COM 0598.031 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 1 of 2 Murashige, Laura From: GeoMike5@att.net Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:02 AM - - ~ ' ~ ` ~ n To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Testimony for Bill 151 Nov 7 Hawaii County Council: November 7, 2007: Support for Bill 151 Flood Control It has been too easy for the County Council to be deflected from the primary purpose of this Flood Control legislation and I trust this testimony will bring the Council back on track. The Bills on Flood Control have created two camps. One is those who seek advanced protection against development that presently ignores local safety and environmental provisions and wants to save some money on flood insurance. The other camp seems to cluster around the land development industry that wants to maintain the status quo and provide only minimal standards to be employed and enforced. The latter group argues vociferously about increased costs but has provided no factual evidence or any cost-benefit analysis to show that there would be no benefit for higher standards or that the costs far outweigh the protection. They claim it will severely impact the mobility of the handicapped but commercial establishments have ADA requirements to be met and there has been absolutely no testimony from a developer, architect, or designer that they would manifestly refuse to provide due consideration for an individual's handicap in design of a structure for him or her. Finally there is the claim that such higher level standazds are not needed but again this is just empty rhetoric as there has been no evidence or case history where it has been shown that lower standards fora 1 or 10 year flood were significant and adequate protection against a 100-year flood! The opponents of Bill 151 the watered down Bi1151 claim only a study by professionals can provide information to make various determinations of the merit of higher levels of codification. That approach has all the marking of a stall tactic hoping the Council will be forced to compromise on an eviscerated measure at the FEMA and Flood Insurance deadline. The Hawaii County Council need not be part of wheel reinvention here as these studies have been completed by numerous municipalities. As these Bills have been pending for months and the issues debated for years, there was certainly adequate time to have conducted such a study. However, it has had input and been extensively reviewed by the County professional engineers and they have not opposed the higher standazds. The concessions already made to Bill 151 provide for significantly less protection to the environment, property and resources than are prudent in the current federal mandated objectives. In fact, they are significantly less robust than other state legislatures have provided for addressing flooding issues. The Hawaii County Council has heard testimony and many have visited sites showing damage from minimal-standard development. Even water at a depth not even exceeding 1 inch can significantly erode soil on slopes. Any development diverting its water run-off to adjacent properties can easily create this situation as has been seen by and reported to this Council. The opponents have brought forth no evidence that minimal standards are as adequate as higher standards to provide equal or greater protection of the natural environment or safety for structures or individuals. While they imply such a case, it can never be proven. The issue now goes far beyond that of FEMA disallowing flood insurance for the County If or no Comm. No. Ref. Ta. k~f°~ Ref. Dote NOV 0 7 2007 11/2/2007