Civilians' decision painful, reluctant
| • | Army to resume training at Makua Valley |
By Johnny Brannon
Advertiser Staff Writer
The deal that allows the Army to resume live-fire training in Makua Valley was painful to make and did not come quickly, said leaders of the community group that had blocked the training with a federal lawsuit.
But in the end, the decision by Malama Makua's board of directors was "reluctantly unanimous," and the agreement was likely the best they could hope for amid the threat of war that has loomed since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, members said.
"It's like I heard on 'Star Trek': 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,'" said Malama Makua president Leandra Wai. "We knew people were declaring their support for America because they were being inflicted with great pain."
Eight days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the Army informed the court that it might make an emergency request to train in the valley, an indication that the stakes in the case had grown higher than ever.
"There were a lot of late nights, and the Army expressed a sense of urgency, and we respected that, but we didn't necessarily agree with it," said attorney David Henkin of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, which represented Malama Makua.
The Army initially approached Malama Makua about 10 days ago with an offer to settle the dispute, but the group rejected that overture, board members said. But after the Army made additional concessions — details of which the group would not disclose — Malama Makua met several more times to weigh their options.
Earlier this week, seven of the group's 10 board members met and ultimately voted to accept the Army's latest offer. The other three could not be present but did not object, several board members said.
"It's really hard, and I don't agree to this day that this is OK, but I do agree in compromising together," Wai added tearfully.
She and other Malama Makua members who announced the decision outside the valley's gate yesterday declined to say specifically who had voted, or to name all the board's members.
They cited past threats and harassment by people who don't share their views, but added that no threats had been received since Sept. 11 and that they did not feel increased pressure by Leeward Coast residents to cooperate with the Army.
But others said the attacks had a big impact on how people felt about the dispute over the valley.
Sept. 11 "was distracting to this issue," said William Aila Jr. of Hui Malama O Makua, a larger community group in the area. "It got people so focused on the flag that they couldn't go deeper to understand the issues here."
Malama Makua board member Sparky Rodrigues insisted the settlement was not the result of community pressure, but agreed that sentiment had shifted since the terrorist attacks.
"There has been a lot of emotion," he said. "It clouded the issue for the whole community. Where do we put our loyalties? If it was just Makua, we could agree on it. I don't think anyone had any good sleep last night."
Board member Fred Dodge said the settlement came after many hours of meetings, phone calls, and debates.
"We're going to have live-fire training, but we're getting a lot in return," he said. "We hope the valley will forgive us."
In exchange for Malama Makua's dropping the lawsuit, the Army agreed to conduct a comprehensive environmental study of the valley, provide $50,000 to hire impartial experts to review that process, and to guarantee access to ancient Hawaiian cultural sites.
"We all had strong reservations, and it was not an easy decision," board member Pat Patterson said. "But we knew it had to be done, and with the sweeteners, we knew we had so much more than before the offer."
Henkin, of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, said that the lawsuit could not have secured all parts of the agreement even if it had been successful.
"We have decided, in this time of national crisis, to not stand in the way of the Army, but we do not agree that it is necessary to train in Makua," said Henkin, who characterized the deal as a "great victory."
"For people who said this was all about stopping the Army and using the (demand for an) environmental impact statement as a pretext, I hope they will reconsider their positions," he said. "This was about protecting the valley."
Staff writer Mike Gordon contributed to this report.
