HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0176.097 2006-2008 '1'0: Honorable Peter Hoffman, Chairperson
and members of the Hawaii County Council
From: John C. Cross
Date: June 1, 2007
Testimony in opposition to Bi1151, (Draft 3), Proposed amendment to Chapter 27
Chairmaa Hoffman and Members of the Hawaii County Council:
My Hanle is John C. Cross, I was bom and raised in Hilo, and have worked much of my
queer managing land assets in North Hilo, South Hilo, Puna and Ka'u. i have a farm and
res=dence in Hakalau. In terms or earth years I have experienced a little over 50 trips
around the sun, however, in terms or 100 year/ 24 hour event storms I must be well over
three hundred yeazs old! Anyone remember February 1979, how about March 1982, and
oi' ~,ourse November 2000.
I sl,eak to you today as a farmer and as a former plantation manager. I am familiar with
th.e Land, geology, stream and river flows of East Hawaii. I have also witnessed several
24 hour event storms. My comments may be more appropriate for east Hawaii and may
Hat necessarily apply to the other side of this island continent we live on.
The intentions of Bi1151 are admirable... you are trying to prevent property damage and
protect life and Iimb from flooding; However the mechanics of how to do that writhin the
bill are impossible to achieve and if implemented would effectively kill any man induced
activity on agricultural zoned lands. I especially have an issue over the 10% slope/20%
land area subsection. It seems to have been composed without much science behind it. It
also mentions not disturbing "natural protective barriers".
W e live an an island and a vast majority of our lands are 10% slope or greater. When I
lock at "flat" land for farming I usually have to tilt my head on angle to see how flat it is
in the mauka-makai direction. What is more important is to look at the undulation in the
land across slope or what could be described as Hilo-Hamakua or North-South. In this
way you see the many undulations in the cross slope and various flow patterns that you as
a famaer need to contend with.
The sugar plantations installed a vast network of diversion channels, conservation
ditches, and in-field grassed waterways. All these in order to bring water from the fields
across slope to the river gulches that are able to handle vast amounts of storm waters.
The NRCS or Soil Conservation Service has been especially helpful in designing these
flood water systems for the plantations and now for the many individual farmstead
owners. I would ]ike to state that the conservation ditches and other measures designed
by the NIZ.CS are VERY EFFECTIVE in reducing offsite runoff and damage from intense
rain~all storm events.
Comm. No, ' •-q-7sr
Ref. Tot~~ay7~
Ref. Oate ~~~"T~Zp01~977~-
_ ~.....,._.....,...Y,...
In dealing with containing ALL (storm) water upon ones own property I just do not see
how that could be accomplished. The amount of water that simply falls from the sky
upon a farm lot would be impossible to contain. Now add to that water originates off site
above ones property and crosses into ones land. Is this person supposed to contain all of
his storm water and that of the upsite property. I make this statement m relation to a
farmstead that is located along a native forest or a long standing agricultural operation
who is "grandfathered" and not subject to the regulations as contained in this Bill. We all
have to accept the fact that off site waters will likely cross our lands at some time, our job
is to mitigate the potential effects and get the water info it's proper course.
I have witnessed vast amounts of flood waters existing the forest reserve lands, absolutely
laden with color and sediment.. Are these lands referred to as being pristine and
protected by naturally occurring conservation measures?? No they aze not! In fact in
many cases it is quite the opposite. Often man-made development measures and water
control systems are much more effective at soil conversation and mitigating damage from
flood waters than natural forest regimes or what may be inferred to as a "natural
protective barrier".
I contend that use of existing engineering standards in the design of subdivisions are
adequate; that the designation of Drainage Easements that the Planning Department
currently requires is appropriate; that the use of NRCS soil conservation engineers to plan
and design ones farmstead water management is highly effective; and that Land Planners
and developers who are knowledgeable and sensitive to the specific land and water issues
can plan for appropriate water management across parcels.
At Mauna Kea Agribusiness we developed several agricultural subdivisions. We were
always sensitive to the lay of the land when drawing lot boundaries. Rather then simply
use straight lines on a fiat piece of paper we often drew our lot boundaries using natural
land features such as gulches and roads. Although not required of us in one subdivision
at Mauna Kea Farms in Hakalau we made it a point in the Land Sale Contract that
existing drainage features that cross the lots cannot be removed or altered without the
approval and of the NRCS and Hamakua Soil & Water Conservation District. We even
went further to designate the ditches affecting the lots and included Deed Restrictions
within the conveyance document.
I hope you will reconsider the wide ranging nebulous amendments you are proposing
with Bill 51 and defer action in it's current form.
Sincerely,
/
John .Cross