HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0877.003 2012-2014 (Fe)
n
On
=-+
1 -, <
,o
C)
rn
From: Jesse Eiben [mailto:varanusmossCa�gmail.com] �
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:55 AM
To: counciltestimony(a�co.hawaii.hi.us
o►
Subject: Opposition to bill 254 -To be Heard Monday, May 12, 2014
Testimony on County Council Bill 254
Opposition to Bill 254 as read in Comm 877 to be Heard May 12, 2014
The language included in Bill 254 relating to the Precautionary Principle as a guiding edict of the `Powers and
Responsibilities of the County of Hawaii' is an onerous and impossible guiding course of action for all actions
of the County. All actions have innate `risk' of harm to humans or the environment depending on the frame of
reference and definition of`risk'. This is especially true when conservation and self-sufficiency is still poorly
defined and open to interpretation. I strongly oppose this change in language to the County Charter.
The pros and cons of the relative risks (not the edict of no harm) of any action is the very definition of decision
making when operating in the dynamic and changing world. The broad application to the Precautionary
Principle as defined in the current language of the bill would be completely paralyzing to the decision making
processes of all County of Hawaii actions and recommendations. This addition of responsibilities, as defined, is
short-sighted and will cause increased risks to the health and environment of the County of Hawaii due to
prolonging and making every decision inherently data-reliant (which takes time and expertise). I also do not
believe the County has the human resources available to correctly interpret all scientific data without outside
assistance, so the mechanism of applying the science-based criteria for potentially harmful actions is lacking.
Comm. N 877.3
1 Ref. To: L
Ref. Date 151F 1 2 2014
As an applied scientist, I have experience with the scientific process and how scientific data is obtained and
disseminated. The additional demands of scientific data needed to prove no harm of an action if any harm is
suspected will be completely beyond the capacity of the County government to obtain and maintain.
An example of relative risks that the County may find enlightening is management of the Little Fire Ant
populations on Hawaii Island. There is risk of harm by both action and inaction for fire ant control. There are
multiple lines of evidence for harm of varying quantities/qualities based on control methods and allowing the
Little Fire Ant colonies to exist without County management actions. Even the safest of control methods, like a
bowl of soapy water (from biodegradable `natural' soap) placed to capture and kill foraging ants, has a risk of
harm to people and the environment. For example, A thirsty pet could drink the water and get a stomach ache,
non-target endemic insects could fall into the water and be killed, the smell of the soap may be offensive to
visitors to the area, etc. If there is no action, that same pet may get stung by the ant and become temporarily
annoyed, or the ants may consume the very same non-target insect that would have otherwise not been
consumed by the ant killed in soapy water.
Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration relating to Bill 254.
Sincerely,
Jesse Eiben, PhD Entomology
Resides in Hilo, HI
2