Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0721.008 2012-2014 Murashige, Laura From: Nancy Burns [nebpellcl @gmail.com] on behalf of Nancy E Burns [nebpellc @hawaii.rr.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 4:58 PM To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Testimony on Communication 721 Attachments: Testimony on Communication 721.pdf Testimony on :ommunication 721.. Nancy E. Burns, P.E. , LLC r� 73-1487 Hao Street Kailua Kona, HI 96740 --C) Phone (808) 325-3182 Fax (808) 325-1065 -t‹ Cell (808) 960-5896 _.wa - ---- Comm. No. 72-1' O Ref. To: 1 Ref. Date MAR 2' 1 2014 To: County Council RE: Comment on Communication 721 This testimony is to ask the County Council to consider very carefully unintended consequences of designation of the Water Management Area for the Keauhou aquifer. From what I have read in their petition for designation of the Keauhou aquifer,the National Park Service is basing their request on the "precautionary principle"which will put the burden of proof on project proponents to demonstrate that there will not be any significant harm to the National Park's resources. I am wondering how anyone expects project proponents with limited resources (including County agencies such as the Housing Authority) and others to come up with a study that would prove to the satisfaction of the National Park Service that there would be no harm to the resources. This poof of no harm is being required by the NPS when the Federal Government (the National Park Service and the US Geological Survey)with its vast resources cannot say for certain whether any ground water withdrawal in any location will or will not cause harm. It seems to me that what the NPS is trying to do is create a political quagmire to bog down or stop development all together. Is this really good for this island? Will it help bring more affordable housing or will it just increase costs for those who can least afford it? The costs of development in Hawaii are already extremely high. Could one of the unintended consequences be that Kona continues to be only for the rich because the cost of development for low and moderate income folks becomes too great due to the uncertainty of water availability? Please think about the economic implications very carefully and weigh them against what evidence has been presented in regard to known environmental harm before making any decisions regarding this issue. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. Nancy E. Burns, P.E.