honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Monday, October 30, 2006

COMMENTARY
'Yes' on 3 will enable safer, better land use

By Chip Fletcher

A house on the Big Island’s Hamakua Coast stands on a cliff edge after the 6.7 and 6.0 earthquakes on Oct. 15. We must plan developments around the geohazards that are a natural part of life in Hawai‘i.

Photo from Hawaii County Civil Defense

spacer spacer

Fund created through charter change could protect hazard zone

Some places just should not be developed: rockfalls and the concern of a tsunami that accompanied the recent earthquake had many of us wondering if our homes were safely sited. True, there are building policies in place to safeguard us. But are they sufficient? Maybe some locations should be removed from future development to avoid natural hazards and to protect fragile environments: A "yes" vote on Charter Amendment 3 can allow this to happen.

While Hawai'i is promoted as a tranquil paradise, it is also the home of frequent cataclysmic events such as tsunamis, hurricanes, flash floods, rockfalls and earthquakes. Development in the Islands has always existed in a balance between life-sustaining resources and the powerful geologic forces that shape the land: flowing lava wipes out a subdivision, a hurricane demolishes thousands of homes, a strong earthquake damages hundreds of buildings, a tsunami takes dozens of lives. These are just a few of the life-threatening events continually shaping our restless Islands.

Residents, visitors and the elected guardians of paradise should be aware that these recurring perils are part of the natural landscape in Hawai'i — and we ignore the role of geologic hazards at our own risk, and sometimes at a cost to the environment. Hazards, the environment and our communities are all linked.

Our professional planning community is well aware of these threats and constantly upgrades development practices, as well as our legal system of land-use guidelines. However, despite our best efforts, we continue to build in hazardous and environmentally damaging locations. I see two primary reasons for this: First, it is impossible to predict with accuracy where and when the next natural hazard will strike; and few people can afford to own land and not develop it.

Our shorelines offer an example, though similar reasoning applies to unstable hillsides and in flooding watersheds. On most beaches we build only 40 feet from the upper reach of fair-weather waves. This buffer can be swallowed by an eroding coast in the space of a few years. Add the high waves, storm surge, tsunami, and sea-level rise that uniformly threaten coastal development, and it is not hard to see that some coastal areas simply should not be developed. Yet efforts to change the safety zone from 40 feet to some wider buffer are met with angry outcry from the affected community of landowners.

There is good reason to prevent new building in coastal hazard zones. It protects owners from tragedy and damage associated with natural hazards, it protects the beaches and dunes from the ruin caused by seawalls, and it perpetuates our history of public access to the ocean and beaches. Certainly a policy of coastal retreat makes sense in this era of rising seas. A wider coastal setback looks like a great idea to everyone except landowners who are prevented from using the land they own. Can you blame them?

Achieving concrete success in ending inappropriate development of hazardous and environmentally special lands has long been a daunting prospect. Preventing development on privately owned land leads to expensive legal battles with uncertain outcomes. Preventing rebuilding of homes that have been damaged by natural hazards leaves families homeless. In these situations the wish to avoid future hazards and protect natural environments versus the expectation and investment of land ownership are in stalemate. In the case of private land, one solution is to buy it before it is developed.

Amendment 3 opens a powerful and fair approach to this problem. One percent of the property taxes you already pay would be directed toward a special fund to be used for protecting natural lands (and helping the homeless) on O'ahu. Purchasing natural lands is an effective step to avoid natural hazards and protecting the fragile environment in our watersheds and along our shorelines.

For the sake of the environment and the safety of the public, I am voting "yes" on Amendment 3.

Chip Fletcher is a professor and chairman of the Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Hawai'i-Manoa.