|
Ten Reasons Not to Repeal or Amend the Existing Law
1. Current law protects existing customers of public water systems from having the water resources they depend on "overpromised" to new developments.
2. The Water Resources Committee is being asked to repeal or amend this accountability tool BEFORE Maui has even updated its 1990 Water Resource and Development Plan (WUDP). This would leave us with
no "master water plan" (WUDP) and no "reality check" (strong Water Availability law) to guide our future water needs.
3. By not insisting that Maui's Water Master Plan (WUDP) be completed first, and proposing to gut the Water Availability law, the Water Resource Committee would force Maui
to return to the "Wild West " of water allocation where no proof of any reliable water source was required for Central, South and West Maui developments to be approved.
The Maui County Code (MCC 2.88A.040) is clear about the legally required role of the WDUP: "The
plan shall serve as a guideline to the council, the board and all other agencies
or departments of the County …in using public funds to develop water resources to
meet existing or projected future demands on the public water system as set forth in the plan."
4. Current law gives incentives to 100% affordable housing projects. The Mayor's Advisory Committee recommends AMENDING the law to DELETE
the 100% affordable language, and EXEMPT ANY SUBDIVISION with a workforce housing agreement with the County (in other words, ALL new subdivisions, 75% of which are not affordable to local residents, would be exempt from showing any source of water before they
are allowed to sell off lots!) This amendment should be rejected.
5. Current law requires the County Water Director to review and comment on engineering reports submitted to the Department of Health for private
water systems. The Mayor's Advisory Committee recommends AMENDING the law to EXEMPT
all private water systems from any review for water availability. This is a bad idea. The County is required to review the developments to meet health, safety and other rules. How can the
county review the proposed development with no assurance of its water source? Private systems can also have a very real impact on existing public system water users, since many aquifers are shared by both public and
private systems. This amendment should be rejected.
6. Current law (MCC 18.20.180-220) requires that landowners post a bond as part of the subdivision requirement for approval of construction plans. The bond is to ensure
funding for needed infrastructure, including development of new water resources for the project. If the law is repealed or "amended" to EXEMPT virtually all developments, only water distribution infrastructure will be bonded, not water source. If water source
is not bonded and lots are sold, but water source is inadequate or not developed, the county could be held responsible for providing water service, whether it has system capacity or not, since it permitted the subdivision. The current law holds the developer
responsible to pay for the new water source. This language was requested by the Dept of Public works when the law was first passed in 2007. It should not be amended or repealed
7. The current law encourages water conservation design in new developments since they are required to evaluate and provide for their project-specific water needs. With
no proof of reliable water source required, there is little incentive for new projects to design state of the art systems to use water efficiently.
8. The Water Availability policy (MCC 14.12) states:
"The Council acknowledges and affirms that
water is a natural and cultural resource that must be protected, preserved, and
managed as a public trust, and hereby establishes a policy that requires
verification of a long-term, reliable supply of water before
applicable
subdivisions are approved." This language upholds the provisions in the state Constitution that affirm water resources as a public trust resource which the state and its agencies (ie the counties) have a duty to protect. Repeal
or gutting the Water Availability law through amendments violates the state Constitution by defining no subdivisions as "applicable" to verify a long-term reliable supply, therefore, the county would have no say in protection of public trust water resources.
9. The current law requires the Water Dept Director
to review and comment on private water system engineering reports during the department of
health's inter-agency review period and base comments on a wide variety of factors that could
affect existing users, Hawaiian Homelands, stream flows, traditional and cultural use,etc. Director Taylor and others want this section of the law removed saying the State Water Commission should offer comments, not the County water department. It should
not be removed, since the County, as an agency of the state, has the duty to uphold protection of public trust resources and comment on protected water uses.
10. This ordinance is a fail-safe measure for the public and for it’s most important public resource, water.
|
