Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee defers bill that would allow permit conditions requiring dual-line nonpotable water supply
Summary
A measure authorizing the Commission on Water Resource Management to require dual-line (potable and nonpotable) systems in new residential and mixed-use developments was deferred after committee members cited funding, capacity and implementation questions.
House Bill 915, which would authorize the Board of Agriculture to investigate nonpotable water availability and permit the Commission on Water Resource Management to require dual-line systems in certain developments, drew agency attention to practicality and funding.
Deputy Director Kira Kahahane of the Commission on Water Resource Management said reuse and dual-line systems are a useful tool: “Our water resources are increasingly strained in some locations,” she told the committee. Kahahane framed dual-line systems and use of R-1 recycled water as a viable method in drier areas but noted availability depends on local infrastructure.
Department of Agriculture representative Brian Kao and Department of Health representative John Nagato testified with comments. Kao said the irrigation chapter (HRS ch. 167) governs irrigation water development and raised concern that the bill would assign tasks to the Department of Agriculture that the department does not presently staff or fund. Nagato said DOH supports R-1 reuse when done correctly and under current rules.
Committee members asked practical questions about likely sources of nonpotable water (recycled wastewater/R-1, nonpotable groundwater, stream water, or desalination) and about cost and implementation. Kahahane confirmed reuse infrastructure is limited in many locations and that a reuse study with cost elements exists; she said permit decisions would weigh costs against water-availability and community benefits on a case-by-case basis.
Because the measure requires implementation funding and raises questions about which county or state agency should administer new delivery infrastructure, the chair recommended deferring HB 915 to allow the sponsor and implementing agencies to craft a workable funding and implementation plan. The committee voted to defer the bill.
Ending: HB 915 was deferred for further work on implementation details and funding; agencies were asked to return with a revised proposal that identifies administrative roles and funding sources.
