"Water
water see the water flow
glancing dancing see the water flow
o wizard of changes water water water
dark or silvery mother of life
water water holy mystery - heaven's daughter
god made a song when the world was new
water's laughter sings it true
o wizard of changes, teach me the lesson of flowing"
©1968 The Incredible String Band
A book I recommend
to anyone interested in the history of water diversion in Hawaii
is Sugar Water: Hawaii's Plantation Ditches
by Carol Wilcox: © 1996 published by University of Hawaii Press
[ISBN 0-8248-1783-4]. Here are a few quotes...
"The
Hawaiian subsistence economy was based on taro production. Taro
was the staple of the hawaiian diet and at the core of its culture
and religion. The work it took to grow taro, to develop and maintain
the irrigation systems and terraces known as "lo`i", was
shared by the entire community."
later,in reference
to the time after the plantations had diverted much of the valley
water on the island, the book speaks of the impact...
"A
degree of despair, fatalism, and chaos must have characterized those
times. Large numbers of Hawaiians left their traditional homes in
the rural areas. By the time of sugar's ascendancy, when the large
water projects were diverting water away from the valleys and their
villages, these villages did not have the population, organization,
or will to protest."
Wailua Falls
in 1908 before Lihue Plantation reduced it to a fraction of its
natural flow.
The book, Sugar
Water, goes on to detail the history of the construction
of ditches, tunnels and reservoirs throughout Hawaii. Here is another
quote in reference to Kauai.
"If
there is such a thing as too much success, the Koula Tunnel is surely
an example. For many decades, both upstream user Makaweli Plantation
(now Gay & Robinson) and downstream user McBryde Sugar between
them diverted essentially all the water from the Hanapepe River,
so that the mouth of the river was usually dry."
One thing is
clear, the way the plantations engineered their water diversion
projects was to take all the water they wanted and let the overflow
go back to its natural course. Often there was no overflow. Typically,
all of a stream's flow was diverted and a spillway was created over
which "excess" water flowed back to the original streambed.
This is how water in the lower portion of the Hanapepe River is
taken to feed the Kauai Coffee Company fields (once McBryde Sugar).
There is a spillway
on the Hanapepe River (right below the end of the cliff when viewed
from the Kamalii Highway Hanapepe Valley Lookout) that diverts the
entire Hanapepe River into private hands. Usuualy so much water
is taken upstream that the river water never crests the spillway.
The only water returned to the river at this location is a small
break in the concrete spillway that an adult can step over that
permits a rivulet of water to escape. Today, the Hanapepe River
is a shadow of its former self.
This is ass-backwards.
This was demonstrated in 2000 when the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled
that diverted waters on Oahu should be returned to their natural
streambeds and that the public and environmental concerns would
supercede the historic private agricultural interests.
It is clear
that our valleys are the source of life's diversity on these islands.
It is time that the state compel the private business interests
that monopolize water today put in place new management priorities.
Where and if necessary this may require the re-engineering or even
dismantling of water diversion systems to ensure that our valleys
are healthy.
PARTING
THE WATERS
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it
make a sound? And if a stream flows through a valley and into the
sea, and no one uses it, is it wasted water?
The Hawaii Supreme Court hasn't actually heard arguments on the
first case. But on Aug. 22, 2000, it handed down a landmark decision
on the latter case, an appeal of the Commission on Water Resource
Management's 1997 decision to reallocate the water collected by
the Waiahole Ditch. For nearly 80 years, the Waiahole Ditch irrigation
system had transported water from the Windward to the Leeward side
of Oahu. In the 1997 decision, approximately 10 million gallons
of water per day (mgd) were reallocated to Windward streams. It
was the most comprehensive assessment of water law and the first
time in state history that diverted water was returned to streams.
The court's judgment answered both questions along with a myriad
other issues that have been in dispute for decades. In the decision,
the court reaffirmed the public trust doctrine and the State Constitution
saying that the “duty to protect public water resources is
a categorical imperative and precondition to all subsequent considerations,
for without such underlying protection the natural environment could,
at some point, be irrevocably harmed.”
“Realistically, if we hadn't been here, the water would have
never been returned,” says Paul Reppun, a Windward farmer
and longtime community activist. “But the Supreme Court's
decision said that even if farmers hadn't been here in Waiahole
with a need for water, there still would be a public interest in
maintaining free-flowing streams and near shore waters.”
BACKGROUND
According to taro farmer and avid fisherman Danny Bishop,
the return of Waiahole water almost immediately improved the health
of Windward Oahu’s near shore waters.
The Waiahole
Ditch irrigation system, constructed from 1913 to 1916, had transported
almost 30 mgd of fresh water from rainy Windward Oahu, through the
Koolau Mountain Range, to the parched Leeward side of the island
and its thirsty sugar cane fields. The diversion of the water fueled
the Islands' economy and shaped Oahu's development for nearly 80
years.
For more than 30 years, Windward farmers and community representatives
petitioned for a return of water to their streams, but it wasn't
until 1993 when the Oahu Sugar Co. announced that it would stop
growing sugar cane that the fight for water got serious. The resulting
litigation involved many of the largest landowners in the state
and nearly every major law firm in Honolulu.
In 1995, attorneys for the various parties involved, hammered out
an interim agreement while the Water Commission decided on the final
allocation. At that time, more than 10 mgd was put back in the Windward
streams, the first time the waters flowed so swiftly in nearly a
century.
According to taro farmer and avid fisherman Danny Bishop, the health
of Waiahole Stream has improved dramatically since the flow was
increased on an interim basis in 1995. Exotic freshwater species
of fish were immediately flushed out, clearing the way for native
fish and snails. In addition, the area's near shore ecosystem was
partially restored, a prime breeding ground for marine life.
“We knew things would improve, but we didn't expect them to
improve this much, this fast,” Bishop says. “Ask any
longtime fisherman around, and he'll tell you about the improvements.
I've never pulled up so many hee (octopus) before. We still have
a lot of problems in Kaneohe Bay, but the return of the water isn't
one of them any more.”
In December 1997, the Water Commission issued a 250-plus page ruling,
increasing the amount of water distributed to Leeward parties by
3.8 mgd. In January 1998, the decision was appealed to the Supreme
Court, and more than two years later, the court issued its historic
ruling.
“For a long time, there was a perception that water flowing
into the ocean was wasted water. The scientists didn't think that
was the case and neither did the people who fished the waters of
Kaneohe Bay, and now the Supreme Court sees the value of free-flowing
streams,” says D. Kapua Sproat, attorney for Earthjustice,
which represented a coalition of community groups and filed the
appeal to the Supreme Court.
In December 2001, the Water Commission issued another decision regarding
Waiahole water. Shortly thereafter, Sproat filed another appeal
to the Supreme Court. While every decision is crucial to the parties
involved, Sproat believes that the long battle for Waiahole water
may be near an end. “I fully expect that after the next decision,
there will be more issues that will be remanded back to the Water
Commission,” Sproat says. “But the initial decision
covered so much ground, I think many of the issues have been settled.”
|
