We want to emphasize that there have always been two parts to this effort. One is to amend the rules to reflect existing use and the other is to forestall enforcement during the amendment process. DLNR has consistently said that they agree that the Rules need to be amended, but they will install and enforce the swim zones as they are presently described in HAR 13-256-130 during the amendment process.
Despite every effort from every imaginable angle it seems that DLNR plans to install and begin enforcement any day now. We are now in a last ditch effort to mitigate impacts by asking for a compromise. The compromise would be to install just Swim Zone C while we go through the amendment process. Though not good for kite access at the “channel” it would retain about 1000′ of shoreline access area during the amendment process.
Enforcement endangers users, in contradiction to department’s mandate
The authority for DLNR Rule making comes from the Hawaii Revised Statutes which includes the mandate that the Rules should “…foster public peace and tranquility and to promote public safety, health, and welfare in or on the ocean waters and navigable streams of the State, and on beaches encumbered with easements in favor of the public.” [HRS 200-4 (a) (7)] Further, the stated Purpose of HAR 13-256 is “…to reduce conflicts among ocean water users, especially in areas of high activity.” Installation of the buoys (especially for Swim Zones A & B) before amendment of the outdated Rule is contrary to the Statutes and the purpose of the Rules because it absolutely causes unwarranted overcrowding and mixed use of activities and skill levels, not only in the judgement of those that use the park regularly, but in the opinion of the Ocean Safety Officers at this Park.
Enforcement of the zone in contention makes sense; enforcement in other zones punishes unrelated users
The alleged incident occurred between a kiteboarder and a swimmer. Of all 6 Restricted Zones, Swim Zone C is the only area that involves kiteboarding. The selective enforcement of Swim Zones A and B does not further restrict kiteboarding; the primary impact will be upon the windsurfing community, the innocent bystander. As far as we have been able to determine there are no complaints on file that involve windsurfing.
Arbitrary selection of zones to enforce
The “North Shore Maui Ocean Recreation Management Area” includes 6 restricted zones. The alleged incident occurred in Swim Zone C at the westernmost area of the North Shore Maui ORMA. Logic would lead one to understand enforcement of this one zone, or perhaps all zones, but it appears arbitrary to install 3 of the 6 zones.
Mismatch between zone boundaries in HAR text and map
The text of HAR 13-256-130 is in clear conflict with the accompanying map that is posted on the signs at the beach. The most clear example is in the case of Swim Zone A. The text clearly states that the west boundary of the swim zone is located at the east boundary of the park, but the map clearly shows it some 300 feet further east. Another example is the starting point for measure of Swim Zone B is so ambiguous that it is impossible to determine accurately. It gives a precise direction and measurement from the park boundary (but where along the boundary?) and it is supposed to resolve to “the low water mark at the tip of the groin”. Apparently the groin has shifted down current though because the point is east of the groin.
Swim zones per HAR 13-256-130 vs. Exhibit “AAA” map
Kanaha Watch 