2019-03-07 Hearing Transcript - Piilani Partners Request for Reconsideration SMA 18-000070

Home

KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries six, nothing. CLARKSON: Okay, at this time, the Chair will ask for a motion for action on the application, the original application from Piilani Partners. REPLOGLE: I wouldI move that the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit Docket No. SMA 18-000070 be denied for the following reasons. We were given public trust factors to be considered for when approving or denying applications. And, one is the agency's duty and authority is to maintain the purity and flow of our waters for the future generations and to assure that the waters of our land are put to reasonable and beneficial use. Giving private business access to our water so that they may enrich themselves is not reasonable or beneficial use to our natural resource for our people. I see nothing in the application that is in the public trust or interest. Number 2, the agency must determine whether the proposed use is consistent with trust purposes, maintenance of waters in natural state, protection of domestic water use, access, enjoyment, and resource protection. Will the water remain in its natural state if at the time of drilling water from the Mauna Kea Aquifer, excuse me, water from the Mauna Loa Aquifer leaks into the Mauna Kea Aquifer, a risk the public may be willing to take at a future date should the need for water arise as a result of water depletion in our present sources of water become acute. However, at this time, to take that risk will do nothing for the public trust or in the public's best future interests. It will not provide protection of future domestic water use. Three, the agency needs to apply a presumption in favor of public use access, enjoyment, and resource protection. We are to presume in favor of the public use. The public has spoken and given written testimony. That's what all this is [holding up his copies of public testimony]. This is one person per page stating they don't want this to happen. Where am I — the public has spoken and given written testimony stating why this application should be denied. All may not be legally part of the debate, however, they are true, in fact, serious concerns of our natural resources beyond the extraction of water and a water bottling facility. So, we're talking about plastic or ecosystem services. Again, approving application SMA 18-000[0]70 is not in the best interest of the public trust. I skipped the next two and went to six. The agency must apply reasonable beneficial use standard which requires examination of the proposed use in relation to other public and private uses. Having access to the land from which to pump the water, being close to all forms of shipping and knowing all the right people does not give vested rights to water. Being private and EXHIBIT B 23