08-21-2009, 03:46 AM
I had no intention of high jacking the thread regarding the Kapoho Beach lots road but I am curious about a side topic that came to mind during that thread. So… I’m addressing it here as not to conflict with the road thread.
Out of curiosity I wanted to see what sort of concerns there are out there with regard to creating a beach or excavated bay with beach along the shores of the 1960 and slightly earlier flows along Kapoho point or the region just due east of the light house.
Coral heads were an issue that arose but coral is easily dislodged no matter what size and can be stored and relocated with very little precautions. These sorts of projects have been done in the past and are being done this very day in other nations. Palm Island though not a similar use example certainly shows how resilient and adaptive marine life is, not only that it has shown what a positive impact the project has had on the local marine environment.
Here's an article on a coral relocation project that is moving 5.5 ton/5 tonne coral heads on average.
http://www.constructionweekonline.com/ar...eakwaters/
The other issue was desecration of the Lava, yet chances are very high the area will one day again be inundated by lava again. Also if one cares to look at the long term effect of lava meets ocean, we see the ocean itself will erode and create a beach along the shore over time. In this case all we’re talking about is assisting nature in creating what she intends to create anyhow… a great beach that we people can enjoy as she has in countless other areas. How can we assist nature in an eventual natural process and consider it desecration? It really makes no rational or spiritual sense and resembles more a lazy minded position steeped in ignorance. If we can assist nature while providing something that is more user friendly for us, what sort of disjointed conscience could oppose such a thing? If one wants to raise an issue of desecration of lava then he or she better find a way to step off the planet so they don’t even disturb the position of a single pebble on the planet otherwise, they are practicing in pure hypocrisy.
Anyhow, aside from the county/state not fixing the proposed park or what have you (remember that when the county/states raises additional funds/income from the benefits of these projects they will have the money to maintain more things on the island). What sort of other issues truly merit consideration to block such a project? Keep in mind we’re talking municipal properties, already public owned municipal materials and a relatively free labor force to work the project.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
Out of curiosity I wanted to see what sort of concerns there are out there with regard to creating a beach or excavated bay with beach along the shores of the 1960 and slightly earlier flows along Kapoho point or the region just due east of the light house.
Coral heads were an issue that arose but coral is easily dislodged no matter what size and can be stored and relocated with very little precautions. These sorts of projects have been done in the past and are being done this very day in other nations. Palm Island though not a similar use example certainly shows how resilient and adaptive marine life is, not only that it has shown what a positive impact the project has had on the local marine environment.
Here's an article on a coral relocation project that is moving 5.5 ton/5 tonne coral heads on average.
http://www.constructionweekonline.com/ar...eakwaters/
The other issue was desecration of the Lava, yet chances are very high the area will one day again be inundated by lava again. Also if one cares to look at the long term effect of lava meets ocean, we see the ocean itself will erode and create a beach along the shore over time. In this case all we’re talking about is assisting nature in creating what she intends to create anyhow… a great beach that we people can enjoy as she has in countless other areas. How can we assist nature in an eventual natural process and consider it desecration? It really makes no rational or spiritual sense and resembles more a lazy minded position steeped in ignorance. If we can assist nature while providing something that is more user friendly for us, what sort of disjointed conscience could oppose such a thing? If one wants to raise an issue of desecration of lava then he or she better find a way to step off the planet so they don’t even disturb the position of a single pebble on the planet otherwise, they are practicing in pure hypocrisy.
Anyhow, aside from the county/state not fixing the proposed park or what have you (remember that when the county/states raises additional funds/income from the benefits of these projects they will have the money to maintain more things on the island). What sort of other issues truly merit consideration to block such a project? Keep in mind we’re talking municipal properties, already public owned municipal materials and a relatively free labor force to work the project.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.