The Navy recently got caught in another snafu when it accidentally leaked its Red Hill draft communications plan to a Honolulu Civil Beat reporter. In this draft the Navy highlights the need to rebuild trust with Hawaii’s residents because it recognizes that it could lose up to 46,000 acres of land due to the growing negative sentiment by the community toward the Navy as a result of the Red Hill fuel spill and continued concerns of water contamination.

The Navy’s plan does not include rebuilding trust through transparency like it promised. It doesn’t include reengaging in public Community Representation Initiative (CRI) meetings, which it has successfully strong-armed into getting canceled, breaking another promise.

Instead, its plan is to flood the market with positive stories about the Navy to convince the public that it can be trusted as good environmental stewards. In more public relation terms: “Increase in positive media coverage (current data as of May 24 indicates a one out of twelve positive-to negative story ratio) to one out of four.”

The Navy would also like to see a “Reduction in news media reports presenting demonstrably false or misleading information as fact.” It is audacious for the Navy to describe the media as false or misleading with regards to Red Hill. Navy officials were the ones who: misled the public for decades about overall safety of Red Hill; misled the public by saying that “there is no indication that the water is not safe” in the early days of the 2021 water crisis; dodged questions regarding forever chemicals in the water; and continue to mislead that medical issues related to its water are stress manifesting as symptoms.

In fact, on May 29 the Navy released a handout on its Safe Waters website titled, “Skin Rashes Related to Water Use.” First, I find it odd that Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam is so concerned about skin rashes; I know of no other military instillation that shares its unique concern. The handout gets more puzzling because after a brief background on the Red Hill fuel spill, it explains how, “Your skin can develop a ‘stress rash’ which, while usually short-term, can last a long time.”

Lastly, the handout has a list of “common water contaminants that cause skin rashes”; in this list it includes petroleum JP-5. Last time I checked, JP-5 is not a common contaminant, and should not be in drinking water! Missing from this misleading handout are any mental health resources that one can turn to, to alleviate that alleged “stress rash.”

The Navy could build more trust if it acknowledges that it causes the stress. Even during the Red Hill water crisis, the Navy alleged that it was stress that was causing unusual and persistent medical symptoms. Yet, the Navy never advertised or provided additional mental health resources to reduce the stress from the traumatic event that it caused. If the Navy wants to continue to mislead the public that it is stress alone that is causing medical symptoms, then it is obligated to provide free mental health services to all Red Hill families and current water users.

Instead of giving the public the “ol’ razzle dazzle” and treating Red Hill families and their drinking water as a public relations problem, the Navy could build a lot more trust by adhering to its own core values: courage, honor and commitment.

Lindsey Wilson and her family lived on Aliamanu Military Reservation during the Navy’s Red Hill water crisis. She has since moved to Montana but continues to be an advocate for the Red Hill community.