HONOLULU — Long before dozens of people were arrested while protesting against building a giant telescope atop Hawaii’s Mauna Kea, there were years of environmental studies, public hearings and court proceedings. The Hawaii Supreme Court on Thursday is scheduled to
HONOLULU — Long before dozens of people were arrested while protesting against building a giant telescope atop Hawaii’s Mauna Kea, there were years of environmental studies, public hearings and court proceedings. The Hawaii Supreme Court on Thursday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging the project’s permit from the state land board to build the telescope on conservation land.
Protesters are planning a rally before the hearing outside the Supreme Court building in downtown Honolulu. Many opponents say they are against building the Thirty Meter Telescope on land they consider sacred.
Here are questions and answers in the lawsuit that’s before the high court.
What is the lawsuit challenging?
In 2013, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources issued a conservation district use permit for the Thirty Meter Telescope. A group of opponents appealed, but a circuit court affirmed the land board’s decision.
Who is appealing?
According to their lawsuit, Kealoha Pisciotta is president of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and engages in “traditional and customary practices related to Hawaiian astronomy, cosmology … on Mauna Kea, practices that were taught to her by her elder family members.”
Clarence Kukauakahi Ching is a Native Hawaiian and traditional subsistence and cultural practitioner. “Mauna Kea is Mr. Ching’s temple and spiritual retreat,” the lawsuit said.
The Flores-Case family argues in the lawsuit that if the telescope is built it “would cause a substantially new visual obstruction (on the mountain) and cause a visual and spiritual interference … when directing chants and prayers toward the mountain during cultural practices, protocols and ceremony gatherings.”
Deborah J. Ward is not Native Hawaiian, but wants to “preserve and protect the natural resources from degradation,” the lawsuit said.
Paul Neves, who is a hula dancer and teacher, has genealogical ties to the mountain, according to the lawsuit, and the telescope would harm his traditional and customary practices on Mauna Kea.
KAHEA, a Native Hawaiian environmental alliance, is also part of the appeal.
Why is the permit significant?
The permit allowed the nonprofit company building the telescope to proceed with construction on lands that are within the Mauna Kea conservation district.
How did the case
get to the
supreme court?
After the permit was issued, the opponents filed a lawsuit appealing it.
Attorneys for the state and the University of Hawaii, which manages the land, argue in court papers that the permit was approved after extensive public input. In 2010, the University of Hawaii Board of Regents unanimously approved the plan build the telescope, which cleared the way for applying for the conservation permit. At that meeting, seven members of the public testified in favor of the telescope. No opponents spoke, though critics had been vocal about their arguments against the telescope.
While the permit appeal was before the Intermediate Court of Appeals, the opponents asked to bypass the court and have the case go directly to the Supreme Court. The high court agreed to hear the case.
How does the case affect the project?
Telescope construction began in March near the summit of Mauna Kea on the Big Island.
The nonprofit company building the telescope suspended construction in April after protesters were arrested for blocking the road to the summit and refusing to leave the construction site. More protesters were arrested again after a subsequent attempt to resume construction. The company hasn’t indicated when it will make another construction attempt.
There is no stay in place pending the appeal so the project can proceed, said Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office.
What are similarities with the maui telescope case?
The justices heard oral arguments on April 2 in a similar case challenging the permit issued for a solar telescope atop Maui’s Haleakala. Opponents oppose that project for many of the same reasons as the Big Island telescope. However, construction of the Maui telescope’s buildings is about 80 percent to 90 percent complete.
When will there be
a ruling?
It’s not known when the justices will issue a ruling. There hasn’t yet been a ruling issued in the Maui case.
What are the possible outcomes?
The court could side with the petitioners or side with the state. Or, the justices could send the case back to the land board.
