Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.

Sierra Club
sues for tourism
environmental
impact statement

The suit cites a Hawaii law
requiring a study before
spending public money

By Peter Wagner
Star-Bulletin

The Sierra Club has sued the Hawaii Tourism Authority, saying the state agency should study the impacts of tourism on Hawaii's environment before spending $114 million to bring in more visitors.

"Overcrowded beaches, strained natural resources, clogged roadways and overburdened natural areas -- these are the tangible effects of increasing visitor arrivals through the HTA's marketing contract," said Jeffrey Mikulina, director of the Sierra Club's Hawaii chapter.

The group filed a lawsuit yesterday in the Hawaii Supreme Court, asking that the tourism agency be required to perform an environmental assessment -- a study that would include public input -- on the impacts of increased tourism in Hawaii.

The suit cites a Hawaii law, HRS Chapter 343-1, requiring such a study before spending public money or using public lands.

"Residents do not want to see a Waikiki on every island," Mikulina said. "Growth in industrial tourism, financed by the public, is not a long-term solution to Hawaii's economic and environmental problems."

The group noted that while state agencies charged with protecting public health and the environment -- the Department of Health and the Department of Land and Natural Resources -- are cutting their budgets, the state is making an unprecedented investment in tourism promotion.

The tourism authority in September awarded a three-year, $114 million contract to the Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau to boost marketing efforts for Hawaii as a tourist destination.

Robert Fishman, chief executive officer of the tourism authority, was taken aback yesterday by the suit, saying the call for an environmental study had never surfaced during statewide hearings on the agency's marketing plan.

"An environmental study on the effects of promoting Hawaii's principle economy? I think that's ridiculous," he said.

But Vicky Holt Takamine, president of Ilioulaokalani, a coalition to protect Hawaii's cultural resources, said tourists are threatening key resources.

"They want to bring more visitors to Molokai? What's the impact on the island's limited water resources?" she said. "What's the impact on residents? It affect water rights for native Hawaiians."

If the state has $114 million to spend, why not clean up Waikiki, maintain beach parks or protect the natural resources that draw visitors to Hawaii? Holt suggested.

Fishman said the suit is less about protecting the environment and more about the allocation of state funds. "This is really about the debate on whether tax dollars should be taken away from tourism promotion and given to something else," he said.

But Mikulina said more tourists means more roads, more power plants and more pollution. A study would answer critical questions about the impacts of such "industrial" components on native species, he said.

"It's quite simple," he said. "The environment is the economy. If the Hawaii Tourism Authority agrees that the natural environment is what makes Hawaii so attractive, then they should have no problem with preparing an environmental assessment as the law requires."