logo
Wahiawa landfill plans sidetracked

Wahiawa landfill plans sidetracked

Yahoo26-05-2025

New state legislation likely will upend the city's plan to close its current solid-­waste landfill in West Oahu and replace it with one near Wahiawa, on active pineapple fields above Central Oahu's freshwater aquifer.
State lawmakers on April 30 adopted House Bill 969, which seeks to ban landfills above potable groundwater sources or in agricultural districts in Hawaii. If signed into law by Gov. Josh Green, the bill would prohibit the construction, modification or expansion of any waste or disposal facility on land that is above a significant aquifer. The measure would narrow the prohibition on building a garbage dump within a half-mile buffer zone of residential, school or hospital property lines.
It also bans landfills from being built on the state's most highly productive, prime agricultural lands in counties with a population of more than 500, 000 people—meaning only Oahu, with fewer than a million residents, is affected by this legislation.
But as of this week, Green—who had traveled to Washington, D.C., through Friday to testify at a U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing on science and health matters related to the outbreak of infectious diseases like COVID-19—had neither signed nor vetoed HB 969. The 2025 legislative session adjourned May 2.
During his absence, the governor's office declined to comment on HB 969, its status or questions on Green's perspective over the future siting of new landfills.
Erika Engle, Green's press secretary, told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser any questions to the governor on either landfills or HB 969 could be addressed at another time. 'The timing will likely be around when the decision is made on what action to take with the bill, ' she added.
Green has the option to veto the landfill bill by June 24. The governor also could sign the measure into law or let the bill automatically become law without his signature. The latter two actions must occur by July 9, legislative staff note.
In the wake of HB 969's passage at the state Capitol, the mayor's office outlined three potential paths forward with regard to siting Oahu's next landfill.
Ian Scheuring, Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi's deputy communications director, told the Star-Advertiser, 'Should Gov. Green sign HB969 into law, the city's intended pathway, which was to safely construct and safely operate a state-of-the-art landfill that did not pose a threat to public health and did not contaminate Oahu's drinking water aquifer, will no longer be considered a viable option.'
Scheuring said if the Legislature had amended Act 73 during the 2025 legislative session, it would have opened up additional locations that the city could have considered for a potential landfill site. But that didn't happen, he said.
'Amending the buffer zone would have opened up additional locations that the City could have considered as options for a potential landfill site, but because those options would have been closer to homes, schools and /or medical facilities, our preference was the site in Wahiawa, ' Scheuring said.
With the preferred site in Wahiawa no longer a viable option, and with the Legislature having declined to amend Act 73, he said the city expects to move forward with the third pathway, 'which is to seek an extension of operations at the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill.'
'There are multiple ways in which the city could pursue an extension of operations at Waimanalo Gulch, including by going back to the state Land Use Commission, ' Scheuring asserted. 'The city is currently evaluating those options.'
HB 969, which was among eight anti-landfill bills floated during the 2025 legislative session, arose due to a Wahiawa-area site—west of Kamehameha Highway and north of Paalaa Uka Pupu ­kea Road—where the city proposed a new dump on agricultural land owned by Dole Food Co. Hawaii.
Announced in December, the city said it hoped to negotiate a purchase of about 150 acres—the amount of land needed for a solid-­waste landfill—out of what it described as an approximately 2, 360-acre parcel now owned by Dole.
Dole had stated its opposition to the city having a landfill on its active farming property.
And that site, according to the Board of Water Supply, is about 800 feet above Central Oahu's prime groundwater source.
BWS objected to the city siting a landfill within its so-called 'no-pass zone, ' an area that covers the interior of the island where Oahu's potable water aquifer is located.
The planned Wahiawa landfill site is one of six sites—on the North Shore and in Central Oahu—BWS rejected in 2022 due to their proximity to the island's aquifer.
But the city's actions came as it faced a state-­imposed Dec. 31, 2024, deadline to find an alternate dump site, ahead of the planned closure of the over-35-year-old Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill in Kapolei, in accordance with a 2019 decision and order by the state Land Use Commission.
That West Oahu dump is set to close in 2028, though the landfill will not reach full capacity until 2032, the city said.
In recent years Blangiardi vowed he would not site a new landfill in West Oahu—an area that already features Waimanalo Gulch, the privately owned construction and demolition landfill, PVT Land Co. Ltd. in Nanakuli, and the HPOWER waste-to-energy facility in Kapolei.
Anthony Makana Paris, chair of the Makakilo-­Kapolei-Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board, opined that any pledge to keep landfills out of West Oahu effectively ended with the passage of HB 969.
'We're pretty used to it because waste is a billion-­dollar industry, and it impacts everything and everyone in our communities, ' Paris said, adding the latest actions over landfills in West Oahu are nothing new. 'We've been in this conversation for like 20 years.'
In particular, he noted the city promised 'to shut down Waimanalo Gulch in 2008, ' and then again 'eight years after that.'
Paris said multiple extensions were granted in subsequent years to keep Waimanalo Gulch open.
'Now we're in 2025, and because of this bill, HB 969, it's become apparent to our community that the likelihood of (the city's landfill ) remaining at Waimanalo Gulch is extremely high.'
Still, Paris said it comes down to 'environmental justice ' for West Oahu.
'It's a textbook case in my mind because the highest concentration of Native Hawaiians—and Native Hawaiian homesteads—is on West Oahu, ' he said. 'And all of the policies, and their interpretation by actors, sadly continues to keep (solid waste operations ) on this side.'
The Makakilo-Kapolei-­Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board has not taken an official position on HB 969, but Paris said the the board did issue a resolution pertaining to solid-waste sites and HPOWER in West Oahu.
He said the board's 2023 measure, Resolution 12, supports 'host community compensation ' for neighborhoods affected by active-­operated landfills and waste-to-energy facilities.
The resolution states, 'Scientific and public health studies have shown that there are statistically significant negative health impacts from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities for those living up to two miles away from their operation depending on local geography and micro-climates.'
It asserts that 'people living near active landfills and waste-to-energy facilities have experienced a myriad of health problems including increased risk of reduced lung function, asthma, ataxia, paralysis, and lung cancer as their home air quality has been negatively impacted by such operations.'
The resolution stated that Blangiardi's Landfill Advisory Committee recommended that 'a Host Community (Compensation ) Benefits package be established not only for the next community to host a landfill, but also include communities that have borne the burden of past Oahu landfills.'
Via the resolution, the neighborhood board supports 'host community compensation for neighborhoods impacted by active landfills and waste-to-energy facilities.'
Resolution 12 states that any 'funds made available as compensation to the neighborhoods of Makakilo, Kapolei, and Honokai Hale for the impact on the community by active landfills and waste-to-energy be placed into a community fund that would manage and grant funds to the direct benefits of the neighborhoods of Makakilo, Kapolei, and Honokai Hale.'
Paris continues to support the resolution's request for a remedy for West Oahu residents living near landfills. He said the city should provide a 'community compensation package, ' adding that he doesn't 'like to use the word 'benefits, ' because it's not a benefit to have (a landfill ) in your community.'
In recent months Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters also has expressed concerns over the lack of information from city officials regarding the actual cost of a new landfill, much less the potential reuse of the existing dump at Waimanalo Gulch.
During an April 24 Zoom meeting with the Star-­Advertiser's editorial board, Waters said, 'If you can't tell me how much it's going to cost to set up a new landfill—when we've got so many other priorities in the city—I'm not sure it's a responsible thing to do, to site a new landfill at this point in time.'
Waters said that Blangiardi 'has kind of backed himself into a corner in that he promised not to ' have a new landfill in West Oahu.
'It's tough, right ?' he asserted. 'But ultimately, I think we should all recognize that putting (a landfill ) over an aquifer is a bad idea.'
Waters added, 'I'm wondering if (city officials are ) just crossing their T's and dotting their I's, and they will end up coming back to the conclusion that (the landfill ) needs to stay right where it's at.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

🎧 FBI Names Suspect in Flamethrower Terrorist Attack in Colorado
🎧 FBI Names Suspect in Flamethrower Terrorist Attack in Colorado

Epoch Times

time20 minutes ago

  • Epoch Times

🎧 FBI Names Suspect in Flamethrower Terrorist Attack in Colorado

Here are the stories shaping the day: The FBI has named the suspect in Sunday's terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, as 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman. The suspect allegedly used a and an incendiary device to target pro-Israel protestors. Ukraine launched a massive drone strike on Sunday, hitting , according to the Russian Ministry of Defense. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz , the former vice presidential candidate, told Democratic Party voters in South Carolina on May 31 that and needs to revive its identity. Doctors and residents across China continue to report more infections and deaths as the latest wave of COVID-19 continues, portraying a situation than the Chinese regime is letting on. 🍵 Health: AI friends are not your friends. . — ☀️ Get clarity and inspiration with The Epoch Times Morning Brief, our flagship newsletter written by U.S. national editor Ivan Pentchoukov. Sign up .

Will Gov Lamont run again? Here's what he said
Will Gov Lamont run again? Here's what he said

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Will Gov Lamont run again? Here's what he said

Gov. Ned Lamont declined to give an answer Thursday on the question of whether he will run for a third term as governor — a difficult feat that has only been accomplished by one other politician in the past 200 years. He discussed the question Thursday in his office, just 12 hours after the legislative session concluded. 'I'm thinking about it seriously. I love the job. I think Susan and I are a pretty good team,' Lamont said. 'That's not a yes or a no though,' he said. 'That's a I'm thinking about it seriously. I'm thinking about it with Susan. I'm thinking about it with Annie Lamont.' There's no timeframe for making or announcing a decision, the governor said. 'I'm a lot more inclined and interested in keeping going, keep this positive momentum going than I was six months ago,' he said, noting that he'd put the issue on hold during the 'tricky' budget season. Alluding to a potential recession caused by President Donald Trump's economic policies, Lamont said now may be the time for an experienced leader who had navigated the COVID pandemic, knows how to handle the unconventional and unpredictable president. 'I worked with him for the first two years. I know some of the players down there. That makes a big difference …. You've got to navigate through incredible uncertainties since every week there's another change incoming. … It just makes me think this may be a good place for me to be,' he said. 'I'm working with the White House on things like energy… but if you want to come to one of my schools and try to take a Dreamer out of that classroom, I'll be standing there at the door. I don't need to go out and pick a fight but I think people know where I stand.' Even giants of Connecticut politics including Abe Ribicoff, Ella Grasso and Lowell P. Weicker, did not serve for a third term. The only person to win three four-year terms was Republican John G. Rowland, who resigned during his third term amid a corruption scandal. Some insiders had predicted that Lamont would run again, while others said they simply did not know. For Lamont, it was a highly personal decision. Many politicians make the decision simply based on whether they believe they can win or not. In Lamont's case, he is currently 71 years old and would be 73 at the start of his third term in January 2027. He would then be 77 years old at the end of the four-year term. Another factor is whether his wife, Annie, would retire. She has declined to retire and is still working at 68 as a highly successful venture capitalist who specializes in the health care industry. Lamont planned a press conference for Thursday morning in his Capitol office, but he declined to say Wednesday night whether he would answer the biggest question in Connecticut politics by announcing whether he will run. When asked by The Courant if he would be talking Thursday about his future plans, Lamont said, 'I think I am, yeah.' Asked if he would reveal his decision Wednesday night, he responded, 'No. Then you won't show up tomorrow. I'm just going to go over the budget, what it means, and where it takes us. … Hey, thanks, guys.' The question of whether Lamont would run again in November 2026 has been hanging over the Connecticut political world for at least a year. If Lamont were not on the ballot, a crowded field of possible candidates could jump into the race, including Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz of Middletown, state Attorney General William Tong of Stamford, Comptroller Sean Scanlon of Guilford, and former Hartford mayor Luke Bronin, among others. Depending on who decides to run, their positions would immediately open up, meaning there could be primaries for sought-after positions like attorney general and comptroller. On the Republican side, longtime candidate Matthew Corey has already announced he is running for lieutenant governor. Corey has run unsuccessfully two times against U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy of Hartford in 2018 and 2024, and he lost three times against U.S. Rep. John B. Larson of East Hartford in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Lamont said he believes that the 2025 session was successful, with a two-year budget that he said will promote opportunity and affordability. 'Look what we did on child care. Look what we did on special ed,' Lamont told Capitol reporters. He touted the passage of his plan to fund universal pre-kindergarten for families making up to $100,000 a year and his plan to constrain special education costs that have stressed municipal budgets for years. He also applauded the passage of a housing policy bill that encourages towns to create affordable housing to address the state's housing crisis. Target numbers of units each town should have, such as a fair share percentage, were unhelpful, he said. 'You gotta lighten up on the regulations.' Concerning the session, Lamont said, 'I think it was pretty good. We're on time. We've got a balanced budget. … We're making some strategic investments. We're not raising taxes – at least on individuals. I don't think we broke the spending cap. We'll be paying down over a billion dollars in pension debt yet again. That didn't happen before I got here.' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@

Opinion - What globalists get wrong about free trade
Opinion - What globalists get wrong about free trade

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - What globalists get wrong about free trade

Since at least the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, major media outlets have decried the impending end of globalization. These lamentations have only accelerated since the Trump administration declared April 2 'Liberation Day,' with our trading counterparties' unfair practices to be summarily addressed through increased and partially reciprocal duties (along with a minimum tariff level). To hear the media tell it, such tariffs are the death knell for a beneficial global trading order and will immiserate billions. But such valedictories for the end of globalization advance a straw-man fiction about what is now supposedly lost: namely, that President Trump's policies contravene an agreed framework whereby goods, capital and labor move across national boundaries in a mostly unencumbered manner. If one believes in the merits of free trade and cross-border capital flows, it is essential not to confuse the ideal with the real. In truth, there have always been (often significant) friction and costs associated with such movements. Today's so-called free trade regime recalls Western support for Soviet communism, snarling 'real communism has never been tried' in defense of its myriad failures. Love it or hate it, what exists today is hardly real free trade. If what we have today isn't it, what does free trade closer to its Platonic ideal look like? This notion, that trade conditions are rarely wholly free or unfree, also confuses the media. The reality is that trading conditions sit uneasily along a continuum, and relatively free trade only occurs under certain conditions. These include (among others): Mutually agreed-upon rules for international commerce, consistently applied or at least generally observed, allowing for relatively open and reciprocal market access; Exemptions for strategic industries, a form of insurance for nations, insulating them from being caught short in a subsequent conflict with trading partners; Reliable cross-border supply chains, allowing for the disaggregation of production into its constituent parts (trading resource control for cost efficiency) and An ideologically unipolar historical moment, or a multi-polar world in which international trade largely occurs within the poles. These and other trade-friendly conditions were largely obtained in the decades leading up to the First World War, and in the 20 or so years following the end of the Cold War. While a world war is an obvious culprit ending an earlier era of globalization, what explains its current travails? A rules-based trading order can withstand certain restrictions (tariffs, regulations, quotas) — in fact, protecting strategic sectors demands some of them. But excessive use, along with outright cheating — subsidies, intellectual property theft and currency manipulation, as in the case of China — gives rise to a prisoner's dilemma with suboptimal outcomes. Similarly, the extended supply chains that proliferated over the last 30 years assumed the only national interest that mattered was economic advancement. Consider the terms made fashionable over the last three decades: 'a borderless world,' 'global citizens,' 'the end of history' and 'soft power.' The disaggregation of business models previously housed under a single corporate roof never anticipated revisionist challenges to Pax Americana, such as the retrograde gunboat diplomacy of China's Belt and Road Initiative, much less the rise of transnational terrorist organizations disrupting commerce and producing failed states. Moreover, the unipolar moment has ended. As China, under the rule of the Communist Party, displaced the Soviet Union as our primary geopolitical adversary, its admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 conferred upon it a degree of economic leverage over the United States that Joseph Stalin could only have dreamed of. The return of history, with not only China but Russia, Turkey and others asserting spheres of influence and advancing parochial interests while embedded within a global economic system and multilateral institutions, further vitiates unfettered trade and capital movements. Failing to understand that globalization — the mutually beneficial interdependence and integration among nations, entailing a largely unrestricted flow of goods, capital, information and people — only flourishes under certain conditions, is only half of what the media and establishment elites get wrong. The other is the fetishization of globalism as an ideology. One can support globalization without being a globalist. Free trade and capital flows do not themselves comprise a belief system, but are rather a means to an end: actualizing individuals' aspirations and the nations that represent them. Free trade is the handmaiden of liberty, not vice versa. Reifying trade at the expense of other liberal values risks perverse outcomes; offshoring a nation's pharmaceutical production capacity to potentially belligerent nations is but one example. Another danger in globalism as an ideology is that of falling prey to historical determinism. Seeing deepening global integration as inevitable presents several risks. Believing it impervious threatens underinvestment in its sustenance (see the collapse of the WTO's Doha Round); competing objectives such as national self-determination and defense of borders may also be subordinated to globalism's tenets, destabilizing the very nations seeking to benefit from globalization. The proposed Trump tariff regime is not the full-throated attack on a functioning trading order critics make it out to be. To acknowledge this is not to defend blindly the administration's policies. Tariffs have their place as leverage against trading counterparties with onerous trade restrictions of their own. They are also useful to support strategic sectors in an increasingly dangerous world. What tariffs won't do is revive a rust-belt economy, which isn't coming back. Comparative advantage, alas, remains undefeated. Nor should tariffs be sold to the public as a governmental revenue-generator while incumbent income, sales and other tax regimes remain firmly in place. Globalization improves lives and should be promoted. Free trade and capital movements have consistently shown themselves, when the requisite conditions are present, to be mutually beneficial. How these benefits are distributed and whether the unchecked movement of people across borders is similarly beneficial are more complex matters. But the promotion of globalism as an inviolate creed, either for its own sake or as a counterpoint to 'America First' policies, fails to appreciate that globalization cannot be summoned by magical thinking and that it is the servant of liberty, not its master. Richard J. Shinder is the founder and managing partner of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store