Hawai’ian Kahuna Insights: Ancient Wisdom of the Islands
With the damage caused by the Lahaina inferno fresh in our minds, we went searching for Hawai’ian wisdom. We came across a very wise Hawai’i Kūpuna Elder, Kimokeo Kapahulehua. In this TikTok post, he shares sage advice that can benefit humanity, and protect our biodiversity.
Kimokeo Kapahulehua – Kūpuna Elder, Hawai’i Like / Follow / Share✨ @wisdom.keepers Uncle Kimokeo is a kūpuna elder born on the island of Kaua’i. He is dedicated to preserving and sharing his culture and traditions through his foundation @kimokeofoundation. He is a member of many canoe teams both in Hawai’i and around the world. 🌀For full interviews, community page and more join our WK Community on Patreon 🌀 ✨LINK IN BIO✨ #aloha#kupuna#elder#hawaii#wisdomkeeper#canoe#laka#mahalo#wisdomkeepers#native#indigenous#areyoulistening Film: @Jeremy Whelehan Music: Ynglingtal feat. Jhon Montoya WKTeam: @motherwaters @grandchildofthemoon Project: @wisdom.keepers Respect, Love & Gratitude. Hoomaikai me ka mahalo 💚🌿
You cannot go to the forest and just take a tree. You have to ask Laka. She’s the goddess of the forest. That’s her child. Why do you want to take her child without permission? And as the canoe maker, and as… He has to go up and tell Laka “I’m going to take one of your child[ren], and I’m going to make it into a canoe.” Laka will be very happy when you take her child and make it into many lives and serve many, many people. We cannot just take. We need to give. So if you take one of her child[ren], maybe you should go plant? And give back Laka 40 children. Take the seed of the plant and take it right back to the same location because her children would like to be born with the parents, and the great grandparents, and the great great grandparents. Don’t take her child from the forest to another forest because they will all grow better with their family. Like us.
—Kimokeo Kapahulehua, Kūpuna Elder
Elder’s Wisdom is Backed by Science
Science suggests that trees can “communicate” with each other through a complex network of mycorrhizal fungi. This underground network allows trees to exchange nutrients, send warning signals about environmental changes, and share resources with one another.
Dr. Suzanne Simard, a professor of forest ecology at the University of British Columbia, is one of the primary researchers in this area. In her studies, she found that trees can transfer carbon, water, and nutrients to other trees in times of need. She discovered that mother trees recognize their kin and send them more carbon below ground. They reduce their own root competition to make elbow room for their kids.
“When mother trees are injured or dying, they also send messages of wisdom on to the next generation of seedlings.”
—Dr. Suzanne Simard, Professor, RPF, Leader of The Mother Tree Project, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia
These findings validate the guidance shared by Kūpuna Elder, Kimokeo Kapahulehua.
Further, planting trees in non-native environments can have diverse ecological consequences. Research has shown that non-native trees can impact local ecosystems by:
Changing soil properties
Loss of humidity
Introduction of invasive alien species and disease
Negative impacts on biodiversity
Higher risks of adverse effects of fires and stores
When non-native tree species become invasive, they can outcompete, displace native species, alter habitat structures, and even change the soil properties and nutrient cycling.
It’s Time to Listen to the Wisdom
Whether we choose to listen to the wisdom of our elders or to science, climate disasters that are increasingly common underscore the urgency of listening and acting upon this wisdom.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Sackett v. EPA that federal protection of wetlands encompasses only those wetlands that directly adjoin rivers, lakes and other bodies of water. This is an extremely narrow interpretation of the Clean Water Act that could expose many wetlands across the U.S. to filling and development.
Under this keystone environmental law, federal agencies take the lead in regulating water pollution, while state and local governments regulate land use. Wetlands are areas where land is wet for all or part of the year, so they straddle this division of authority.
Swamps, bogs, marshes and other wetlands provide valuable ecological services, such as filtering pollutants and soaking up floodwaters. Landowners must obtain permits to discharge dredged or fill material, such as dirt, sand or rock, in a protected wetland.
This can be time-consuming and expensive, which is why the Supreme Court’s ruling on May 25, 2023, will be of keen interest to developers, farmers and ranchers, along with conservationists and the agencies that administer the Clean Water Act – namely, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
For the last 45 years – and under eight different presidential administrations – the EPA and the Corps have required discharge permits in wetlands “adjacent” to water bodies, even if a dune, levee or other barrier separated the two. The Sackett decision upends that approach, leaving tens of millions of acres of wetlands at risk.
The Sackett case
Idaho residents Chantell and Mike Sackett own a parcel of land located 300 feet from Priest Lake, one of the state’s largest lakes. The parcel once was part of a large wetland complex. Today, even after the Sacketts cleared the lot, it still has some wetland characteristics, such as saturation and ponding in areas where soil was removed. Indeed, it is still hydrologically connected to the lake and neighboring wetlands by water that flows at a shallow depth underground.
In preparation to build a house, the Sacketts had fill material placed on the site without obtaining a Clean Water Act permit. The EPA issued an order in 2007 stating that the land contained wetlands subject to the law and requiring the Sacketts to restore the site. The Sacketts sued, arguing that their property was not a wetland.
In 2012, the Supreme Court held that the Sacketts had the right to challenge EPA’s order and sent the case back to the lower courts. After losing below on the merits, they returned to the Supreme Court with a suit asserting that their property was not federally protected. This claim in turn raised a broader question: What is the scope of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act?
The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the “waters of the United States” include not only navigable rivers and lakes, but also wetlands and waterways that are connected to navigable bodies of water. But many wetlands are not wet year-round, or are not connected at the surface to larger water systems. Still, they can have important ecological connections to larger water bodies.
In 2006, when the court last took up this issue, no majority was able to agree on how to define “waters of the United States.” Writing for a plurality of four justices in U.S. v. Rapanos, Justice Antonin Scalia defined the term narrowly to include only relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes. Waters of the U.S., he contended, should not include “ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”
Acknowledging that wetlands present a tricky line-drawing problem, Scalia proposed that the Clean Water Act should reach “only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own right.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy took a very different approach. “Waters of the U.S.,” he wrote, should be interpreted in light of the Clean Water Act’s objective of “restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
Accordingly, Kennedy argued, the Clean Water Act should cover wetlands that have a “significant nexus” with navigable waters – “if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’”
Neither Scalia’s nor Kennedy’s opinion attracted a majority, so lower courts were left to sort out which approach to follow. Most applied Kennedy’s significant nexus standard, while a few held that the Clean Water Act applies if either Kennedy’s standard or Scalia’s is satisfied.
The Biden administration responded with its own rule defining waters of the United States in terms of the presence of either a significant nexus or continuous surface connection. However, this rule was promptly embroiled in litigation and will require reconsideration in light of Sackett v. EPA.
The Sackett decision and its ramifications
The Sackett decision adopts Scalia’s approach from the 2006 Rapanos case. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared that “waters of the United States” includes only relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water, such as streams, oceans, rivers, lakes – and wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with and are indistinguishably part of such water bodies.
None of the nine justices adopted Kennedy’s 2006 “significant nexus” standard. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices disagreed with the majority’s “continuous surface connection” test. That test, Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence, is inconsistent with the text of the Clean Water Act, which extends coverage to “adjacent” wetlands – including those that are near or close to larger water bodies.
“Natural barriers such as berms and dunes do not block all water flow and are in fact evidence of a regular connection between a water and a wetland,” Kavanaugh explained. “By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.”
Kavanaugh's reasoning in Sackett is compelling. Court's supposed textualists/literalists have rewritten "adjacent" to mean "adjoining" and thus created even more regulatory headaches. Wetlands along the Mississippi have been cut off by levees. Are we leaving them unprotected? pic.twitter.com/00fJcSvL1Z
The majority’s ruling leaves little room for the EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers to issue new regulations that could protect wetlands more broadly.
The court’s requirement of a continuous surface connection means that federal protection may no longer apply to many areas that critically affect the water quality of U.S. rivers, lakes and oceans – including seasonal streams and wetlands that are near or intermittently connected to larger water bodies. It might also mean that construction of a road, levee or other barrier separating a wetland from other nearby waters could remove an area from federal protection.
Congress could amend the Clean Water Act to expressly provide that “waters of the United States” includes wetlands that the court has now stripped of federal protection. However, past efforts to legislate a definition have fizzled, and today’s closely divided Congress is unlikely to fare any better.
Whether states will fill the breach is questionable. Many states have not adopted regulatory protections for waters that are outside the scope of “waters of the United States.” In many instances, new legislation – and perhaps entirely new regulatory programs – will be needed.
Finally, a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas hints at potential future targets for the court’s conservative supermajority. Joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas suggested that the Clean Water Act, as well as other federal environmental statutes, lies beyond Congress’ authority to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, and could be vulnerable to constitutional challenges. In my view, Sackett v. EPA might be just one step toward the teardown of federal environmental law.
This is an update of an article originally published on Sept. 26, 2022.
Close-up photo of a bee in a flower by Alexas Fotos.
Bees are remarkable creatures that support our ecosystems. They need protection and preservation.
Cognitive ability refers to the mental processes and skills involved in acquiring, processing, storing, and applying information. The American Psychological Association defines cognitive ability as, “the skills involved in performing the tasks associated with perception, learning, memory, understanding, awareness, reasoning, judgment, intuition, and language.”
Bees, particularly honeybees (Apis mellifera), exhibit remarkable cognitive abilities. They possess intricate navigational skills, communication systems, and memory capacity. In The Dancing Bees: An Account of the Life and Senses of the Honey Bee, author Karl von Frisch delves into the complex behaviors and sensory perceptions of honeybees. Von Frisch’s research and observations shed light on the cognitive prowess of bees, including their ability to communicate through intricate dances and navigate complex landscapes using visual cues.
Bees also demonstrate impressive learning and memory capabilities. They can associate visual, olfactory, and tactile cues with rewards or punishments. Studies, such as the research conducted by Randolf Menzel and Martin Giurfa reveal that bees can learn to recognize and remember specific colors, shapes, patterns, depth, and motion contrast, among others. They exhibit a capacity for associative learning, enabling them to solve complex tasks and adapt their behavior based on past experiences. Bees also possess a centralized nervous system and a complex array of sensory receptors, suggesting a capacity for processing and integrating sensory information.
In addition, bees have shown a remarkable ability to solve problems in laboratory settings. Research by Lars Chittka demonstrates how bees can learn to use tools, such as small sticks, to access out-of-reach rewards. This behavior suggests a level of cognitive flexibility and problem-solving skills beyond simple instinctual responses.
While it is challenging to measure subjective experiences in non-human animals, studies indicate that bees exhibit physiological and behavioral responses consistent with experiencing pain or distress. Research by Melissa Bateson and colleagues found that honeybees show a pessimistic bias in their decision-making after experiencing a negative event, suggesting that they could be regarded as exhibiting emotions. Sentience refers to the capacity of an organism to have subjective experiences, sensations, or conscious awareness of its own existence and in relation to the external world. It is often associated with the ability to feel pleasure or pain and have a sense of self-awareness. Since honeybees have been suggested to exhibit emotional states, this also implies that honeybees are sentient beings.
The potential sentience of bees alongside their cognitive abilities highlights the importance of preserving bee populations and their habitats for the well-being of these remarkable creatures and the ecosystems they support.
