other places along the coast. We feel that this is a very desirable way to do this and that it will permit national parks to be located in the areas where there are more significant evidences of this early fine civilization. It is for that reason that we oppose the study bill. Thank you.

(Letter from Mr. Karl Rodi, for Kona Coast Co., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor plus project description follow :)

Re. HR-11774

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Rayburn House Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Kona Coast Company, owner of approximately one-half of the privately owned fee land in the Honokohau Settlement area, is unalterably opposed to the above referenced proposed bill and in support of its position respectfully shows:

(1) SUMMARY STATEMENT

Kona Coast Company has heretofore filed a statement of its position with respect to the subject bill and for convenience this statement is annexed under Tab 1. In effect Kona Coast Company has gone to great lengths to plan carefully a resort development with provision for significant preservation and interpretation of such Hawaiian cultural and historical material as is available on its property. The resort proposal is in keeping with long range State of Hawaii and County of Hawaii plans for resort development of the area. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation notes with tacit approval our plans for historic preservation and interpretation and recommends favorable action by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the event funds are not provided for a National Park unit. The filed statement also contains, in footnotes 1 and 4, a brief review of Kona Coast Company's legal position.1

(2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A brief description of Kona Coast Company's development proposal and some photographs, maps and drawings showing the area are annexed under Tab 2.

(3) ARCHEOLOGICAL MATERIAL AT SITE

While the area contains some evidence of pre-contract Hawaiian life, such evidence is of most limited character and not of unique or special significance. The available material is evaluated by Mr. Francis Ching, Director of the Archeological Research Center, Hawaii. His review is annexed as Tab 3. Mr. Ching recently completed for the State of Hawaii its archoelogical survey for the West Hawaii Highway Corridor and is especially knowledgeable concerning acheological material on the west coast of Hawaii.

It is our considered view that the material available is not of national park quality.

In addition, under our plan for development all significant archeological material will be made available to the public and preserved and interpreted as set forth above under Tab 2.

(4) STATE OF HAWAII PROGRAM

The State of Hawaii's long range policy is for the development of this area for resort purposes. The State has already spent over $6,000,000 in the construction of a highway to serve the area, and almost $17,000,000 in the construction of the new airport. Over $2,000,000 has been spent by the State and the Federal Government in the construction of a small boat harbor. The area enjoys a warm, semi-arid climate, is sheltered by high mountain peaks from strong trade winds, and is ideal for resort development.

The complete printed statement including photographs has been placed in committee files.

(5) STATE ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES

The State program of resort development is designed, in part, to stabilize and improve the economy of the Island of Hawaii which has long been troubled by lack-luster conditions prevailing in the sugar industry. This spring the owner of the Kohala Sugar Plantation, comprising some 15,000 acres of sugar lands and employing about 400 people, announced plans for a scheduled closing during the next 21⁄2 years. Almost 1500 persons will be severely affected by this shutdown. There have been indications also that other sugar producing lands may be forced to abandon production.

(6) SUBJECT AREA IS FOR IMMEDIATE RESORT DEVELOPMENT

The Honokohau Settlement area comprises 75% of the undeveloped lands between the new Keahole Airport and Kailua which can benefit from the Government's program of resort development at this time. It is presently supplied with completed roads and water. Coastal areas to the north are adversely affected by airport noise. It is true that in the future the resort area is projected several miles to the north of the new airport but construction of the road has not yet commenced and water is not yet available.

(7) LOSS OF TAX REVENUES

In addition to the condemnation costs which with severance damages will certainly run into very significant amounts, the creation of a National Park unit will deprive the County of Hawaii of enormous future tax revenues. The ultimate development of the Honokohau Settlement Area will take, of course, a number of years for completion, but the ultimate values are immense. Using current land values in the Kona Coast resort town of Kailua at $4.00 a foot and assuming a development to densities in conformity with the recently adopted General Plan for the County of Hawaii at current costs approximating $20.00 a square foot, such a development produces in excess of a one-half billion dollar value base for assessment purposes.

There is already in the County of Hawaii over 1,000,000 acres of land in public ownership. There can be no question but that the creation of an additional National Park in the County would have a signficant adverse effect on the County's tax base structure.

Respectfully submitted,

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

KARL RODI, (For Kona Coast Co.).

The "Proposed Land Use Plan" details the project which consists of the following:

(a) Conservation uses along the shoreline, extending from 50 feet to 400 feet back from the water's edge.

(b) A swimming cove and beach in the north half of Kaloko Pond providing 800 feet of sand swimming beach, with public access.

(c) An operating Hawaiian Fishpond in the south half of the pond.

(d) An Historic Park adjacent to the fishpond containing examples of the major archeological sites to be found at Kaloko.

(e) Resort Hotel uses behind the beach and pond consisting of low rise structures.

(f) Multiple residential use, south of the park, behind the conservation zone. (g) A golf course extending from the resort area to the highway.

The over-all impact of the proposed project will be something unique in Hawaii. The completed resort will be a master planned integration of urban and open space uses which will provide for the display and interpretation of significant historic sites for the benefit of local people as well as visitors to the planned resort.

The shoreline north and south of the pond has been left in its natural state and the proposed beach, which represents a substantial recreational asset to the Kona area, will be accessible to the public.

Mr. BELL. I have nothing further to add, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. We might have some questions to direct to Mr. Bell or to any of the other witnesses. I have one.

The controversy seems to deal with the use of the fishpond. Now, you propose to take about one half of the pond, convert it into a beach, destroy this existing wall that affects that one half to protect the other half, to turn the ocean in that section. Do you have other oceanfront properties which could be used for a beach in connection with your development?

Mr. BELL. Mr. Rodi, would you like to answer this or Dr. Inman? Mr. RODI. I think I'd like Dr. Inman to answer that.

Dr. INMAN. I think that, in the first place, I'd like to point out that when you say "destroy the wall," the wall was in fact destroyed in 1968. I can show you photographs

Mr. TAYLOR. Part of it is still there, because we saw it.

Dr. INMAN. It's been refurbished and rebuilt by the Kona Coast Co. It's not this way today. It's been rebuilt. In fact, it had been destroyed in 1968; therefore, we are proposing to open that portion of the wall which was originally opened in 1968 and our plan is not greatly different from that.

Getting back to the more general question of beaches and beaches for the public, we made a very thorough study of the property, and there is not a practical place for a safe swimming beach with the one exception of the one shown here. Furthermore, I would like to add that it would be one of the best swimming coasts on the Kona coast. It would be the only one that would still be useful and safe during reasonably high waves. Other areas along the coast would not permit swimming during unusually high waves.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, from one of our observation points, we could see what appears to be a beach north of this pond area. Is that on your half?

Dr. INMAN. The beach that you saw north of this pond area is in fact a storm beach. It's the sand that's been brought up by the wave action during the storms. It's been thrown up above the high water mark, and if you'd care to refer to this photograph, you will certainly see a sandy area, but I think you will have to agree with me that it's only a storm beach. It is not a beach that swimmers can use. There is quite an extensive and rough lava area between that sand area and the water.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, why is the beach considered essential to your development program?

Dr. INMAN. Well, it's not my development program, but I consider it-the beach-essential along this coast because of the need of the people. I think that swimming and beach recreation is one of the important aspects that isn't in fact in short demand in the world. If you take all the people in the world and look at the beaches, this is a very necessary thing, and I think everyone in terms of environmental studies elsewhere is very concerned about the amount of good swimming beaches that are available.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Would this be available to the general public, or just those who live in the area?

Dr. INMAN. The owners-and if you look-open the folio which has just been presented to you, sir, you'll see that the owners have in fact guaranteed and dedicated perpetuity to the use of this beach as well as access to it for the public. This is dedicated as a public beach.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Would there be a charge for me for the use of the beach-by a private owner?

Mr. RODI. I can perhaps answer that. No, there will not. Free access to the beach is made a condition of our permit from the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Mr. TAYLOR. Other questions?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask the gentleman a question along those lines. Was there ever a consideration of turning these lands over to the State?

Mr. RODI. We had thought of that, but we have suggested other means of handling this; perhaps on the basis of a nonprofit corporation which would be governed by public officials from the State, from the county, and perhaps from the Bishop Museum and other public bodies. We are very flexible in this and we would be glad to be most cooperative. There are this would appear to be the most practical way to handle facilities of this kind, but we are by no means fixed in our views of just how it might be done.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, in the proposed development—you have quite a proposed development-all of the private lands that will be developed, will they be sold to individuals or will they be held within the corporation?

Mr. RODI. You will note that our plans contemplate some hotels, and it also contemplates a golf course development and also some condominiums. It is our thinking that this probably would best be handled through lease arrangements, but again, a sale certainly is feasible as well.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well then, you would set up under your plan some sort of a nonprofit corporation to carry on the maintenance and operation of the facilities?

Mr. RODI. That is correct; all of the public features of this, yes. Mr. JOHNSON. And how would that be financed?

Mr. RODI. We would undertake to do it, sir. We would anticipate that the financing of this would be-the burden of this would fall on us as the developers.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, how could that be guaranteed, with the fact that you seek to leave the area?

Mr. RODI. Oh, well, may I say that we have substantial interest in the area here. We have a substantial cattle ranch that we've been operating and expect to operate for a number of years. We would assume that eventually this would be taken over by a property owner arrangement which will put the burden of this on the people who benefit from this particular development.

Mr. JOHNSON. Is that type of legislation now on the statute books

in the State of Hawaii?

Mr. RODI. I don't believe that it is necessary, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that's where we find in some of these developments, in the first instance, it looks fine, but after they are turned over to individual property owners and its obligations fall back on