HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0731.002 2016-2018Re: Bill 104 (Notice of Flood Mapping Initiatives)
Chair Ruggles and
Members of the C'ee:
I write in 'SUPPORTof Bill 104 and recommend, its passage.. -The bill does
not change the flood hazard regulations. What the bill does is to require public
officials to give the County Council. and the public an opportunity to .know that
public officials intend to initiate a flood hazard study for a previously unstudied'
area before they actually initiate the study. An informed public and council could
then provide their input into the process before it begins.
direct you to a recent incident where, as part of the regular review of the
existing flood hazard areas in South Kona, public officials wanted to obtainInfor-
mation of a previously unstudied flood hazard area near YanoHall and'Manago
Hotel. A contractor was then retained toconduct a study, but curiously for a
different area that was located about one-half mile to the north of Yano Hall and
Manago Hotel, which came to be called "Captain Cook L"
This county -initiated study was. then linked to the regular review of existing
flood hazard areas in South Kona. No public notice was given of the decision to
initiate this new study. Nor was the county council given official notice of the.
proposal. The contractor then moved forward with its work.
The study area affected by Captain Cook I included the area where the
Marnalahoa Bypass Highway intersects Napo'opo'o Road. County engineers had
conducted a prior flood study for the area to accommodate the bypass highway
comm. No.
Ref® To: W
Raaf. Date FEB 2 0- MO
MICHAEL. J. MATSUKAWA
75-5751
Kuakini Highway Room 201
.Kailua-Kona,'Hawaii 96740
_T1
Telephone 329-1385
February 16; 2018
CD
M_
Jen Ruggles
Chair, Public Works Uee
Hawaii County Council
75 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Bill 104 (Notice of Flood Mapping Initiatives)
Chair Ruggles and
Members of the C'ee:
I write in 'SUPPORTof Bill 104 and recommend, its passage.. -The bill does
not change the flood hazard regulations. What the bill does is to require public
officials to give the County Council. and the public an opportunity to .know that
public officials intend to initiate a flood hazard study for a previously unstudied'
area before they actually initiate the study. An informed public and council could
then provide their input into the process before it begins.
direct you to a recent incident where, as part of the regular review of the
existing flood hazard areas in South Kona, public officials wanted to obtainInfor-
mation of a previously unstudied flood hazard area near YanoHall and'Manago
Hotel. A contractor was then retained toconduct a study, but curiously for a
different area that was located about one-half mile to the north of Yano Hall and
Manago Hotel, which came to be called "Captain Cook L"
This county -initiated study was. then linked to the regular review of existing
flood hazard areas in South Kona. No public notice was given of the decision to
initiate this new study. Nor was the county council given official notice of the.
proposal. The contractor then moved forward with its work.
The study area affected by Captain Cook I included the area where the
Marnalahoa Bypass Highway intersects Napo'opo'o Road. County engineers had
conducted a prior flood study for the area to accommodate the bypass highway
comm. No.
Ref® To: W
Raaf. Date FEB 2 0- MO
construction project and had prepared construction drawings to manage water,
runoff in the project area based on prior engineering studies. Nevertheless., for
unknown reasons and after the highway project was ready to be built, county
officials decided to restudy the area covered by Captain Cook 1, which included
the bypass highway project area.
The contractor then reported that Captain Cook 1. was a major flood hazard
area, would inundate the area bypass highway project area and nearby properties
and that drainage improvements for the bypass highway project were inadequate.
In essence, this meant that county was building a road in an alleged flood hazard
area without making necessary improvements to manage the water runoff.
Affected landowners eventually learned of the Captain Cook, 1 study, but
only after the study was completed and when public officials were planning to
submit the same to FEMA with a recommendation that Captain Cook 1 be
designated as a flood hazard area and placed on a. Food insurance rate map
(FIR.M). Landowners opposed the proposal based on many grounds and had to
spend time and substantial amounts of money for engineering and legal services to
go through a circuit court injunction proceeding and a lengthy FEMA appeal
before a panel of FEMA engineers in the mainland.
During this time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and county officials
turned a deaf ear to the landowners and citizens. Even though county officials
could have withdrawn Captain Cook 1 from their submittal to FEMA, they refused.
From a citizen's perspective, it was difficult to understand how the county could
approve the engineering studies for the bypass highway project, but at the same
time reject those same studies with the subsequent Captain Cook 1 report:
FEMA eventually approved the landowners' appeal and denied the county's
proposal to designate Captain Cook 1 as a flood hazard area. All of this could have
been avoided if the public had been prior notice and the opportunity to participate
in the matter BEFORE the decision had been made to initiate the study in the..first
place.
Yours tp tt1y, it
�xf f r
Michael J. Matsukawa