TMT Work to Resume Says Ige!

[kalakoa]

How many of these protesters have a cesspool themselves?

Protestors use the "kama aina" cesspool -- no digging or plumbing required, just let fly.

[MarkP]

Waste water discharges pollute if there is something in them that is not organic. If you are dumping industrial waste down the sewer then yes you have a problem but the problem is not the disposal system it is the user dumping inappropriate waste. A septic system could also pollute if it is not designed right such as if there is insufficient retention time or insufficient area for leaching. Note that the countless cesspools approved for use in Hawaii, similar to the ones owned and used in blissful (or convenient) ignorance by probably the majority of the protesters, are deemed inadequate in the rest of the country for precisely these two reasons. Concern for the water table is a noble cause. The protesters had better get off that mountain and get to it, protesting the cesspools present in their own back yards.

By the way, which is it? Will the TMT truck its waste off-site as was implied or not? Also, is every other detail of every other EIS challenged, or just this point, just this time, when it is a convenient scare tactic?

[opihikao]

FYI:

OMKM 8/25/15 Office of Mauna Kea Management Board meeting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjmaBMSQueg&feature=youtu.be

[Guest]

Opihikao, mahalo for the recent link. Looks like the pressure cooker is on, just many don't know exactly what is going to be cooking yet. This video is short, very moving and worth the watch if you haven't yet. I get chicken skin when watching it, the keiki are adorable.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJoDubzIl_hs6s74lI46GQr5AXzjUOP2Z¶ms=OAFIAVgG&v=mb57K-HksiI&mode=NORMAL

[Aaron S]

The Hawaii Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments regarding the TMT CDUP appeal today at 8:45am in Honolulu.

[opihikao]

FYI: Court is now pau for the day. Reports are starting to come out about the arguments and Justice's reactions. Seems to have been a rough day for some of the lawyers. No time frame on decision.

For example, comments from attendees:

Reporting from outside the Hawai'i Supreme Court, catching you up on today's proceedings. First up was Richard Naiwieha Wurdeman, attorney for Mauna Kea Hui in their case against BLNR and UH Hilo. He opened his argument explaining the importance of Mauna Kea.



Next in the Mauna Kea Hui vs BLNR and UH Hilo hearing, attorney Richard Naiwieha Wurdeman continued presenting the case for appeal. He stated multiple times that Mauna Kea has become an absolute mess, essentially an industrial center in a conservation district. "I would submit to court it is a situation that is out of hand." The appeal is based on the idea that BLNR granted the permit before hearing the contested case hearing, the failure to meet the 8 criteria required to get a permit in a conservation district, and the fact that no amount of scholarships etc can even out the environmental damage.


The lack of due process was a big focus of today's entire hearing. Justice Pollack pointed out that just because a permit is issued with conditions doesn't make it a conditional permit. It was offered as an excuse of the defense that the reason they issue the permit first before the hearing is so that the contesting party can have all the specifics they need to address.


Justice Richard W. Pollack to BLNR attorney: "Can I read you your own rules?"


I'm sure more will be released in the coming hours/days. At least, it's progress.


FWIW/JMO.

[beepbeep]

Fellow TMT supporters online have told me this hearing was no big deal, but I am not so sure. http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29898...-arguments I could see TMT possibly in some trouble. Don't know what is going to happen.

Pam in CA

[Aaron S]

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/...ts-on.html

Attorneys representing the state, the University of Hawaii and opponents of the planned Thirty Meter Telescope project presented their cases in oral arguments before the Hawaii Supreme Court in Downtown Honolulu Thursday morning.

http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/ora...4_873.html

Audio of the oral arguments of today's hearing in .mp3 format.

[Punatic007]

Ran into a couple of Mauna Kea astronomer friends last night and we discussed the ordeal in length. At this point they don't really care what happens. The setbacks and time lost due to the protesting will render TMT obsolete by the time it is built.

The protesters may be doing everyone a favor unknowingly. It's about being in space not on top of a mountain anymore. Incomparably better visibility and results hands down. The Hubble gets great visibility, Sophia is wonderful, but the best will be on the moon. Yes observatories on the moon, already working on it. And we are lagging way behind Europe, what happens here isn't all that important anymore.

The only concern my friends spoke of was the stain on our reputation for business here. TMT jumped thru all the hoops, paid a fortune and get derailed like this. Sends a terrible message to the rest of the world.

Regardless what the protesters think and say we need to keep moving forward economically if anything to just keep up with inflation so we can afford to live well. If TMT tanks everyone here may be facing economic hardship.

That's all I got for now.

[Justin]

I'm listening to the MP3 of the hearing now. I'm through the first 35 or so minutes. The argument from the appellants (the anti-TMT folks), is just awful. The argument lacks any cognizable organization, and I can't even tell what the crux of the argument is - i.e., what is the legal basis, and what the supporting facts for that basis are. Instead, the argument is effectively stream of consciousness conclusory arguments ("this was railroaded," "this shouldn't be built," etc.). There were no legal citations, no analogizing of cases, nothing.

Only at the 32 minute mark did I get any semblance of an argument, and that came from one of the judge's questions. Best as I can tell from the question, and the context from everything else in the 32 minutes, the legal "issue" is whether the government changed its rules to require less in 2011 for the permit process than it did before then, and - according to the appellants - what TMT provided was perhaps enough to satisfy the post-2011 rules, but not enough to satisfy the pre-2011 rules.

Just getting to the appellee's argument - will comment on that if I can stay awake for another hour...