Residents and groups split over Hawaii County General Plan 2045 at policy committee hearing

KONA — Dozens of residents, community groups and advocates testified both for and against Hawaii County’s draft General Plan 2045 at the Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development on Sept. 7, 2025, urging the committee either to delay adoption and tighten language or to finalize the plan with clearer implementation steps.

Vice Chair Ashley opened the meeting at 5 p.m. from the West Hawaii Civic Center, and the hearing received testimony in person and via Zoom from Hilo. The committee recessed to continue its work Sept. 23 in Hilo.

The most contested issues in testimony were definitions and scope (particularly the plan’s use of terms such as “sustainable” and “resilient”), mapping changes that commenters said could affect private and agricultural land, perceived influence from outside frameworks, and infrastructure needs — especially county wastewater obligations tied to EPA administrative orders and consent decrees (AOCs).

“Please research,” said Rebecca Melendez, a Kona resident, who told the committee a petition opposing the general plan had “over 663 signatures” and said she had suffered health problems she attributed to a home smart meter, claiming it produced “20 plus milligaus” of radiation. Her testimony urged the council to consider health research and to protect property rights.

Chuck Valerty, speaking for the Sierra Club, urged the committee to explicitly include the county’s integrated wastewater management plan in GP 2045. Valerty said three EPA administrative orders and consent decrees tied to island wastewater work were not addressed in the draft and said the county faces an estimated $1,000,000,000 in related costs; he recommended adding objectives, policies and actions to implement wastewater projects and streamlining sewer-improvement-district rules so the county can meet regulatory obligations.

“Enterprise funds pay for themselves,” Valerty said, arguing the county may need an enterprise fund structure and revenue measures to support large sewer investments rather than rely solely on the general fund.

Several speakers framed their opposition around legal and property concerns. Joey Sapp warned that reclassifying important agricultural lands to an undefined “natural” category could deprive owners of the ability to farm or fence land while leaving tax obligations intact. Michelle Melendez cited constitutional protections and said certain plan provisions—such as “active corridors” and undefined land categories—risked creating uncertainty for private property owners.

Other commenters urged the committee to move ahead. Terry McDonald of Indivisible Hilo called the plan “a great work product” that can be streamlined and said it included needed protections for invasive species, housing and resilient infrastructure. Jane Telesert said climate science and local data (including measurements from Mauna Loa) show the island’s vulnerability and supported the plan’s sustainability focus.

Testimony mixed practical concerns with broader skepticism about outside influence. Multiple speakers accused the plan’s drafters of incorporating international models they opposed; others urged the council to use local annual reports and a community development plan for Hilo to better ground countywide mapping and policy decisions.

Committee staff confirmed there were no additional testifiers at the time of recess. The committee recessed until Sept. 23 at 9:00 a.m. in Hilo for further consideration of Bill 66 (draft 2) and related General Plan 2045 discussions.