HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0269.022 2022-2024 P/COund
f e5.163-23
COMM.2�9
From: Momi Nuuhiwa
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 8:44 AM
To: Evans, Cynthia F.W.; Galimba, Michelle M.; Inaba, Holeka; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Kanealii-
Kleinfelder, Matt; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kimball, Heather; Lee Loy, Sue;Villegas, Rebecca;
Council Testimony
Subject: Oppose Resolution 163 COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF HAWAII
RECEIVED
SUBJECT Time 10:bOa.M. By 4ti
Oppose Resolution 163 hydrogen Date MAY U 1 2 I Z
County Council 9 AM May 3
This vague resolution is not in the best interest of Hawai'i. It is ill conceived, rushed and gives little to no notice to the
public.These are all red flags for a County Council that is unprepared and ill-advised. It is reminiscent of Resolution 73,
which undermined the entire County solid waste plan in favor of environmentally destructive alternatives and benefitting
the Yummet Corporation at our expense. Is Resolution 163 a similar opportunity for outsiders to come in and damage
Hawai'i's precious and limited resources?
The Council is effectively abdicating its responsibility to taxpayers if it approves the vague language in Resolution 163 to
authorize the Mayor"execute, on behalf of the County an agreement,and related documents.." I for one, do not trust the
Mayor to make such sweeping authorizations.
I join in with others who "urge that the Council focus instead on supporting distributed solar and wind energy with
advanced storage solutions(battery, pumped hydro,etc)for a sustainable, resilient power supply with minimal
dependence on shipping supplies over thousands of miles."Yes,there are many of us who agree on a plan for sustainable,
resilient energy without increasing the risk of environmental catastrophes such as those that occurred in Fukushima.
•
I can't even imagine bringing in potential fuel sources that bring hazardous chemicals to be stored on our shores.And
where will it be stored? Likely where many of the hazardous materials are: In Keaukaha,a primarily kanaka maoli
community that has shouldered the brunt of the island's waste for generations. Really?Are we really still entertaining the
environmental racist agenda that places the health and welfare of Hawai'i's kanaka maoli at stake AGAIN AND AGAIN AND
AGAIN?
Furthermore, I think it is very unwise to form relationships with cities that show little regard for the environment and its
people. Namie, Fukushima?Seriously. I have been to several parts of Fukushima and they are ghost towns due to the
detrimental combination of earthquake,tsunami and nuclear power plant. It would be bad enough with just the first two,
but throw in a highly reactive and hazardous source of pollution!? It has destroyed ecosystems for generations.THIS is
what we are willing to risk? Hydrogen storage?We are prone to earthquakes and tsunami.We don't need to enter into
agreements with governments in Japan that have been mining their mountain tops to fill in the areas that dropped (due
to the fault).Yes, I witnessed it with my own eyes in 2016 and 2017 when I traveled in Japan to raise money for affected
families.The earthquake caused an open graben with a significant drop in elevation in neighborhoods, and they are filling
it in with materials from nearby mountains using gigantic conveyer belts and machinery and building houses on top of the
same areas.They have built gigantic cement walls around coastal towns to prevent tsunamis. I was flabbergasted! As if
man can contain nature? If an earthquake happens again,those same areas will be destroyed again. NO. NO. NO.
There is no public input.There is a rush with little information.The resolution is vague with sweeping consequences. It
places our people and environment at risk.There is no infrastructure. It is extremely dangerous and hazardous. It would
have to be TRANSPORTED across the ocean! For heaven's sake,this is a terrible resolution. NO.
I absolutely oppose Resolution 163. � .A^
Comm. No. LL
1 Ref.To: p1(,�hG�
Ref. Date MAY o 3 2023
Momi Nu'uhiwa
Hilo, Hawai'i
2
I __