{"id":17017,"date":"2026-02-03T11:34:02","date_gmt":"2026-02-03T21:34:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=17017"},"modified":"2026-02-03T13:58:06","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T23:58:06","slug":"a-conversation-with-ciara-kahahane","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/?p=17017","title":{"rendered":"A Conversation with Ciara Kahahane"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
An aerial view of Kaloko fishpond in 2012. Credit: NPS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Environment Hawai\u02bbi <\/em>editor Patricia Tummons recently interviewed Ciara Kahahane, the deputy director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and effectively the executive director of the Commission on Water Resource Management. The focus of the discussion was the way in which the Keauhou Aquifer Sector Adaptive Management Plan interfaced with the Hawai\u02bbi Water Code, Chapter 174C, Hawai\u02bbi Revised Statutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, the commission denied a 2013 petition by the National Park Service to designate the area to protect the inflow of fresh groundwater into the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park in the face of growing development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modeling by the USGS has predicted that groundwater recharge in the Keauhou aquifer system will decrease significantly in the coming decades under both \u201cwet\u201d and \u201cdry\u201d climate scenarios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For now, the Water Commission has opted to implement the adaptive management plan rather than designate the area as a groundwater management area, which would require water users to obtain permits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What follows is a lightly edited transcript of the interview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> I have a question about the interface between the Adaptive Management Plan for Keauhou and Chapter 174C. I\u2019m not seeing how they work well together. If there is a mismatch, does CWRM anticipate amending 174C?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>The adaptive management plan and the application of adaptive management principles are actually called for in the 2019 update to the commission\u2019s Water Resource Protection Plan. The guiding policy adopted in that plan, one of the guiding policies adopted, was to apply adaptive management principles in the face of scientific uncertainty. And that\u2019s something that we try to do with things like instream flow standards already. This [Keauhou] adaptive management plan is trying to do that in the context of groundwater management. And there are a few different ways that we see it fitting within the existing framework of 174C and the broader Hawai\u02bbi state constitution and the public trust doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Ciara Kahahane. Credit: CWRM<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

So, one of the ways is when the commission makes a permitting decision right now, particularly when it assesses resource impacts and impacts to traditional and customary practices under the Kapa\u02bbakai framework, it\u2019s really looking at the impacts on a well-by-well basis. And it often lacks information about the cumulative impacts of those groundwater withdrawals. So that\u2019s one way that it\u2019s working within the existing framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another way is by directly informing our sustainable yield updates in the Water Resource Protection Plan. Of course, the Water Resource Protection Plan is where sustainable yields are actually set statewide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And right now, Keauhou has only one sustainable yield number for the entire aquifer, even though we know that there are at least three different aquifer bodies out there: the basal lens, which is a thin, mostly brackish lens closest to the coast; the high-level water, which is mostly above the Mamalahoa Highway, which seems to be a little bit more resilient to pumping than the basal, though we\u2019re not quite sure; and then there\u2019s also the deep confined, which is way, way beneath the water of the basal aquifer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the things we\u2019re hoping to do with this adaptive management plan is set three different sustainable yields and really start to manage those three aquifers separately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So that\u2019s one way that the [adaptive management plan] is going to directly inform the Water Resource Protection Plan, which is something that 174C already calls for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And finally \u2013 this is something we may want to figure out how we\u2019re going to implement, we may want to implement a statutory fix, or administrative rules somewhere down the line, to better implement the adaptive management plan. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But right now, we\u2019re very early in the plan development process overall. And so, we haven\u2019t made any final determination regarding what kind of adjustments, if any, we would make.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> What efforts are being made to assess current usage and planned usage in the adaptive plan management of Keauhou? Why have these estimates of current and planned usage not been discussed so far?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>So, we have actually, if you\u2019re talking about authorized planned use, we\u2019ve been discussing that with the County of Hawai\u02bbi and trying to find a unified way across all four counties of determining what authorized planned use is and how it\u2019s measured. So those conversations are ongoing between staff and all four of the county planning departments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>It doesn\u2019t appear in the adaptive management plan at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>No, currently, it\u2019s not a part of the AMP. It\u2019s something that was separately required as a condition of non-designation by the commission and it\u2019s something that is separately required under the state Water Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so we\u2019re proceeding, not necessarily including it within the AMP itself, but still, that is definitely something that we\u2019re looking at and that we are working to track.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>Should it not be included in the AMP? It seems to be a pretty important element.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> Well, one of the things with the AMP, we\u2019re trying to keep the AMP really focused on specifically monitoring, managing, and adapting to changed conditions. Those changed conditions may include how much use there is, how much development there is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But one of the struggles that we\u2019ve had with the AMP so far is a little bit of scope creep. We\u2019re trying to keep the AMP very focused on this first generation, and I\u2019m mindful that it has so much potential as a tool that we do want to keep throwing more stuff into it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But extras, like building in a more specific consideration of authorized planned use, that\u2019s probably not going to come in until later generations of the plan, if at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> If the purpose of the AMP is to monitor water levels and manage on that basis, then I have several questions. What enforcement power does CWRM have in areas that have not been designated as management areas by the commission? How can CWRM require that pumpage be reduced in areas that might be showing increased salinity or lower water levels?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> So the enforcement is one that, again, we\u2019re really early in the stages of the plan development. We haven\u2019t necessarily decided what the final triggers for action thresholds for protection are going to be, and what the management actions are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the conversation about enforcement is really not going to come in until later on in the planning process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> How can you keep tabs on water usage and water salinity and water levels if you don\u2019t have 100 percent reporting \u2013 as I don\u2019t think you do in the case of Keauhou, or even statewide?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>So, our reporting compliance, you\u2019re right. There are always a certain percentage of folks who are not reporting. Our staff follows up with people if they haven\u2019t received well reports from them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And for Keauhou, I don\u2019t have the specific updated numbers as of January 2026, but the percentage of wells that were reporting is contained in one of my briefings to the commission \u2013 I can\u2019t remember the exact month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But actually, most of the non-reporting, all of the non-reporting wells were smaller individual wells. We actually have very good compliance in Keauhou from the larger well operators. So, yes, we have some non-reporting wells. Generally, when the commission makes a permitting decision, we take those non-reporting wells, and we assume that they\u2019re pumping as much as they possibly can, right? So if someone\u2019s not reporting their water use to us, we take the pump capacity and we multiply it as if they\u2019re pumping it 24-7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> How recent was the latest permit you issued in the Keauhou area?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> We have not issued a pump installation permit in Keauhou since the commission declined to designate the area as a groundwater management area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>Has there been any penalty applied for lack of reporting?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> No. We have not gone after anyone for a penalty at this time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> A while back, Keith Okamoto, director of the Hawai\u02bbi County Department of Water Supply, told the Board of Water Supply that you had said the county did not need to complete the Keauhou Water Use and Development Plan, a draft of which was published in 2017. Keith said that he hadn\u2019t worked on it since then, on your advice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> My conversation with Keith was really focused on our planned update to the Hawai\u02bbi Water Plan framework. So that\u2019s been something that commission staff started on before my time \u2013 I  think in my predecessor\u2019s time, they started updating. This is the framework that governs all of the different components of the Hawai\u02bbi Water Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Water Use and Development Plan is, of course, part of that. And my word to Keith at the time was, let us figure out what we\u2019re going to do as far as updating this framework, because he didn\u2019t want to start a plan and an entire planning effort, bring on a contractor, if we were just going to change the requirements midstream.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That was months ago, and we\u2019ve had subsequent conversations where I think that we\u2019ve been able to give Keith enough certainty with regard to where we\u2019re going with the Hawai\u02bbi Water Plan Framework update that my last conversation with him on this was that they were going to start, at least, the planning process for the Keauhou Water Use and Development Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> How would the framework process change the way in which the county water use and development plans are developed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>One of the major things that we\u2019re thinking of updating is, one, clarifying the method for calculating authorized planned use. And two, building in specific consideration of impacts on traditional customary practices at the macro scale. There are a lot of different things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But one of the major updates for the Water Use and Development Plans is really requiring the counties to at least get an idea of what kinds of practices are happening in a given area and how they might potentially be affected by its plans for source development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is still pretty early in the process. We\u2019re still discussing internally these framework updates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And while we\u2019ve had preliminary conversations with the counties about them, we don\u2019t have anything official documented in writing that we\u2019re really ready to roll out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this is going to come before the commission when we\u2019re ready to announce it publicly and start accepting public input.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> It seems that there\u2019s a bit of a circularity here. How can you update the Water Resource Protection Plan if you don\u2019t have the county Water Use and Development Plans, and vice versa? They\u2019re really dependent on each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> They are, they absolutely are. And in a way, the circularity is kind of by design, to have the plans talk to each other, back and forth, and not necessarily have one informing the other one. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, yes, absolutely, the county\u2019s plans for source development are going to inform what the commission does, including in the Water Resource Protection Plan, and that, in turn, is going to inform what the county does. So it\u2019s really sort of by design to have the plans feeding into each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>When was the last update to the county\u2019s Water Use and Development Plan \u2013 the last one that was approved by the County Council?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>The Keauhou Water Use and Development Plan was actually not approved by the council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> Do you know how far back in time the last approved Water Use and Development Plan for the county occurred? I think it was back in the 2000s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>That sounds right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>About 20 years ago. And can that be relied on moving forward, trying to assess water use? Trying to determine questions of designation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>It\u2019s the best thing that we have right now. So, at a certain point, we don\u2019t have more from the county that we\u2019re able to rely on. Of course, we\u2019re working with the county to update the Keauhou and certain aspects of the Water Use and Development Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s why this Adaptive Management Plan effort is so important, to bring in some of those unanswered questions, like, what are the cumulative impacts of withdrawals in the Keauhou aquifer?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> Are you displeased with the 2017 update?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>I think, actually \u2013 I may be misspeaking here \u2013 but that was before my time. But I believe that it was actually approved by the commission. It just didn\u2019t receive County Council approval. And there\u2019s a lot in there on review that I think is good and is going to stay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My understanding is that one of the objections from the public was that it didn\u2019t contain enough consideration of traditional and customary practices and the impacts of those. And that\u2019s something that we\u2019re actively working to fix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>I had a question about the monitoring well, the deep monitoring well that you\u2019ve mentioned as having been financed by the Legislature. It seems like that\u2019s planned to go on the very same site that the county already has a deep well. Is that correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>If you\u2019re talking about the Kaloko well, that is on a county site. They don\u2019t already have a deep well there, so that\u2019s its own separate thing. The other two deep monitor wells that we got funding for this past year from the Legislature, we haven\u2019t decided where we\u2019re going to site them yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>There was one that was to be sited right next to an existing county well. Is that the same monitoring well that needs to be resealed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> If we\u2019re talking about Kaloko, yes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>That is, then, what we\u2019re talking about. Why is that on the same site as a county well?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>Well, it\u2019s difficult when we\u2019re looking for a place to site a deep monitor well. We\u2019re really constrained not only by where we would optimally like to put it, but where there\u2019s land available. The county has been a very good partner to us in letting us site wells on their property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I assume that when staff sited that well, they looked at what state lands were available and couldn\u2019t find anything that was a good candidate, and so went to a county site instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> What is the status of the Ota well? You say that no wells have been permitted in Keauhou since roughly 2017-18, but I know that this proposed well has been rather contentious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> It has been rather contentious, yes. Its last trip to the commission was back in April of 2025, and action on that well construction permit was deferred. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before that, the most recent time that they were up to the commission would have been before me. They actually did get a pump installation permit but, of course, they challenged and requested a contested case hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So as of this moment, I don\u2019t have an idea when the Ota well is going to be back up to the commission. It is one of many wells that people are interested in constructing out in Keauhou.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>Going back to the deep confined aquifer \u2026 I\u2019m concerned if that is included as one of the aquifers that can be tapped for future well development, it seems awfully deep, for one thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The county already has many, many problems keeping its existing deep wells operational. At any given time, there may be up to, like, 40 percent of the deep wells that are offline because of problems. They\u2019ve maybe dropped equipment to the bottom of the well and need to figure out a way to fish it out, or they have problems with pumps that can\u2019t be easily accessed. If you read the minutes of the Board of Water Supply, every meeting includes a discussion of the Kona deep wells. And it\u2019s expensive. The county Department of Water Supply is the largest electric consumer in the county, and its in large part because of these deep wells.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So if you have an aquifer that is even deeper than that, I don\u2019t know how you expect to make that feasible and why that should be considered as part of the available supply of fresh water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other reason why I think it\u2019s maybe inappropriate to consider as a source of fresh water is that most of the research that has been done to evaluate the existence of this has been done offshore. And if you have offshore wells, then that raises another question of the feasibility of using this aquifer as a source of fresh water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>Yeah, I definitely understand your concerns. That\u2019s more policy stuff that wouldn\u2019t necessarily be a decision that\u2019s made by staff, though I\u2019m sure that considerations like those that you just raised would be weighed by the commission if they were to make a determination regarding a proposed deep well into the deep confined aquifer, especially one that was actually going to pump instead of just a monitoring well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, the reason that it\u2019s being included within a potential update to the Water Resource Protection Plan and to the Adaptive Management Plan is we know that there\u2019s interest. People have already proposed wells into the deep confined, so we need to put information before the commission on the potential impacts and how much we expect to be in the aquifer, and any considerations like those you raised. But also what people are saying in favor of exploring the deep confined. That\u2019s all stuff that we\u2019re just trying to make visible and give the commission the information it needs to make a good decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> A few years ago, I went to a discussion. I was not an invited participant, but I busted the party. There was a lot of discussion at the meeting, which was led by the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai\u02bbi Authority, advocating for the Ota well. They were saying that there wasn\u2019t any problem addressing water supplies in the Keauhou region because we have this basically unlimited deep confined source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So I think by including it as an aquifer, you have sort of given succor to the people who think that we don\u2019t need at all to be concerned about freshwater availability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the very least, there should be some kind of an asterisk attached to every mention of this deep confined aquifer so as not to get people\u2019s hopes up that this is a viable and reasonable and feasible and practicable and economical means of acquiring fresh water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>That\u2019s not my intent to lead people towards considering it to be just a free, fresh, and available supply of freshwater. It is something that we have to look at, especially as we think about what recharges it. Where\u2019s the recharge area? How much water that would otherwise be going to the high level or the basal is actually in the deep confined, and how these aquifers interact with each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>That\u2019s fine, but if you think of that as a third aquifer that can be folded into the Water Resource Protection Plan, which identifies the sources of available water, I think that\u2019s another step. I don\u2019t know why you would include something which doesn\u2019t have any kind of proven availability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>Well, understanding the availability is something that we\u2019re looking to do, we\u2019re actively exploring. Whether we decide that there is a sustainable yield for the deep confined aquifer, or if we determine that it\u2019s not suitable as a water source remains to be seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> Now that the contract with Guild Consulting has expired, has it presented to the commission a final plan or a final report on the Keauhou Adaptive Management Plan it was to prepare?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>So, the final report \u2013 let me back up just a little. The Guild contract had multiple phases, culminating in the preparation of a plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Due to a number of factors, including just the length of time it took to herd together all of these groups, it ended up not proceeding to the final phase of that contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the final deliverables for the contract are going to be reports of discussions from the expert groups that are going to form, really, part of the foundation of the final adaptive management plan. But as we explore preparing that final plan, we\u2019re thinking it\u2019s going to be a while longer down the road than we had previously anticipated. There\u2019s just a lot of discussion, I think, that we still need to have. And so, that final plan is probably going to be prepared either in-house by commission staff or we\u2019ll seek another contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>So, basically, Guild didn\u2019t deliver its final deliverable?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> We decided to pause before the final phase of the contract. So there were deliverables for each contract phase. We\u2019ve stopped at phase \u2013 I think it\u2019s phase two of the contract, which was to convene these expert groups and prepare a report of the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So we\u2019ve gone up to that phase, but we didn\u2019t complete that final phase, which is to prepare successive drafts of the Adaptive Management Plan, present them to the commission, and eventually, for commission staff to propose one as final.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>Did they get full pay on their contract?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>They\u2019re only being paid for the phases of work that they actually completed. So not the full amount, no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> What did they get paid?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> I don\u2019t have that off the top of my head.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>Basically, the plan is not complete at this point?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> That\u2019s correct. We\u2019re still very early, very early stages of the plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>How useful will it be if it\u2019s always going to be in flux?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>I think it\u2019ll be useful. It will always be in flux, and that\u2019s the beauty and the struggle of adaptive management. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But ultimately, everything the commission does is in flux. We might make a decision one day that, because of sea level rise or climate change, becomes outdated in a few years. That\u2019s just the reality of water management, and so I think, I hope that this will be useful. I believe that it truly will be useful. And it\u2019s something that I would like to see us do in places like, for example, Lahaina, where we know that there are resource impacts, that climate change is changing the amount of rain that we\u2019re seeing there, the amount of recharge to the aquifer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This sort of adaptive management strategy, while it might not take the exact form that we\u2019re thinking for Keauhou, it\u2019s something that I would like us to see and like us to use statewide one day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>I do have a couple more questions. At one point, you were discussing with the commission plans for developing monitoring wells in Keauhou. And you said something to the effect of, if the Legislature did not give you the funds, then you could go to other sources in the community. Do you remember saying that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> Yes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>And this has me a bit concerned, because I think that there\u2019s always a quid pro quo when you are getting money from private sources to develop a public resource. There\u2019s the expectation on the donor\u2019s part that they will get some benefit from it. And if it turns out that they don\u2019t have it, then I think that really puts everybody in an awkward position. So when you mentioned that, who did you have in mind? What did you have in mind?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>No one specific in mind, but I will say, for quite some time, folks have been advocating for the commission to find its own reliable and renewable source of funding. According to a study done by USGS a few years ago, the full cost to fund a water manage-monitoring network in Hawai\u02bbi is something like $170 million. And our budget for the commission is now about $5 million a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So we have a substantial shortfall in terms of being able to do everything that we know needs to be done to responsibly manage and monitor our water resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I totally understand your concerns about the quid pro quo aspect of seeking private funding. It is something that I think, you know, we already have a watershed management fee for DOFAW [the Department of Land and Natural Resources\u2019 Division of Forestry and Wildlife] that is imposed on certain applicants. So, I think of it as being similar to that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it really follows from the concept of, if you have a well in an area and you\u2019re taking out water, you\u2019re causing the commission staff to actually have to expend time and energy and effort monitoring the impacts of what you\u2019re doing. You should pay some of the cost to defray what the commission staff are doing. And that actually was similar to one of the conditions that was imposed on the Ota well permit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> Going back to your funds: you have a pretty high vacancy rate. And how is this being addressed. I mean, it\u2019s really, really high.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>We do. So our current vacancies, we have 13, no, sorry, 15 positions that aren\u2019t filled right now. Someone just retired at the end of December. We\u2019re lucky to have a staff who\u2019ve been with the commission for a very long time, but that also means that a lot of them are retiring all at once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only five of our current vacancies are actually positions that are ready to be filled right now. The other 10 are new positions that actually have to be established before they can be filled. There\u2019s a process for this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Right now, we\u2019ve completed a reorganization that is enabling us to actually work on filling those positions right now. We\u2019re actively writing the position descriptions for five of those positions. For some of the remaining positions, we actually need to seek additional legislation to enable us to hire exempt staff. Because all of our hydrologists right now are civil-service exempt. We would actually have to create an entire new civil service class if we wanted to fill some of those positions as intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that just \u2013 for many reasons I won\u2019t go into right now \u2013 is not going to work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For five of the positions, we just need to update the position descriptions and get them into recruitment. For five of the new positions we need to write brand new position descriptions for them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And for five of those positions, we actually need to seek a legislative fix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>Why so many exempt positions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>Well, it is very difficult to find qualified hydrologists who are willing to take a civil service position. And that\u2019s for a number of reasons. The amount of scientific expertise that they are bringing to the commission, having positions be exempt allows us to hire at a higher rate of pay and be more competitive with the private sector and with federal government, which is where most of our competition comes from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>As I understand it, the Adaptive Management Plan grew out of the commission\u2019s decision to deny the National Park Service\u2019s petition to designate the Keauhou aquifer as a groundwater management area. The petition was denied in 2017, I believe, and then there was a symposium on ground-water dependent ecosystems and the Park Service prepared an adaptive management plan for the commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That plan seems to have been largely shelved. Then suddenly, seven, eight years later, there\u2019s this Adaptive Management Plan that doesn\u2019t really seem to have much in common with what the Park Service had proposed. And it seems to kind of come out of the blue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You know, the commission itself was really unclear about the utility or the procedures that would occur under this plan. I don\u2019t believe that at any time before the actual engagement of Guild that the commission was asked to approve that. Is that not right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane: <\/strong>That\u2019s accurate. Commission staff had been working on that draft plan for a few years. The most recent draft that I have is from December of 2022, so they had continued working with the National Park Service on it for a while.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concerns that we were hearing from the community were really broader than the area of the National Park itself. There are a lot of really valuable resources in other places, like Kailua Bay, that are not within that plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This effort to expand and have a more regional focus is designed to serve across aquifer systems and we are using the National Park Service plan as part of our jumping-off point, as well as the report from the groundwater-dependent ecosystem symposium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, the Water Resource Protection Plan does direct us specifically to build on the work that the National Park Service did and to propose a set of actions and triggers, and a suite of possible management actions to the commission for their decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, while that\u2019s quite a ways down the road, and we have a lot of consultation with the community and other stakeholders to do before we get there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s the general framework of what was set out in the Water Resource Protection Plan and what\u2019s in the National Park Service plan is still our guiding star in working on this broader plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH:<\/strong> And you\u2019re not worried at all about enforcement or requiring water well operators to cut back on their usage if you determine that there\u2019s a need? You\u2019re not concerned about enforcing the plan?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahahane:<\/strong> I\u2019ve considered a lot of different mechanisms for how this plan could be enforced. Ultimately, what we choose is going to be something that\u2019s determined after we get to the end of the planning effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I see a lot of ways that we could potentially enforce something like this, with or without designation as a groundwater management area, which the plan doesn\u2019t assume one way or the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think a plan like this is necessary both before and after designation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EH: <\/strong>Thank you very much.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Two New Appointments to Water Commission<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In December, Governor Josh Green announced the appointment of Moses Kalei Nahonoapi\u02bbilani Haia III and Juanita Reyher-Colon to fill vacant seats on the Commission on Water Resource Management. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Haia is an attorney whose career included years with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, where he advocated strenuously for the management of natural resources in accordance with state and federal laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reyher-Colon is executive director of the Hawai\u02bbi Rural Water Association, a member of the Maui County Board of Water Supply, and chair of the executive board of the American Water Works Association, Hawai\u02bbi section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With these appointments, the Water Commission is back up to the full complement of nine members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aurora Kagawa-Viviani, whose term expired last June, had continued to serve on CWRM in a holdover position. Her tenure will be remembered for her probing questions and diligent preparation. She had applied to serve a second term but was passed over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appointments of Haia and Reyher-Colon are subject to confirmation by the Senate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Environment Hawaiʻi editor Patricia Tummons recently interviewed Ciara Kahahane, the deputy director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and effectively the executive director of the Commission on Water Resource Management. The focus of the discussion was the way … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17018,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[547,28],"tags":[7],"class_list":["post-17017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-february-2026","category-water","tag-patricia-tummons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17017","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=17017"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17017\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17024,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17017\/revisions\/17024"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17018"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}