---

Give Hawaii Superferry
environmental scrutiny

THE ISSUE The Legislature appears to support an interisland ferry system that has the backing of the Lingle administration.

HAWAII Superferry has survived an attempt in the Legislature to require an environmental impact statement before it begins interisland operation, a requirement that might have torpedoed the project. Environmental concerns are valid, and the state Department of Transportation should require the Superferry to adhere to strong safeguards.

Legislators appear certain to approve an expenditure of $40 million for harbor improvements to prepare for the ferry. They rejected a bill that would have required preparation of an environmental impact statement. John Garibaldi, the ferry company's chief executive officer, has said such a requirement would have delayed the project up to a year and a half, jeopardizing $200 million in funding.

The state published notices this week of its plans to build floating docks and ramps for loading and unloading cars, trucks and vans at Honolulu Harbor and neighbor island ports. The Lingle administration strongly supports the ferry system, and installation of floats and ramps might be intended to assure its exemption from existing state law regarding environmental reviews.

A 345-foot catamaran being built at a shipyard in Alabama is not expected in Hawaii's waters for at least two years. A second ferry is planned soon afterward. Each will be able to carry up to 900 people and 280 vehicles, with one-way passenger fares ranging from $42 to $75.

Garibaldi maintains that interisland ferries are no more environmentally risky than cargo boats, cruise ships or whale-watching tourism boats, whose companies have not been required to conduct environmental reviews to operate in the islands. However, the sheer volume of people and especially vehicles to be ferried between islands could create a greater risk.

The chief concern seems to be that vehicles being hauled interisland might be carrying invasive species. Vehicles should undergo close scrutiny to assure that such unwelcome critters not be aboard.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Human, environmental
health go hand in hand

THE ISSUE Science and health experts are in Hawaii to focus on social and ecological systems that affect infectious diseases.

CONNECTIONS between the health of the natural environment and the well-being of human life became all the more obvious when a deluge in Manoa Valley last year caused severe damage and sickened people with a disease carried by the flood waters.

The disaster was a prime example of the importance of maintaining ecosystems to ensure public health. Though the concept isn't new, reinforcing the message should continue insistently to influence political leaders who often see environmental issues as a separate and secondary concern.

The flood devastated the University of Hawaii campus and the surrounding neighborhood and infected two people with leptospirosis, a disease caused by a water-borne bacterium found in the urine of wild and domestic animals, particularly dogs, rats and livestock.

Deterioration of the Manoa ahupuaa and pollution of its streams were pointed out as the public health consequence of inattention to ecosystems as science and health experts gathered here for a conference this weekend by the Asia-Pacific Institute of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases.

While the Army Corps of Engineers hasn't yet completed a study on the causes of the flood, urbanization appears to be a strong factor. Geologists have said pavement-covered ground could not absorb the rain from the storm, causing increased runoff to flow to lower areas.

The situation is not unique to Manoa. Human-habitation patterns ignore or overlook the shape and cast of nature, and the results can be catastrophic.

Battling disease requires an integrated strategy that encompasses social, biological, economic, environmental and political components. Limiting changes to our surroundings might be costly in the short term, but neglecting to recognize the effect of such changes could prove more harmful in the long run.