Aloha mai kakou! My name is ‘Ilima and I am a water protector, a kia'i to my people of Hawai'i. The wai, our water, is a sacred element crucial to our existence and the flourishing of our ecosystem. It is my spiritual responsibility, my kulana, to shield our wai from any form of contamination. The looming threat is the promulgation of Amendment 1, to the 2023 ACO by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which risks polluting our precious wai.

The EPA's proposed Amendment 1, to the 2023 ACO directly threatens the public’s right to know about the health of our communities and environment. The erosion of the public’s right to know more about protective regulations within this amendment provides an open gateway for more contamination of our water sources. If allowed to take effect, Oahu water users - including visitors- might witness a significant decline in the quality of the wai that we have so responsibly preserved over generations.

According to Section 22(b) of the 2023 Red Hill ACO, “If the modification is determined by the EPA to be significant, the process for public comment, described in Subparagraph (a), will repeat.”

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Public Law 404-79th Congress, Section 4(d) “PETITIONS”, the undersigned members of the Red Hill CRI and the public submit this Petition of grievance: that the EPA did not follow the rules, as described in the 2023 Red Hill ACO and the Administrative Procedure Act, by failing to provide proper public notice, failing to allow for public comment, and failing to provide for the mandatory 30 day waiting period before the implementation of amendments to the 2023 Red Hill ACO.

Specifically, the undersigned cite the following breaches by the EPA of the federal Administrative Procedure Act:

EPA failed to provide proper public notice related to the proposed “ground rules” changes and public engagement modifications under Section 22(b) of the 2023 Red Hill ACO, as required by Section 4(a) of the Administrative Proceedure  Act, which states: 

“NOTICE.—General notice of proposed rule making shall be published

in the Federal Register (unless all persons subject thereto are

named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice

thereof in accordance with law) and shall include (1) a statement of

the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings; (2)

reference to the authority under which the rule is proposed; and (3)

either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of

the subjects and issues involved. Except where notice or hearing is

required by statute, this subsection shall not apply to interpretative

rules, general statements of policy, rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice, or in any situation in which the agency for good

cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of

the reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the

public interest.”

EPA failed to provide public comment period related to the proposed rules, as required by Section 4(b), which states:  

“PROCEDURES.—After notice required by this section, the agency

shall afford interested persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments

with or without opportunity to present the same orally in any manner;

and, after consideration of all relevant matter presented, the

agency shall incorporate in any rules adopted a concise general statement

of their basis and purpose. Where rules are required by statute

to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, the

requirements of sections 7 and 8 shall apply in place of the provisions

of this subsection.”

The EPA failed to provide for a mandatory 30 day waiting period before the implementation of the amended ground rules, as required by Section 4(c), which states:

“EFFECTIVE DATES.—The required publication or service of any

substantive rule (other than one granting or recognizing exemption

or relieving restriction or interpretative rules and statements of pol-

icy) shall be made not less than thirty days prior to the effective date

thereof except as otherwise provided by the agency upon good cause

found and published with the rule.”

According to a study conducted by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, exposure to contaminated water supplies can result in a range of health issues such as gastrointestinal illness, reproductive problems, and neurological disorders (Source: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health). Furthermore, damage to our water sources from such amendments can take decades, or even centuries, to reverse.

Our plea is simple - we urge the EPA to halt the implementation of Amendment 1, to the 2023 Red Hill ACO. By doing so, the EPA would stand with Oahu water users in our commitment to protecting and preserving our wai, our people, and our future generations. We deserve clean water and a safe environment. Join us in the fight to protect our wai and sign this petition. Mahalo piha!