16 Water Resources Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. do

Will the Water and Infrastructure Committee of August 3rd, 2026, please come to order. The time is now 1.35 p.m. May I ask all participants to please silence all your noise-making devices. Today, I'm your chair, Tom Cook. Members, per the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today, exclusive of minors. I would also like the department representatives who have joined online to please also turn on your cameras when it's your turn to speak. Now I'd like to introduce the committee members. Welcome, Committee Vice Chair Yukile Sugimura. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Oh, good afternoon.

Where's my mic?

Oh, okay. Thank you.

And welcome, Councilmember Kalanoy-Bedongong. Hey, aloha. Good afternoon, Councilmember Johnson.

Good afternoon, Chair, Councilmembers, community members. There's no testifiers here at the Lanaihe District Office, and I'm alone on my side of the office ready to work. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And Council Chair Alice Lee is excused. Good afternoon, Council Member Tamara Paulton.

Aloha wina ala, I'm streaming live and direct from the Maui Planning Conference Room. Thank you.

Good afternoon and welcome, Member of the County, Rollins Fernandez.

Aloha a wina la, Chair. Aloha a wina la kakou mai molokai nui ahina. I'm at my private residence, and I have my two minor children and my husband, McKenna Fernandez, here. There are currently no testifiers at the Molokai District Office. Mahalo, Chair.

And Councilmember Shane Sinensi called. He will be excused today. Welcome, Councilmember No'olani U'uha Jens.

Aloha, Chair. Aloha, everyone. I'm also at my private residence. My husband is here as well. And then I have my oldest son Makoa is around here somewhere soon to leave. And we have five miners in the house last few days of summer.

So everyone's here.

Okay. So from the administration, we're joined by the representatives from Department of Water Supply,

Good afternoon, Chair. John Steffelbein, Director.

Aloha, Chair. James Jensen, Chief Engineer for Water.

And welcome, Corporation Council.

Good afternoon, Chair.

From OCS, we're also assisted by our excellent committee staff. Please see the last page on the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. Good afternoon, everyone. We have one item on today's agenda. Y21 relates to amending the water availability policy on subdivision construction plans. Members, if there's no objections, I would like to take testimony after receiving opening comments on Y21.

No objections.

Okay, no objections. Thank you, members. Let's begin. Members, Y21 relates to Bill 1, 2026, amending the water availability policy on subdivision construction plans. Bill 1's purpose is to ensure that while written verification of long-term water supply remains critical to sound development, this requirement should not delay the Water Department's review and comments on subdivision construction plans. I want to clearly state what this bill does not do. Bill 1 does not eliminate Maui County's Show Me the Water requirement. A developer must still receive written verification from the director of water supply confirming a long-term reliable water source before subdivision construction plans are approved. That core safeguard remains fully in place. What Bill 1 addresses is the timing and efficiency of plan reviews. It codifies a parallel track, allowing Department of Water Supply to review and comment on subdivision construction plans concurrently with other department reviews, rather than delaying that review process until written water verification is issued. This bill does not authorize development without water, Instead, it allows early technical review of plans while preserving the county's requirement that water availability be demonstrated before a subdivision can be finalized. Members, we met on Bill 1 at our meeting on January 26, 2026, and deferred action on it, allowing the Board of Water Supply to review and comment on the bill. The board met since our committee meeting and transmitted a response dated May 21st, 2026, which can be reviewed under Granicus item number 27. Since we last met, since the board's meeting, a proposed CD1 version is before the committee attached as Granicus number 30. Specifically, the CD1 version restores the requirement for written verification prior to construction plan approval while adding a new subsection specifying that the verification process must not delay Department of Water Supply's review and comments on those plans. At this time, I would invite Department of Water Supply to introduce themselves and provide any opening comments. You already introduced yourself. Opening comments?

Good afternoon. We have no additional comments at this time. We'll see if James does. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of comments. Looking at this bill, our position is similar to before, where we feel this is a council policy decision and we can operate either way. We don't view this as creating additional work. It just changes when the work happens. And the department understands the objective of being close to what we call plan check approval status concurrent with subdivision final plat. So that's all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

So staff, do we have testifiers?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, there are individuals signed up to testify.

Chair, before we proceed with testimony, would you be able to read the testimony remarks?

I sure can. Okay, anyone wishing to testify, please sign up in the lobby, join the online meeting, or call on the phone number noted on today's agenda. For online testifiers, please click the raise your hand button. For those calling in, please follow the prompts via phone star five to raise and lower your hand, and star six to mute and unmute. Please ensure that your name on Microsoft Teams appears as the name you prefer to be referred to as or as anonymous if you wish to testify anonymously. If you are in person, please notify staff that you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of your testimony. Written testimony will continue to be accepted and can be submitted via e-comment at MauiCounty.us forward slash addendas. Staff will enable your microphone and video when it is your turn to testify. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes per item. If you are still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. You can view the meeting on Akaku Channel 53, Facebook Live, or MauiCounty.us forward slash agendas. Decorum will be maintained throughout the meeting. Breaching decorum includes anything that disrupts the orderly management of the meeting Violation at the quorum may result in being removed from the meeting. At this time, I'd like to open public testimony for Y21. Staff, please call the first testifier.

Thank you, Chair. The first individual to testify is Leilani Pulmono here in person. Please come to the podium, begin your testimony, followed by Lucien Dene on Teams. Aloha.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Chair Cook and members of the committee. My name is Leilani Pomano of Pacific Rimland. We have processed several subdivisions and I'm familiar with the subdivision processing requirements. I am testifying in support of Bill 1. Bill 1 still requires all subdivisions to show the water in order to get your subdivision and construction plans approved. This bill allows for concurrent subdivision construction plan processing while you prove that the subdivision has a long-term reliable source of water. You will not be able to get your construction plans approved without showing the water. What Bill 1 does is streamline the processing time during the subdivision construction plan process. And I ask for your support of Bill 1. Thank you.

Thank you. Any clarifying questions? No.

Not a question, but last time we heard this item, Ms. Pomona was designated as a resource.

Can I ask that we designate her again? I would agree. Is there any objections? Are you willing to sign her as a resource? Are you willing and available to be a resource? I didn't ask.

Sure. I think you need to just state what her expertise is.

So I guess as a representative from an organization that has done several subdivisions, we can have perspective from somebody who's gone through the current process. Thank you. Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Staff, next testifier.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Lucienne Dene on Teams, followed by Travis Liggett. Ms. Dene, you can begin your testimony.

Lucien, you're promoted on our end, so you would just have to go to the upper right-hand corner of your screen to mute and unmute.

Thank you. I was trying to do it on my icon. Aloha, everyone. Let's see if I can put some video on here. Good day, Chair Cook and members of the committee. My name is Lucy Andine. I'm testifying as a private citizen today, but as a person who was a staff person for Michelle Anderson, who actually worked very hard to adopt the original Ordinance 3818, I think it is, the Water Availability Bill. I'm very familiar with the history of this bill. I consulted with Ms. Anderson as she was working on it. It was based on a similar effort in California that was passed statewide in 2002 just to try to get some accountability into the water bill. availability process. So I don't really understand how this is going to speed things up. It seems to me that there is a lot of back and forth with the department during the what's called preliminary subdivision review. And I think the council should try to pin that down. And if at that point during preliminary subdivision review, a source of water can be made available, then by the time you get down to final subdivision review, that's just behind you and it doesn't hold anything up. So I'm also concerned about the change in 1412-040 where the written verification, the language is changed from no applicable subdivision shall to may. If shall and may mean the same thing, in other words, it has to be done, then why not just leave shall? May to me is a word that creates uncertainty. And that's the last thing you want when you're trying to have a clear process. also i i really wonder if there has been review by the board of water supply that had some concerns about this bill uh have they reviewed this revised version has it been reviewed by uh any of the other agencies or departments besides the uh... department of water supply had those reviews come in i i didn't that wasn't quite clear in all the materials so please make sure that is it is well reviewed i will tell you the original water availability bill was passed unanimously because Ms. Anderson went to everybody two three four times to get their comments to try to work things out and putting the approval late in the final subdivision process was a compromise. So it seems like it's kind of being compromised again. Mahalo. DIRECTOR DEWOLF.

Thank you members. Questions for testifiers. Member Palten.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Diné, for your testimony. I wanted to clarify what you had said about the portion in 14.12.040A about the shall to me. In the Section 1 portion of it, it does say, while the requirement must be met before final subdivision, final approval of subdivision construction plans, And then changing the shall, which is like a must do to me, which is kind of from mandatory to discretionary. Are you saying it creates a conflict in what Section 1 says and what 14.12.040A says?

Yes, it's like we have must at one end of thing and then we have may at the other. And I noticed that the part where we want to make sure that it must not delay the director's review, we don't say may not delay. We say must because we want that to happen. So if we really want a written verification to be part of that applicable subdivision, I think we need to say shall and not may.

Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Chair.

Members, any other questions for the testifier? So thank you. I guess my clarifying question, Ms. Nene, is the intent is basically to make it completely clear and unequivocal that a subdivision will not be approved until they show me the water component

is implemented so did you do you see that not being really clear in this well here's here's my take on this the california bill that this was modeled at uh had a uh a verification earlier in the process. So when you applied for a subdivision, you had to submit that verification document and the planning department was required to send that application for subdivision to the nearest public water district and say, what do you think, et cetera. The idea was early in the process. You try to make sure that we're on the right track in terms of a water supply, because then you can do something about it. The compromise on this bill was no one would support it being with the application process. It had to be at the end of the process with the final subdivision approval. So now what this is saying is, oh, well, you know, you can kind of be reviewing it at final subdivision, but, you know, you can just do everything else for the final subdivision and say it's all done. And then it just puts a lot of pressure on this one little narrow but extremely important bridge between a dream and a reality. You know, there's a dream of building a lot of houses and then there's a reality of do you have water for them somewhere? So it just seems to me that you should back it up rather than saying, oh, gosh, you know, because we put this at the end and now it slows down things at the end. You should just make it so that the verification comes in earlier. So there's plenty of time for the department to review it and say, yeah, yeah, this works.

Thank you. You've made that clear concern. Member Paulton has an additional question.

Thank you, Chair. One other thing I wanted to clarify is when you were mentioning about the Board of Water Supply, So on February 19th they took it up but they didn't take a vote because they wanted it explained like at their next meeting March 9th. May 21st, they gave feedback that they weren't supportive of the removal of 14.12040B and 18.20.160D challenges. And then a new ASF was posted on July 28th, 2026. So my clarification is when you are asking about Board of Water Supply weighing in, you're talking about after the 7-26 ASF posting, if Board of Water Supply had had a chance to provide feedback on the amendment summary form posted on July 28th, 2026?

Yes. Thank you for that clarification. Three minutes goes kind of fast. But yes, in a nutshell, this has had changes. Thank you. Glad that the committee heard that the public and the Board of Water Supply had some concerns. But the Board of Water Supply has some pretty knowledgeable people. Did they get a chance then to review the changes and say, great, you've addressed all of our concerns? Because if not, you should hear from them. They are our Board of Water Supply, and that is their kuleana to give that feedback.

Thank you. I think we did get written testimony as well from Mr. Hellion, and he may have signed up in person. I think he's on the Board of Water Supply, but not sure if that's currently. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

Yeah. Mahalo.

thank you members any further clarification from the testifier seeing none staff next testifier thank you chair the next person signed up to testify is travis liggett on teams followed by john helly mr leggett you can begin your testimony good afternoon council i hope everyone is well i am

Currently hooked up to an IV, so a little disheveled. This treatment is very intense. I just would like to send my regards to the person who voted against the TIG the first time because that compelled me to fight, accept this treatment, which I had declined. I'll be wouldn't be here. So hope is very meaningful, but I'll focus on this bill, which doesn't make sense to me when I just rhetorical arc opposing point. What I think the committee should be focusing on are these grave risks to human beings. And I really think that the committee should refocus on things that are placing people at risk right now. And instead of splitting hairs on theoretical water that may or may not be there, I think you should be really paying attention to legal requirements that say that if it goes in the ocean, it has to meet the ocean standard under the permit programs required by law. And so the rhetorical arc is that don't think that our taxpayer dollars should be focused on balancing water checks that are not identified yet, and should refocus on things like meeting permit requirements that keep people safe. Because I engaged with a lady who just out of the blue sent a request for a GoFundMe. She has cancer. And I started asking because cancer risks increase with inflammation. Yes, if I may just close the arc. Yeah, she has had so many infections. She swam every day at Cove Park until she was hospitalized for months and months. So my point is, these negligence things, especially when The DEM or DOH is testifying that disinfection is happening.

There is a threshold after which- Could you stick with the Department of Water Supply Issues that's on the agenda today, please?

Yes, so this new water would end up going through a system and then end up in the ocean in a way that is not compliant with the law. So the idea that we would talk about routing new water into a system where the destination of that water is non-compliant with legal requirements is at its core not internally fact-checked. So the idea is that you should cause system-level integrity before making compartmentalized decisions. That's all.

Staff next testifier. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you Chair. The next individual we have signed up to testify is John Helle followed by Albert Perez.

Can you hear me as the mic check?

We can. Aloha and welcome, Mr. Haley.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Dr. John J. Haley, and I respectfully urge the committee to file Bill 1 or at a minimum defer action until the legislative record is complete. I have submitted written testimony that explains my concerns in detail, so I would like to summarize what I believe are the essential questions concerning Bill 1. The Board of Water Supply, and I speak as an individual today, has already provided a letter to this committee finding that there is no evidence that Bill 1 will result in any time saving in the subdivision plan review. The Board further finds that the Department of Water Supply already possesses administrative authority to change its workflow whenever doing so is needed. Although that letter is absent from the agenda materials, I had provided it with my written testimony. Those findings raise what I believe are the central questions before this committee. If the department already has the administrative authority to accomplish the stated objective, what problem does Bill 1 actually solve? And second, why does Bill 1 say anything at all about what decisions the director must make? The stated purpose of Bill 1 is to improve efficiency for the public. Yet if the department already has the authority to implement the proposed workflow without new legislation, then the public benefit of Bill 1 has not been established. Furthermore, there is no reason to interfere with the director's statutory authority over water sufficiency determinations or to weaken that role, a role that is the product of more than 20 years of work by the Maui County Council in the interest of the public trust. For those reasons, I respectfully request that the committee file bill one or defer action until any need for this legislation has been clearly established and the complete legislative record is before the committee and the public. Thank you for that. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Member Paulton, you have a clarifying question.

Thank you. Yes, thank you, Mr. Haley, for your testimony. My first question is I did read the letter from the Board of Water Supply dated May 21st, 2026. Was the Board of Water Supply given a chance to weigh in on the July 28th, 2026 posted ASF? No, it was not. um okay thank you and chair would it be possible to ask for mr heli to be a resource as well um based on his extensive uh water knowledge um credentials and um knowledge on how water supply processes play out no objections members yeah no objections are you available mr heli i am i'm happy to uh be a resource thank you

Okay. Thank you very much. Next staff. Next testifier.

Thank you Chair. The next individual we have signed up to testify is Albert Perez on Teams. Mr. Perez you can begin your testimony.

ALBERT PEREZ ALBERTO PEREZ ALBERTO PEREZ Aloha Chair Cook and committee members. It's Albert Perez. You know I worked for the County of Maui and Whenever I'm presented with language like this, I like to think of how staff are gonna interpret the language and they're gonna be required to implement it. And I really feel like Lucy and Danae was saying that changing the clear language from shall to may will only make the requirement for a written verification less clear. In addition, the department, of water supply already has the ability to prioritize review of subdivision plans if they think it's advisable. This bill would remove the department's discretion and what that means is that in some cases they'll have to review projects that won't end up being able to confirm a long-term water source. That review, the time spent in that review would end up being wasted time that the department could have spent reviewing other projects thereby slowing those other projects down. So this actually seems counterproductive. So anyway, in summary, the bill is unnecessary and will provide less clear direction to staff. So I ask that you file the bill. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Perez. Members, any clarifying questions for the testifier? Member Palten?

Thank you chair. Thank you Mr. Perez for your testimony. As I wanted to clarify what you stated would be difficult for staff to interpret on based on I guess planning's feedback in their correspondence. Number two talks about clarifying early that as The ASF approval creates no vested rights to water or final approval. Adding sunset provisions require clear public disclosure and reaffirm public trust principles, water allocation priorities such as DHHL. And based on that feedback, do you see that in this new ASF posted July 20th, 2026, provided the clarity requested of the planning department?

I did not look at the planning departments. You said planning, right? Not water?

Yeah.

Yeah. So I am not familiar with their comments.

their their request for clarity, I thought was in alignment with your request that it doesn't provide that kind of clarity.

Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, you know, I used to work in the planning department and it's nice when I mean, the way it reads right now, no applicable subdivision shall be approved unless there's a long term water source verified. If you read it the other way.

To clarify what you were saying is that if it's processed in the order it comes in, processing a project that doesn't have clear water availability could take precedence over a project that does have clear water availability and slow down a project that has water availability? Is that?

That is correct. That was the second part of my testimony.

Absolutely. So it wasn't anything to do with planning's comment?

No, I didn't even see their comments. Sorry.

All right. Well, at least you're not getting paid to read this stuff. So there you go. Okay.

Members, any other questions for our testifier? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Perez.

Staff, additional testifier? Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is a representative from the Royal Patented Kingdom of Hawaii.

Aloha. This is a representative of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Yeah. And I just wanted to clarify and ask for any other subdivisions, I believe that And for a fact, not only that they're supposed to be showing if there's water availability or not, I believe that you guys have to also add in the title, like who has the correct title for any kind of lands everywhere, every single individual subdivision that it was made in the past and now, how were any of them even processed without the correct title or a clouded title? and frauded title, because as you guys should all know, all lands in Hawaii is in fact, Royal patented allodial title with land commission awards from the Mahele from during the days of the kingdom. And I just wanted to say that that would processing any of these, any subdivisions because none of us were contacted. No descendants of any of the lands was contacted for any of these construction or subdivisions to be made. And it would be a great violation of Hawaii Statute 172-11. I'm gonna read it from the source itself, from the law. Land Patents on Land Commission Awards to whom for whose benefit, which is for the descendants. 172-11, land patents on land commission awards to whom for whose benefit. Every land patent issued upon an award of the board of commissioners to quiet land titles shall be in the name of the person to whom the original award was made. Even though the person is deceased, or the title to the real estate thereby granted has been alienated and all land patents so issued shout in your to the benefit of the heirs and the signs of the holder of the original award so all of hawaii is all audio titled royal patented with the land commission awards so it should have been reverted back to those original title holders and and it belongs to their descendants forever and ever and ever mahalo and mahalo third So to making any of these subdivisions is hella illegal. And you guys got to return the lands. And yeah, it doesn't matter if there has to be water verification, if you get water on top, no matter. It got to be returned to those peoples who own that land that you guys is trying to plan on developing and constructing. Mahalo. I write by law. Yuck.

Thank you, Kate. Thank you for your testimony. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing none. Staff, next testifier. Thank you, Chair. The next. I'd like to acknowledge Chair Lee. Welcome.

Hi, Chair. I'm here in my home space alone. Looking forward to your meeting.

Thank you. Welcome. Staff, next testifier.

Thank you, Chair. The next individual sign up to testify is Stacy Allapai on Teams.

Aloha, Council Members. Long time no see. I apologize. I didn't like prepare comments in advance. I just found out this meeting was happening today. I'm still struggling with the new system to figure out when and where things are being discussed. But from what I've heard so far, it does sound like this bill is pretty half baked as I've heard from other bills. I think it would be wise to do your due diligence and make sure the Board of Water Supply And all of the different county departments have had a chance to weigh in on this before you make any decisions, especially about the amendments and the ASFs that came out last week. I doubt everyone has had a chance to really review this thoroughly. And since we're talking about water, we're talking about subdivisions, This is something that I think all of you have campaigned about the importance of water and building affordable housing and all of this stuff. And so I don't think this is a process that should be rushed. I think the show me the water ordinance is something that is one of the most colloquially familiar bills that most people actually know about it. It has a nickname and it's Changing it, taking the teeth out of it, changing things that must be to things that might be is just going to increase further distrust of government. And I don't think any of us want that. And so I would ask for you to defer this until all of the appropriate entities. have a chance to have their mona'o heard. And I specifically am requesting that you keep the teeth in this bill so that it remains the show me the water ordinance and not the maybe we have water ordinance.

Mahalo.

Members, any clarifying questions for the testifier?

Okay, thank you. Staff, next testifier. Thank you, Chair. There's currently no one else signed up to testify.

Members, without objections, if there are no more wishing to testify, I'd like to close oral testimony. Okay, thank you. As a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted into the record. So, staff, can we take a five-minute break before we have to start discussion?

Chair, because you closed public testimony, you would have to do some kind of deliberations.

Okay. If the members wouldn't mind, let's have a little deliberations, and then I'd like to take a bio break. So is deliberations... You want to start?

Yeah. Do we have anyone from Public Works available?

Oh, no. And for clarification, and this particular process, there has been confusion about the review, comprehensive review at the same time. This particular aspect doesn't affect anybody else or any other department.

How come then did you send questions to Public Works Management, DOT, DLNR, Housing, HECO, Fire, and DOH, and they didn't send any response?

No. So, and maybe Department of Water Supply could weigh in, and if you have a different perspective or information about the review when it's submitted, for concurrent review with the other departments, this is for the Department of Water Supply's review. Does it impact the other departments or do they do their own reviews separately? And I guess we could ask our resource people also after.

Yeah, these microphones are too short.

But they're wireless.

Yeah, that's true. That's a good point. So we review on our own schedule. So I understand that that's the case for all departments. And then when all the departments have completed their reviews, then that can create a condition for an applicant to resubmit for another round. But all departments typically have to complete reviews before a resubmittal can trigger a second round of review.

Does that include you folks as water supply? Yes. So basically, What do you interpret this bill as? How would you prioritize subdivision review? Is it in the order it's received? When we have time, would you review the ones that have shown water availability first and then go to ones that you have time? Do you have enough staff to...

do all at once? So there's a few questions in there. We typically review in the order received. If we had two projects to review and one of them maybe was submitted second but had water versus one that was submitted prior and didn't, we would probably utilize our discretion to prioritize that. We do prioritize the reviews that Chapter 12 does not apply to, those exemptions which are typically for affordable housing projects or infill, things like that. We're doing okay on staff, thank you for asking. And we typically review order received and then there can be a little bit of massaging of priority.

So if this bill were to pass, maybe with the shall instead of may, would you think that the wording of the bill still allows you to use your discretion to review projects that have water availability first, even if that wasn't the order received?

I would probably operate that way. I see that this this would really that this would kind of, I don't want to use the word force, but the department would review projects that don't have water also that we would move forward with that. That being the case, those are typically what we call CON permits in MAPS. Those are construction drawings associated with subdivisions. And thanks to our council on July 1st, we have a review fee for that time spent. So that's more of an at risk review if we're reviewing something that doesn't have water yet. But now that we have a fee that we're collecting for it, it's not, you know, it's not like we're reviewing something and spending that resource. Yeah. So the the I think when we discussed this earlier in the year, I was kind of like, yeah, It won't be as you know, we just would like to delay a little bit and get that fee in place.

And now that the fees in place, I guess for me, I'd like it spelled out. Not that not to leave it to whoever the director is in charge or staff's discretion that they can prioritize projects with water availability. The other question I had is when you were when I don't remember who said it, but that the rest of the department, you can't submit for a second round of questions or a second review until all the departments have reviewed it. Do you think that's a holdup in the process because You know like maybe they address the problem for planning or public works or whatever but they can't go back and say hey I addressed the problem is it good enough now until everybody weighs in. Do you think that's a hold up in the process.

FRED PODESTA. That question might be better suited for applicants and their experiences. I would say that. historically you know we've had staffing issues and it was not uncommon for water to be last to complete its review i think we're doing better and we're continuing to get better um as we get to full strength but um we it has not been uncommon for water supply to be the last outstanding right

Maybe my next round, because I don't want to keep you from going and doing what you need to do, but maybe we can talk to the applicant expert at a later time.

Okay. Thank you, Member Paulton. Members, if there are no objections, we're going to take a five-minute break. It is now 2.20. We will return it to 2.25. Welcome back, members. The White Committee of August 3rd, 2026 will reconvene. It's now 2.32 p.m. We had started our discussion. Member Poulton was the first one of the three-minute questions per member. We're going to ask our resource person, Delaney, to... come and answer some questions, help us with some information.

Good afternoon.

Welcome. Could you state your name again, please?

Leilani Pomano with Pacific Rimland.

Thank you. Member Paulton, would you like to read?

Sure. As Mr. Jensen said that you can't ask for a second round review until everybody, including water department has had their first opportunity. Is that something also that holds up things in terms of development or permitting?

Thank you for that. It does in a way, but to be honest, I think it's actually better that it happens this way. And it's probably because of the new system with maps that you actually have to have all of the agencies review as part of the subdivision. Before it used to be each, we would have to deal with each individual department at each of any time, but it actually forces the applicant to make sure that they are submitting a better review package at the second round.

And in terms of this forcing the department to review, even if there isn't current water availability, like to leave the water department out and go back for a second round with the rest of the departments, that's not something that would help speed up the process.

For the water department specifically, I think this definitely does and the bill written as now um it certainly changes the from the very first version of it i think it did take into account a lot of the board of water supplies comments and also um it also allows the construction plan process to be the part where you have to have both the long-term water source and the review of the construction plans approved before you get final subdivision do you have any objection to returning to the word shall and prioritizing projects that have shown their water availability no i think james is right or Mr. Jensen is right, is that they should have the ability to have discretion in the way how they're reviewing their permits. But I do think that also it would be good to have the policy of it being be able to have concurrent reviews. Because in the past, when subdivisions were reviewed, we had to show the long-term reliable subdivisions before Water Department started reviewing your construction plans.

Okay, I think that's it from me, thank you. Sure.

Members, any other clarifying questions for our resource people? My question is, what's the timeframe average when you do, when you make a, application for a subdivision, how many departments approximately are reviewing them? It depends.

It does depend. It normally is like from nine to 12 different agencies.

And say when water, when they look at that, I guess for clarity, this is sort of the thing that I haven't been able to convey. How long is this preliminary review?

Well, for preliminary review, there's actually a code deadline. So that preliminary review is 90 days before you get to the part where you're doing the final subdivision processing. And they're very, very good about that. All of the departments provide their preliminary comments within the 90 days.

And so their preliminary comments are going to give you the information and the structure, what you need to do to be in compliance to move on to the next stage?

Correct. For both the final subdivision plot itself and for your construction plans.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Pardon? Gabe, I'm sorry, Member Johnson.

questions yeah thank you chair and i'm i'm going to do some deliberations it's not just going to be a clarification if you're just letting you guys know um so is dr helly still on the call i have some questions for dr heli uh yes thank you very much dr heli are you available i am here Thanks for joining us, doctor. I appreciate you joining us for this meeting. I wanted to clarify and maybe to have some discussions on your test, your beginning opening remarks. You said right off the bat, you would prefer if we defer this or file this. Maybe you can say which one. Because deferred means we're going to continue on and there's some more work to be done. We're filing. This is, we need to change our course.

What do you, I'd like to hear your opinion, Dr. Well, I think this bill, you know, I'll be frank. I think the bill is kind of pointless. I think what it's, I'm not exactly sure. I've never been sure what it's really trying to accomplish. after we received testimony and I speak again as an individual, not for the board, I didn't find anything clarifying about most of what we discovered. So it remains elusive to me despite Member Cook's comments that it doesn't undercut the need for ultimate verification of water supply. It just doesn't seem to do anything useful in my mind. It doesn't shorten the review time and what it does do and how it really hasn't come up yet is it potentially interferes with the workflow that the department already has in front of it. So that was what we were referring to initially in some of our comments and the revisions have to be examined in the context of what we looked at previously because the statutory language has changed And now Title 18 is involved where it was not before. So that complicates the situation. And if you, all in your wisdom, choose to want to continue to pursue this bill, I submit that it's important that we get another look at those interactions and the implications of those changes against the background of what we've already developed.

Right. You make some very important points, doctor. I appreciate your speaking to him. I'm going to switch because I'm on limited time here. So I want to ask the department a question. Mr. Jensen, can we talk about that interference of workflow that doctor just brought up? You know, how does, first off, can you speak to that? How would it interfere with your workflow?

Yeah thanks for the question member. I I don't see it as interfering with with the workflow. It might change change up the order of review a little bit but I don't view this as creating work. It's just going to change when that work occurs. If we are really backlogged which we tend to be We'll still review, you know, we'll still get to it.

I don't see this being too disruptive. You make a very valid point. I want you to get to everything, of course, Mr. Gibson, but I'm going to show my cards, if you will. I want to prioritize affordable housing. I want to prioritize West Maui buildup after the town burned down. Those are the things that I'd like for you guys to put at the top of the pile. And in my understanding, you have the ability to prioritize review of the subdivision as it is now. Is that correct? I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? You already have the ability to prioritize reviews of the subdivisions, right? Yes. Okay. So is that a practice that you guys are doing in your department that, okay, this is an affordable housing project. Let's put that on top of the list. Okay, this is a project for West Mali. We're the whole town for now. Let's put this at the top of the list. Are you guys doing that in practice now? Yes. So I'm done with my questions, Councilmember Cook. I kind of agree with this, that this, what Dr. Haley was saying is it doesn't really achieve the goal that I appreciate the goal. Let's streamline the process. I'm here for her. But I would hate for them to say, hey, we've got to look at these other, you know, far down line project equally when we have to look at the project right in front of us for West Maui or affordable housing projects. I want them to have a preference. So that's kind of where I'm at on it. And I think my time's up. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, Member Johnson. Could you hear the bell when it rang?

I did not hear the bell. So I apologize if it did go over.

No, it's all good. I was going to let you go on anyway. Yeah, we're just checking. We're working here in our, I call this our campground. We're not our regular home. We're camping out together in the planning department. Okay, well.

i'll ask we'll have further discussion and remember johnson your your concerns i hear him and we could discuss them remember who hodgins thank you chair um can i have a quick clarifying question for you so you said if we have any other clarifying questions but we are in deliberation i can ask all the questions right my my bad i'm just camping that's okay We just came back from recess and sometimes I forget where we are. I just wanted to clarify my questions because I don't think our resource people are leaving. First, I'm going to ask Water Department, Mr. Jensen, a question. We heard in testimony that you folks are able to do exactly this, what this bill is intending to do without this legislation. Is that true? How does this impact what you guys currently do or if at all?

When I read the language in the bill, I understand it to not allow the department to kind of hold off on reviewing construction plans for a subdivision that doesn't have water yet.

and you know continue to let other projects get reviewed first that's generally how i would interpret this how many times during the subdivision process do you folks review subdivision and construction plants so this is the initial review and then what happens after you say okay and you review it, what happens to the plans as it's continuing to be reviewed by you folks and the county?

The construction drawings get submitted through maps. And then, yeah, we assign staff, staff reviews the plans against standards, against any conditions of approval tied to the preliminary plot. And then, yeah, when we eventually complete that, that plan check process.

Is something going on?

So I remember chair Cook's computer is offline, but we were kind of seeing. it's okay because he's um he's still in the room with us so i can still see him on the big board camera so we were advising that maybe we don't need to go to recess because he's in the room and he's on on okay asked if i can ask you to continue but his microphone does still work as well

okay well i think um mr jensen was explaining um you know how many times they have a bite at this apple for subdivision review yeah the um well in terms of how many bites of the apple that ends up being a question of the quality of the construction plans okay Reviews are typically maybe three reviews. They don't go on for too long in most cases.

Thank you. And then I have a question for Ms. Pomano. I think subdivisions get a little bit confusing because not too many people actually do subdivisions, building permits all the time, subdivisions less. In your opinion, how does this potentially expedite the review of the subdivision process?

How does it help? Thank you for the question. This is Leilani Pomano again with Pacific Rimland. And I can only speak from my lived experience, and I have processed more than over, I would say, 10 subdivisions in my lifetime. And previous to this administration, what has happened in the past is that you would have to prove the long-term reliable source before they even start looking at your construction plans. This administration with the chief here has definitely made an attempt to have this process be a little bit more concurrent. Okay. But I guess what the bill does is then when you have changes of administration and changes of different policy, it then still allows the department to concurrently process the subdivision and construction plans at the same time.

Okay.

Thank you. And I heard the bell. Thank you very much.

Vice Chair Sugimura, any questions?

Yes. So, Ms. Pomano, basically from what you just said, then this bill then would help clarify and just set in policy how this review would happen and not have the variations that you described from administration to administration. It would help.

Yes, it would certainly help. And again, just from our lived experience, this would have helped our subdivisions from four to 10 months to process a subdivision.

Four to 10, oh, that's a big difference. Okay, thank you. And Mr. Jensen, then same thing with you. Oh, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Mr. Jensen, basically from what Ms. Pomono just said, the department then, what is your perspective about the need for this? I mean, I don't think you were, oh, were you here? Administration to administration, just wondering. You weren't, right? So you're the head engineer that came on with Director Stafford Bean.

Yep, so... I would interpret this to not allow the department to sit on construction drawings and not review them just because they don't have confirmed water availability. Yes.

Okay. So basically exactly what the bill intends to do, right? And your department would then move forward. We're looking at construction drawings versus Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. So that last round was helpful for me because I didn't understand the difference between whether or not the administration had the flexibility to resequence its workflow, given the testimony from Dr. Helly. But it sounds like past practice had been to hold off until that written verification was provided. Current practice is to try to streamline things as much as possible, so this would codify that, which I'm fully in support of. I also don't interpret what's proposed in this ASF version to reprioritize water or reprioritize how you guys evaluate projects. Is that how you interpret it as well? All I see is that you cannot utilize the lack of written verification as a holdup for review. Yeah, I agree. Okay. And then when you speak about, in your personal testimony, it was, you spoke about water versus no water. And it's not necessarily that they don't have water, correct? It's just that they have no written verification at the time of application.

Correct.

Okay. Can you speak a little bit more about your position regarding holding off on this legislation until the impact fees were in effect?

So, yeah, it wasn't related to the impact fees. It was the review fees. Okay. Right. So, yeah, I consider this to be kind of at-risk review if it happens prior to that verification. And I am much more comfortable having a fee in place to cover at least a portion of our staff's time performing a review prior to that verification. Okay.

So it's at-risk at the discretion of the applicant.

Correct.

Okay. Question for Corp Council. There were questions during testimony regarding shall versus may. I don't see a material difference in section 14.1 to .040A. Can you speak to that one? And then under section C as well, it says must not delay the director's review and comments of subdivision construction plans. Do you have a preference on changing that one from must to may to conform with what's in section A?

So just kind of initially regarding the question on 1412040A about the change from shell to may, I don't read that as changing what the purpose is because they're both prohibitive. that says no in the front of it so it's basically may not or shall not are essentially the same thing it's a prohibition against it um with regard to you know whether in c it should be may not or must not again i i see both of those as being prohibitive so i don't really take a position are are you know in interpreting this statute our office would interpret it the same regardless of of which word term was used understood thank you chair hear the buzzer thank you remember rollins fernandez discussion i guess

My question for you first Chair. In testimony Mr. Helle asked if the bill could come back to the Board of Water Supply for review. Would you object to it being reviewed by the Board of Water Supply. And I don't know if I saw planning's response as well and it wasn't really supportive of this direction.

I'm supportive of sending it back. I would like us to continue our thorough discussion and so that the, you know, the minutes of this meeting are included. I'm looking forward for my discussion. I think it'll help clarify some of the issues and I think we're drilling down. It's a really big issue that has a lot of concern because of the potential of like opening the taps for water and that's not what this is doing. So I have no objections to that and we can address that near the end of the meeting. Thank you for your comments.

Okay, and I'll continue on the pun of not watering down the show me the water bill. Okay, so I think this is for Mr. Jensen. So the charge or the review fee did not exist until the introduction of Bill 1. And now that it's in place or wait, let me reframe. What were some of the reasons that the projects weren't reviewed? Was it only because of the written verification or was it also because you didn't want to waste your staff's time on a project that didn't have confirmed water? or I also heard you say that you folks were kind of short staff as well. And so it's not like your staff was just sitting around not reviewing projects. Okay, I'll let you respond.

Thank you for the question. Yeah, prior to my time here with the department, It is possible that lack of resources would lead to those projects not being reviewed or simply a different perspective on whether or not those projects without water should be reviewed at all. The fee is introduced regardless of this bill simply because we want to apportion the benefit cost you know to the receiver of the work. But yeah I can't really speak too much to the way things were done under prior administrations but we have been trying to get in there and get our hands on construction drawings regardless of having water or not. That's all. Thank you.

It sounded like Mr. Jensen kind of abruptly stopped, but then he also said thank you. So I don't know if he completed his thought.

Yes, I completed. Thank you.

Mahalo.

Chair Lee, discussion.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. I really don't have any objections to this bill. I support the intent of the bill, which is to expedite the review of subdivisions. However, I don't object to further review by the Board of Water Supply. I would want to remind folks who do review this to look at it from the lens of a applicant, somebody who does subdivide. None of us do. And it is a long, it can be a very long and arduous process. which ultimately delays the provision of affordable housing. So that's my point of view, Chair, and I will support your eventual proposal.

The end.

Okay.

For Chair's discussion, for I really like to clarify the meaning of the intent of this is to basically kind of level the playing field for the review process from the current director and all of the people in Department of Water Supply have shifted gears and they're doing a great job. I think the maps program getting more people becoming more familiar with it permitting and the reviews moving forward. It is a policy issue as far as whether the Department of Water Supply has the option to simply take an application, put it on the shelf because there's not water and just let it sit there until somebody comes in and says they absolutely have water. This is simply requires them to review it. They don't have to approve anything, but the process can move forward and they have to comply with whatever the Department of Water Supply says. It's not changing show me the water whatsoever. It's just enabling a subdivision to move forward. The review process is not approving anything else. So really the big thing is in the past, the department's had the opportunity to set it on a shelf and not have any, they're not bound to look at it. They're not bound to approve it, but at least it needs to be looked at. The fact, the intent not to impact other projects, affordable housing, we can include that in there as far as like Member Paulton's suggestion, as far as it doesn't, it's not prioritizing other projects. The department, I have no problem, and I think it's appropriate the department has discretion when they look at it. It's just that not having a water initially doesn't give them the opportunity to not look at it at all. So agree or not, that's the intent. It's just basically trying to make it policy uniform, not overriding the Department of Water Supplies authority, not mandating that they approve anything. The only thing is basically that they receive it at their discretion within a reasonable timeframe. They're reviewing it and giving their comments back So whoever's doing a subdivision can continue with the work and not basically just be completely stalled. And subdivisions come in a lot of different flavors. This isn't, so I'm just, that's my perspective. It isn't, I understand people are really concerned about it and they're interpreting it to be changing a whole bunch of stuff, but it isn't the bill's intent. Member Paulton?

Thank you Chair. I'm really glad to hear that other members are open to sending it back to Board of Water Supply and hearing Mr. Rose saying that there's no difference between Shell and me. I would love to go back to Shell since there's no difference and that would make people feel better. The other thing I guess I wanted to check in or have the Board of Water Supply and Water Department weigh in on is codifying or writing out the ordering of priorities. Because like you said, it, it wouldn't mean that it would take priority over, say, a project with water availability or some of the projects that have exemptions like affordable housing or whatever. So if we could, if not, maybe not us because we don't really know or not all of us know, but if between the Board of Water Supply and the Water Department, they could come up with the way that they would prioritize projects if say they got like a rush of every single type of project and times two and one had water and one didn't have water like what would be their preferred ordering and then also if we could include language as suggested by the planning department to clarify that this doesn't mean you're getting final approval there's still the public trust and the ordering of availability so if we could take your amendment summary form from july 28th adding the language recommended by planning number two, change may back to shall, and then send it to Board of Water Supply and ask specifically for their how they would like it codified that they prioritize projects, not necessarily in order received. If there's affordable housing projects that just come in or if there's other projects that do have water availability, like in an ideal world, how would they logically prioritize projects that have water, don't have water, that are affordable, not affordable, so that there's nobody needing to look behind a curtain on how they make the sausage?

So I'll weigh in. Can we just give them the discretion? I mean, it's just the water department instead of all this prioritization and telling them and structuring exactly what they have to do this. The only thing we're changing is you don't put it on the shelf forever.

You don't mind giving these guys the discretion. Who knows what a future water directors discretion would be. Maybe it doesn't need to be codified, but maybe each new administration we check in on their priority. I don't know. I would like to see how they prioritize it. I think I trust this particular director and Mr. Jensen on their discretion, not saying that would be true for all directors. And maybe we don't need to codify it. Maybe we just need to ask at the start of each new administration. But it's information I would love to know before voting. on how it would be done, prioritization.

Thank you. Members, second round. Vice Chair Sugimura, you're second. Next.

Appreciate this clarification. And during recess, I did talk to James Jensen, just asking exactly what you're talking about, because they have been taking up projects and they haven't they have that discretion and they have been using it to move projects forward. I do agree also that we're talking about subdivisions and our resource person who has the experience and what did you say about 10 subdivisions in your professional career that you do see that things are moving forward. So I support what you're trying to do chair and look forward to your recommendation, thanks.

Thanks, Chair. I guess for me, can I ask that the transmittal include a statement of need? Because we got testimony from a member of the Board of Water Supply who said that this legislation is not necessary because they're already fully empowered to resequence their workflow. But that has not always been the practice. I think this is codifying good practice that we would like to see continue. And I think the history of our review process should be included in the transmittal so that it's clear why this is necessary. I also would just like to restate my interpretation of this. It does not reorganize the priorities of the department. It just says that they cannot sit on an application for lack of written verification as had been done in the past. It would be one of many considerations that the department takes up when they prioritize. I personally don't need to see it codified. I actually think it'd be more appropriate for it to be done within the department through their policies and procedures. This doesn't need to be a legislative action for me. That's administrative in my opinion. And I'm fully in support of transmitting it back to the Board of Water Supply may want another opportunity to review and approve. I do have one question for you, Chair. My understanding was that the CD1 version was what we had taken up on January 26th, but the ASF refers to this new version as a proposed CD1. Is that a mistake, or is it supposed to be a CD2, or am I just misremembering what we took up on January 26th?

This is a new CD1.

Okay, so the ASF would revise CD1. Okay. Okay. So however we want to label this, I just want to make sure that it's clear for the record that we are transmitting the new CD1, potentially new CD2 version to the Board of Water Supply for their comments.

Thank you, Chair. Council Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. I don't have any questions at this time.

Chair Lee?

Just a couple comments. One that I don't know a lot of people who subdivide, but because of many subdivisions, that's how we produce housing. And what we want, our priority is affordable housing. So the longer we delay the processing of subdivisions which create affordable housing, the cost goes up. So I wouldn't bank, I mean overly rely on the bureaucratic point of view. I would look at the applicant's point of view and see how we can expedite the process in a fair way, but not adding cost to the end buyer. So those are my concerns. And because if we keep things as is, then everything will remain as is. High cost of living, the time it takes to process applications. So those are my comments. Thank you.

Chair Cook, I just was going to clarify. I thought that the affordable housing part is exempt from that and that it automatically gets pushed to the front based on Chair Lee's discussion. I thought that I believe that's the case also. So we don't need to worry about that because affordable housing.

Are we saying that these subdivisions are strictly luxury homes?

No it's not it's not affordable is the affordable homes are not held up by the process because show me the water has an exemption for the affordable homes it's it's not necessary that it's luxury.

What about projects that have both affordable and luxury homes. That's that's part of the same development.

That's a question for Mr. Jensen.

So for a project to be exempt from Chapter 12 our department receives a letter, an agreement from the applicant. It's an agreement between the applicant and the Department of Housing that it's been reviewed and concurred as a qualifying project. Then it qualifies for that Chapter 12 exemption, which allows it to move through the process a little faster. And then more importantly, it exempts that project from the administrative rule restriction on the volume of water that we can approve for that use.

So Mr. Jensen, you're saying that if a project contains a market component and an affordable component, only the affordable moves forward because it's exempt, or the entire project, even with a market component, moves forward in an expedited way? Can you clarify this?

Yeah, typically the entire project would get that agreement with the Department of Housing, but I am not sure I've seen us handle a mixed project in the last couple of years. So I'd have to go back and look at what we've recently reviewed that wasn't 100% affordable.

Yeah, because we wouldn't have applicants of workforce housing complain if if all their applications are expedited. So obviously there is a disconnect here. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Lee, is that it?

Yep.

Okay, thank you. Member Uhu Hodgins.

Thank you, Chair. Okay, do we have planning with us or no?

Just one, okay.

Because in their letter, Water and Corp Council.

Okay, Water and Corp Council, great.

In planning's letter, they were concerned about DHHL. So if we're going to send this conversation over to the Board of Water Supply, which thank you for doing, I think it would be good to note what the DHHL process of their subdivision is like, because I don't think it's the same as our regular process. And so I understand their concern, but I think they should clarify. I'm not even 1,000% sure what the difference is between a subdivision that has DHHL homes and a subdivision that does not. And then let me see my other questions. Oh, did you make the proposed changes or did Corp Council? And I'm wondering... why the changes, or maybe from water, why the changes are necessary from the changes of the CD1 to CD1, new CD1?

It was based on border water supply feedback, and the essence of it is stating, underlining, and clarifying that it is not changing the changes

the power of the to it is not allocating water to anybody department okay the director maintains the authority to approve or disapprove okay thank you and out of i think my curiosity because subdivisions are very confusing for me i'm wondering if miss pomano can explain kind of like what the process is like on their end um And I know she explained how this would help, but currently, what does the process look like?

Please.

There's actually a really good PowerPoint. Is that part of the record that the department provided? It was a subdivision process overview, and I believe that was a PowerPoint that the board of the Department provided to the Board of Water Supply on the process itself. And if you were to look at that, it does a really good job of outlining the department's processing of a subdivision.

Oh, I don't know if we got that. And if we didn't, or if we did, is it uploaded on Granicus that I can look at? I don't know. If we did it a couple of months ago, I feel like I have PTSD from this job. So I have short term memory loss and sometimes long term memory loss.

It was a part of the Board of Water Supplies beating, I believe the department provided that.

Okay. Department of Water, did you provide that to us as well in the last meeting we had about this in January? I don't remember.

I don't think so. I think that presentation was was given specifically by request from our Board of Water Supply.

Okay, cool. Can you send over that presentation to HOU, I mean, not HOU, this committee or any other committees so we can have fire review too, please?

Yes.

Thank you. I think that's all I have for now, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. So has everybody had two rounds? Member Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair, for my second round. I think, I don't know who this would be for. So I'm just going to ask the question and whoever can answer me, please do. In planning's response, it says Bill 1 changes the timing of water supply verification for subdivisions, but does not affirm Native Hawaiian water rights, the state's public trust responsibilities, protections for freshwater ecosystems or DHHL reservations as a priority. If we were to implement or incorporate the or the comment of planning, would that make sense in this bill now or would that be like a different section?

Personally, I don't think it's necessary. i would i would like to not mandate what the department water department of water supply is doing as far as their administrative rules this is modifying a an aspect and it isn't really changing their authority or their roles so if the planning department has an issue with the way that they're doing it then that's different this particular bill doesn't impact that it's the only thing it's doing is through policy requiring that they take subdivisions in and they review it and at their discretion within their timeframe and not set it on a shelf until they come in with demonstrating that they have water. So that's the one aspect really of this bill. It doesn't change anything that the Department of Water Supply is doing. It just is requiring them to accept it when everybody else is receiving it and do a preliminary review, come back with all of their comments of what's needed. And that's the only thing that this bill does. It's very simple. It's not telling them what to do. It's not changing their authority. It's not allocating water. It's not doing anything besides when you receive a subdivision, like all of the other departments, you will take it in and review it within a certain timeframe. And with comments, they're not approving it. They're just, and I could be mistaken for our chief engineer, is that accurate? And if it's not, let me know if that's an oversimplification.

In terms of not approving?

No, as far as what this bill does, this bill is, requiring that the department receive an application whether they have water or not and they do their preliminary review that's the only thing basically it does that that's how i read it yes it doesn't change your doesn't change the result or the outcome or anything and it doesn't prioritize them it just basically changes from right now where it's show me the water or we won't even look at it depending upon their discretion or receive it like every other department comment and no commitments is that accurate i agree yes thank you sir does that help uh yes but i heard the timer you took up all my time um

I'm all over that explanation. I do see director turning on his video, but really quick. So I guess I heard Mr. Jensen say that there hasn't been many mixed subdivisions that they've reviewed. And, you know, since projects under 2.97 or that is 100% affordable is exempt from this section. And what project are we trying to help? I don't understand. Like if this isn't something that comes up often, who are we delaying? I don't, you know, like if we're, if affordable housing is what we need and they're exempt from this section and then we're gonna be helping someone else, I don't understand who it is that we're helping. But I see director, director?

Oh, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to point out that the county code does require the Department of Water Supply to consider public trust uses as it considers the availability of water supply, as it should, but that is already codified. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

Mahalo, Director. Mahalo, Chair. And I don't know if you have any comments or response, because I don't know if I maybe misunderstood Mr. Jensen as far as, like, not many mixed-use subdivisions for their review. And if that's so, I don't understand. What projects are we trying to help with this, Bill?

You're asking me?

Yeah, you introduced it.

I will just say level the playing field. It isn't like prioritizing any project. It's just the process of accept, of receiving a subdivision application and reviewing it. It's like we already, so it's just the process. It isn't, it's making it so that it's sort of fair and level. Nobody's gonna get, nobody gets any additional approval. It's just basically enabling it to move forward at somebody's own risk.

Well, okay, so here, I assume that this was, like, a widespread problem that you were trying to address with this bill, right? When we introduce legislation, we kind of want to address, like, you know, problems that are going to help, like, a lot of people. But if this is only going to help, like, one project, like, and we're spending all this time, department time, board time, you know, like...

Okay, I didn't, that isn't the case at all. When I say it's leveling the playing field, let's let Chair Lee weigh in.

Yeah, I was going to ask Ms. Pumano. She's the one that has done 10 projects. Are they all market homes that you've done?

Are they all market homes? No, it's all kinds of different projects. It's light industrial, it's housing projects, it's So it's every single subdivision, basically, because this is a subdivision code.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Does that answer your question, Member Rollins-Fernandez?

I mean, not really. I mean, if we said, like, how many of these, would like the 10?

So the 10 for my processing, I'm sure there's lots more subdivisions out there.

And so your 10 were delayed because of this section of the bill?

I think what this bill does is streamline the process. And we're always talking about, and I guess in general, that we're wanting to streamline permitting processes. And this is just one avenue of streamlining a permitting process.

So have any, like your 10 projects, were they delayed because of this section of the bill?

In the last two subdivisions that we had done, it had delayed our subdivisions anywhere from four months to 10 months. What kind of projects were the two projects? Housing and a mixed-use subdivision.

under like 2.96 or what kind of housing projects?

No, it's just a general subdivision, a residential subdivision project. And a mixed use project that did include the Lapua Apartments, which is the affordable housing projects that thank you very much for providing funding to. Okay.

Mahalo, Ms. Pumanu. Mahalo, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Sugimura.

Yeah. So from what I'm listening and hearing, I hear the concerns. And basically, I think if you clarified this and I support what you're trying to do, then, you know, we may get more subdivision projects and it may then look like that we're not hindering the progress to move forward, you know. um and the concern of department um expressing that they can do this now and they are doing it but this would then codify what the department is doing so thank you so in summary um i'm willing to send it back to the board of water supply if that's what the

body wants and agrees and agreeing to. And the reason is basically so people can weigh in. I'm hopeful that the minutes of this and our discussion help clarify that this is only changing the the need to review it isn't dictating everything but it can't be put on the shelf for indefinitely like this happened in previous administrations until you come in with water i think i just want to give the water department um a lot of credit for what they're doing now uh reaching out working with the administration and the council to purchase private water systems. They're developing wells with DLNR. They're developing wells potentially with DHHL. they're building water tanks or building the lines they're trying to build resiliency into the system so that it can be pumped around and and more efficiently used they're expanding the filtration and the reservoir at the kamaoli plant up in halei maile which is significantly going to assist potential supply for um upcountry residences and farming so we're we're making progress on many many fronts on the water the intent of this bill is to simply streamline and enable so that sort of the rules of the road when engineers and people are doing it that they don't have this wild card as far as if it's going to be reviewed. They have the discretion. I trust that they would. The bill's a lot simpler when people are making it out to me. So I propose to defer this bill. Go ahead. Member Paulton.

In the transmittal where we send it over to the Board of Water Supply can we also ask like like I said I'm not attached to it being codified but I would like to know the department's like how they prioritize it. Just I mean it doesn't need to be codified but I think we should ask this administration and every subsequent administration how they intend to prioritize And hopefully it remains consistent so we're all playing by the same rules each time. But I would like to know that information, whether it gets codified or not.

I don't have any objection. Members, any objection? Staff? Is that something that you can...

Thank you, sir. We've noted that. We've noted that. Thank you.

Members, is there any other aspects that you'd like to weigh in on? The transmittal?

for the transmittal, can we say like Shell and me are the same and so we find that we'll go back to Shell because it makes people more comfortable.

Chair has no objections with that. Does anybody else have a comment? Seeing none, you got that staff? Okay.

And one last question. Sorry, Mr stuff will be in. Can you point us to wearing the code it already? Prioritizes like the teacher and like that you said it's already in there. Can you point us to the section of that where it is?

Director stuff will be. Are you with us?

I am, and to get out of that, it's 14, hold on just a second here. It's 14.06A.010.

Thank you. I always trust you, but verify as well.

Understood. Okay, that's it. Stan, you have all of that? Okay. Thank you, members. This will be deferred for further conversation after the Board of Water Supply comments, and hopefully they'll do that promptly. Members, this concludes today's Water and Infrastructure Committee meeting. Thank you, everyone, for being here and for a very thoughtful, thorough discussion. meeting the time is now 3 33 and this meeting is now adjourned