I’ve followed the Thirty Meter Telescope public vetting process over the past seven years. The unprecedented public protests against this project caused me to write this commentary.
I’ve followed the Thirty Meter Telescope public vetting process over the past seven years. The unprecedented public protests against this project caused me to write this commentary.
The public had equal opportunity to give comments about this telescope project. It underwent an extended contested case hearing process before the Board of Land and Natural Resources granted the conservation district use permit in 2013. In addition, Gov. Linda Lingle accepted the FEIS in 2010. There was a 60-day window to contest the FEIS after acceptance. No one stepped forward to do this during that window.
The hearing officer determined the Thirty Meter Telescope met all eight criteria to develop its project in the conservation district. In addition, he noted the Hawaii Administrative Rules 13-5-24c permits the construction of astronomy facilities in the conservation district, as long there is a management plan in place. In short, the Thirty Meter Telescope Corporation has bent over backwards to address all concerns about its project over the last seven years. This is why it would be huge mistake to revoke its vested permits after they’ve been granted. The TMT relied on these permits to start construction on the telescope.
The possible revocation of legally obtained permits would bring up eerie parallels to the Hokulia project in South Kona. Judge Ronald Ibarra invalidated its permits after four years of construction and after Oceanside spent $350 million on the project. However, the big difference between these two projects is the fact TMT followed the law when obtaining its entitlements, Oceanside (Hokulia) did not.
Judge Ibarra placed an injunction on theHokulia project for 2.5 years until a settlement agreement allowed construction to resume in 2006. I foresee a similar scenario happening with the TMT project. The Mauna Kea stakeholders need to reach a global settlement that would allow construction to resume on this telescope.
The Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan contains an excellent framework to get this process started. For example, the TMT will be the last new telescope on Mauna Kea. All new telescope projects after the TMT will recycle existing sites. However, I believe any global settlement needs to go further.
The University of Hawaii and the other owners of the Mauna Kea telescopes should re-evaluate the telescope decommissioning plan for the science reserve area. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald reported the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope, James Maxwell Clerk Telescope and Very Low Baseline Array are facing possible decommissioning before the Mauna Kea science reserve master lease expires in 2033. This is on top of the scheduled decommissioning of the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory slated to begin 2016.
The University of Hawaii also needs to indefinitely delay any attempts to extend the master lease for the science reserve area. The current lease expires in 2033, which means all telescopes on Mauna Kea face decommissioning between 2025 and 2033. The university naturally wants the lease extended another 65 years. I believe more discussion between all Mauna Kea stakeholders is necessary before this proposal moves forward. If this doesn’t happen, the University of Hawaii risks turning an ugly situation into something uglier.
Mauna Kea’s telescopes have contributed $92 million of direct economic impact in Hawaii County per year. This figure cannot be understated. If all the Mauna Kea telescopes were removed, it would be a huge economic hit to this island. This is another reason why all the Mauna Kea stakeholders need to come together and discuss a mutually agreeable plan for Mauna Kea’s future. These discussions need to occur in a face-to-face environment and not through social media. The latter has poisoned all civil discussion regarding the Thirty Meter Telescope project and future of Mauna Kea.
Aaron Stene is a resident of Kailua-Kona.
Viewpoint articles are the opinion of the writer and not necessarily the opinion of West Hawaii Today.