Too Much, Too Little, Too Late

Instead of hurriedly setting sail to bridge Hawaii’s outer islands, perhaps the Hawaii Superferry needed to first make its maiden voyage a trip back through time.

If bringing together the Hawaiian Islands was one of its goals, the Hawaii Superferry would have realized it has already been badly beaten to the punch. Any local can tell you that Hawaii’s world-renowned icon King Kamehameha fulfilled this unifying task long ago.

The Superferry once again attempts to alter what history has already written as its lobbyists push for Hawaii’s lawmakers to hurry through a bill that would allow for its operation, despite previously mandated laws that require an Environmental Impact Statement to first be completed.

Though the Hawaii Supreme Court has already made its decree providing an injunction to halt the Superferry’s activities until a thorough and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement is made, Superferry and friends caught a break in the current that seemed to be pushing them toward a more permanent closure. Governor Lingle, a long time supporter of the ferry company, has disturbingly mounted increasing pressure on legislators to expedite a bill that would allow her to set environmental conditions for the ship’s operation, allowing for it to continue to “rebuild our marine highways,” without the necessary and extensive environmental impact research mandated by current law to ensure the well-being of the islands’ natural habitat.

Without conducting an in-depth study, Hawaii’s marine wildlife unnecessarily remains at greater risk. Hawaii’s waters are home to a host of sea creatures and without proper environmental regulation, these creatures will be threatened by the Superferry’s operations. Environmentalists have been raising concerns regarding such issues, citing potential damage to inhabitant whales and the possible transportation of invasive species hidden inside and under vehicles. However, just recently ferry lobbyists, along with others, were given the opportunity to legitimately voice their concerns. The public was given the opportunity to provide their opinion before legislators met in special session through the delivering of closely time-monitored, sound-bite length testimonies to state legislators at informational briefs.

While informational briefs are advertised as an information gathering process so that public ideas can be incorporated into proposed legislation, Hawaii’s legislators seek to use this notion to their advantage. These legislators, many of who remain concerned with their fate given the upcoming elections, have disingenuously engineered such informational briefs and scoping meetings to merely appease stakeholders who feel as if they have been left out of the entire decision-making process. Though a thorough and comprehensive study of the Superferry’s impact on the environment is expected to take up to two years to complete, legislators have instead deliberately chosen to base their decision on a mere two minutes of testimony given by an allotted number of concerned experts and citizens on limited occasions.

Surely, any legislation created on such limited information has the potential to create further problems and have haphazard results. The legislation concocted by State Legislators merely seeks to skirt the earlier court rulings requiring the creation of an Environmental Impact Statement before the permitting the Hawaii Superferry to resume operations. The Hawaii Sierra Club believes that the current drafted legislation still fails to incorporate important operating stipulations, including the reduction of speed by the Superferry, thereby failing to “adequately protect our environment while exempting the Superferry.”

If the Hawaii Superferry truly wishes to “rebuild” marine highways with respect for the environment, the company should do so with a more genuine effort by respecting past laws requiring an environmental impact assessment to be made before resuming its operations. Rather than further disaggregating public sentiment by pushing forward in its attempt to circumvent a number of court rulings, the company should seek to adopt a policy that is responsive to both the comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement as well as the public’s concern.

This prolonged feud between the Hawaii Superferry and concerned citizens has already brought the ferry a barrage of negative advertisement and will certainly hurt the company’s image and business. This battle has dragged on long enough that perhaps the Superferry should start thinking in terms of damage control. Because in this battle, it is likely that even Kamehameha would have struggled to emerge a winner.