At the July 15 meeting of the Commission on Water Resource Management, commissioner Aurora Kagawa-Viviani was puzzled by a staff proposal to have the commission give its approval to proceed with development of a \u201cfirst-generation\u201d adaptive management plan for the Keauhou aquifer area in West Hawai\u02bbi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not clear how this fits into our regulatory framework,\u201d Kagawa-Viviani said after hearing the presentation of CWRM deputy director Ciara Kahahane and more than an hour of public testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jonathan Likeke Scheuer, who has worked closely on water issues in the Keauhou area, including as a consultant to the National Park Service, was harsher in his description of the proposal: \u201cIt\u2019s drill, baby, drill. You\u2019re going to allow a whole bunch of wells to go in and monitor stuff and see what happens. This flies in the face of your statutory duties.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Commissioner Lawrence Miike, whose total time serving on the commission to date comes to 14 years, seemed skeptical as to the value of the effort. \u201cAs long as we don\u2019t have a water management permit requirement\u201d \u2013 available only in designated water management areas \u2014 \u201cwe\u2019re sort of stuck,\u201d he said. \u201cWe can have really great information but we\u2019re still limited by the fact that if we continue to allow well construction and pump installation permits, we really don\u2019t have control over sustainable yield.\u201d Sustainable yield is the amount of water that can be withdrawn from an aquifer without impairing its long-term quantity or quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sustainable yields, or, more precisely, the degree to which current and proposed development will draw from them, have until now been the most important metric used by the commission in determining whether to designate an aquifer as a groundwater management area, where more rigorous criteria attach to permits for existing and new water users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But, according to a summary of the plan drawn up by CWRM staff, the commission \u201cis reconsidering its approach to groundwater management in the Keauhou Aquifer System Area (KASA). Housing and economic growth require groundwater and the Keauhou region is part of the expanding Kona population center. However, CWRM has an affirmative duty to balance maximum beneficial use of water with the protection of the public trust, including maintenance of waters in their natural state, traditional and customary rights of Native Hawaiians, provision of adequate reserves of water for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and domestic use.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI just think it\u2019s nuts,\u201d Miike said after listening to Kahahane explain the plan and acknowledge that at present, there is little the commission can do if the owner of a currently permitted well pumps so much that the water source is harmed. \u201cWhy don\u2019t we just designate the area already? \u2026 I know basically counties are against that, a state-versus-county kind of thing. But we\u2019re way beyond that.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When Miike voiced his skepticism over the commission\u2019s ability to regulate withdrawals in the absence of designation, Kahahane replied: \u201cSo, compliance with the adaptive management plan we\u2019re proposing to attach as a condition for the approval of future pump installation permits in the aquifer. For the current wells, there\u2019s not much we can do besides ask nicely, because we\u2019re not in a designated water management area. But we\u2019ve discussed with the folks who want to construct new wells in this aquifer that the adaptive management plan is essentially going to be a condition of their pump installation permit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea for an adaptive management plan grew out of a symposium held in Kona in 2018, which in turn grew out of the petition by the National Park Service for designation of the Keauhou aquifer as a water management area, filed in 2013. That, in turn, traces back to concerns of the NPS, first expressed formally as early as 2007, that developments existing and planned upslope of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park were jeopardizing the park\u2019s natural resources, especially the fisponds and many anchialine pools in the shoreline area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The NPS petition was denied, but as a kind of consolation prize, the commission set up a working group that was to address the issues raised in the petition. The November 2018 symposium was the culmination of that effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the commission agreed to eight conditions, dealing with, among other things, well approvals, monitoring wells, review by the Aha Moku council, siting of future wells,<\/p>\n\n\n\n Condition six triggers public information meetings if authorized planned uses reaches 80 percent of the sustainable yield, which amounts to 30.4 million gallons a day. As of February 2025, the staff report states, withdrawals reported to CWRM come to 14.82 mllion gallons a day, or around 37percent of sustainable yield.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s a little complication here,\u201d Kahahane said. The state Water Code defines authorized planned use as \u201cthe use or projected use of water by a development that has received the proper state land use designation and county development plan\/community approvals.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But, Kahahane added, \u201cThere\u2019s no consensus right now among the various counties about what methodology should be used to determine authorized planned use and how it should be tracked for the purposes of anticipating future water demands.\u201d This means, she continued, \u201cas of today, there isn\u2019t a coordinated effort between the commission and the county to compile a record of authorized planned uses in Keauhou. There\u2019s also no adopted Keauhou Water Use and Development Plan, which would include recent development information to calculate water demands. So as a result, we, frankly, don\u2019t know if authorized planned use has reached the trigger.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n To address this, Kahahane said, she was discussing the matter with the counties and \u201cconsidering changes to both the Water Code and planning documents.\u201d Or, as described in the staff submittal, staff are \u201cengaged in discussions about APU and are considering changes to the Water Code and planning documents \u2026 to better define APU and reconceptualize its utility in the planning and designation process.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As described in the staff proposal, \u201cThe core idea behind an AMP is to treat groundwater management as an evolving process. Instead of following a rigid planning approach, an AMP recognizes that uncertainties exist \u2013 such as how groundwater withdrawals may impact coastal and nearshore groundwater discharge, or how changes in climate may impact groundwater recharge. It proposes monitoring, data collection, and regular reassessment of management strategies based on any changing conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey published a report on predicted future groundwater recharge statewide under various climate scenarios. Even under the most favorable scenario, the Keauhou aquifer and surrounding aquifers were predicted to see decreases in annual groundwater recharge by at least 21 percent compared to a reference climate of 1978-2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kahahane took some time to go over the plan in her presentation to the commission on July 15. The AMP, she said, would build on input from four working groups of three or four people, each of whom is an expert in their respective areas of knowledge: hydrology, biology (\u201cindicator species\u201d), contamination and pollution, and native Hawaiian traditional and cultural practices. A CWRM \u201cpoint person\u201d is to be assigned to each group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Peter Adler of GUILD Consulting, LLC, and his assistant, Stephanie Sang, will write up their suggestions into a plan, which is then to be reviewed by an advisory committee of four people, Kahahane said \u2013 all by the end of November. In addition, an outside consultant, Scott McCreary of Concur, will provide his opinion on the final product. According to the staff submittal, \u201cMcCreary has substantial experience with adaptive management plans and joint fact-finding on natural resource matters.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kahahane went on to describe a proposal to recharacterize the sustainable yield for the area, using updated techniques and leaving in the dust RAM, the robust analytical model used for years to determine sustainable yield.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, she said, \u201cWe\u2019re all very excited about this pilot project. I believe, and my staff believe, that this approach, what we do in Keauhou, can inform and shape strategies for other critical areas, including \u2026 Lahaina.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Public Weighs In<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Kahahane\u2019s presentation, which largely followed the written submittal, took more than an hour and a half. After a break of 20 minutes, commission chair Dawn Chang invited the public to weigh in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First to testify was Scheuer. He began by agreeing with comments from Miike to the effect that this might more accurately be regarded as an update to the state Water Resource Protection Plan\u2019s section on Keauhou. If that were done, and then using that as a basis to permit wells, \u201cmost of what is in the proposal before you I would fully endorse.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n But what was actually being proposed, he continued, \u201cflies in the face of your statutory duties.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scheuer launched into a history of the controversy over the Keauhou aquifer system, noting that it goes back at least 17 years, well beyond the \u201chighly selective\u201d shorter history that appears in the literature cited in the AMP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When Scheuer stated that he was going to go into that history, he was interrupted by Chang, who asked him to summarize, \u201cbecause your time is up.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scheuer objected, noting that the commission had Kahahane\u2019s written submittal but that the commission and public \u201cheard it all in person\u201d as well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI\u2019ve been involved in this for well over a decade and I\u2019m going to ask for your discretion or ask one of the commissioners to allow me to finish my testimony\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chang asked how long his testimony would take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHow about five minutes?\u201d Scheuer replied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThat\u2019s going to be a little too long,\u201d Chang said. \u201cI\u2019ve got other people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI find it very disrespectful in deliberative processes to keep the public to two minutes on such an important issue,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then he continued with his history, noting that it formally began 18 years ago, when the superintendent of the Kaloko-Honokohau park, Gerry Bell, and her staff met with CWRM staff, expressing concerns about the impacts to the park\u2019s natural resources that depended on groundwater flows — \u201cgroundwater dependent ecosystems,\u201d or GDEs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the time, CWRM staff suggested instead that the Park Service begin a dialogue with other parties interested in issues relating to groundwater. This groundwater working group met four times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAt the fourth meeting,\u201d Scheuer said, \u201cconsultants, including [former CWRM director] Peter Young, showed up and said we don\u2019t need the groundwater working group that you guys are arranging anymore because we\u2019re setting up the Kona Water Roundtable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The groundwater working group, he added, \u201chad an open agenda, an open process for getting information,\u201d with a focus on \u201ctrying to determine the best scientific information.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, the agenda of the Kona Water Roundtable was controlled by developers, he said, meeting from about 2008 to 2015, and \u201cfocused on showing that there\u2019s no harm whatsoever to the aquifer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2013, a number of events led the National Park Service to file a petition for designation. By law, the commission is to consider the petition within 60 days, but \u201cthis body dragged that process out for three and a half years.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The commission did issue a preliminary order in December 2014, which asked for three things: an updated Hawai\u02bbi County Water Use and Development Plan; a report from the National Park Service on the quantity of water needed to sustain its ecosystems; and a report on traditional and customary practices. Scheuer noted that he was one of two authors of that last report. Paula Cutillo of NPS prepared the second. The county Department of Water Supply was to prepare the first, and while it has developed a draft, that plan has never been approved by the County Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The last two reports were delivered in May 2015, Scheuer said, yet, \u201cthey\u2019ve never been referenced by any of your subsequent reports.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNow why is the fact that we did these reports, presented them to you, and they\u2019re never referenced again relevant?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBecause I believe what you guys are proposing, to allow drilling to go forward and study it, depends on the assumption that there\u2019s been no reasonable allegation of harm to this system under the current pumping regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut there has. Repeatedly. And you possess this in your own records, which gives you a duty under Kaua\u02bbi Springs<\/em> and other parts of the public trust doctrine \u2026 to not defer action and figure out what\u2019s going on but to take action, to protect groundwater dependent ecosystems and traditional and customary practices associated with them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scheuer then reminded them of other rulings by the Hawai\u02bbi Supreme Court that bear on the Keauhou dispute. In its Waiahole<\/em> opinion, the court quoted the Water Commission itself: \u201cWhere scientific evidence is preliminary and not yet conclusive regarding the management of freshwater resources, which are part of the public trust, it is prudent to adopt \u2018precautionary principles\u2019 in protecting the resources. That is, where there are present or potential threats of serious damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be a basis for postponing effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In addition, where uncertainty exists, a trustee\u2019s duty is to protect the resource, mitigate in favor of choosing presumptions that also protect the resource\u2019 \u2014 \u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chang again interrupted Scheuer. \u201cJonathan, I\u2019ve given you five minutes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c \u2014 the opposite of what you\u2019re doing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Commissioner Kagawa-Viviani asked that Scheuer be allowed to continue. \u201cI would like to hear more. I think it\u2019s important to hear some of the history that precedes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scheuer then began to name names. When the Water Commission adopted conditions that were to be alternative to designation, those conditions, he said, \u201cwere actually written by the developers\u2019 consultant, Peter Young. \u2026 The National Park Service wrote then-chair Suzanne Case asking why the commission was deferring its decision on how to protect public trust resources to a private consultant.\u201d It never got an answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scheuer then went on to raise concerns about the participation of some of the people involved in developing the Adaptive Management Plan, mentioning specifically the inclusion of Don Thomas as one of the hydrology experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2021, Thomas was a guest at a meeting of Sustainable Energy Hawai\u02bbi, Scheuer said. Former state Representative Jerry Chang, a participant, addresed Thomas, \u201cYou know, the lack of water in Kona is hindering a lot of developments that would otherwise be going forward,\u201d going on to ask him if his own research supported that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thomas replied, \u201cI think the National Park\u2019s claims are a fairy story. And I think they know it. I\u2019ve told them that. \u2026 I\u2019ll be brutally honest. The Park Service just wants to take control of access to groundwater, access to the aquifer in Kona so they can control any further development there.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scheuer added: \u201cSo, the inclusion of experts who are known to be hostile to all the issues that are supposed to be considered here I find deeply problematic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continuing Impacts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ashley Obrey of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, representing Hui o Ka Wai, testified in person and also with lengthy written testimony, much of it concerning numerous omissions from the plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hui o Ka Wai \u201cacknowledges that there is value in the preparation of an AMP,\u201d the written testimony states, but it will be useful \u201conly if it acknowledges and addresses the harm that has already occurred to public trust uses of water as the result of previously approved pumping in the Keauhou Aquifer \u2013 and does not simply serve as a tool to fast-track future water development in Kona.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere are existing impacts from existing withdrawals,\u201d Obrey said. \u201cThat\u2019s an important baseline that needs to be considered when we\u2019re thinking about cumulative impacts. The need for mitigation and not just monitoring. This shouldn\u2019t just be forward-looking \u2026 but we\u2019re also talking about where we are at, what our status quo is based on, and why we\u2019re doing what we\u2019re doing in the first place. There\u2019s a bunch of questions about monitoring needs and triggers, which are critical to making the AMP function. We need these management actions. Otherwise, what\u2019s the point of this document?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Obrey suggested the commission defer approval of moving forward with the plan, as outlined by staff, inasmuch as it lacks sufficient detail to serve as a basis for managing the resource. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf you don\u2019t give good direction today, it could give you a false sense of security that we have this plan in place, but in reality, all we\u2019re doing is checking a box and greenlighting more development, and there\u2019s this plan here that isn\u2019t addressing all the things we think it needs to,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs Chair Chang mentioned, there is this mounting pressure to develop. So if we have this plan in place that really isn\u2019t going to satisfy the needs of what I think the whole point of this is, that\u2019s a concern.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n She also suggested the plan should address proposals to drill into the deep confined aquifer, which lies below sea level. The presumed existence of this is what\u2019s \u201cspurred a lot of this discussion in the first place,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe ask, I guess, is to defer it until all these questions are answered and you feel this plan will be the best version of the AMP that we can have in light of the fact that we have not been designated and this will serve as a substitute until such time as this commission deems it is time to designate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Loke Aloua, a member of Hui o Ka Wai, po\u02bbo for Kaloko-Honokahau and a former archaeologist for the National Park Service, described in detail the kinds of impacts she has observed at the fishponds and anchialine pools of the national park and listed numerous development proposals in Kona that were planning to drill wells in the Keauhou aquifer area, including in the deep basal aquifer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among others, she identified a well proposed by the Liliu\u02bbokalani Trust, to pump from the deep basal aquifer, two wells proposed by the University of the Nations, and a second Department of Water Supply well at Wai\u02bbaha, also intended to pump from the deep basal aquifer. \u201cMost times,\u201d Aloua said, \u201cwhen they put in a production well, they put in a reserve well as backup. We may be looking at 3-4 mgd coming out of Wai\u02bbaha.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWho is going to address this? How will that use be assessed for its connectivity to the entire three layers of the aquifer? What are the impacts to traditional and customary practices, including the ground-dependent ecosystems and these species,\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe deep confined aquifer is misunderstood,\u201d she continued. \u201cThere are multiple hypotheses surrounding connectivity and discharge. All these things are still in the investigative stage. Nothing has been finalized, but there are already plans in motion for Kona to tap into the deep confined aquifer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n She went on to mention existing impacts of lack of freshwater flows into the ecosystems at Kaloko-Honokohau. \u201cCurrently, at least at Kaloko we already have an adversely impaired ecosystem. Pond conditions \u2013 the fishpond is sometimes saltier than the ocean. That is how salty we\u2019re talking about the ponds getting. \u2026 The pond is currently at its breaking point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSeasonal algae blooms that result in heightened oxygen levels and this mass of algae that grows,\u201d resulting in the death of fish, she said. With curtailed groundwater flows, water temperature rises, \u201cwhich also contributes to sick and weak fish in the loka i\u02bba. \u2026 We\u2019re talking about mature fish, \u2026 struggling in the fish pond. Right now.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Blooms of native limu have fallen off as well for the last three years, with the last bloom she could see being two years ago. Limu, she said, is essential for the fish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese have really big impacts for us,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also, the lack of freshwater is harming native birds. If they don\u2019t have freshwater for the chicks, they won\u2019t make it, she continued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fish can\u2019t be recruited into the fishpond, she added, because there isn\u2019t enough water. \u201cIf we don\u2019t have that sweet water \u2013 that onaona \u2013 that alluring water that\u2019s going to draw in the fish, then the fish pond is going to cease to be a fish pond. It\u2019s just going to be one saltwater pond.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHow can CWRM help us on the ground with these impacts we\u2019re already seeing, every single year, consistently, at least for the last four years? \u2026 It\u2019s very heartbreaking, because we\u2019re doing everything we can on the ground,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Motion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The submittal brought to the commission asked the commissioners for \u201capproval to proceed\u201d with the development of a first-generation AMP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But as became clear during the course of the meeting, there was little the commissioners could do other than rubber-stamp what was an already done deal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPeter Adler\u2019s already working on this, right? \u2026 A deferral might not necessarily stop work on this effort. Is that correct?\u201d asked Kagawa-Viviani.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kahahane seemed puzzled. \u201cWell, I suppose I have to better understand the nature of the deferral.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI\u2019m just saying a hypothetical deferral would not prevent him from continuing to further improve and work for meetings to happen,\u201d Kagawa-Viviani said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kahahane wanted further clarification: \u201cI\u2019m hearing that we should continue working on expert groups \u2026 and we can continue to do that in the event of a deferral.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kagawa-Viviani noted that the request before the commission was for approval to proceed, \u201cbut you\u2019re already working on it.\u201d Then, she added, \u201chow this AMP fits within our regulatory framework is not clear. \u2026 How do we translate this into action?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chang added her gloss: \u201cThis is just to permit staff to continue to move forward.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the end, despite the evident puzzlement about what, exactly, the commission was being asked to do, all six members voted to approve going forward with development of the AMP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 Patricia Tummons <\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" At the July 15 meeting of the Commission on Water Resource Management, commissioner Aurora Kagawa-Viviani was puzzled by a staff proposal to have the commission give its approval to proceed with development of a “first-generation” adaptive management plan for the … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":16658,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[540,338,28],"tags":[7],"class_list":["post-16678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-august-2025","category-land-use","category-water","tag-patricia-tummons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16678","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=16678"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16678\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/16658"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}