COM 0045.016 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GOODSILL ANDERSON QU1NN St Sr1Fe1. A Llhlil'[D LIABIllTY LAW PAR"INERSHIP LLP Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Chair April 17, 2003 Page 4 not rated as "Prime" or "Unique" under the ALISH classification system referred to in Criteria 2; the Properties consist of Class D and E "Poor" and "Very Poor" under the Land Study Bureau's Soil Survey Report referred to in Criteria 3; and t:he Properties do not fit within Criteria 5 or 6. In addition, the average rainfall on the Properties is less than 20 inches annually, and has an average pan evaporation rate of approximately 70 to 80 inches annually, which means that the Properties have a 50 to 60 inch annual motsture deficit, before taking into account any crop requirements. The nearest public irrigation system is the State's Waimea Imgation System which is over 6 miles away, and while Waikoloa Water Co., Inc. provides water to the Waikoloa Village, (a) its nearest pipelines end 3-4 miles from the bottom of the Properties and 5-G miles from the top of the Properties, and (b) even if such pipelines existed, Waikoloa Water Co.'s wells do not have sufficient water capacity, and its pumps do not have sufficient pumping capacity, to provide irrigation water to the Properties. According to Steve Skipper of the USDA. Natural Resource Conservation Service field office in Kamuela, the area is fire prone, is arid, is subject to strong winds and has a savatuta-type ecosystem. In terms of agricultural use, because of their topography, climate, location and soils and lack of viable water, the Properties are at best suitable only for grazing purposes. In fact the ?ands in question are subject to a grazing license in favor of Parker Ranch, but because of the extreme conditions of the Property, in recent years there has been insufficient grass for cattle grazing, and Parker Ranch's actual use of the Properties has been minimal. For all of these reasons, we believe drat under both the present and proposed land classifications, the Properties more properly belong to the Extensive Agriculture classification, than either the Intensive Agriculture or proposed Important Agricultural Land classification. Nonetheless, because the Properties currently are designated Intensive Agriculture, it appears that they have been earmarked for designation as Important Agricultural Land. We submit that because the current designation does not take into account the Properties' potential for sustained agricultural yields (or in this case the lack thereof), it would be inappropriate and unreasonable to designate the Properties as Important Agricultural Land. Finally, the proposed General Plan recognizes that "some areas that meet the criteria for important agricultural lands on an irrigated basis only [are] included in the "Extensive Agricultural Land" category due to their remoteness from potential sc;.. ces of irrigation: ' In addition to the reasons aforesaid, we believe that based on this rationale, it Ol0-d 90/SO d 910-1 0999lYS809+ NOS830NY 11150009-mo~j Yl~9f t0-ll-~dtl