Kokua Haloa!

East Maui Taro Farmers exercise their right to continue farming taro Enclosed is a statement I drafted for Na Moku Aupuni O Ko`olau Hui, stating its position in reaction to the independent actions that Wailuanui taro farmers took to save their dying taro in Wailuanui Valley. On a long-delayed site visit to inspect diversions on Wailuanui Stream last July 11, they witnessed the taking of water from Wailuanui Stream which was the same water that could irrigate their lo`i downstream. When the BLNR field monitor hesitated in taking action to release the water back into the stream, after witnessing the effects on the taro below (with cracked ground so dry from the ongoing drought), and began deferring to the state's "existing relationship with East Maui Iriigation Company, a subsidiary of Alexander and Baldwin, Day and Martin released water by lifting the EMI gates blocking flow in the stream. The resulting restored flow has bee supplying these farmers with significant increases in irrigation water they never had for decades. Since July 11, these farmers have demanded that Garrett Hew of EMI keep them from diverting water into the EMI ditch system. Instead, Hew has sent crews to close the gates each day. Undaunted, the taro farmers have been opening these gates every day after EMI crews leave. The DLNR monitor refuses to take affirmative action in support of the taro farmers, deferring instead to the deputy AG assigned to represent the DLNR, Linda Chow. She, in turn, has not responded to my repeated attempts to meet to discuss the situation and deal with the growing conflict so we can avoid any heavy-handed action by the state in support of the illegal diversions by EMI. The DLNR's problem is that it has very little legal basis for continuing the diversion in the face of its 7-year delay in taking affirmative action to address the IMMEDIATE water needs of these East Maui taro farmers and subsistence gatherers, as well as: (1) the Circuit Court's invalidation of the BLNR's attempt to issue a 30-year lease to A&B/EMI; (2) Na Moku's pending contested case hearing challenging the issuance of annual revocable permits to A&B/EMI; and (3) EMI's and DLNR's reliance on so-called "holdover" permits to continue the diversions while the contested case is pending, when neither statute or rule allows such a permit. Please let the members in your network know what is occurring. I thought they should know, especially if the DLNR starts considering taking any actions against the farmers, at which time we'll seek broader support for the farmers.