Council panel sends water bill back to Water Board amid questions over need

The Maui County Council’s Water and Infrastructure Committee agreed Monday to return a revised subdivision bill to the Board of Water Supply for further review. The move came after committee members and testifiers questioned whether the measure changes anything the Department of Water Supply can’t already do on its own.

Bill 1 (2026) would change the county’s water availability policy so the department can begin reviewing subdivision construction plans at the same time as other departments, rather than waiting until a developer has secured written verification of a long-term water source. Supporters say the change would streamline the process without weakening the county’s Show Me the Water requirement, which would still apply before final subdivision approval.

Committee Chair Tom Cook, who introduced the bill, said its intent is to focus on the Water Department’s review of subdivision construction plans without waiting for the director’s written confirmation of a water source.

“It isn’t dictating everything,” he said, but a project “can’t be put on the shelf indefinitely like has happened in previous administrations.”

The bill is “a policy issue,” he said, “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 no water and just let it sit there until somebody comes in and says, ‘They absolutely have water.’ ”

The bill would require the department to review subdivision applications before water availability is verified, Cook said. “They don’t have to approve anything, but the process can move forward systematically… It’s not changing show me the water whatsoever.”

James Jensen, the department’s chief engineer, told the committee the bill is a “Council policy decision.”

“We can operate either way,” he said. “We don’t view this as creating additional work. It just changes when work happens, and the department understands the objective of being close to what we call plan check approval status.”

Testimony splits on whether the bill is necessary

Leilani Pulmano testified in support of the bill on behalf of Pacific Rim Land.

“Bill 1 still requires all subdivisions to show the water in order to get your subdivision and construction plans approved,” she said. “This bill allows for concurrent subdivision construction plan processing while you prove that the subdivision has a long-term, reliable source of water.”

Allowing concurrent review, which Bill 1 would codify, could address those delays, she said. “I can only speak from my lived experience,” she told the committee.

But John Helly, a Board of Water Supply member speaking as an individual, urged the committee to file the bill or defer action indefinitely. He said the bill is unnecessary. “What statutory problem does Bill 1 actually solve?” he asked.

More importantly, he said, the committee has not been presented with any justification for changing the relationship between the water director’s legal determination of long-term water availability and the administrative review of subdivision construction plans.

“The director’s written verification is not merely another procedural step in the subdivision process,” Helly said. “It is the statutory safeguard enacted by previous Councils to ensure that development proceeds only after a long-term, reliable water supply has been established.”

Helly said council members enacted the “Show Me the Water” ordinance originally in 2007 and reaffirmed it in 2012. “The existing Water Availability Policy did not arise accidentally,” he said. “It reflects deliberate legislative judgments regarding the role of long-term water availability in the subdivision approval process.”

Lucienne de Naie, a former staffer to former Council Member Michelle Anderson, who helped write the county’s original water availability ordinance, also raised doubts about the bill’s purpose.

“I don’t really understand how this is going to speed things up,” she told the committee.

De Naie separately objected to a proposed change in the bill’s underlying code section that would replace the word “shall” with “may” regarding written water verification, arguing the switch would create legal ambiguity.

Board of Water Supply letter

In a May 21 letter, Board of Water Supply Chair Nichole Inouye-Nohara said the board reviewed Bill 1 and found no evidence the measure would result in any time savings in the Water Department’s processing of subdivision plan reviews.

Instead, it would require the department to reorder its workflow to move subdivision reviews to the front of the line, but not shorten review time overall. “In other words, there is no efficiency gain to be effected by this bill, although it would cause displaced work to be delayed and those interruptions may, in fact, lead to new inefficiencies,” Inouye-Nohara wrote.

She wrote that the bill contradicts its “framing that it does not change how DWS approves water supply. In fact, it removes DWS’s ability to condition or withhold construction plan approval based on water concerns.”

Planning Department comments

In a Feb. 27 letter, Department of Planning Director Jacky Takakura was equivocal about the bill, saying it “may streamline the subdivision process” and “could improve efficiency, reduce delays and enhance interagency coordination,” while “potentially supporting economic development and housing.”

She was more firm in saying: “However, approving construction plans before confirming water availability conflicts with long-standing policies requiring infrastructure, especially water to be available prior to or concurrent with development.”

“Early approval could create pressure to allocate water after significant (developer) investment, potentially undermining safeguards, public trust obligations, Native Hawaiian and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands water priorities and sustainable infrastructure planning,” Takakura said.

“To avoid potential misunderstanding,” Takakura suggested making it clear in the bill that “early approval creates no vested rights to water or final approval.”

Council Member Tamara Paltin said the committee should include the language suggested by the Planning Department.

Committee members weigh in

Council Member Kauanoe Batangan said he does not object to the bill’s underlying intent but asked that any transmittal to the Board of Water Supply include a formal “statement of need.” This would respond to the board chair’s argument that the legislation isn’t necessary because the Water Department is already “fully empowered to resequence their workflow,” he said.

Batangan said he views the change as codifying the Water Department’s current procedure as a “good practice that we would like to see continue,” but added, “I personally don’t need to see it codified.” He suggested that the same outcome could be achieved through department policy rather than ordinance.

Council Chair Alice Lee supported the bill’s intent, telling Cook, “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.”

Lee said she did not object to further review by the Board of Water Supply, and urged colleagues to consider the perspective of an applicant going through the subdivision process. She noted that delays ultimately hinder the timely delivery of affordable housing.

Council Member Nohelani Uʻu-Hodgins separately voiced support for the bill after questioning Jensen directly about whether the department could already do what the bill proposes without new legislation. “I support what you’re trying to do, chair, and look forward to your recommendation,” she said.

Paltin also questioned the “shall” to “may” change and asked that the Board of Water Supply and the Department of Water Supply jointly explain how they would prioritize subdivision applications — for example, projects with confirmed water availability versus those without, or affordable housing versus market-rate development — before the committee acts further.

Next steps

The committee agreed to send the revised bill to the Board of Water Supply for another round of comment before taking further action. Members also changed “may” back to “shall” in the draft bill, with Cook commenting that that seemed to make everybody more comfortable.

No timeline was given for when the board might respond or when the bill could return to committee.