Musings: One-Two Punch

The Kauai County Council inflicted blows on agriculture and coastal preservation yesterday, passing one bill to hike property taxes for those who grow GMO crops, and another that makes it easier to develop along rocky shorelines.

Overall, it was a disappointing final meeting for this Council, which will seat two new members next month. But there was one bright note: we will no longer have to endure Jay Furfaro and Tim Bynum, both of whom thankfully lost their re-election bids.

The Council first approved a shoreline setback bill that exempts rocky shorelines and coastal bluffs from setback requirements. The action green-lights development in all the wrong places, like hazardous cliffs and coastal bluffs. Councilman Mason Chock was a staunch opponent.

The Council then went on to pass Bynum's “agronomics” bill, which would make Kauai the first county in Hawaii, and possibly the nation, to use lease rents, rather than market value, to assess tax rates. Councilman Ross Kagawa, who joined Mel Rapozo in voting against the bill, finds that prospect worrisome.

“We tried to break new ground with 2491 and we lost,” he said, referencing the GMO/pesticide regulatory bill that was challenged by the seed companies and overturned by a federal judge. “I'm fearful of potential problems when you break new ground such as this.”

Ross said another lawsuit from the seed companies is likely. “Of course they're going to challenge a higher real property tax bill.”

The bill also impacts small farmers and ranchers who sublease land from the seed companies to grow diversified food crops and animal feed when the seed fields are fallow.

Those sub-lessees, as well as small farmers who grow GMO crops, likely will see higher costs because the bill affects parcels used for biotech research or cultivation in any part of the year, under an amendment proposed by Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura.

Though JoAnn denied the bill will affect small farmers who grow GMO crops, such as corn and papaya, both Mel and Grove Farm Vice President Mike Tresler disagreed.

“The small farmer who grows GMOs is going to pay higher taxes because they grow GMOs,” Mike,  a former county finance director, said to JoAnn. “You're shaking your head, but how can you tell me that isn't so? I can't tell from looking at this bill.”

Mel said the bill addresses crops regulated by the federal government, which includes all biotech seed. "I don't believe so," JoAnn replied.

But if you look at her amendment, it specifies crops regulated by federal government and whose DNA has been manipulated through genetic engineering to introduce new traits. Sure sounds like GMO corn and papaya to me.

Mike said he has been working with the seed companies to encourage them to cooperate with farmers and ranchers to grow cover crops and food crops when the seed fields are fallow, as they are much of the year.

“We want to encourage them to continue that practice but if you tax them at this GMO rate it doesn't encourage that,” he said. “You're trying to single out the seed corn industry and I think the public has spoken on that issue pretty clearly.”

He was referencing the November election, in which anti-GMO candidates, including Bynum, fared poorly, while Mel and Ross, who opposed Bill 2491, were re-elected by a landslide.

Tom Shigemoto of A&B Properties said the ag bill is poorly written and will be difficult to implement. He also felt it was improper to require landowners to give the county proprietary information about lease rates.

JoAnn seems to believe the bill will actually help diversified farmers, who she said can't compete with the biotech companies, which are willing to higher lease rents.

But Tom vehemently disagreed. “I object because this doesn't help ag. Period.”

“I think this is worth a try,” JoAnn said. “I hope it will make our laws better and not really hurt our biotech ag.”

“It's worth a try?” Mel echoed. “That's not we do here. We don't do trial and error here.”

Mike said the seed companies pay good wages and also maintain infrastructure that benefits small farmers.

“So we're going to punish them,” Mel said. “I see no justification.”

Both Bynum and Gary Hooser, as well as anti-GMO activists, have repeatedly claimed the seed companies only engage in experimentation here, and grow nothing for export. But Mike said that isn't true. “Actually, they do produce a product for sale,” he said, asking why the seed companies aren't considered diversified agriculture.

Mike also questioned how the Council could legitimately differentiate between farmers who grow a product for direct sale to consumers and those who grow a product that is processed in a mill and made into food that is sold to consumers.

Ross said the Council should have spent more time researching the bill and its legal ramifications, as well as unforeseen consequences, such as what will happen to housing occupied by former sugar workers if the seed companies pull out. 

But he said there are two options left: Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. could veto the bill, and “perhaps a new council can re-look at this bill and see if it's in the best interest of our taxpayers.”

The vote on the ag bill was 4-2, with Jay not present and Mel and Ross opposed. On the shoreline setback bill, the vote was 5-2, with Mason and Gary opposed.