Bill Overview
Title: Leandra Wai Act
Description: This bill provides for the conveyance and return by the Department of Defense (DOD), to the state of Hawaii, without consideration, all interest of the United States in the parcel of property known as the Makua Military Reservation located in Oahu, Hawaii. DOD shall, in collaboration with the state, conduct a study to map out land hazards, including unexploded ordnance and other contaminants; determine an appropriate schedule, consistent with community standards, for the removal of such land hazards; and provide a cost estimate for the land remediation and restoration activities required to make the reservation suitable for agriculture, residential use, and human habitation. There is established a Makua Military Reservation Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Trust Fund to (1) make the reservation suitable for agriculture, residential use, and human habitation, including any remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; and (2) carry out this bill. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the state that shall govern the study; the conveyance; the timing, planning, methodology, and implementation for the removal of unexploded ordnance; and the use of the sums appropriated to the fund.
Sponsors: Rep. Kahele, Kaiali'i [D-HI-2]
Target Audience
Population: People in Oahu, Hawaii
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The Leandra Wai Act pertains to the Makua Military Reservation in Oahu, Hawaii, which directly impacts residents of Oahu, particularly those in proximity to this area.
- The bill focuses on conveying land known to have hazards (such as unexploded ordnance) which means potential residential, agricultural, and commercial development will be affected.
- Local communities interested in utilizing the land for agriculture, residential purposes, or new business ventures will be directly impacted.
- Stakeholders in environmental remediation will also be involved, including those needing to manage unexploded ordnance and other contaminants.
- Military interests may be impacted by the land conveyance from the Department of Defense back to the state.
- There is a trust fund established which implies financial and administrative management interests will be involved as well as those industries or people responsible for conducting the cleanup and land revival.
Reasoning
- The Leandra Wai Act is highly relevant to residents of Oahu, particularly those near Makua Military Reservation, due to the potential economic, environmental, and social impacts.
- The budget constraints of $25,000,000 in year one and $172,500,000 over ten years imply a focused but significant scope for remediation and conversion of the land.
- Considerations include existing military personnel and local residents' interests in land use transition, alongside environmental hazards management.
- Agricultural, residential, and commercial opportunities post-remediation will directly impact local businesses and residents.
- Ongoing collaborative studies will require participation from government, military, local communities, and environmental agencies.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is necessary to make the land safe and beneficial for agriculture.
- Concerned about the impact of unexploded ordnance on safety and the timeline for land being usable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Local government official (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is critical for eliminating hazards and optimizing land for future development.
- There's a lot to coordinate between the military and local stakeholders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired military (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect historical military sites to be respected while making the land safer.
- Ensuring strong collaboration will be key to success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental scientist (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited to participate in land remediation efforts as this policy progresses.
- Ensuring environmental standards are met is my priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Tourism business owner (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy as it could eventually bring more tourism to our area.
- There should be clear communication about safety standards as work progresses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
School teacher (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative is essential for ensuring the long-term safety and prosperity of our community.
- Educating families about the changes is equally important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Construction worker (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy presents new opportunities for work once the land is readied.
- Health and safety during cleanup should be top priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Real estate developer (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for expediting land development.
- Understanding and overcoming regulatory hurdles will be important.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental activist (Honolulu, Hawaii)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy the policy aligns with environmental goals for the state.
- Maintaining accountability will ensure effective outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Fisherman (Oahu, Hawaii)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Converting the land safely is a priority to avoid affecting the waters.
- Seeing a shift in land use could benefit local fisheries eventually.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The environmental sensitivity of the area and the potential for ecological restoration need careful management.
- Community involvement and local standards play critical roles in determining the success of the conveyance.
- Future agricultural and residential uses can generate long-term benefits but require initial substantial investment.