Slow-moving progress in charting a course out of plantation-era water use practices and toward a future-focused distribution and protection of the state’s resources is rightly stirring resentment among Native Hawaiian groups and environmentalists.
It’s not surprising that House Bill 1326, which would further delay compliance with requirements pertaining to public water use, is emerging as one of the most contentious issues in this legislative session. A decision on whether to advance the measure is expected today.
The bill would allow Alexander & Baldwin Inc., electrical utilities on Kauai and Hawaii island as well as farming and ranching operations to continue siphoning from streams and elsewhere even if they haven’t completed environmental reviews, consultations with Native Hawaiians about water needs and other legal must-dos.
In testimony against HB 1326, opponents persuasively argue that postponing the compliance essentially rewards apparent foot-dragging and makes a mockery of the expectation that lawmakers will make good on enforcing enacted legislation.
In January 2016, the Circuit Court ruled that the state does not have authority to issue water-collection permits with a term exceeding one year. The ruling focused on A&B permits but had legal implications for others — leaving roughly a dozen holders of “revocable permits,” which had allowed collection for longer than one year, in limbo. By way of Act 126 (2016), the Legislature allotted three years to correct the problem.
Now, with the clock running out, most of those revocable permit holders still fall short. According to HB 1326 supporters and various state agencies, that’s due, in part, to failure to foresee hydrology-based complexities tied to compliance, and the phasing out of long-standing allocation practices.
Regardless, the need for stepped-up effort is apparent. The state Board of Land and Natural Resources has been dinged for a history of routinely extending revocable permits that resulted in some water users skirting lease requirements and accessing a lot of water at low costs.
Environmental groups say inadequately checked water diversion has resulted in dried out stretches of watershed. Among the consequences: reduced aquifer replenishment and taro farming, and a growing presence of invasive species.
Some critics suspect that any extension is a financial bailout for A&B. Its longtime diversion-draws from more than 100 streams and tributaries on public watershed lands in East Maui have been long scrutinized — and criticized.
The company is on the hook for paying out as much as $62 million to Mahi Pono LLC, the farming venture that bought A&B’s vast Maui holdings — roughly 41,000 acres of former sugar land — if it can’t deliver on 30 million gallons of water a day for more than a year at any time over the next seven years, according to the sales agreement.
A&B has countered that the rebate with Mahi Pono aimed to “acknowledge the diminished value” of the acreage “if surface water resources were no longer available for irrigation;” and was not linked to HB 1326, which proposes a seven-year extension. That’s an eyebrow-raising timetable.
Still, the bill’s backers assert that if this year’s deadline is not pushed back at all, the upshot could be water shortages and related troubles. And that’s reason enough to reluctantly allot more time for compliance. However, the Legislature must also impose conditions that compel all involved in forging a more viable water code to significantly pick up the pace.
Senators are considering an amendment to trim HB 1326’s proposed extension to three years. Lawmakers should opt to further tighten the turnaround to two years, with requirements to show tangible progress every six months — benchmarks that are needed to guard against another shameful postponement pitch.
Correction: An earlier version of this editorial did not state that the 2016 court ruling narrowly focused on only Alexander & Baldwin’s revocable permits.
