Editorials
Friday, December 26, 1997DIVIDING the 27 million gallons of water that flowed daily through the Waiahole Ditch to irrigate Leeward cane fields was a task that could have taxed the wisdom of Solomon. The decision by the state Water Commission strikes a balance between the needs of Windward and Leeward Oahu -- one that appears to give appropriate consideration to both. Sensible compromise
on Waiahole DitchThe commission's final decision allots 11.39 million gallons to Windward Oahu, almost twice the amount of its earlier proposal. However, of that amount only 6 million gallons is guaranteed to remain on the Windward side of the Koolaus. The other 5.39 million gallons would remain in Windward streams for the present but could be diverted to Leeward Oahu in the future. An agricultural reserve of 1.58 million gallons, designated for Leeward agriculture, would also remain on the Windward side for now. Leeward Oahu is awarded direct access to 15.61 million gallons, with the prospect of considerably more as needed.
Windward advocates denounced the decision, calling it politically motivated -- a charge that could have been expected because they had proposed that all the Waiahole water remain on the Windward side. Their argument has been that the water is needed to replenish streams that formerly nourished taro beds before the construction of the ditch 81 years ago, and otherwise restore the environment.
However, even the minimum guaranteed allotment of six million gallons represents a historic shift of resources back to the Windward side. And for the present at least, considerably more water would remain on the Windward side.
Governor Cayetano commented earlier that the Waiahole water was needed in Leeward Oahu to support diversified agriculture, which is moving into the abandoned cane fields. The governor's assessment that the future of diversified agriculture on Oahu lies in Leeward Oahu appears to be correct.
A handful of farmers are growing taro near Windward streams. Retaining a portion of the Waiahole water on the Windward side for the benefit of them and others is merited, but their claims to all or most of the water must be rejected in view of more compelling demands.
The water commission's final decision awards slightly more water to Leeward Oahu and less to Windward than its July proposal, but for the present the amounts are close -- 14.03 million for Leeward and 12.97 million for Windward. A spokesman for the governor pointed out that the decision doubles the existing flow in Windward's Waiahole Stream and also increases the flow in Waianu Stream.
William Paty, former chairman of the state Board of Land and Natural Resources and currently a trustee of the Mark Robinson trusts, which owns about 2,000 acres of Leeward land, said he thought the award was "adequate for the near term."
But Windward attorney Paul Achitoff accused the commission of caving in to pressure from the governor and developers. An appeal of the decision to the courts is possible, so this issue could be around for years.
Certainly there was plenty of pressure -- from both sides. The commission held 52 days of hearings over nine months. Twenty-four parties petitioned for use of the water. Written testimony was filed for 161 witnesses. The insinuation that the governor, the chief elected official of the state government, should have no opinions on this major issue is absurd.
Leeward advocates argued that the ditch water was needed to support agriculture because it flows by gravity and is cheaper to deliver than water from Leeward sources, which must be pumped. If the farmers can't afford the water, they may fail, leaving the land to residential and commercial development.
The idea of keeping all the water on the Windward side and restoring the natural conditions that existed in the Waiahole valley before the ditch was constructed appeals to environmentalists and native Hawaiian activists. However, the Oahu of today has many more people than the Oahu of 1916 and they have needs that preclude such a total turning back of the clock.
In addition to replenishing Windward streams, it is important to encourage diversified agriculture on the lands abandoned by the sugar plantations. A compromise was necessary, and the commission has made a sensible one. The key is that additional allotments to Leeward Oahu must be clearly justified.
WITH all the facial close-ups and fancy camera angles available in modern-day TV production, the $5 million awarded by a jury to actress Hunter Tylo in her breach-of-contract lawsuit sends a chilling but necessary message to mostly male producers: Don't discriminate against women when they get pregnant. Pregnant actress
Spelling Entertainment Group and Spelling Television Inc. learned that lesson the expensive way when they were ordered to pay $4 million for emotional distress and almost $1 million for economic loss after the 34-year-old actress was fired from her seductress role in "Melrose Place."
The TV executives contended that Tylo couldn't realistically portray a "vixen" and "adulteress" while visibly pregnant. According to her lawsuit, one of the producers even said, "Why doesn't she just go out and get an abortion? Then she can work."
Such flippant callousness reeks of a lack of sympathy for the real-life motherhood wishes of women who choose careers in acting. Obviously, females in their prime child-bearing age should not be forced to have abortions. Beside, Hollywood specializes in creating fantasy, remember? Many TV shows make actresses look hapai and, conversely, can mask the real-life pregnancies of stars via well-placed props, camera angles and innovative story lines.
If the producers of "Melrose Place" didn't like Hunter Tylo in her role as temptress, they should have fired her for a lack of talent. Pink-slipping her on the excuse that she was pregnant, and consequently not sexy, was insulting and lame.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
