In a landmark decision this afternoon, the state's highest court revoked the TMT building permit on top of Mauna Kea. This culminates a years-long fight by native Hawaiians and their supporters, who believed the processes of rubber stamp permitting "endless" telescope construction on a sacred mountain was just wrong. Though some people in the science community may see this as a serious setback, I do not believe that is the case, as TMT's own site survey final selection report concluded all of the top 5 sites were equally good from a science perspective. So, I sincerely hope the TMT board takes this as a golden opportunity to change path (since construction hadn't begun) and relocate the project to one of those other sites. In the words of one of our most famous alumni - this turn of events is most likely a "misfortune as blessings in disguise".
Mike
The project may not be ended but delayed. It appears a permit to build on Mauna Kea might still be able to be obtained if those behind the TMT still want to pursue it. This is from a news article of the AAAS:
Native Hawaiian groups seeking to block construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) atop the state's Mauna Kea volcano have won a major court victory. Hawaii’s Supreme Court today ruled that a state planning board acted improperly in 2011 in granting a permit for TMT construction before it completed a hearing on objections to the permit.
“Quite simply, the [state Board of Land and Natural Resources] put the cart before before the horse when it issued the permit before the request for a contested case hearing was resolved and the hearing was held,” Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald wrote in a 2 December opinion. “Accordingly, the permit cannot stand.”
In addition to vacating a lower court’s ruling in 2014 that upheld the permit, the court ordered the state board to conduct the required hearing. A new permit would be required for TMT construction to proceed.
Protests and lawsuits have extensively delayed efforts to begin construction of the TMT, which is expected to cost more than $1 billion and become one of the most powerful land-based telescopes in the world. Native Hawaiian groups say the project represents an inappropriate use of sacred land, and that state agencies have improperly ignored their views. Protesters began blocking a road to the telescope site this past April, halting construction, and more recent clashes have prevented resumption of construction.
[quote=stanspectro]
The project may not be ended but delayed. It appears a permit to build on Mauna Kea might still be able to be obtained if those behind the TMT still want to pursue it. This is from a news article of the AAAS.
[/quote]
Pursuing this permit further likely will end up to be a costly and futile endeavor. The Hawaii Supreme court also rendered its concurring opinion from judges Pollack, Wilson and McKenna, which further expresses the courts opinion and precedents of the importance of protecting native people's practices, customs and traditions, as enumerated in the state constitution, Article XII, Section 7; Article XI, Section 7; and Article I, Section 5.
The court made it very clear that the constitution mandates that “the State is obligated to protect the reasonable exercise of customarily and traditionally exercised rights of Hawaiians to the extent feasible.” and that the Board of Land and Natural Resources failed to protect those rights when it granted the TMT permit.
This decision has markedly affected the whole picture of TMT getting a new permit, as the process has now changed from one in the past, when the board routinely approved these type of projects over the native people's objections, to a new paradigm, where the constitutionally protected rights of native peoples must be placed first.
In light of the TMT's very difficult legal path ahead, no guarantee at all that a new permit might ever be obtained, and the existence of several equally good alternate sites outside of Hawaii, the obvious and reasonable solution to keep TMT on schedule, or even save the entire project, is to shift to the other site.
Given that E-ELT and other giant telescopes are slated for the southern hemisphere, it makes most sense to site TMT at San Pedro Martir, Baja California, Mexico (site of the existing Mexican National Observatory). This site is essentially as good as Mauna Kea, for the science mission of TMT.
Nothing has been lost here!
Mike
You seem to have a slightly different interpretation of the situation than I have. You apparently have read much more about this than I have. I am just basing my interpretation of this from essentially the one news article by AAAS that I posted and your previous post.
However, the judge said “Quite simply, the [state Board of Land and Natural Resources] put the cart before the horse when it issued the permit before the request for a contested case hearing was resolved and the hearing was held ... Accordingly, the permit cannot stand.” He did not say that the interested cannot apply for a new permit to construct the TMT. To the contrary, the article I posted said the court said "In addition to vacating a lower court’s ruling in 2014 that upheld the permit, the court ordered the state board to conduct the required hearing. A new permit would be required for TMT construction to proceed.." So, the interested party wanting to construct the TMT can apply for a new permit as long as the state board conducts the required hearing. I do not see the huge legal expense in doing this. It is just a simple matter of paying the required fees to apply for a permit, and having a representative, or an attorney, be present to present their side.
I assume you are correct when you say “the State is obligated to protect the reasonable exercise of customarily and traditionally exercised rights of Hawaiians to the extent feasible.” Without knowing more behind this quote it is difficult to interpret it but it seems the key words here are "reasonable exercise". The state board that would be conducting the hearing would have to decide after hearing all sides and on the basis of law and other court rulings as to whether preventing the construction of the TMT is a reasonable exercise of the rights of the Hawaiians. If there are no annual pilgrimages by the native people to the top of Mauna Kea (maybe there are. I don't know) would it be a reasonable exercise of rights to prevent construction of the TMT? If they do not make annual pilgrimages and would not be able to see the telescope facilities by naked eye or only with the aid of a powerful telescope, is just the thought of telescopes being on top the mountain sufficient basis to deny the permit? It seems to me that these are the types of issues the board will have to consider. At this point it is probably a done deal (interpreted as: the board will probably cave in instead of making a decision by carefully weighing the arguments of both sides) that the chances of getting a permit approved are zero but as an extreme unrealistic example consider this. Let's say the top of Mauna Kea was the only place in the entire world where the skies could be monitored to detect and prevent large aggregates of matter from plunging into the Earth and destroying civilization. Would preventing such a facility from being constructed be a reasonable exercise of the Hawaiian rights?
These are my thoughts, but, as I said, I am not well read on this issue and if I knew more, as you do, I might have an opinion similar to yours.
Stan
Mike: Really? I guess I don't understand, but it seems to me that a site in Hawaii offers two distinct advantages over one on the Baja, and perhaps three.
First, the Hawaii site is further north, better complementing the sites in Chile in terms of low-extinction sky coverage.
Second, it is in the US. The situation in Mexico is very unstable, with open warfare between the government and the drug cartels, with the population caught up in the middle. Popular support for the government is under pressure as a result of the widespread corruption and heavy handed tactics of the military. In short, the US is a far safer site than anything in Mexico.
The third thing that worries me about Baja versus Hawaii is the greater ptential for development there than in Hawaii (assuming stability returns to Mexico), although there are by no means any guarantees that we won't see McMansions or gambling casinos dotting the side of the holy mountain. (Funny how sacred land loses its sanctity when large sums of money are involved. We've seen it elsewhere.)
Stan: I am not sanguine about the prospects for the potential for scientific discovery to have any weight in a US court. Particularly in an esoteric field like astronomy. If on the other hand, the building of the TMT promised to discover a way to make gold out of air, I am sure the court would view it more favorably.
The issues that came up in this TMT case are really only the "tip of the iceberg" as far as the entirety of struggles the native Hawaiians have been going through since their constitutional monarchy was overthrown by wealthy American businessmen (the "bayonet constitution") in 1887. Here, I really want to concentrate on the science issues, partcularly the false pretense by many in the TMT community, that Mauna Kea is the one and only place for TMT. This is just not true. TMT's own extensive site surveys identified 5 top sites, all about equal in their excellent characteristics for a large astronomical observatory. San Pedro Martir is the best alternative for a northern hemisphere site, despite some TMT supporters pointing out some minor possible advantages of Mauna Kea, but these are so miniscule, really insignificant for the overall science mission. To respond to a few of your points below:
[quote=SFS]
First, the Hawaii site is further north, better complementing the sites in Chile in terms of low-extinction sky coverage.
[/quote]
Actually, Martir is further north, about latitude +30 in Baja California Norte, vs. Mauna Kea is at +20.
[quote=SFS]
Second, it is in the US. The situation in Mexico is very unstable, with open warfare between the government and the drug cartels, with the population caught up in the middle. Popular support for the government is under pressure as a result of the widespread corruption and heavy handed tactics of the military. In short, the US is a far safer site than anything in Mexico.
[/quote]
Well, there have been problems in Mexico, but not anywhere in the area of the telescope. I am sure the Mexican government can and will provide the sufficient security. This will be a high visibility and prestigious site for the country. Hawaii is not a particularly "stable" venue anyway, given the political situation here.
[quote=SFS]
The third thing that worries me about Baja versus Hawaii is the greater ptential for development there than in Hawaii (assuming stability returns to Mexico), although there are by no means any guarantees that we won't see McMansions or gambling casinos dotting the side of the holy mountain. (Funny how sacred land loses its sanctity when large sums of money are involved. We've seen it elsewhere.)
[/quote]
Martir is within a large national park in a very isolated part of northern Baja. There is already an observatory there. It is far enough from any major cities or resorts to have some of the darkest skies in the world. It is about 100 miles SE of Ensenada, and 200 miles from San Diego, CA. Actually, more light pollution is visible from Mauna Kea than from Martir, due especially the Kona area resorts, and towns surrounding it, like Waimea and Hilo.
Mike
Thanks for correcting my geographic ignorance. I agree, 30 north is better than 20 north in terms of complementing the ESO sites. Could you tell me the elevation of the Baja site?
As far as political stability is concerned, I think we will just have to disagree.
Interesting by statistics, the US and Mexico are almost equal by gun deaths per 100,000 - 10.5 vs. 11.1, respectively! And for sure, the vast majority of the Mexican deaths are due to the inter-gang drug wars. Such criminals would have no interest in astronomers working on a remote mountaintop.
I am not sure the precise site was tested for the TMT. SPM summit is at 10,157ft, the Mexican National Observatory at 9,280ft, with a 2meter class telescope already there.
Mike