Tsunami Lessons

It's been awhile since I posted anything, but today's Honolulu Star-Advertiser column by Cynthia Oi got under my skin. Normally, I like her pieces. But I think she missed the mark in this one. Here's the passage that bothered me most:

While arguments about beach restoration, blocked view planes, high-water marks, vegetation lines and shoreline access take up much time here, these trivial disputes won't amount to a sand berm in the face of a fierce tsunami.

Trivial? If anything, what happened in Japan underscores the need in Hawaii for a joint State-counties coastal commission to address those matters, as well as the reality of climate change and rising sea levels. Our mission isn't just about protecting beach access -- it's about preserving what's left of our beaches as well.

She goes on to make the case that no amount of planning or spending can avert a catastrophe if we were hit by something akin to what happened in Japan. True enough. But does that mean we shouldn't do what we can to prevent smaller scale disasters from happening?

Moreover, there are things we can do that wouldn't cost anything. The first is so obvious, it seems like a no brainer: push back the legal shoreline setbacks for building! We have ample proof that allowing property owners to build closer to the sea leads to faster erosion rates in those areas. But these people don't seem to give a damn about anything other than their ocean view. They don't think Mother Nature can touch them. That is just human arrogance, plain and simple. If it was only the fool-hardy who suffered, I'd say they had it coming.

But we're the ones who pay for their hubris when nature strikes back. Who foots the bill for the clean up when those McMansions wind up destroyed and washed away into the eco-system? We do, since government workers have to deal with the mess. Much of their personal property loss would be covered by insurance... and guess who pays for most of that? You got it. The pay-outs come from premiums other homeowners pay, even if you choose not to live anywhere near a flood zone. We share their pain when calamities occur -- but not in their gains when they reap windfall profits from tax shelters and business write-offs.

What bugs me most though is many of these wealthy homeowners are also the ones who complain the loudest about government taxation and interference. But mark my words, if a hurricane or tsunami were to hit their exclusive enclaves, they would be first in line with their hand out, asking Big Government for help in restoring all the public services they receive on their "private" beach side lanes. And so it goes...

Here's the link to Cynthia Oi's column. What do you think?

Why Hawaii Needs a Coastal Commission

Another contentious issue involving shoreline setbacks and county zoning laws has been in the news of late. Kyo-ya's plan to build a new oceanfront hotel in Waikiki next to the Moana Surfrider Hotel is drawing opposition from a number of environmental groups -- and for good reason: it sets a bad precedent that opens the door for other hotels and resorts to build closer to the ocean.

With indisputable proof of rising sea levels and cyclical beach erosion being a part of Hawaii's fragile ecology, you'd think someone at the county and/or state government level would object to any development that puts buildings closer to the shoreline. Yet our system divides jurisdiction over the coastline at the high water mark (or high wash mark... it's confusing to me). The state controls the beach up to that imaginary line, which shifts over time. Above that line in the sand, each island county makes up its own setback and zoning rules -- even though everyone in Hawaii has a stake in what ultimately happens with our coastline, since our beaches are probably the state's most valuable commercial resource.

What irks me is that nowhere in the discussion of setbacks does the issue of residential development come up. In Kailua, where I live, I've seen more and more rebuilding in which older homes that were set back a good distance are now being replaced by Kahala style mansions that jut out in front of neighboring houses to be closer to the ocean. This pattern of building bigger and closer to the sea has resulted in the loss of beaches at Kahala and Lanikai. Yet there doesn't seem to be much concern about the same happening in Kailua -- at least not in the local media or at the government level.

This is why we need a Hawaii Coastal Commission that could oversea... er, oversee legal and environmental issues related to the ocean, beaches and shoreline. The current split jurisdiction system is not working and leaves too many loopholes for commercial developers and property owners to exploit for their own gain. And that means the people of Hawaii lose out in the end.

Here's the link to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser article about the Kyo-ya plans and opposition to it.

Ocean Policy Task Force

For some time now, I've been harping on the need for a Hawaii Coastal Commission or joint State/Counties Task Force to oversee shoreline management. This week it was announced that the Obama Administration is recommending the creation of a National Ocean Council to coordinate and oversee "myriad federal agencies in conservation and marine planning efforts."

Why? Because ocean policy is being done in a "piecemeal basis"... just as in Hawaii, where public beach access, shoreline setbacks, ocean-related commercial activities, are all regulated (or not) in the very same piecemeal fashion.

But the proposal for creating a task force that could pave the way for a Hawaii Coastal Commission got shot down by people like the DLNR's Sam Lemmo! The UH Sea Grant people didn't give us any support either. Yet they complain about the difficulties in dealing with split jurisdiction between the State and counties. So what's their alternative plan to create a better, more efficient system of shoreline management?

Here's the link to the AP article on the National Ocean Council proposal. Gee, isn't it nice to have a president and officials who use some common sense in streamlining agencies for efficiency, instead of simply ignoring environmental issues such as sea-level rise and industrial pollution? Of course some wing-nut will scream that this is socialism.

UPDATE: Better article from the New York Times...

"The Obama administration called Thursday for a comprehensive national system for regulating the use of federal waters along the nation’s marine and Great Lakes shores, now administered by a hodgepodge of federal, state or other agencies with often-conflicting goals..."