2018-04-05 Hearing Transcript - Hu Honua Bioenergy SMA 221 (Partial Remand)

Home

contested case hearing, what are we going to do with that? There was some alternatives proposed at the time during the hearing, including the use of injection wells, and ultimately, a decision had not been engineered and made yet because it was during the course of a contested case hearing. So, subsequent to that, Hu Honua listened to concerns of the public and decided ultimately that it would be better not to use the Outfall to discharge water that came from plant operations. Instead, it would redirect that into injection wells and, of course, that's why our position today is that we are not repairing or replacing Outfall 001. We have changed plans essentially as we noted, as an alternative plan during the original contested case hearing, and that's what's here before us today. The ICA in this matter found that the record wasn't as complete as it liked, and so it's asking the Commission today to address this situation and clarify what we're going to do with respect to Outfall 001 and that's our answer. Now, with respect to—with respect to the comment that, you know, DLNR has determined that if we are using this Outfall, then we need to potentially get an easement or get an EA or do an EA for example. With respect to that, first of all, there's some context that needs to be laid. The DLNR never once contacted us for information regarding this. This response was directly to Ms. Rohr, and it was in response to several letters and documentation that she provided to the DLNR, and quite frankly, we question the accuracy of a lot of that information. Some of the information is stale. Some of the information was characterized in an inaccurate way. So, we have not yet spoken to the DLNR regarding this letter prior to the issuance of this letter. Be it as it may, we will be talking with the DLNR going forward on this matter. We don't believe this results in any change to our position. It does not affect the ICA remand issue which is specifically as to the impact, not the use now, it's only as to the impact to the shoreline. The use issue is a separate and distinct issue that we can deal with, with the DLNR. They are the appropriate agency to deal with this issue, and we will be talking with the DLNR regarding that issue. There are a lot of questions as to whether that even applies to us given that the Outfall was constructed on or about 1948, which predates 1970 which is typically the trigger date for, you know, getting permit approvals before you do any kind of putting in of a new structure, for example. There are issues as to whether, you know, this "use" is referring to development generated use; in other words, extra water that's being made as a result of us putting in this new development here versus natural rainwater that would continue to flow anyway off the pali if there was no development. So, what we're here today to talk about is the development generated water. The water that Hu Honua is creating as a result of this project. Thank you. CLARKSON: Do we have any questions? Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Yeah, I have a question. Let me just clarify for me to really understand this. So, there will be no water from the operations of the plant that will be going through the Outfall 001. EXHIBIT C 21