The same folks who challenged the Thirty Meter Telescope in a lengthy contested case hearing in 2016 and 2017 are now following a new line of attack in questioning the recent determination that construction of the $2.4 billion project has already begun.
The Mauna Kea Hui filed a motion Monday with the Board of Land and Natural Resources demanding that the contested case hearing be reopened.
The board signed off
on an April 28 letter from permit applicant University of Hawaii at Hilo declaring that TMT construction has started in compliance with permit conditions.
But Monday’s motion argues that the university
“incorrectly represented” that the condition of the permit has been satisfied, and therefore a hearing should be held before the board.
The motion was filed by Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Kealoha Pisciotta, Ku Ching, Deborah J. Ward, Paul Neves and KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, many of the same hui of groups and people that have challenged the TMT
in administrative and court hearings over the years.
The TMT’s conservation district use permit was initially issued in 2017, but the permit’s two-year start-work condition was extended in 2019 because of the delay caused by the protesters who blocked equipment from reaching the construction site near the summit of Mauna Kea.
In its letter to the board, the university said the requirement to start construction within two years of the permit’s issuance was satisfied based on activities in June and July 2019.
Those activities included removal of unpermitted structures, on-site GPS verification of locations and coordinates, a construction kickoff meeting with the civil contractor and subcontractors to review procedures and safety protocols, locating and surveying on-site underground fiber-optic and electrical lines, inspections of construction equipment for invasive species, and the mobilization of 18 vehicles and equipment to the work site.
Bianca Isaki, an attorney representing Mauna Kea Hui, said the activities listed by the university do not represent legitimate forms of construction and are certainly not enough to declare that the project has begun.
The motion argues that there’s good reason for the board to reexamine the permit, including its soaring price tag, a critical report about the university’s Mauna Kea outreach and consultation with Hawaiians, and apparent wavering support from Canadian astronomers.
A spokesman for BLNR said the agency doesn’t
comment on potential legal actions prior to decision-
making, while a spokesman for the university declined to comment, saying officials hadn’t seen the motion.
