Stream Diversion Resolution Update
The Maui County Council will be voting on a resolution to urge to the Water Commission to support stream diversions for large-scale agribusiness this Friday, December 4, at 9 a.m. Please show up to support stream restoration in Na Wai `Eha and East Maui, and urge the Council to “vote no”. This decision will have an effect on what happens w/ HONOLUA STREAM! Bottom line, the resolution is UNBALANCED and UNNECESSARY, and does a great disservice to the many other public interests and citizens — including agriculture and farmers — who want the streams restored.
You can give 3 minutes of oral testimony at the meeting (Council Chamber, 8th Floor, Kalana O Maui Building 200 S. High Street, Wailuku, Hawai`i); submit written testimony via email at county.clerk@mauicounty.us or fax at 808-270-717 by Thursday, Dec. 3 at 9 a.m.; or bring 15 copies of written testimony to the meeting on Dec. 4. (See the agenda at http://www.co.maui.hi.us/archives/117/091204.pdf)
Here are some suggested talking points.
• Water is a public trust resource that cannot be hoarded for private use: The Water Commission has an affirmative duty under the Hawai`i Constitution and the State Water Code to protect and promote instream public trust uses. Why does the Council omit this law?
• The State Constitution and Water Code protect appurtenant (kuleana) rights and traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices. Haw. Const., art. XII, § 7; Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 174C-2(c), -63, and -101(c-d). Many Maui residents support restored stream flow so they can once again exercise their rights to grow kalo, gather native stream species like `o`opu, `öpae, and hïhïwai, and use flowing stream waters in cultural and religious practices. Why does the Council disregard these people and their rights?
• Healthy streams also sustain nearshore fisheries and coastal wetland habitats and recharge ground water supplies, including the county’s main drinking water source, the `Ïao Aquifer. Why does the Council ignore these benefits?
• Private companies have hoarded all the stream water for more than a century. They are the ones that need to be told to share; why is the Council telling it to the public and the Water Commission?
• Companies like Wailuku Water Company sell public stream water for dust control and landscaping on development projects on ag land. Why isn’t the Council condemning such water profiteering?
• HC&S has failed to meet its burden to prove how much water it actually needs, it simply wants to keep taking all the water as usual, even for outrageous water uses like its dumping of up to 14,000 gallons per acre per day on sandy fields in Waikapü (more than double the amount needed for sugar).
• HC&S could also stop its waste and use viable alternative sources. For example, in Central Maui alone, HC&S could line its reservoirs and ditches to save up to 12 million gallons per day, which is more than half the entire capacity of the `Ïao Aquifer. HC&S could no doubt take similar measures in East Maui.
• Decades of stream diversions by plantation ag have deprived small family farmers and taro farmers who depend on stream water to sustain their families, communities, and way of life. Restored stream flows will allow such agriculture — the “culture” in agriculture — to flourish.
• In the Nä Wai `Ehä case, the Water Commission reviewed thousands of pages of written exhibits and heard dozens of witnesses. In East Maui, the Water Commission prepared instream studies and accepted public testimony. The Water Commission is aware of the facts and the law. A resolution urging the Commission to “follow the law” is untimely, unnecessary, and an insult to the Commission. It also is particularly suspect in the Nä Wai `Ehä case, which is a formal legal proceeding in which the County is a party.
