Commission approves development of first‑generation adaptive management plan for Keauhou aquifer

Commission on Water Resource Management Chair Dawn Chang on Tuesday directed staff to proceed with a first‑generation adaptive management plan for the Keauhou Aquifer System, a move the commission approved 6–0 after hours of staff briefing, commissioner questions and public testimony.

The plan is intended to create a structured monitoring and decision framework for groundwater in the Keauhou region on Hawai‘i island. Deputy Director Kira Kahahane told the commission the AMP would be iterative and returned to the commission for review of successive drafts and final approval.

Kahahane said the staff recommendation was clear: “our staff recommendation is that this commission approve the development of a first generation adaptive management plan for the Keauhou Aquifer System area as I’ve just described above and retain authority over the final approval of the plan.” The commission voted to accept that recommendation.

Why it matters: Keauhou underlies culturally important shoreline ecosystems and public trust uses and has received repeated attention because of development pressure. The AMP is intended to translate scientific monitoring into practical management triggers and potential conditions on future well and pump permits while informing county water‑use planning.

What the plan will do: Kahahane and staff described the AMP as a standard adaptive‑management cycle — define goals and indicators, develop monitoring and modeling, set management triggers, and create an assessment/feedback loop. Staff told commissioners the first generation plan will prioritize a small set of sentinel monitoring sites, baseline indicators for groundwater‑dependent ecosystems and traditional customary practices, and preliminary management triggers that can be refined in later generations.

Funding and statutory direction: Kahahane said Act 189, signed in June, appropriated $200,000 for the current fiscal year and $200,000 for the next fiscal year for a Keauhou monitoring pilot project and related AMP work. The act directs data collection for groundwater levels and salinity, monitoring of coastal ecosystem impacts and traditional practices, public information meetings, and interim reports to the legislature every six months.

What staff reported about current conditions: Staff recited the history of a 2013 National Park Service petition and the commission’s earlier nondesignation decision with eight conditions. Kahahane summarized staff findings, including that current measured groundwater withdrawals are about 14,182,000 gallons per day (roughly 37% of the statewide sustainable‑yield estimate currently used), and that several permit applications have been received but only some have been deemed complete and routed for agency review. She also cited an 80% “authorized planned use” trigger (30,400,000 gpd based on an existing 38,000,000 gpd sustainable‑yield estimate) and a separate 45% pumping threshold (17,100,000 gpd) that would prompt additional public informational meetings under the conditions tied to the 2013 nondesignation decision.

Public and commissioner concerns: Multiple commissioners and public testifiers pressed staff on limits of the current permitting regime, whether the AMP substitutes for formal designation, and how management actions would be enforced. Commissioner Springer and others asked staff to clarify how AMP outputs would interface with the county water‑use and development plan and with existing well construction and pump installation permits. Commissioner Springer also requested regular updates; staff committed to reporting monthly to the commission while developing the plan.

Several public speakers said current groundwater withdrawals have already produced harms. Lokea Loa, a local practitioner working at a traditional fishpond, described observed ecological impacts in Kaloko Honokōhau National Historical Park and nearby fishponds, saying “the pond is currently at its, basically, its breaking point,” and describing seasonal algal blooms, higher salinities and impacts to native limu and bird life.

A number of conservation- and Native‑Hawaiian‑affiliated speakers urged the commission to consider designation rather than only monitoring. Dr. Jonathan (full name as given in the record) asked the commission to prioritize precautionary protections and said he feared the AMP, as drafted, could permit further withdrawals pending study. Dr. Jonathan said, quoting the transcript, “as long as we’re among friends, I’ll be blunt. I think the national parks’ claims are fairy stories,” a remark made during public testimony and recorded here for attribution. (Transcript excerpts are retained in the provenance.)

Staff approach and next steps: Kahahane described four expert working groups (hydrology, indicator species, contamination/pollution, and native‑Hawaiian traditional and customary practices) and an advisory committee to guide the AMP. Experts named in the submittal included USGS scientists and University of Hawai‘i faculty; project consultant Peter Adler will facilitate the working groups and synthesis. Adler told commissioners a Gantt‑style schedule would be helpful; he said work is already underway and emphasized the plan is meant to be iterative.

Kahahane said the earliest deliverable will be a first‑generation monitoring plan and outline of indicators and sentinel sites, with a working target to complete a first draft of the AMP by Nov. 30. She and commissioners acknowledged that date is ambitious and that the plan could extend beyond November if needed. Staff also said the AMP will be used as a condition on future pump‑installation permits in the aquifer area where applicants are proposing new wells.

Formal action: The commission took a single formal action on the item. A motion to authorize the commission chair to approve development of a first‑generation adaptive management plan and to retain commission authority over the plan’s final approval passed on a roll‑call vote, 6–0. Commissioners recorded on the roll call were Kathleen Ho (Department of Health), (Commissioner recorded as) Neake, (Commissioner) Katayama, Chair Dawn Chang, Commissioner Springer, and Commissioner Kagawa Viviani. Staff committed to monthly updates to the commission on progress, and to incorporate public and commissioner feedback into the next draft.

Why the debate matters: The AMP is intended to move the conversation from ad hoc review of individual well permits to a more systematic, science‑informed and culturally aware management framework. Supporters argue the AMP will provide better data and a clearer framework for conditions on permits; critics and some public speakers urged a more precautionary approach — including designation and firm withdrawal limits — before new production wells are allowed to proceed.

Short term clarifying details - Current withdrawals reported by staff: 14,182,000 gallons per day (≈37% of the sustainable‑yield estimate used by staff). - 80% authorized planned use threshold quoted in the submittal: 30,400,000 gpd (80% of a 38,000,000 gpd sustainable‑yield figure referenced in staff materials). - 45% pumping threshold cited as a public‑information trigger: 17,100,000 gpd. - Recent filed or noted permit status: Ota Well application submitted 08/16/2018 (complete and reviewed); Queen Lili‘uokalani Trust application submitted 05/28/2025 (not yet accepted as complete and not yet routed for agency review). - Act 189 funding: $200,000 for this fiscal year and $200,000 for the next fiscal year to support the pilot monitoring/AMP work.

The commission will present successive drafts of the AMP for public review and for formal commission approval. Staff said they will publish interim reports, meeting materials and a literature list on the project web page and will attempt to coordinate with county water‑use planning efforts as the AMP is developed.

Ending: With the motion approved, staff said they would continue convening expert work groups, expand community outreach on Hawai‘i island, and present a first‑generation AMP draft to the commission for review. The commission’s vote allows development of the AMP to proceed but does not itself adopt any new permit limits or management triggers; those remain subject to later commission review and formal action.