Board rejects land manager's Maui water license proposal

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – A dispute between Maui’s mayor and the Green administration over control of water led to hours of debate at the state land board on Friday.

As traditional farmers plead for more water, water rights advocates have joined the county in protesting a plan that would give commercial farming enterprise more influence.

The same concept was withdrawn in September after the mayor asked for more time.

Maui County leaders hope to gain control of the island’s water system and were shocked to see Land and Natural Resources Board Chairman Dawn Chang revive her motion for a controversial lawsuit that many fear would sabotage the county’s plan by giving too much money. Leverage for Mahi Pono’s farms.

“Let’s hear all the parties and have a hearing officer review 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 Pioneer closed the sugar plantation. Much of the water comes from river diversion channels built 100 years ago by sugar companies and managed by the East Maui Irrigation company.

Mahi Pono representative Grant Nakama defended the controversial case plan, which could lead to a competitive bid or direct negotiations for a 30-year license to use the irrigation system.

“An adversarial case hearing will bring all relevant parties to the table while also allowing for discussion between the parties,” Nakama said.

Mayor Richard Bissen wrote a letter to Chang, strongly requesting that he delay the proposal to give the county time to strike a deal with competing water users.

“It was a bit concerning that we were suddenly faced with a contested case hearing that no one had requested. That’s what was confusing,” Bissen said in an interview with Hawaii News Now.

The board heard from Gina Young, Executive Director of the recently formed East Maui Water Authority, who started work just two days ago and is leading the water system’s planning, saying the contested case hearing would be interrupted. .

“The county is being thrown into this like an afterthought … like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole,” he said.

East Maui resident Mary Ann Pahukoa’s family land runs along the Waipio River, which she said is 100% diverted by East Maui Irrigation culverts and ditches.

He was frustrated that his family had to fight for water so often.

He argued that the system should be publicly controlled and that requirements for the provision of water to traditional users should be appropriately implemented.

“It saddens me to have to keep coming to these hearings, it’s really deceptive and confusing,” he said. “We come here crying in front of you because this water is my heart and soul.”

Hawaiian Homes Commission Chair Kali Watson also spoke out against the controversial case hearing. The Homelands program is defined by law as having a higher priority for water needs with traditional farmers ahead of commercial operations.

Watson said he thought negotiations should take place first before moving on to the contested hearing process.

“It takes too long, it costs too much, and it often creates a lot of frustration,” Watson said.

The board voted 5-2 against Chairman Chang. Eliminating the idea of a controversial lawsuit and putting the county back in the driver’s seat for the long road ahead.

But the mayor said it will take some time for full county government or a privately managed irrigation system to emerge.

“It will be a huge, huge task to estimate how long it will take us to gain expertise on a system that has been operating for 140 years,” he said.

The board is expected to grant East Maui Irrigation a one-year permit to maintain water service to the system’s many customers.

Courts are pressuring DLNR to reduce its use of renewable permits, which Chang said he hopes to avoid.

At the hearing, an attorney for the Sierra Club refused to promise that the organization would not seek its own contested lawsuit if it was unhappy with permit conditions, after saying there had been repeated violations or permit conditions in the past.

Related Posts