HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0493.121 2000-2002
Analysis lby dill ~~er, Puna, on the 2002 Hawaii General Plan Revision
While the efforts put forward to revise the County of Hawaii General Plan are
appreciated, there are a number of deficiencies related to Puna that need to be addressed
and augmented before the document is accepted. , . _ i. ' ~ ~ ~
Taken from the document, the top three purposes in the General Plan are to:
1. "Guide the pattern of future development iri-this County-based on long-term
goals,"
2. "Identify the visions, values and priorities important to the people of the
County" and
3. "Provide the framework for regulatory decisions, capital improvement
priorities, acquisition strategies and other pertinent government programs
within the County organization and coordinated with the State and Federal
programs."
With those words the General Plan set its own tasks but specific goals, priorities and
strategies are not available for Puna. The document gives the information that Puna has
the second largest population of the island's nine judicial districts and will be the largest
by 2015. Despite this projected growth the Revision has no new plans for roadways and
no specified increase in police and fire protection facilities, housing, recreation, adequate
commercial and industrial zoning - to increase employment - or agriculture. While these
subjects are discussed in the overall views of problem areas, there are no district-specific
goals, priorities and strategies. Without those, by its own definition, the plan is a failure.
It is not a plan on which county government or citizens can base our future.
Highway engineers advise that 30 years would be required to turn the first shovel of dirt,
even if there were total agreement today on alignment for a new highway to serve Puna!
Yet, the general plan Revision merely continues the decade-old `proposed' category of a
second highway paralleling the current Kea`au-Pahoa Highway 130. This example
duplicates the deficiency of many plan elements. Without specificity in the General Plan
-particularly on priority and strategies - a highway is impossible to start. Recently, in
fiustration, Gary Safarik acquired Council approval of $250,000 for a plan of some sort
to lay out the best alignment for a second highway. That should not be a project separate
from the tasks assigned in forming this General Plan. A second corridor is an urgent
element of planning for Puna, a primary duty of the County Planning Department which
was not performed. On June 10 Hawai `i Tribune-Herald quoted county officials saying
there is no money available for the study and it is "not a priority!" Meanwhile Pacific
Business News of June 1~ (p. l6) reveals that the county has contracted with a Honolulu
firm to provide specific highway planning from Kona airport to Honaunau for $80,000.
Every day of delay on acting to build a highway that obviously is required by growth is
an addition to the cost and time necessary to put the highway to use. The Revision
language reads, "Explore the possibility of developing a mid-level roadway to be located
makai of Highway 130..." That language really says, to all in Puna, "Continue to ignore
the urgent need of a second corridor for the fastest growing district of the Island of
Hawai`i." We've waited long enough. We need to begin work now. We need our County
Council to assign this task to a joint county-state task force to find the best route, begin I /
acquiring necessary land, seek funding and start building! hT®m.~
file No. z
Ref. fio: _ .
Any General Plan for any governmental area is created to set locations for future roads,
hospitals, parks, open space, water development and all other public uses. Puna, the size
of Oahu, needs to know those locations now. Our growth needs these milestones of
development in place for the private sector to do its part, to plan around known county
goals. Merely rezoning orchards to rural in the huge substandard areas is an insult to our
future. To allocate one area of Hawaiian Paradise Park as "industrial" provides no clue to
how it might be used without accompanying specific data and plan requirements in
sections on water, utilities, transportation and other vital industrial concerns.
Water development may be the most ignored planning element in the Revision document.
There are recommendations but most of the pages are merely repetition of work from a
decade ago. We learn that water consumption for the county water system jumped in the
last ten years from 16.3 to 22.35 million gallons per day, a 26 percent jump during a time
of 23 percent rise in population. There is no material in the General Plan laying out the
necessary directions for additional water system capacity - where, when and how.
The General Plan -for Puna -where most homes depend on catchment water -finds
little to foster continued growth. Surveys show water development is a high citizen
priority throughout the Puna district and, I surmise, other areas without clean water
service. The planning document needs to catch up with that concern. In the introduction
to water, policies sound positive but for any actual effect they need restatement in a
clearer, more forceful manner:
1. "Develop and adopt a water master plan that will consider water yield, present
and future demand, alternative sources of water, guidelines and policies for the
issuing of water commitments." This needs to name the agency responsible for
the plan and set a firm timetable -one beginning with when we start.
2. "Seek State and Federal funds to assist in financing projects to bring the county
into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act." There should be a
recommendation here or elsewhere on use of the presently $41 million water fund
languishing in the Department of Water Supply. What is it for? How is it to be
used? We have been out of compliance for many years and that must stop.
3. "Expand programs to provide for agricultural irrigation water." Agriculture is the
foundation of our best hopes for the future. Language in the Revision questions
whether land is becoming too expensive for agriculture but does not map new
zoning to prevent loss of productive agriculture land to high-value uses.
While true as far as it goes, it is dismaying to read in the introduction on water, "The
most common sources of water supply are springs, tunnels, streams and deep wells." The
fact on the Big Island is that the most common source is rainfall and it should be cited as
such with following determination to store and make use of its value. Agriculture
internationally uses natural tanks or ponds where water can be caught and stored
economically in agricultural areas for use in dry spells, a necessary plan in porous
volcanic soils that can't hold water between rains. Throughout much of Puna relatively
small, lined storage ponds would open many hundreds of acres to productive use for
valuable crops. Good soil areas need to be mapped. Wherever natural depressions exist
there should be consideration of their use as an irrigation source for surrounding farms.
2
Also in almost universal use, revenue bonds for water development are the best financial
instrument for low-cost long-term financing of necessary water production and
distribution systems. The County Charter specifically allows the Department of Water
Supply to issue its own revenue bonds. Such use should be a subject in the General Plan
and turning to these instruments encouraged for planned development of the island yet
this county has absolute zero use of this most common of government financial aids. In
our flagging economy, such public works projects are a source of employment paid for
entirely by homeowners and businesses receiving the new water services.
Errors in the document are frequently important. And all illustrate careless research:
1 Those preparing the document need to learn that ARS is Agricultural Research Service
and PBARC the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center -not "Resource" as appears
several times in the Revision document. This Center is of utmost important in planning.
2. If it is the case that catchment is a public health hazard, that fact needs to be stated in
the document and more about it said than merely, "Develop and adopt standards for
individual water catchment systems." A study by CTAHR indicates relatively few homes
properly maintain the existing catchment systems in place throughout Puna, Ka' u and
other areas. If this is the health hazard many believe it to be, we need to know it and act
upon it now. If not then standards that are likely unenforceable are not needed. The place
f ndings, not speculation, is in the health section of the General Plan.
3. The loss through liquidation of C. Brewer as a major factor in agriculture should be
noted. The Revision refers often to an unchanged C. Brewer. We need discussion on how
the vacuum should be filled with community or county coordination of use for the
extensive lands that were formerly controlled by a single, privately held entity. This is
most notably apparent in the Ka'u section of the economic considerations.
4. The state's ownership of approximately 44 percent of island land should be viewed
critically rather than quietly accepted. Not only is the land off the tax roles it is also open
to prevention of use by the State Land Use Board as happened in the Oji decision. It now
appears likely that what some consider inappropriate state requirements is going to
prevent leasing of forest lands at Waiakea Timber Management Area. Roth of these
projects tivere supported by countjv governnaen~ Some correction allowing home rule
must be reached in the balance of power over the state's massive land holdings. Both
federal and state payments "in lieu of taxes" are ridiculously low and will never suffice
for the expense the county incurs to serve the unproductive lands.
The examples above only scratch the surface of failures county-wide within the Revision
to provide what the document itself promises: clear g®als, policies and pa-i®rities to
reach a future of shared prosperity. Throughout the document, in almost every policy
statement, the words for legal requirement "The c®unty shall are removed. The
place to start in making this document better is to replace those words throughout.
More work needs to be done -with independent professional consultation -before this
Revision is accepted by the County Council.
Plan text and maps online: httpa/www.co.hawaii.hi.us/general~lanrev/main.htm
Bill Eger
HCR 1 Box 5164
Kea`au Hawaii 96749 billeger(~~nethawaii.net 808-966-8565
3