============
現地リポート
============

◆きくちゆみさんの現地リポート(4/10)◆

こちらの裁判は大詰めを迎えています。現在裁判が行われているのはハワイの3rd Circuit Courtというところで日本で言えば地裁にあたるところかな。ここで判決が出て、上告するとなると次はハワイ州最高裁、そして次が連邦政府裁判所に審議がうつることになります。(日本とはちょっと違う感じ)

ハワイ先住民来日時にも出ていた工事一時停止命令(TRO)は、その後あらたに発覚した違反により、4月末まで延期されました。その間原告側が現地に入って調査した事実や証拠書類などが先週裁判所に提出されました。 今週はそれに対する被告(開発者、州政府)側の反論です。あれから新たにわかったことは、以下の通り:

1、州政府は開発者が全ての考古学調査を終える前に開発許可を出している(違法行為です)という証拠書類が見つかった

2、州政府は開発者に水利権をたったの1ドルで売却している(これが公になったら、大問題に発展します。なぜならハワイ島は水か乏しく、これ以上ホテルやリゾートなどに水利権を渡すことに対しては、一般住民でさえ反対しているからです。それをたった1ドルで売るのは、尋常では考えられません)

3、既に明らかになっている88件の遺跡や遺骨の破壊に加え、新たに未報告の複数の遺跡破壊が発見された。(遺跡が発掘されるたびに工事は中止し、埋葬委員会への報告が義務づけられているが、忠実に行われていないことの証明)

4、開発者から監督義務のある州政府の役人に対し、プレゼントや小切手が渡されていた(収賄の可能性あり?)。

5、分譲住宅地730戸のうち、既に260戸が80万ドルから100万ドルの高値で売却済み。なんと日本人も随分買っている(その名前も入手した。でもいいのかねえ、もう販売して。工事が停止になったらどうするんだろう・・。JALの心配してもしょうがないが)。原告側は売却地で遺跡や遺骨が発見された場合には、そのオーナーに対して訴訟を起こしていく予定(土地が売却されたらもう開発側の責任ではなくなるそうです)。

6、昨年9月と11月の大量土砂流出で、周辺海域の珊瑚礁の5、5%が死滅、ダメージは今後も広がるだろうとのこと(専門家の調査。JALはこれを0、4%で大した事はない、と言っている。この見解は困ったもんだ。なんせここは世界でも最も透明度の高かった海域だから)(土砂流出によるサンゴへの影響--公式調査報告ページ参照)。

7、開発側が当初使っていた遺跡地図と現在使っている遺跡地図は一致していない。後者では遺跡が小さくなったり、消されたりしている。ジャックニコラスのゴルフ場設計に合わせて変更されているので、これは故意にやったとしか思えない。そのために実際工事が始まると遺跡や遺骨にぶつかってしまったのではないか、というのが原告側の見解。

8、JALはこのリゾート分譲地とゴルフ場の営業活動をこの秋から本格的に始めたい意向で、ゴルフ場の完成をとても急いでいる。

おそらくJALはこれらの新事実(1ー7)に対して、寝耳に水だと思います。JALが知っていたらこんなおそまつなことをするわけがないから。JALは最大の投資家ではあるものの、工事は現場に一任されていて、現場から日本にいる担当者が報告を受けているようですが、私たちがこちらで入手する事実とはずいぶん違った報告を受けているようです(いまだに平気で「違反はしていない」と言うのですよ、JALさんは。違反をしたから、工事一時停止命令が出たし、それが2回も延期されて4月末までに伸びたのにね!)。

先日の4名のハワイ先住民の来日に際しては、この中の沢山の人に多大なご支援をいただきありがとうございました。日本では殆どニュースになりませんでしたが、現地ではテレビでも新聞でも大きく取り上げられ、みんなとても喜んでいました。


◆現地の先住民支援者、チャッキーさんのレポート◆

Regarding the damage to burials sites: I would have hoped that JAL would believe the admitted destruction of 88 human remains is more than minor. In addition, although you cannot yet use this information until it is admitted into evidence in Court, the plaintiffs' review of subpoenaed documentation shows that many more than 88 human remains have been destroyed and not reported. Also, entire burial sites do not appear on recent maps that did appear on earlier maps. There are also internal documents showing that Oceanside reduced the size of burial sites that were interferring with Jack Nicklaus's design of the golf course (the Hokuli'a golf course is a Jack Nicklaus Signature Course). One would believe that the secret removal and alteration of burial sites that directly resulted in the destruction of numerous remains of the ancestors of families still living in this area to be more than minor.

Regarding the extent of damage to coral: The following are the conclusions from an official report released by Dr.William Walsh of the State of Hawaii Aquatic Resources Division. You can review all reports issued by the State DAR at by going to reports related to the Hokuli'a development. Please note that the State DAR found a death rate of 5.5% about three weeks after the second runoff event (not 0.4% as JAL has represented). The report also states the the coral reef community continues to be under stress and that "further reprecussions" (death) are anticipated.

"Conclusions:

1. The rainfall events of September and November 2000 resulted in sediment runoff of unusual magnitude from the Hokuli`a project site into the nearshore waters and onto the adjacent coral reef ecosystem. On-site observations indicated that such runoff occurred only along the project site and not elsewhere along a substantial stretch of adjacent coastline. According to commercial dive operators who have worked the area regularly for up to 20 years, runoff of this degree is unprecedented within the time frame of their experience, (Tom Shockley, Terri Leicher, pers. comm.).

2. On-reef sediment loading was investigated shortly after the September event in one cove site at the south end of the project. This cove was chosen for continued study, but at this time it is not known whether it is the only area at the project site impacted by runoff. Divers have indicated that another area (Kalukalu Bay- 0.6 mi.north of cove) also sustained heavy sedimentation in 20 - 50' depths (Jeff Leicher, pers.comm.). Initial assessment of the cove found benthic sediments to be widespread in deeper waters forming a layer on the bottom up to 3" thick in places. Over the course of several months, much of this visible surface sediment layer appeared to have dispersed, presumably the result of repeated high surf conditions. Further in-depth examinations revealed however that sediment was still located below the surface of sand areas and within and below existing coral rubble. Lava tubes on both the north and south inshore areas of the cove remained heavily sedimented. A fine layer of sediment was also evident on the surfaces of corals and calcareous algae in deeper water. Underwater visibility in these inshore areas deteriorated during periods of high water movement. Substantial sediment loading of the cove reef area was thus evident from shortly after the September runoff event until at least the most recent survey (December 07, 2000).

3. Present coral mortality directly attributable to the sediment runoff was greatest in the deeper areas of the cove. Although existing dead coral also occurred in these areas, the cause of such death is unknown and could be due to any number of natural factors. Underwater transects indicated that an average of 5.5% of living corals, mostly Porites lobata, were killed by sedimentation in these areas. While the absolute amount of coral killed outright by the runoff may be small, it was nevertheless, noticeable and measurable. Sedimentation is acknowledged to be a serious environmental threat to coral reefs. Given the widespread stress on coral reefs worldwide, and the often incremental effects of human activities, the runoff at Hokuli`a should not be taken lightly and must be avoided. To trivialize the impact of such events by drawing comparisons to more destructive natural occurrences such as storms is spurious. The same argument was once also applied to anthropogenic pollution and species extinctions. We've seen where that leads.

4. Bleached and presumably dead calcareous algae were also apparent at the site, especially in the areas by the inshore lava tubes. Direct effects on other marine organisms are difficult to assess in part due to a lack of pre-runoff data. Unlike more mobile creatures such as fishes and large invertebrates, which can move out of unfavorable areas, it is likely that deleterious effects would be greatest with sessile, bottom dwellers. Lava tube inhabitants would be expected to be particularly impacted. Unfortunately data is not presently available to assess the impact on these organisms. It is becoming increasingly clear however, that the runoff effects at Hokuli`a are still unfolding. The present occurrence of filamentous algae and associated sediments on living corals and calcareous algae points this out. This is not characteristic of a healthy coral or calcareous algal habitat in this area. As noted by Gulko, this area is still under a level of continuing stress that could have further repercussions for the reef community at this site. "


|Home|お墓の上にゴルフ場?| 「ホクリア」ゴルフリゾート開発の事実概要| 現地リポート|来日記録|サンゴへの影響| この件を伝える新聞記事| JAL社長への公開書簡|JALへの反論| 署名のお願い|

最終更新 2001/04/30