Sadly, but predictably, it was met with predominantly snarky comments that have been accumulating on the newspaper web site and typify much of the public debate of this issue to date. Rather than join in the fray I wrote him an email with what I hoped were pointed yet fair questions. Today Gary generously made time to sit down with me over coffee and discuss the issues, addressing at length and in detail my questions. Civility works!
We immediately agreed that in a newspaper piece restricted to several hundred words it would be impossible to touch on many of the details that make up the larger context of the issues that we were able to cover in about an hour face to face. More than press my personal opinions per se I want to share what I had the privilege of hearing directly from the bill's principal proponent at length beyond what's possible in a guest opinion piece. At the same time I want to be crystal clear that I would never purport to speak for Gary and to the extent that I don't get the supporting material he shared with me out there clearly or accurately enough, the blame is entirely mine. Furthermore, I must emphasize that I am retelling what I heard as best I can but cannot personally vouch for the reporting or facts herein.
Gary described Bill 2491 as always being originally conceived as his response to the pleas of westside families who feel that the health of their health is directly put at risk by the practices of the biotech companies that have taken over much of the agricultural land left after sugar cane production stopped. In crafting the legislation he described soliciting advice from what lawyers he could get to take a look and that while they pointed out the potential of implicit preemption, until tested in court there was no way to know ahead of time what authority precisely the county had.
We also agree that the issues of pesticides and GMO will not be settled any time soon by science. Both sides can point to papers that uphold their respective positions - showing harm or failing to show harm - but no research can claim to have irrefutable proof of either directly causing harm or high assurance of complete safety. Gary added a very good point that until the biotech companies are more forthcoming with information about what they do, any thorough scientific assessment will remain impossible.
We touched on so many aspects of the complex issue of biotech and environment but also the legal disposition of the legislation as well as its impact on Kauai county. Rather than attempt to reproduce everything here, some key points can be summarized to best tell the story Gary laid out for me.
- Q: what has Ordinance 960 cost the county so far? Estimated total around $241K: mostly legal fees ($210K appropriated has not all been spent), extraordinary council expenses ($24K), and police overtime ($66K), or which over $5K was compensated by citizen donations.
- We talked about the recent US District County ruling against Ordinance 960. The council will decide to appeal or not soon enough (discussion slated for September 10 meeting) and Gary says even if the county leaves it unchallenged another party could appeal the ruling.
- Q: specifics the state's "negligence" (Gary's term)? Much of what he mentioned is detailed in the Civil Beat's article from last fall, Does Hawaii’s Failure to Enforce Pesticide Use Justify Action by Kauai? (readers can judge for themselves)
- Q: what about your statement that "the companies have done everything possible to keep this information hidden" when there is a voluntary state disclosure program? Gary characterized this as insufficient and only done begrudgingly under pressure as Bill 2491 made its way through the process.
- Q: best evidence or study demonstrating community harm from pesticides on Kauai? Gary points to anecdotal evidence and compelling testimony from many health professionals on the island but knows of no comprehensive scientific studies.
In the process of researching the bill, the county became aware of agricultural land property taxes due that were unpaid and until then undiscovered. What I can follow was that biotech companies are leasing state land and since the State of Hawaii never pays county property tax, there was no system set up to collect taxes which are by law due from lessees. While only the past few years are collectable, $131,799.50 has been paid to the county already, (and estimated amount larger than that was irrevocably lost, going back to 2006) and going forward over $57K per year will be collected henceforth now that the tax collector is aware of the situation. While unrelated to the legislation itself, this newfound revenue can be said fairly reasonably I would say to compensate for much of the costs incurred as a result of this controversial legislation to date.
To wrap up I want to attempt my own summing up of where I see things standing after getting the opportunity to drill into Gary's positions and learn some of the considerable amount of detail he shared with me today in a very comfortable yet frank back and forth. He did most of the talking and I did most of the listening but I also was able to ask a lot of pointed questions which he responded to without evasion. I can only hope the time was perhaps a little bit as useful to him as it was to me. Again, I certainly don't have any great answers here, but nevertheless, this is my take:
- Enforcement and reporting of pesticide use by the state seems to leave a lot to be desired. Whether underfunded, mismanaged, or what the problem is - and how to fix it - I have no idea.
- The biotech industry has a lot to answer to in terms of (so far as I can learn) not coming to the bargaining table to address community concerns.
- The ongoing lawsuit by Waimea citizens may be their best bet at getting information and possibly satisfaction, however, with legal action pending the corporations are be certain to be on lock-down and not budge an inch or disclose any shred of information lest it weaken their case.
- There seems to have been no time when both sides of this issue actually sat down together and worked together at all. I questioned, and Gary had no counter-examples, if even anyone at all actually listened with an open mind to all the debate and any minds were actually changed.
- It's unfortunate that an important issue of community and environmental safety has become so polarized that this island is deeply divided with both sides almost entirely shouting at each other.
- Whether Judge Kurren's ruling will be appealed or not is in the end a political decision and I am not qualified, nor privy to attorney briefings, to have an opinion. Even if it is appealed, the outcome will once again lie with the courts to decide.
Finally, one editorial point on my part. Kudos to Gary for spending the time to sit down with me today, both as a responsive public servant, as well as to help refine and underscore his message. I have made several attempts to engage some kind of dialog with both sides of this debate and until today gotten absolutely no response. Until all parties show up to answer tough questions and exchange views we are unlikely to make much progress at all. Within the narrow context of my outreach at least, for taking the first step in that direction, Gary has my sincere thanks. Who's next?
More info:
- Kauai county attorney opinion on Bill 2491 (July 2014)
- Ordinance 960 full text
- Pioneer Hi-Bred Lawsuit court document
- "It’s Not About Eating The Corn (February 2013)" by Gary Hooser
- National Tropical Botanical Garden CEO Chipper Wichman talks GMOs
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feedback is welcome, especially if you disagree, but please keep it civil and most importantly provide references to back up what you say with solid evidence.