Board rejects land director’s proposal for Maui water license

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – A dispute over control of water between Maui’s mayor and the Green administration brought hours of controversy to the state land board Friday.
Water rights advocates joined the county to protest a plan that would give more clout to a commercial farm operation — while traditional farmers beg for more water.
The same concept had been withdrawn in September after the mayor requested more time.
Maui County leaders are hoping to take control of the island’s water system and were shocked to see the Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources Dawn Chang revive her proposal for a contested case hearing that many fear would sabotage the county plan by giving too much leverage to the farms of Mahi Pono.
“Let’s hear all the parties and have a hearing officer vet all the issues with the parties, and then come back to the board with a proposal,” Chang argued.
Mahi Pono is owned by a Canadian government pension fund on land sold by Alexander and Baldwin after it closed the H.C. & S plantation. Most of its water comes from stream diversions built by sugar companies over 100 years ago, and managed as the East Maui Irrigation company.
Mahi Pono representative Grant Nakama defended the contested case plan, which could lead to either a competitive bid or direct negotiations for a 30-year license to use the irrigation system.
“A contested case hearing will bring all of the relevant parties to the table while still allowing discussion between those parties,” Nakama said.
Mayor Richard Bissen wrote Chang a letter, strongly urging her to defer the proposal to give the county time to work out an agreement with the competing water users.
“It was a little alarming that all of a sudden we got thrust into a contested case hearing when no one was asking for it. And that’s what was puzzling,” Bissen said, in an interview with Hawaii News Now.
The board heard from Gina Young, who started work just two days ago and Executive Director for the recently established East Maui Water Authority, which is taking the lead in planning for the water system, but needs time she said that the contested case hearing would interrupt.
“The county is just being thrown into this like an afterthought … like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole,” she said.
East Maui residents Mary Ann Pahukoa’s family land was along Waipio stream — which she said has been 100% diverted by East Maui Irrigations culverts and ditches.
She was frustrated by how often her family must fight for water.
She argued for public control of the system and proper enforcement of requirements to allow water the traditional users.
“It just hurts me that I have to keep coming to these hearings its really deceiving and confusing,” she said. “We keep coming here crying in front of you guys because this water is my heart and soul.”
The Chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, Kali Watson, also opposed the contested case hearing. The Homelands program is identified by law as having a higher priority for its water needs, along with traditional farmers, ahead of commercial operations.
Watson said he thinks negotiations should come first, before going to a contested hearing process.
“It’s too protracted, it’s very costly and a lot of times, it creates a lot of frustration,” Watson said.
The board sided against Chair Chang by a 5-2 vote. Killing the idea of a contested case and putting the county back in the driver’s seat for the long road ahead.
But the mayor said full county management or the privately-managed irrigation system will take a while to come about.
“To predict how long it would take for us to gain expertise over a system that’s run for 140 years is a, you know, is going to be a big, a big task,” he said.
To maintain water service to the many customers of the system, it’s expected that the board will issue a one-year permit to East Maui Irrigation.
The courts have been pressuring DLNR to reduce its use of renewable permits, which Chang said she hoped to avoid.
At the hearing, a Sierra Club attorney refused to promise that the organization would not demand its own contested case if it is not satisfied with the terms of the permit, after what he said was repeated violations or permit conditions in the past.
Copyright 2024 Hawaii News Now. All rights reserved.