������Ƶ

The Kū Kiaʻi Mauna movement’s sole focus has always been protecting Mauna a Wākea.

The movement’s roots stretch back nearly 50 years, when community concerns over the rapid push to develop the first telescopes on the summit prompted to initiate the first master plan for the mauna.

In 1976, the and other urged that the plan cap the number of telescopes to the six already approved at the time, essentially calling for a moratorium on astronomy development. The plan, however, was approved without a telescope limit.

Only one management plan approved by the state Board of Land and Natural Resources has ever included a cap on astronomy development, despite a constant chorus of and demanding it.

Today, twice the number of telescopes sit atop the mauna than the six that many believed, decades ago, were already too many. And today’s telescopes are far larger than the first generation observatories from forty years ago, with the largest yet — TMT — still waiting to be built.

The Kū Kiaʻi Mauna movement is the culmination of all those voices that fell on deaf ears for far too long.

So when the opportunity arose to have Native Hawaiian voices heard with the , a group of Kiaʻi cautiously stepped forward. The working group’s goal was to “present recommendations for a new governance and management structure for Mauna Kea.”

For six months, we engaged the diverse members of the working group, collaboratively rethinking how to better steward the mauna. The Kiaʻi sought to emphasize a common understanding of the chants, mele and oli that describe the genealogical connection of the mauna to the gods Papa and Wākea.

The product of those discussions is , which represents a new, holistic approach to caring for the mauna that places the well-being of the ʻāina at the center of stewardship.

A New Entity

The proposed stewardship area reflects this new approach. The bill places more lands under the care of the new entity than what the University of Hawaii manages under its current general lease for the summit.

The idea for expanding the jurisdiction area from the summit down to the 6,500-foot level, which includes Daniel K. Inouye Highway and Puʻu Huluhulu, is that the whole mountain, with its various environmental regions, is managed in an integrated manner.

The bill also grounds the management of the mountain in the Native Hawaiian Concept of Environmental Kinship, called the Kumu Kānāwai. We use the name Mauna a Wākea to signal a shift in the management framework for the mountain. Native Hawaiians recognize different wao, or elevation regions.

From a cultural perspective, humans live at the lower elevations, known as the wao kanaka. The upper regions, where the air is too thin, are known as the wao akua, the domain of godly elements.

The name change isn’t nominal. Under the bill, the mauna would be managed as the home of the god Wākea, where humans are guests. As such, the new authority would be required to establish an astronomy development limit in the near term and a long-term plan to return the upper region of the mauna to its natural state.

The entity must pay special attention to protecting the mauna’s environmentally sensitive areas and cultural sites, taking a close and fresh look at the impacts of commercial activities, tourists, researchers, residents, astronomy and employees. Everyone that accesses the mountain will receive adequate education and training.

The Mauna a Wākea lands would be transferred to a sovereign Native Hawaiian entity when recognized.

The most important transformation is the stripping of management kuleana from the BLNR and UH — the two entities most responsible for the state’s failure to properly care for the mountain. State lands would be transferred from the Department of Land and Natural Resources to the new stewardship entity.

The lands would remain in the Public Land Trust and be subject to the same, and in some instances stricter, management safeguards as most other state lands. The state constitutional rights of Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners would remain protected under the bill.

And critically, the Mauna a Wākea lands would be transferred to a sovereign Native Hawaiian entity when recognized.

The makeup of the board of the new authority also represents a new management paradigm. The 10-member board would have significant membership of Native Hawaiians and Hawaii Island residents. Board seats were specifically tailored for the management needs of the mauna.

Creating a new entity to manage Mauna a Wākea will take a lot of work. Finding a new path forward that everyone can agree to is difficult.

We believe firmly that this legislation is a substantial improvement to the status quo and the best way forward, for the sake of the mauna. To remain in the status quo will result in continued conflict over the care and future of the mauna and a return to Kiaʻi sitting with arms interlocked on a closed road.

Editor’s note: The five authors served on the HR33 Mauna Kea Working Group.