Laserfiche WebLink
Land Use <br /> • Draft 1 designates certain lands as Important Agricultural Lands and adds related policies. <br /> Perhaps the greatest concern expressed of Draft 2 was its elimination of Important Agricultural <br /> Lands as a LUPAG designation and placing the responsibility for identifying, protecting, and <br /> conserving Important Agricultural Lands with the State of Hawaii. This action was taken because <br /> of the State of Hawaii Constitution and a Hawai'I Supreme Court decision that places this <br /> responsibility with the State legislature. While the County can assert its authority to guide the <br /> physical development of the island through the General Plan and its implementation, it should be <br /> methodical in the identification of the agricultural lands. <br /> Draft 3 identifies Intensive Agricultural lands as the starting point for a comprehensive Intensive <br /> Agricultural program. It also acknowledges the need for detailed mapping and a program that <br /> promotes agriculture through degrees of government protection, intervention, and support as well <br /> as the extent of private action. Like Draft 1, Draft 3 includes (1) lands identified as Intensive <br /> Agriculture in the existing General Plan, (2) Prime and Unique land classes in the Agricultural <br /> Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system, and (3) lands in the Kona coffee belt. <br /> Unlike Draft 1, Draft 3 does not contain Draft 1 category of "Lands classified as at least "fair" for <br /> two or more crops, on an irrigated basis, by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's <br /> study of suitability for various crops. " <br /> Through recent Finance Committee meetings on the County's real property agricultural tax <br /> policies, the Council learned the complexities of the agricultural industry, 'gentlemen' farming, <br /> backyard gardening and subsistence living. Council Members heard about the breadth of <br /> agricultural activities occurring on this island. The Council learned, in part, that (1) farming <br /> cannot be forced, (2) the success of agriculture does not necessarily depend upon the size of a <br /> parcel of land or the quality of the soils, and (3) there is more land than farmers. <br /> Almost everyone supports agriculture, but far fewer people are actually working farmers who <br /> support their families by farm-earned income. It is ironic that zoning and preservation of <br /> important agricultural lands does not, in itself, assure successful agricultural enterprise. Farms are <br /> cultivated and preserved by hard-working and dedicated farmers. So, will the General Plan <br /> objectives and policies and their implementation promote the agricultural industry or are they <br /> designed to promote a desirable lifestyle? Are the objectives and policies of open space and rural <br /> lifestyle compatible with those of agricultural land use? Therefore, the encouragement of <br /> productive utilization of the County's agricultural lands must be done with great insight and clarity <br /> to assure the Council achieves its objectives. That will be the Council's challenge. <br /> <br /> • The description of Conservation lands in Draft 1 is problematic in that it does not distinguish <br /> between the State's conservation lands and those distinctly designated Conservation by the <br /> General Plan. Draft 2 rolled back the Conservation lands description to the existing General Plan. <br /> However, it was learned that the reason for the description in Draft 1 was to accommodate <br /> particular circumstances, such as Keopuka. Knowing that, Draft 3 makes a distinction between the <br /> two Conservation districts. Otherwise, it is possible that the County General Plan Conservation <br /> description of uses will supercede uses permitted in the State Land Conservation District. If that is <br /> the intent, the General Plan should say so and the Council should understand its implications. <br /> 5 <br /> <br />