The Hawai`i County Department of Water Supply has been revising the Keauhou section of its Water Use and Development Plan, under the watchful eyes of the staff of the state Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM), which ordered the revision last December so that it would have the information necessary to decide on the National Park Service\u2019s petition to designate the Keauhou aquifer system as a Water Management Area.<\/p>\n
But when the commission met last month in Kona to review the county\u2019s progress, at least one member was not pleased to learn that the DWS had not included in its projections for future water use most of the 10 villages along a transit corridor that have been included in the county\u2019s Kona Community Development Plan.<\/p>\n
After Lenore Ohye, of the commission\u2019s staff, gave an overview of work on the plan since last spring, Maui commissioner Jonathan Starr noted that the plan makes repeated references to \u201canticipated water demand.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s not a term I had seen before,\u201d he said, adding that the Hawai`i Water Code itself \u201cmandates us to consider authorized planned use.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBefore we accept a demand model based on anticipated water demand, I would want to have a legal analysis of what it means to use that as the benchmark instead of authorized planned use.\u201d<\/p>\n
Under the Water Code, one of the triggers for designation is when authorized planned use approaches 90 percent of an aquifer\u2019s sustainable yield. Under the county\u2019s draft water plan, the \u201canticipated water demand\u201d in Keauhou is around 75 percent of sustainable yield.<\/p>\n
Ohye replied to Starr, stating that, \u201cfrom the staff\u2019s perspective, we think it\u2019s interchangeable. \u2026 A semantic thing. We consider that when you look at the criterion for designation \u2013 of authorized planned use being at 90 percent \u2013 this [anticipated water demand] is the figure.\u201d<\/p>\n
Commissioner Kamana Beamer from the Big Island asked Ohye if the \u201cauthorized planned use\u201d term had been substituted with any other term in any other county.\u00a0 No, Ohye replied.<\/p>\n
Keith Okamoto, manager and chief engineer for the county DWS, then informed the commissioners that, as commission staff themselves explained in a prior submittal to the commission, \u201cauthorized planned use was accommodated differently each time\u201d the commission dealt with four previous groundwater management area designation petitions. \u201cSo we came up with that term\u201d \u2013 anticipated water demand \u2013 \u201cto come up with future water needs,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
So, asked Beamer, \u201cdoes the county object to referring to the numbers as authorized planned use?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOur concern,\u201d Okamoto replied, \u201cin light of the history of authorized planned use, was to see that it could be used inappropriately if we call it such and it turns out to have a different definition down the road.\u201d<\/p>\n
Starr jumped in. \u201cYou\u2019re skating around, so it becomes statutorily impossible to pin you down,\u201d he said. \u201cYou\u2019re creating another term that\u2019s slightly different so you manage to sneak out from the language and the mandates and the letter, if not spirit, of the state Water Code\u2026.. If [the terms] are equal, why not just use the one that\u2019s in [the Water Code] and not create new language?\u201d<\/p>\n
Okamoto objected strongly to Starr\u2019s characterization. \u201cIt was never our intention to skirt any issue or hide behind any words\u2026 We don\u2019t intend to hide anything from staff. We try to give them the best available information so they can present that to you folks.\u201d<\/p>\n
Linda Chow, the deputy attorney general advising the commission, attempted to pour oil on the troubled waters when she advised the commissioners that they themselves would be the ones to determine if the terms were interchangeable. The commissioners went on to discuss other aspects of the county\u2019s scope of work for the second phase of its updated water plan.<\/p>\n
\u2018A Farce\u2019<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
And then came the public testimony.<\/p>\n
Jonathan Scheuer, a consultant to the National Park Service and vice chair of the state Land Use Commission, pointed out to the commissioners the fact that the county\u2019s projections were only for areas that had received final zoning for a given use. \u201cThere\u2019s a difference between authorized planned use and zoning,\u201d Scheuer said. \u201cZoning comes at the end of the development process, right before you build. It\u2019s shorter-term demand. The long-term things are what\u2019s in the state Land Use District, county general plans.\u201d<\/p>\n
By not considering elements in the county\u2019s longer-term plans, Scheuer argued, the county was able to low-ball figures in its \u201canticipated water demand\u201d projections. He noted that the county had estimated that its \u201ctransit-oriented developments\u201d would have a water demand of just 1.85 million gallons a day (mgd).<\/p>\n
\u201cBut the [Kona Community Development Plan] proposes 10 or more transit-oriented developments. <\/b>Kaloko Makai alone said its potable water demand would be 2.85 mgd. So the entire demand for the Kona CDP in this Water Use and Development Plan is less than just one transit-oriented development.\u201d (Kaloko Makai is a proposed mixed use development that would span more than 1,100 acres in Kaloko and include up to 5,000 new residences, a hospital, schools, commercial space, parks and a judiciary complex.)<\/p>\n
Duane Kanuha, the county\u2019s planning director, attempted to explain the county\u2019s rationale.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Community Development Plan is related to transit-oriented-development concepts \u2013 communities with a higher density, but with connectivity,\u201d he said. \u201cThe difficulty is that in order to effectuate these TODs, we\u2019re looking at between 500 and 700 million dollars in improvements. \u2026 Which is why, based on the projections for the Kona CDP, we don\u2019t see any implementation of these TODs for a long period of time. \u2026 Right now, most of those TOD\u2019s don\u2019t have authorized planned use. They\u2019re not in the Urban [land use district], not in our zoning.\u201d<\/p>\n
Starr: \u201cSo the term was changed from authorized planned use to anticipated water demand because you did not want to acknowledge those 10 TOD centers as part of it. So you thought by changing the term you could avoid dealing with the demand that they would add to the demand side of the plan?\u201d<\/p>\n
Kanuha\u2019s reply was hardly helpful: \u201cThe Department of Water Supply doesn\u2019t intend to change the definition,\u201d he said. \u201cInstead, they\u2019re going to provide this projection under the different definition.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo this water plan, the demand side, is a farce!\u201d Starr said, unable to hide his anger.<\/p>\n
Okamoto then attempted to clarify the county\u2019s methodology: \u201cIf it was a TOD but didn\u2019t have zoning classification, it wasn\u2019t included. It doesn\u2019t have the authority to proceed. \u2026 It is not a farce.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo,\u201d Starr asked, \u201cif any of these [TODs] are headed for approval, is there the intention to approve changes to the Water Use and Development Plan before they can be entitled?\u201d<\/p>\n
Yes, Okamoto replied. The plan is intended to be a \u201cliving document,\u201d he added, which would be updated when future land use approvals are given. Updates to the plan would most likely require approval of the full County Council, however, since under the Water Code, the county plans must be adopted by county governing bodies before they are then approved by the Water Commission. In addition, while the county Department of Water Supply advises the Planning Department and planning commissions, it has no authority to set conditions on land use approvals and entitlements.<\/p>\n
Starr\u2019s outburst prompted commissioner Ginny Pressler, director of the state Department of Health, to make a rare contribution to the discussion. \u201cI feel compelled to speak out,\u201d she said. If Starr \u201cinsults anyone else, he should be excused from this hearing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Further Revisions<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
CWRM staff had requested that the commission approve progress to date on Phase I of the county plan update and a scope of work for Phase II, which is to focus on water supply. (In addition to updating the Keauhou aquifer section of the plan, the county is also having its consultant, Fukunaga and Associates, update the Waimea section to take account of growth in that area. The main focus of the Water Commission\u2019s attention, however, is Keauhou.)<\/p>\n
Several commissioners were concerned that the demand projections dealt only with consumptive uses, with no allowance made for the water needs of resources held in the public trust, traditional and customary uses, and requirements of native ecosystems, including those in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park.<\/p>\n
In February, the commission had voted to require the county, as it prepares revisions to its WUDP, to front-load its assessments of the impacts water withdrawals may have on traditional and customary native Hawaiian practices and on the environment. The county was to start by using available published information from environmental assessments and the like, and provide a preliminary report to the commission by May 30. On May 27, the DWS informed the commission that it had reviewed more than 200 such reports prepared from the 1990s to the present. \u201cOnly one report was found to address the potential impact of pumping water and the potential impacts to [traditional and cultural practices] as well as other habitat concerns.\u201d That report was for the Palani Ranch Well No. 1 project, the DWS wrote, and \u201cappears to adequately address concerns\u201d raised by the Park Service. \u201cDWS also plans to continue to seek input from community members and\/or organizations that may have information regarding [T&C] and if there may be any link to groundwater usage,\u201d the DWS said.<\/p>\n
At the commission\u2019s August 17 meeting,\u00a0 Ohye reported that the county had begun to do a cultural assessment but was \u201ccommitted to continuing that.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYour concern over environmental and cultural needs is very, very important and needs to be part of the plan,\u201d Ohye responded. \u201cBut that\u2019s not what you\u2019re approving today.\u201d<\/p>\n
The county agreed that it would take account of these issues in the next phase of the water plan update.<\/p>\n
With that, the commission voted to authorize the county to move forward with Phase II of the water plan update. It also gave its preliminary approval to the Phase I work, with the understanding that it may require revisions in light of findings obtained in Phase II.<\/p>\n
— Patricia Tummons<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
***<\/strong><\/p>\n O`ahu Water Use Plans Include\u00a0`Cushion for Climate Change\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n When it comes to preparing Water Use and Development Plans, the Honolulu Board of Water Supply\u2019s approach is the \u201cgold standard,\u201d according to Water Commissioner Jonathan Starr. Rather than simply projecting future water needs and discussing where new water sources need to be developed, the BWS\u2019s plans also incorporate watershed management needs and recognize the potential impacts of climate change and the need to protect native Hawaiian rights and traditional customary practices. In fact, the BWS actually calls the plans Watershed Management Plans rather than Water Use and Development Plans.<\/p>\n BWS Water Resources Program administrator Barry Usagawa told the Water Commission last month that for the entire island, the potable water demand is expected to reach 89 mgd over the next 30 years and that the BWS will have developed a supply of 102 mgd to meet that need. The extra 13 mgd is a \u201ccushion for climate change,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n By conserving water and reusing treated wastewater, O`ahu will not only conserve its potable water sources, but it will also drastically reduce the need over the next few decades to desalinate seawater, which is a very expensive process. The BWS\u2019s plans anticipate that several million gallons a day of recycled water will be used to water agricultural lands and for landscaping. As a result, Usagawa said the projected amount of desalinated water needed has been reduced from 15 million gallons a day to a mere 1.5 mgd.<\/p>\n The agency has already completed plans for O`ahu\u2019s Wai`anae and Ko`olau Loa districts and is working on plans for the North Shore, `Ewa, and Central O`ahu districts.<\/p>\n \u2014 Teresa Dawson<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Hawai`i County Department of Water Supply has been revising the Keauhou section of its Water Use and Development Plan, under the watchful eyes of the staff of the state Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM), which ordered the revision … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8345,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[390],"tags":[7,3],"class_list":["post-8323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-september-2015","tag-patricia-tummons","tag-teresa-dawson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8323","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=8323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8323\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/8345"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}