Cayce must be open about plans for Congaree land

IT’S GOOD THAT Cayce is asking the Federal Emergency Management Agency to extend a public comment period as well as come and explain complicated flood maps proposed for a 3,000-acre tract annexed into the city late last year.

We only wish city officials would be as open and honest with citizens about their own intentions as they want FEMA to be.

In a letter to FEMA responding to proposed maps, which effectively prohibit 70 percent of a proposed project called Vista Farms, the city asks that the public review period be extended 60 days and that the agency hold a public meeting. The letter encourages FEMA to ensure that scientific and other information is “evaluated through an open and transparent process.”

That’s good advice — for FEMA and Cayce. City Council rushed to annex this property along the river in December, and has kept residents largely in the dark.

The council unanimously voted to ask FEMA to consider how new levees might affect where construction can occur on the 3,000 acres. “The city urges exploration of the feasibility of proposals (including changes to levees) that would reduce flooding and the risk of flood,” the city wrote.

City manager Johnny Sharpe said Cayce isn’t supporting new levees. But the council’s actions, beginning with the annexation, suggest otherwise.

Vista Farms developer Columbia Venture wants to build some sort of development on the property and is considering constructing as many as 12 miles of new, stronger levees to control flooding along the Congaree. No details about the levees or Vista Farms itself have been released to the public. Why not?

We understand Cayce’s zeal to chart its own destiny. But the city shouldn’t rush to become a flood-plain community. Columbia and Richland County chose not to pursue an earlier, larger version of this project, called Green Diamond, because there were far too many unanswered questions about taxpayers' liability and potential flooding that could result from new levees and development. Has this flood-prone land become less so because it’s now in Cayce?

For several years now, the official flood designations for the land have been tied up in court. It’s unclear which of the three sets of flood maps FEMA has approved since 1994 are in effect.

Cayce interjected itself in the midst of the controversy when it hurriedly annexed the property. There’s nothing wrong with Cayce entertaining the possibility of new development and the jobs and tax revenue it would bring. But the council has gone about it the wrong way from the very beginning. City officials initially claimed they were rushing to annex the land before the end of 2007 in order to claim property taxes from it as soon as possible. But after the vote, they admitted their haste was intended in part to beat a federal deadline to reinstate restrictive flood maps.

Cayce officials have said that just because the land is annexed doesn't mean it will be approved for development. Now, they say just because they’re asking FEMA what could be done to make the land less flood-prone doesn’t mean they support levees.

Does City Council believe citizens are so naive that they don’t see something is afoot? There’s an obvious progression here, and the council should come clean.

Where is this thing headed? Taxpaying Cayce residents and voters — who would assume any risk brought on by poor decisions — have a right to know.