{"id":16286,"date":"2024-12-30T12:42:23","date_gmt":"2024-12-30T22:42:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.environment-hawaii.org\/?p=16286"},"modified":"2025-01-02T10:30:44","modified_gmt":"2025-01-02T20:30:44","slug":"board-talk-hololani-east-maui","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=16286","title":{"rendered":"BOARD TALK: Hololani, East Maui"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Board Denies Permits For Hololani Revetment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In a 4-3 vote, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources denied a recommendation to amend a 2018 board action to include approvals of a construction right-of-entry permit for a rock revetment fronting the Hololani Resort Condominiums in West Maui, as well as a revocable permit for the use of state land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Back in May 2014, the Land Board voted to approve a Conservation District Use Permit for a sheet metal\/revetment project to protect the two eight-story buildings that make up the resort. Although the board had a policy against shoreline hardening, a report by the Department of Land and Natural Resources\u2019 Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands stated that the north tower would likely be uninhabitable in the near future without protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The quality of the beach also played a factor. \u201cIf this was a dune system, I would not be sitting here,\u201d then-OCCL administrator Sam Lemmo told the board at the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 12, 2018, after the condo secured a Special Management Area permit and a shoreline setback variance from Maui County, the Land Board approved the issuance of a 55-year non-exclusive easement for the planned seawall and revetment, as well as a management right-of-entry permit for the structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHowever, due to staff oversight and inadvertence, staff did not specifically include a recommendation for a construction type of [right-of-entry]. Due to the timing of the high surf season, Applicant had planned and wanted to start construction of the revetment no later than May 10, 2018, well before any easement could be executed. Staff respectfully apologizes to the Applicant and this Board for this oversight, which has resulted in an undue 10-year or so delay in the project,\u201d a December 13 report to the board by the DLNR\u2019s Land Division states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The board deferred taking action on a recommendation for a construction ROE permit at its March 23, 2018 meeting after failing to secure a majority decision to approve or deny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Applicant has been unable to obtain legislative approval for the easement. At least one of the comments from a member of the Water and Land Committee overseeing the legislative approval of submerged lands dispositions was that they had wanted the Land<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board\u2019s approval of the construction ROE and easement before the Legislature decided on whether to approve or disapprove the easement request,\u201d the Land Division report states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the future of the revetment in limbo, the Hololani decided in 2019 to construct the revetment on its own property, just inside a temporary sandbag revetment. With the county Planning Department\u2019s blessing, a sheet pile bulkhead was installed. Community groups sued in Circuit Court. After a court-ordered mediation, the parties reached a settlement resulting in the delay of revetment construction for five years to allow for the environmental review and permitting for a regional beach nourishment project. Under the settlement, the community groups agreed not to oppose Hololani\u2019s efforts to extend its CDUP, which it did on May 8, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Applicants five-year deferment period for the Revetment expired in February<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2024, without significant progress made on the beach nourishment project. According to the Applicant, there is disagreement between the State, County and private condominiums regarding who will be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the T-groin structures that will serve to hold the sand in place. Applicant is requesting approval of a construction and management right-of-entry and revocable permit to allow them to start construction of the Revetment before May 2025 in order to complete construction before the winter swells arrive,\u201d the Land Division report states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Second Attempt<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the board\u2019s December 13 meeting, the Land Division again brought forth a recommendation to amend the right-of-entry permit to allow for construction. It also recommended approval of a month-to-month revocable permit for the use of state land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[I]f the ROE and RP are approved, Applicant may proceed with construction of the Revetment at its own risk, and the Board may require removal the Revetment if the Applicant does not obtain legislative approval of the easement,\u201d the division\u2019s report states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey\u02bbre going to pay rent and provide a removal bond,\u201d Ian Hirokawa, special projects coordinator for the Land Division, told the board. \u201cThe desire is to get the sandbag revetment out. It\u02bbs not good for the shoreline,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Kaiwi Yoon asked whether allowing construction of a rock revetment before legislative approval of an easement for it wasn\u2019t putting legislators in an untenable position. \u201cOtherwise, you gotta rip everything out. It\u02bbs messy,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is,\u201d Hirokawa replied, then repeated that \u201cthe applicant bears the risk.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yoon said that in addition to the mess, he was also concerned about how the board\u2019s approval of the division\u2019s recommendations would look. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe fined owners a considerable amount of money for armoring their properties. I think this sends a schizophrenic or unclear message,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Riley Smith agreed about the messy appearance, but added that the Hololani situation was different from shoreline hardening violation cases that the board has dealt with, in that the condo had obtained necessary approvals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Vernon Char also noted that the revetment was expected to help protect the adjacent Honoapi\u02bbilani Highway from erosion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Things Changed\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Testifying in support of the Land Division\u2019s recommendations, attorney Pamela Bunn, representing the Hololani, explained that the condo is merely \u201clooking to replace one armoring structure with a smaller, more benign, safer structure. Right now there are massive sandbag revetments in front of the property. They are bigger than what the rock revetment will be. They are harder to remove. They are less safe for public access up and down the shoreline.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
A temporary sandbag revetment fronting the Hololani Resort Condominiums. Credit: DLNR<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Jim Barry of Sea Engineering, which designed the proposed rock revetment, added that it would help protect the highway, which curves very close to the erosion scarp. Also, a drainage easement just north of the condo has a history of clogging with sand and causing the highway to flood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said the revetment design, which includes a new drain, would solve that problem. He added that critical infrastructure at stake includes more than the road. It includes drainage, sewage, and water lines, as well as electric and telecommunication poles along the highway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAll of that is at risk if this area is allowed to erode,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board chair Dawn Chang said that her department wants private landowners to consider building their shoreline hardening structures on their properties, not on public beaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barry replied that the Hololani was not allowed to protect its property until the shoreline got to within 20 feet of the buildings, which was the OCCL\u2019s threshold at the time for allowing emergency sandbags. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs a coastal engineer, it\u2019s really hard to do anything within that 20 feet. \u2026 Our structure is pushed back as far as it can. There\u2019s an underground parking garage there that is just barely not at risk because of what we\u2019ve done. So our hands are tied. \u2026 The only thing you can build by the way this came about on private land is a vertical wall, which is not what we want to do,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“That\u2019s a fair statement,\u201d Chang replied. Still, she continued, \u201cthe problem is many landowners knew more than 20 years ago that this was inevitably going to happen. So you wait until prices, yes, you have very few options. \u2026 We see what\u2019s happening at Ka\u02bbanapali, Kahana, actually, statewide. \u2026 We would ask that all landowners start looking in a proactive way rather than waiting for a crisis to occur.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barry pointed out that on the shoreline fronting the Hololani, \u201cthings happen quickly. It may go for years without a lot of change. All of a sudden over a weekend you lose five feet of property. And Hololani, in one area, it was 10 feet, essentially over nine. It happened very quickly. You have do something.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OCCL administrator Michael Cain ran through the history of the project, noting that the Land Board approved it before the recent passage of Act 16, which prohibits private shoreline hardening structures in areas with sandy beaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI just wanted to clarify that we are operating under a permit that was passed under previous rules, previous statutes. I hear the concern about the board sending a double message, but sometimes we do have to act on permits that we wouldn\u2019t have recommended today,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYeah Michael, but smoking was allowed indoors. Things changed. So things change,\u201d Yoon replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Char asked whether the Land Board, in approving the amendments, would be \u201ccreating any precedents for you on any other matters that would come back to us.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cain said he didn\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yoon later asked Cain, \u201cCan you please remind us why the state no longer supports armoring the coast?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve known for over 100 years that shoreline armoring can negatively impact beach properties by impounding sand and by inhibiting the natural motion of sand. Beaches are dynamic. They\u2019re meant to move. \u2026 The territorial government actually banned shoreline armoring in 1917,\u201d Cain explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSomebody forgot to tell this board in 2018,\u201d Chang quipped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several unit owners at the Hololani testified in support of the Land Division\u2019s recommendations. They described how the sandbags are deteriorating and are a danger to people who attempt to walk on them and marine life that gets entangled in them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several members of the public, including representatives from the Maui chapter of the Surfrider Foundation and the non-profit Kamalu o Kahalawai, testified in opposition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hannah Lilley, Hawai\u02bbi regional manager for the Surfrider Foundation, testified, \u201cShoreline armoring like the proposed 400-foot rock revetment at Hololani exacerbates erosion on an already chronically eroding shoreline.\u201d She said that the structure would, contrary to what proponents say, impede beach access. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Granting the construction ROE permit would fly in the face of the purpose and principles of Act 16, she continued. \u201cYes, the seawall and sandbags were approved prior to Act 16, but replacement and construction of new rock revetments would continue prevention of lateral public access and continue to accelerate erosion,\u201d she said. \u201cGranting this ROE and RP could set a really dangerous precedent for private ocean front landowners to follow suit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Community activist Kai Nishiki, added, \u201cThe state of Hawai\u02bbi must stop approving shoreline easements, which is just a fancy, innocuous-sounding word for what it really is: selling off pieces of our public beaches to resorts, in this case longer than a football field.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After hearing from the public, board chair Chang continued to press Barry about the possibility of keeping the revetment on Hololani\u2019s land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barry said that an earlier design included a vertical seawall on private land. \u201cWe could have done that from the beginning, but we discussed with OCCL the advantage of adding the lower rock revetment [to] reduce reflection of the shoreline and, thereby, help promote beach accretion. Just a vertical sheet pile has twice the amount of wave reflection. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“OCCL preferred this [current] design. And we knew from the outset that the revetment would be on state land. It has to be. The wash of the waves, no matter where we put it, the wash of the waves is at the vertical wall,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the close proximity of the metal sheet to the Hololani\u2019s underground parking garage, board member Yoon, an architect, was not convinced that the revetment could not be moved inland. He suggested that the condo would just have to sacrifice parking stalls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“It would flood,\u201d Barry replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou would lose the buildings. The parking garage holds one of the buildings,\u201d Bunn added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere are ways. It would cost money. You could do it,\u201d Yoon said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barry disagreed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is obviously a very different board from 2018,\u201d Chang later said. \u201cOur mission is really to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources, public access. And I\u2019m always struggling with how do we find that balance. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don\u2019t want to belabor this. We\u2019re very challenged here, looking for longer-term solutions, rather than this piecemeal,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barry said that the number of solutions is limited, noting that even a beach nourishment project would require “stones going in.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bunn added that long-term solutions \u201ccannot be one size fits all.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe all know Sam Lemmo was no pushover. He specifically sited things unique to the property. Even if you took away the buildings, you took way the sandbags, there\u2019s not going to be a beach there. \u2026. The alluvial soil just calves out and dissipates. It\u2019s very unlike, say, the North Shore of O\u02bbahu, where the shoreline recedes, there\u2019s sand behind it,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, Maui board member Doreen Canto made a motion to deny the Land Division\u2019s recommendations. Yoon seconded the motion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After an executive session to discuss legal matters with its deputy attorney general, the board voted to approve Canto\u2019s motion. Board members Smith, Char, and Kaua\u02bbi\u2019s Karen Ono voted in opposition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI know this was not what you had hoped for or anticipated. I\u2019m hoping you\u2019ll come back with some creative solutions for us,\u201d Chang told Barry and Bunn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To which\u00a0Bunn replied, \u201cThe next time we\u2019ll be back will be for more sandbags.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Board Denies Contested Case<\/strong> On 2024 Stream Diversion Permits <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On December 13, about a year after the Sierra Club of Hawai\u02bbi requested a contested case hearing on revocable permits allowing Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and East Maui Irrigation Co., LLC in 2024 to divert East Maui streams to Central and Upcountry Maui for agricultural and domestic uses, the Land Board finally took up the matter of whether the conservation organization should be granted one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The group has long argued that the Land Board allocates more water than is necessary and allows the excess diverted water to be wasted while leaving several East Maui streams dry for most of the year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Hawai\u02bbi Supreme Court heard arguments in November over whether the board should have granted the Sierra Club\u2019s contested case hearing request over permits granted to the companies in 2020. The court had not issued a decision by the time the Land Board met to decide \u2014 belatedly \u2014 on the Sierra Club\u2019s contested case hearing request made in 2023, as the board considered the permits for the following year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ian Hirokawa, special projects coordinator for the DLNR\u2019s Land Division, recommended that the Land Board deny the request. He made some of the same arguments the state\u2019s attorney made before the Supreme Court. He said that many of the issues the Sierra Club raise fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Water Resource Management, not the Land Board. Also, he added, \u201cthe history shows has there\u2019s been extensive due process on these issues, going back, really, decades.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before addressing the Land Division\u2019s statements, David Kimo Frankel, the attorney representing the Sierra Club, took issue with the timing of the agenda item. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA little bit of bad faith. Actually, not a little, but a lot of bad faith for you folks to wait a year to take up this agenda item. That\u2019s not cool. 2024 is about to end. This is a request for a contested case hearing for the 2024 revocable permit. That\u2019s bad faith,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Addressing the Land Division\u2019s version of past efforts to deal with the concerns surrounding East Maui water diversions, Frankel called it \u201cfalse, revisionist history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLet me deal with Ian\u2019s main point, which is this board\u2019s authority. It\u2019s actually false. First of all, the Legislature gave you the authority in [Hawai\u02bbi Revised Statutes Chapter] 171-55 to condition your approval with the best interest of the state.\u201d He pointed to a Hawai\u02bbi Supreme Court decision on a case involving challenges by East Maui residents to the revocable permits issued to A&B and EMI. In that case (Carmichael v. Board of Land and Natural Resources)<\/em>, Frankel said, the court recognized that the Land Board\u2019s duties include protecting streams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

he added that a decision made decades ago by 1st Circuit judge Eden Hifo regarding East Maui stream diversions determined that the Land Board cannot simply rubber stamp everything the Water Commission does. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou are not a) bound by that and b) you have a public trust duty that\u2019s imposed,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/strong>Moreover you folks<\/strong> decided, before any of you were members of this board, that [for] Honomanu stream \u2026 no water can be diverted. You already voted to protect one stream before. In 2007, you did the same thing with Waiokamilo [stream]. You can\u2019t say you have no authority when you\u2019ve exercised that authority before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn any case, you certainly have the authority to ensure that water is conserved, that it\u2019s not wasted. That is your authority,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said it wasn\u2019t worth it now to recount the reasons why a contested case hearing was required for the 2024 revocable permits, but that he hoped board members had a chance to listen to the recent oral arguments before the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt should be abundantly clear to all of you that a contested case hearing is required,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTo your opening comment about the board, bad faith, waiting a year to agendize, the chair sets the agenda, not the board. Let\u2019s just get that clear. \u2026 I\u2019m not throwing her under the bus. It\u2019s a fact,\u201d board member Kaiwi Yoon told Frankel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHe\u2019s throwing me under the bus,\u201d Chang interjected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the board had a good laugh, Yoon asked Frankel his opinion on the Land Board\u2019s authority and how it relates to the Water Commission\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frankel explained that the Water Commission has exclusive authority to determine instream flow standards. In the case of East Maui, the Land Board \u201ccan say, \u2018We want more water left in the stream because it\u2019s not justified to take out\u2019 or you can say, \u2018We want this water used more efficiently than it is.\u2019 You have that authority. The Water Commission does not have that authority at all. In fact, right now, the Water Commission completely lacks the authority to require that reservoirs be lined. You folks have that exclusive authority. You folks set how much water can be taken per day for various uses. Not the Water Commission. All the Water Commission decided in this circumstance is how much water, at a minimum, should be left in each stream.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite Frankel\u2019s arguments, the Land Board approved a motion by member Vernon Char, seconded by Doreen Canto, to accept the Land Division\u2019s recommendation. Board member Aimee Barnes voted in opposition. Yoon abstained. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Board Denies Sierra Club a Contested Case,<\/strong> Renews East Maui Water Diversion Permits<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI just like to tell one short story. Gon\u2019 be real short. So back in the early \u201890s, had this one old man that used to work for EMI. He used to come into our village every week, every other week. And we get one waterfall called Waikane in our village. And every week, he come in, and we was always wondering like, \u2018Eh, how come? How come he stay over here?\u2019 And then finally, maybe after six months, we never seen him again. We also never see our water come down that waterfall again. So you know, putting into perspective the harm and the hurt we had to live through, whatever decision you guys make, I hope you guys keep the people of Ke\u02bbanae and Wailuanui in you guys\u2019 thoughts. We the ones who had to suffer through all these years and we no like suffer again. Thank you guys for you guys’ time. I appreciate it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With that, Jerome Kekiwi, Jr., president of Na Moku Aupuni O Ko\u02bbolau Hui, ended his testimony before the Land Board at its December 13 meeting. At that meeting, the board took up a recommendation from the DLNR\u2019s Land Division to issue a permit to Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and East Maui Irrigation Co, LLC, (EMI) for the continued diversion of millions of gallons of water a day from East Maui streams for agricultural, domestic, and other purposes in Central and Upcountry Maui.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decades years ago, Na Moku and other native Hawaiian kalo farmers from East Maui requested a contested case hearing on permits that, at the time, were annually renewed to allow A&B and EMI to keep diverting water. They also petitioned the state Commission on Water Resource Management to amend the interim instream flow standards of 27 East Maui streams upon which they relied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the Land Board\u2019s December meeting, attorneys and representatives of Na Moku and the Sierra Club of Hawai\u02bbi complained that the proposed permit would allow EMI co-owner Mahi Pono to take more water than it needed and to increase its water use for diversified agriculture in Central Maui over the course of the permit term. Meanwhile, requirements imposed years ago by the Water Commission to modify diversions to allow for restoration of certain streams have gone unmet. They also complained that the amount recommended to be diverted to Maui Department of Water Supply \u2014 at least 5 mgd \u2014 was also excessive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Land Division had proposed allowing Mahi Pono to divert a monthly average of up to 3,263 gallons per acre per day for diversified agriculture. The amount was based on a three-month average of the company\u2019s irrigation needs last year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cN\u0101 Moku opposes any proposal allowing further increases in the water diverted out of East Maui for diversified agriculture without proper vetting by the Board at a public meeting and unless and until A&B\/EMI can show they have complied with prior orders of CWRM by physically addressing diversion modifications and system losses,\u201d wrote Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation attorney Ashley Obrey on behalf of Na Moku.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She added, \u201cTo allow automatic upward adjustments in allocations based on reported acres planted by a third party without further scrutiny of the Board is not only irresponsible resource management but is also an unconstitutional abuse of the Board\u2019s vested power, especially where there is no set cap on the total amount of water allocated.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She also argued that the Land Division had failed in its duty to analyze how the proposed permit affected native Hawaiian practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the board meeting, Land Division special projects coordinator Ian Hirokawa explained that by his calculations, the system loss rate is 20.9 percent, which is lower than the 22.7 percent rate recommended for the permit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He added that reducing the amount allowed to be diverted to the Maui Department of Water Supply from 7.5 mgd in 2024 to 6 for 2025, \u201cthat would lower the system loss rate even further.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Board member Vernon Char said he did not think the board should engage in \u201cfurther tinkering\u201d to address the concerns raised. He preferred to just keep the status quo and allow the county\u2019s new East Maui Water Authority to iron things out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThose are issues beyond us,\u201d he said. He added that he thought the accusations of water waste were unjustified and based on \u201cbad evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mahi Pono senior vice president Grant Nakama testified that he thought the per-acre-per-day cap should be an annual average, not a monthly one, to allow greater flexibility. He also thought the cap should be higher \u2014 at least 3,764 gallons per acre per day \u2014 as the Land Division\u2019s proposed cap was not based on the months in 2024 with the highest irrigation needs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also said that a proposed condition requiring Mahi Pono to test how long it takes one of its reservoirs to lose all of its water was \u201chighly impractical.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it was the Sierra Club\u2019s turn to testify, its attorney, David Kimo Frankel, shifted the focus to water needs in East Maui. He held up a large photo of a bone dry East Maui stream, Ho\u02bbolawali\u02bbili\u02bbi. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
A diversion on Ho\u02bbolawali\u02bbili\u02bbi stream.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt still looks like this 70 percent of the time. All of the water from the stream is taken 70 percent of the time. When it rains a lot, the stream could pass through these gates,\u201d he said, referring to slats in a grate covering diversion in the stream that drains into EMI\u2019s ditch system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Water Commission ordered years ago that the diversion, along with dozens of others, be fixed, he continued. \u201cThey have not been. \u2026 There are people who live and depend on these streams. They can\u2019t take any water most of the time. \u2026 people who would like to be growing kalo who have no water,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding Mahi Pono\u2019s requests, he told the board \u2014 and specifically, member Char, \u201cThey want to expand their operation while people are suffering. That is wrong. Vernon, that is wrong. Not only are people deprived of water \u2026 they [Mahi Pono] are wasting millions of gallons a day and we can prove it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He noted that the Sierra Club and the Maui DWS came to an agreement to support a condition amendment that would cap the amount of water delivered to the DWS at 5 mgd, with occasional exceptions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat saves a million gallons a day,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Debates over whether groundwater use should be encouraged and how its use should or should not affect Mahi Pono\u2019s water allocation ensued. Frankel also pushed for a condition requiring the lining of at least one reservoir by the end of November.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“If you folks don\u2019t take these issues seriously, we will request a contested case hearing before you vote,\u201d Frankel said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sierra Club chapter director Wayne Tanaka later added, \u201cKupuna that started this all have passed away,\u201d referring to the East Maui taro farmers who petitioned the Water Commission and Land Board decades ago for stream restoration. \u201cTheir rights have been vindicated, but they\u2019re gone. \u2026 There is a real reason why people feel that this is an unfair situation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gina Young, director for the East Maui Water Authority, testified that her agency has convened negotiations with the parties involved. She asked the Land Board for patience. \u201cWe\u2019re not experts \u2026 We\u2019re just people,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYour end goal is to come up with a joint agreement \u2026 that you bring back to the board?\u201d board chair Dawn Chang asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt may not be one agreement. We would have to figure out how it works best for the state,\u201d Young replied. She added that EMI has the expertise to operate the diversion system. \u201cAt this point it\u2019s important they remain in control of the delivery system. We would like support them,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the board\u2019s vote, Ayron Strauch, a hydrologist with the Water Commission, tried to explain why the fixes to the diversion system are still undone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMahi Pono has to apply for stream diversion works permits [from the commission]. We\u2019re not the only agency that regulates things that happen in the stream. Any activity in the Conservation District needs a [permit]. [The State Historic Preservation Division] actually has to concur with whatever CWRM\u2019s orders or decision are. We\u2019ve waited years for SHPD approvals,\u201d he said, adding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also has to opine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frankel pointed out, however, “They waited a year or so before applying to SHPD. That\u2019s on them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, Maui board member Doreen Canto made a motion to approve the permit, with the Sierra Club\u2019s proposed amendment regarding the allocation to Maui County, and Mahi Pono\u2019s proposed amendment to make the cap an annual average. Her motion also included a deduction of 1 mgd from the allocation to Mahi Pono, which was a \u201ccompromise\u201d that the company agreed to in exchange for the change to an annual cap. Finally, her motion included an amendment adding the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the state Aha Moku advisory council to a list of parties involved in stakeholder meetings, which would be convened by the county water authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the board could vote, Frankel requested a contested case hearing. After an executive session to discuss matters with its attorney, the board voted to deny the request, and then voted 5-0 to approve Canto\u2019s motion. Board members Kaiwi Yoon and Aimee Barnes had left the meeting by then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Teresa Dawson<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Board Denies Permits For Hololani Revetment In a 4-3 vote, the state Board of Land and Natural Resources denied a recommendation to amend a 2018 board action to include approvals of a construction right-of-entry permit for a rock revetment fronting … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":16290,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[532,13,533],"tags":[3],"class_list":["post-16286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-532","category-board-talk","category-january-2025","tag-teresa-dawson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16286\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/16290"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}