Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate Over Water‑License Reform Focuses on Ownership Transparency and Farmer Protections
Summary
DLNR and the Attorney General flagged vagueness and public‑trust risks in HB 2434’s approach to non‑county water license applicants; scientists and county advocates urged clarity to protect public trust and enable county intervention, while farm groups warned short license terms would undermine financing.
Lawmakers examined HB 2434 (sometimes cited in testimony as HB 2,434), a measure that would let the state place limits and create presumptions for certain non‑county water license applicants, with testimony sharply divided over legal risk and practical impact.
Kara Kahane of DLNR urged caution, saying requirements for rebuttable presumptions and other presumption‑based rules would add administrative work and could create bottlenecks in water licensing, particularly where DLNR already works collaboratively with counties on set‑asides and prioritization. Deputy Attorney General Alyssa Kahl outlined legal concerns, calling some definitions vague, warning of potential conflict with chapter 171 (public lands/water licensing), and citing the Waiahole court decisions as precedent that requires a fact‑specific, case‑by‑case approach to the public trust.
Experts and local officials gave mixed responses. John Healy, a research scientist and Maui County Board of Water Supply member (testifying as a private citizen), described Maui’s fragmented water‑ownership landscape and argued the bill’s amendments could enable counties to act more effectively to protect public trust resources. Shay Chan Hodges supported the bill’s effort to scrutinize ownership, control and financing structures of water operators and warned limited disclosure can hide ultimate controllers who prioritize short‑term returns over reinvestment.
Farm interests pushed back forcefully. Prime Yamamoto of the Hawaii Farm Bureau said the bill’s structure — particularly a five‑year license term with one possible five‑year extension for non‑county applicants — could undercut farmers’ ability to secure financing and invest in long‑term infrastructure.
Committee members probed whether objective definitions or safe harbors could address agency concerns while preserving county options. The transcript records extended discussion but does not record a conclusive committee vote on HB 2434 during the hearing.
What’s next: The bill drew substantive interagency legal and policy questions (vagueness, public‑trust doctrine, impact on financing). Committee members asked for clarifying language and for the sponsor to consider carve‑outs for agriculture and clear, objective criteria for any presumptions.
