Impact study to start

LIHUE — Ordinance 960, formerly Bill 2491, took another step forward.

The Kauai County Council approved a resolution that will guide a county study of large agriculture impacts on Kauai.

If the “Environmental and Public Health Impact Study” is done correctly, Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura said the county is in a position to break new ground.

“I’m wanting to make sure we do it with a good process in place,” she said.

Over the past several months, Ordinance 960 has raised concerns within the community about potential environmental and public health impacts of agricultural operations applying pesticides and growing genetically modified crops.

The council adopted Resolution 2013-72, Draft 2 Wednesday by a 6-1 vote.

Councilman Tim Bynum, who cast the lone dissenting vote, said the county doesn’t need to break new ground, or create a new process by coming up with its own study.

Rather what the county needs, he said, is to complete a federal Environmental Impact Statement — a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act  — which Bill 2491 originally called for.

“I’m voting against this,” said Bynam, who co-introduced Bill 2491, of the resolution. “I know it will pass, but this is not the right way to go. This is going to put us in jeopardy.”

Unlike an EIS, which is backed by decades of environmental law, Bynum said the EPHIS will not have the credibility it needs.

The resolution — introduced by Yukimura and former Councilwoman Nadine Nakamura — calls for the county to fund a “qualified neutral facilitator to convene and facilitate a Pesticide and Genetic Engineering Joint Fact Finding Group.”

That group will be comprised of at least 12 individuals “with knowledge and expertise in the fields of science, medicine, economics, culture, environment, and community stakeholders.”

Members of the group will be selected via a process that solicits participation from qualified members of the general public on Kauai.

The EPHIS is expected to take 18 months and will be funded by the county, which may seek additional federal, state or private funding, according to the resolution. The county recently allocated about $110,000 from the general fund to pay for the first phase of it.

Katie Johnson, a licensed clinical social worker, testified Wednesday that she feared the scientific community would be apt to find the study’s findings invalid due to conflicts of interest.

Additionally, she said it would be unlikely that the facilitator would be able to find a balanced, 12-person JFFG.

“I think the greater likelihood is that some of those seats would be filled by the industry, whether the public was aware of it or not,” she said.

Once formed, the JFFG’s tasks will include identifying the environmental and public health questions pertinent to the pesticides used and genetically modified crops grown by large-scale commercial agricultural entities on Kauai.

Syngenta Hawaii, LLC Nursery Manager Mark Willman told the council his company, which would be affected by the resolution, would prefer that the whole law be shelved until the EPHIS study is complete.

“I think this will save the county money, and in its place, there is the Kauai Agricultural Good Neighbor Program that is already working and isn’t costing the county any money,” he said.

But the council decided to move forward on the study.

The JFFG would also be required to “examine and report findings related to issues dealing with economic impacts, food sustainability, and environmental justice” — language that was added by Councilman Gary Hooser during the amendment process.

While Hooser believes those are key parts of the ongoing discussion, Yukimura said bringing economics into the resolution attempts to broaden the scope of the EPHIS.

While she acknowledge that there are important economic issues at hand, Yukimura, who voted against the amendment, said the “cry from the community” was about the health and environmental issues.

“I’m strongly opposed to expanding it to economic issues,” she said.

Council Chair Jay Furfaro was the only other council member who voted against the amendment.

Resolution 2013-72 could be reconsidered during the Jan. 16 council meeting.