The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0377.442 2024-2026From: Tanya Anne Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2025 11:51 AM To: Council Testimony Cc: Kimball, Heather; Kagiwada, Jennifer, Onishi, Dennis; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kanealii- Kleinfelder, Matt; Hustace, James; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca;�gaba,_, Holeka o C-�, Subject: CZ CD Strong Support - Resolution 234-25 c :;?_- CO a Aloha Chair Villegas, Vice Chair Kagiwada and Members of the Policy Committee on EnvironmentZancl3 ,#M Natural Resource Management, iyz My name is Tanya Yamanaka Aynessazian, and I submit this testimony in strong support of Resolution 234- 25. I honor the service of our troops and the core mission of the U.S. Armed Forces: protecting our people and ensuring security. But as the environmental, cultural, health, and long-term costs of Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) continue to escalate without the military taking responsibility for its cleanup and the changing dynamics of war, its justification and damage to sacrifice zones like PTA, its necessity as a live -fire training site is increasingly in question. U.S. Military Base Footprint PTA is HawaiTs only site for large-scale live -fire training. Yet it is hardly the military's only option. The U.S. operates hundreds of bases across the Asia -Pacific —over 120 in Japan, 300+ in East Asia alone, and nearly 800 worldwide. Some of these already support live -fire training. Why, then, must Hawai'i bear such disproportionate risk? Shifts in Warfare & Live -Fire Training Relevance While live -fire exercises were once central to preparing troops for direct ground combat, modem warfare increasingly relies on precision strikes, unmanned systems, cyber capabilities, and networked operations — many of which can be effectively simulated. The Pentagon itself is investing in AI, unmanned systems, missile defense, and space dominance —and thus, likely not relying on infantry maneuvers in lava fields. PTA represents the wars of the past, not the reality of today. Environmental & Cultural Damage For decades, PTA's live -fire operations have led to wildfires, soil and water contamination (including unexploded ordnance and heavy metals), and threats to endangered species —while jeopardizing critical watersheds. What the military calls 'stewardship' is often management of damage it created in the first place. And no amount of archaeological monitoring can erase the desecration of culturally significant sites. Public Safety Risks Live -fire training results in fire risks, unexploded ordnance, and toxic residues which threaten our communities. And while PTA's fire and rescue teams respond to emergencies, let us remember that some of these dangers originate from military activity itself. Economic Benefits Critique II/�i11N,11 Military contracts bring short-term economic benefits to a small group of folks, many non -permanent residents —which pale when compared to agriculture, regenerative and local food systems that offer sustainable, resilience -building growth. A long-term reliance on PTA -centered economic benefits risks us diverting attention from creating community -rooted prosperity and a more circular economy. Accountability & Fairness Hawai'i residents face strict zoning use regulation, we need a hennery bill to raise chickens on residential land when eggs cost $15, yet the military can bomb, burn and contaminate conservation land with limited oversight This double standard erodes public trust and undermines the very idea of equitable governance. Environmental Racism and Sacrifice Zones PTA is widely recognized by researchers and environmental justice advocates as a 'sacrifice zone' —land that bears disproportionate environmental, cultural, and public health burdens to serve national, industrial or military interests. This reflects a form of environmental racism. War, Congress & the U.S. Military The Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war. Yet Congress has not declared war since 19421 Yet PTA justifies itself as to prepare soldiers for large-scale ground wars. If Congress —the only body constitutionally empowered to declare war —has not done so in 80+ years, why should Hawaii's lands continue to be sacrificed for training that presumes such wars? The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), designed and written for 9/11 attackers, and the 2002 AUMF to go into Iraq have both stretched far beyond their original intent. Modern military actions worldwide are justified under these outdated laws and executive orders rather than fresh, democratic debate Must Hawai'i continue bearing the burden of live -fire training for wars that Congress itself has not or will not likely authorize? Summary Considering the broad scale of U.S. military infrastructure and the shifts in warfare and live -fire training relevance —it is increasingly critical to ask: How has the militaryjustified the continuation of this type of training given the environmental and cultural impacts it has on Hawaii Island and our people? And if our own congressional representatives haven't declared wars or passed new authorizations, why should HawaiTs sacred lands, designated as conservation land, be treated as a permanent war zone? When weighed against this overarching accountability, environmental degradation, cultural desecration, public safety concerns, economic dependency, and fairness, the case for ongoing bombing and live training use of Pohakuloa becomes tenuous. Pohakuloa is not a training ground. It is sacred land. I urge you to support Resolution 234-25 and prioritize the health and well-being of our people and lands. Thank you. Tanya Yamanaka Aynessazian Hilo, Hawaii Freedom lies in beingbold. Robert Frost