HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0021.188 2014-2016Murashige, Laura
From: nancy redfeather <nredfeather@kohalacenter.org>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 8:43 AM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Nancy Redfeather; Nancy Redfeather
Subject: Testimony for Council Meeting 12/17/14 Support for County Appeal of Ordinance
13-121
Attachments: Testimony Nancy Redfeather.doc
Aloha Council,
Attached is my Testimony to be entered into the record, for the Council Meeting, Wednesday December 17, 2014
Aloha,
Nancy Redfeather
Kawanui Farm
Kamaliu, Hawai'i
to
-
'_
Comm: Flo.
Ref. To:
1 7
Ref, Dotn lJtl. pp�j
Testimony: Resolution to Support Appeal of Ordinance 13-121
Position: Support
Nancy Redfeather
o
P.O. Box 906
Kealakekua, Hawai'i 96750
December 17, 2014
am
Aloha Council Chair Kanuha, Vice Chair Poindexter and Members of the Council,
My name is Nancy Redfeather, I have lived in Kona for 40 years, and I reside on my
v.
family farm at Kawanui mauka Kona. I have worked in the field of agricultural
education for 20 years and I am one of 3 Island Farmers who submitted a Friend of the
Court Amicus Brief on behalf of Hawai'i County in the suit filed against the County of
Hawai'i by the 10 Plaintiffs that includes BIO the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
I support the County of Hawai'i filing an appeal to the 9" Circuit Court. After reading
Magistrate Judge Bury Kurren's Summary Judgment, these were the reasons that led me
to that decision.
I_ Of the 10 Plaintiffs who brought suit against the County only one was found to
have standing. So by law if one plaintiff has standing the suit may proceed.
2. The Plaintiff who had standing had received a permit through the USDA/APHIS
to conduct a trial for a new GE anthurium flower color. Since a permitted trial is
within the regulatory framework of the USDA/APHIS in this instance Federal law
preempts State or County law. The Judge found no other instance of Federal
Preemption in this case. The intent of Ordinance 13-121 was to protect food
crops, it is unfortunate that this technicality is now the reason for overturning our
Ordinance.
3. Judge Kurren also ruled that it is not the kuleana of the County to pass laws
regarding the conservation and protection of agricultural lands and sites Article
XI Section 3 of the State Constitution "to preserve and protect agricultural lands"
and the creation of a Department of Agriculture to implement a framework to
protect said lands, from the introduction of harmful plants and weeds. Judge
Kurren's rulings in this area of State Preemption need to be challenged and
clarified by a Court of Appeals. These laws were created before genetically
engineered plants were introduced into the environment and no laws in the state
(except our 2008 ban on GE coffee and taro) have been passed to cover the
challenges presented to communities and ecosystems by genetically engineered
cropping systems.
4. Judge Kurren does acknowledge that the County is apolitical subdivision of the
state, and in many state statuates this includes the same rights.
In reality, HDOA received a 41 % budget cut in the downturn of 2008 and has not
been able as yet to regain 2008 staff positions. According to Scott Enright about '/: of
the current positions in HDOA remain unfilled due to backlogs at the Department of
Human Services. Since 2008, the invasive species problem alone, has shown us that
the state may not be the best entity to protect agriculture and lands.
In summary, the Hawai'i County Council should receive clarification in the Court of
Appeals on it's authority to protect and preserve lands, soil, waterways, health, and
local communities in the new world of GE agriculture and to create laws and actions
that will work with the State to protect the Counties.
Mahalo to Councilwoman Willie for giving us the opportunity to testify on this
important matter that will affect all future generations. If it is not yet clear that the
Counties should have the kuleana to protect the land and the people we should use this
opportunity to clarify the situation.
Aloha,
Nancy Redfeather
Kawanui Farm
Kona, Hawai'i