2020-02-06 Exh B Piilani Partners Remand SMA 18-070

Home

conclusion was changed, I indicated that change. So, just as an example, finding of fact one is derived from finding of fact one in the original decision except that some of the language in the original decision, finding number one has been deleted. And, you can see that that's the red language that has the strikethrough. So, there was a—and I also just noticed this morning when I was reading this on the plane again that that first date is wrong, and it was probably wrong in the original decision. Piilani's application was not submitted in 2019. It was 2018. So, findings two through eight are identical to the same findings in the original decision. Finding nine has some language deleted. Ten and 11 are the same. Findings 12 through 17 are new, and all they do is update the procedural history, so the original decision cut-off on the date it was made, and this updates the history since then. Findings 18 through 50 are identical, so you can just flip through a number of pages. There are no changes there. No changes until we get to finding 51. And, in finding 51 some of the language from the original finding 44, which is the one that corresponds, has been deleted, but you're going to see that language again soon. Finding 54 is a new finding. The original decision omitted the fact that, that Piilani was proposing to build a recycling and redemption center that would divert some plastic bottles from the waste stream. It also forgot to mention when we're talking about potential benefits and continues not to mention that Piilani has also proposed a $100,000 scholarship endowment fund, which I think is a benefit. So, that brings us up to 55 through 59, which are purportedly new allegations of harm. Most of these are either directly from the original opinion or derived from the original opinion with one exception that we'll talk about. Paragraph 55, though, or finding 55, says "Piilani's December 20, 2018 letter stated that contamination of the aquifer would occur if the pipe valve were not closed during tsunami." Now that's language, that's not new. That was extracted from finding 51, what used to be finding 44. So, that's been litigated by the Court. It's not a new finding. It was thoroughly discussed, but the more fundamental problem is that Mr. Nance's December 22, 2018 memo said no such thing. It's already in the record, but Mr. Fuke will give you a copy. [Mr. Fuke passed out copies. ] You know, some of you will remember when Mr. Nance was here testifying in person, and he said there were two things that could happen that they would not know until the well was actually drilled. Either the piezometric head of the artesian water would be higher than the ground level in which case the well would be free-flowing and wouldn't require a pump or the piezometric head would be lower than the ground level, in which case there would need to be a pump. Mr. Nance thought that the former condition, a free-flowing well, was far more likely. So, what Mr. Nance actually said about what would happen during a tsunami depended in part on whether the well was free-flowing or not. If the well was free-flowing which he though was very likely, there would be no issue. It would be completely sealed. There would be no way for water to get into the well during a tsunami. It's only in the condition where the well is not free-flowing that having a pump would require it to have a vent that would require it to have a valve. He's EXHIBIT B 14