the county forced him to apply for one after it was built); and a warehouse building.

Bohnett also sought to get square with the world on annual reports. “If you have a sample of the type of year-end reports that you require, please mail it to me. I will submit a current one based on your format when I return.” (In responding to this request, the Division of Land Management, such a stickler for charging members of the public fifty cents a page for photocopies of documents, supplied Bohnett with at least 70 free photocopies.)

And so it continued until the end of the Legislature, with the DLNR steadfastly refusing to acknowledge in public any problems with the Bohnett lease. The Legislature was not so easily won over however. The environmental community turned out in force at hearings on the resolution. After the House hearing, before Water, Land Use and Hawaiian Affairs Committee Chairman David Hagino, the resolution was amended to call for cancellation of the lease. Following a hearing in Senator Milton Holt’s Planning, Land and Water Use Management Committee, the resolution was tempered to call on the DLNR to make a full investigation and report on management of the state lands at Pu`uwa`awa`a under lease to Bohnett.

Still, the final Committee report contains strong language: “Your Committee finds that alleged violations of lease agreements and failure of the lessee to comply with requirements in a timely manner warrant investigation and possible revocation of the lease…. The Board will develop an action plan to ensure future compliance and regularly report to the environmental community and other concerned agencies regarding the compliance schedule… If the lessee is not in compliance with lease terms, the Department of Land and Natural Resources will implement procedures specified in the lease to effect forfeiture to the State.”

Nor was the resolution blind toward the environmental issues that remain the central, if not sole, focus of concern for members of the environmental community: “The Board is requested to develop working agreements with the lessee to provide for plant sanctuaries to help preserve special flora and fauna.”

An Unauthorized Dump

At the first hearing of the resolution, the Moku Loa (Big Island) group of the Sierra Club disclosed that, apart from the problems enumerated in Environment Hawai’i, Bohnett was additionally operating an unpermitted landfill on about two acres of leased state property. The Department of Health visited the ranch and found not one but three unauthorized dumps (one of them alongside a highway, the second one abandoned, the third the active landfill that the Sierra Club members had spotted). The Health Department informed Bohnett of the various state regulations he was violating as well as the possible legal consequences of ongoing violations. The county of Hawai’i also cited Bohnett for operating an unpermitted landfill. (In writing to legislators, Bohnett erroneously cited Environment Hawai`i as the source of information regarding the illegal dumps. Credit should go to the Moku Loa Sierra Club members.)

A letter from Glenn Kobayashi, another attorney for Bohnett, to Mason Young dated June 20, 1991, states: “we have taken significant steps to expedite a correction of the problem. We met with Mr. James Ikeda and Mr. Gary Siu of the Department of Health to discuss options… Mr. Jim Yamamoto of R.M. Towill Corp. has been assisting us in this endeavor.”

Keystone Kops

The Division of Land Management did not learn of the dumping problem until it was disclosed at the hearing of Hagino’s committee on April 5. Its lack of up-to-date information on the property might be owing to the fact that the inspections of the leased land, which are supposed to occur annually appear to have been performed on a less regular basis. After Hagino’s committee amended the resolution to call for lease revocation, the Honolulu office of the Division of Land Management sprang into action. One of the first things Mason Young did was request of Glenn Taguchi, the DLNR’s land agent for Hawai’i island, “copies of all inspection reports concerning the subject lease.”

Taguchi transmitted a total of 73 pages concerning inspections and investigations of the lease. Only one “annual” (sic) inspection report is to be found in the packet, however. That one was conducted October 3, 1984, at a time when the controversy over Bohnett’s illegal logging of koa was at its peak.

That Lost Reservoir

Not to be overlooked is the possible Conservation District violation that occurred when Bohnett had Frank Hulce bulldoze the reservoir at Kiholo Well. As Environment Hawai`i reported, the reservoir was first noticed missing by one of the DLNR’s own agents, Ron Bachman, in April 1987. In a memo to Ronald Walker, in the Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Bachman notes that the reservoir was standing “in September 1986 during the Pu’u Anahulu fire.” In other words, Bohnett had failed to remove the reservoir before he ceased use of the well on December 31, 1985. Under terms of a letter from then-DLNR Chairman Susumo Ono to Bohnett, any improvements left standing after that time would become state property.

It would seem, then, that the bulldozing of the reservoir does indeed constitute destruction of state property.

To date, DLNR staff has been silent on this report of violation. It is not mentioned at all in the many memos and letters exchanged since publication of the March 1991 issue. The only person who seems to have taken note of it, in fact, has been Bohnett himself. In a letter to Milton Holt, Bohnett states that the state declined his offer to sell the reservoir “and insisted that I remove the facilities. Consequently, I removed the Kiholo reservoir and capped the well, as directed by Mr. Susumu Ono. This clean-up was done in November and early December 1985. My cost was in excess of $20,000.”

Files at the Division of Land Management, Division of Water and Land Development, and at the DLNR’s Hilo office contain nothing to suggest anyone, at any time, “insisted” Bohnett remove the reservoir. As to the claim that the improvements were removed before the December 31, 1985 deadline, that flies in the face of the statement of Bachman.

This presents a conundrum for the DLNR. Will it go with the statement of its own agent in the field, or will it take Bohnett’s word as final? More fundamentally, will it even investigate the matter?

Volume 2, Number 2 August 1991

Leave a Reply

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