Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 6, Number 12, 1 December 1989 — Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation [ARTICLE]

Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation

On Sept. 15, Big Island Circuit Court Judge Shunichi Kimura ruled that the Hawaiian Homes Commission could not restrict awards of pastoral (ranch) lots to less than 20 acres. Judge Kimura enjoined the commission from* issuing further awards until it complies with the rule making procedures set forth in Hawaii's Administrative Procedures Act. Original language of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act set the minimum acreage for irrigated pastoral lots at 100 (500 maximum) acres, and 250 (1,000 maximum) acres for unirrigated land. Prior to 1985, the commission awarded pastoral lots of 300-500 acres, whieh allowed homesteaders to ranch commercially for eeonomie selfsufficiency. In 1985, the legislature eliminated the minimum permissible lot size awards for irrigated and unirrigated pastoral land only designating a maximum of 100 and 1,000 acres respectively. In 1986, during the 1984-87 Award Acceleration Program, the commission unilaterally adopted a policy of restricting pastoral lots to 100 acres. The policy expired on Dec. 31, 1987.

In 1988, the commission again set the minimum lot size for all pastoral awards to limit lessees to raising two animal units after concluding that homesteaders favored a "subsistence" ranching lifestyle. In doing so, the commission had not provided notice or a formal opportunity for homesteaders to be heard on this question. This limit resulted in a plan to award 168 10-to-20-acre homesteads in Puukapu, Waimea, without any assurances that larger acreage would be made available. Plaintiffs James P. Akiona Sr., and the Aged Hawaiians objected to the commission's 26-acre lot restriction because they say it is not enough ranchland to be commercially viable, as originally intended by Congress. Plaintiffs, who applied for lots 37 years ago, believe the commission's unauthorized and illegal action is a fundamental restructuring, or amendment, of the Act requiring congressional approval. They are represented by attorneys Paul N. Lucas and Alan Murakami of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation.

authors choose not to go to the original source because they do not understand the Hawaiian Ianguage and therefore use sources that may or may not be accurate to the original. Second, the author does not list her resources. In a book such as this you cannot merely interpret a story based on your own philosophies, especially if it is from an outside perspective. You need to have verifiable sources to keep you on the right track; this is not evident in "The Water of Life." The Menehune were not elves like creatures that ean be equated to the male phallus, "These are ail small, strong, and potent. Like the phallus, they work in the dark and from that plaee, they may produce new life. Like sperm, the tiny Menehune gods are numerous beyond count so that life may continue to re-create itself, despite obstacles and regressive tendencies." Pele was not the first volcano god and does not represent a threat to the male side of the Hawaiian ciūture as she states, "The volcanic Pele aspects within me and other women very likely have so terrorized men that they have felt compelled to surround us with taboos or perish. Men have separated themselves and their masculine virility from annihilation." Kamapua'a was known for his sexual prowess and his relationship with Pele but did not represent the piggish nature of men. This book is just the latest effort to equate the unique Hawaiian culture with western culture. If the author's goal is to equate Jungian philosophy with the Hawaiian culture may I just point out that the Hawaiian culture with its Polynesian roots was in exsistence eons before Jungian thought. As a book on Jungian philosophy it may be good, I cannot comment on that. But as a book on understanding the Hawaiian culture through the myths and legends, it falls far short, and I would not recommend "The Water of Life" as an addition to anyone's Hawaiian Hbrary.