HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0725.000 1998-2000 4PI \ p 9~
BENJAMIN J. CAVETANO 0' TIMOTHY E JOHNS
coveANOn o. rnwai (J cr~nwaeesorv
BRUCE S. ANDERSON "
ROBERT G. GIRALD
BRIAN C. NISHIDA
~A ' - DAViDA fIOBRIGA
~~eNptp.pf~ _ HERBERT M. RICHARDS, JR
LINNELT NISHIOKA
oevun oiaec~on
STATE OF HAWAII i ~ fj ~
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
P.O. BOX 621
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 .
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chair
County of Hawaii
Legislative Branch
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Arakaki:
I am pleased to transmit a copy of the "Statewide Framework for Updating the Hawaii
Water Plan" recently adopted by the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) at
its meeting on February 16, 2000.
As you are aware, the State Water Code, Chapter 174C, Hawaii Revised Statutes,
requires development and regular updating of the Hawaii Water Plan (HWP) to guide the
CWRM in executing its general powers, duties, and responsibilities. In keeping with this
statutory mandate, state and county components of the HWP last adopted by the CWRM in 1990
need to be reviewed and updated in accordance with the attached framework document.
There is general consensus among state and county agencies that a comprehensive water
resource planning process is essential to address the problems of supply, demand, and
conservation of water. The CWRM similarly maintains that an updated HWP is needed to
ensure effective coordination and integration of state and county actions related to sustainable
water resource development.
Updating of the HWP must, however, follow and utilize an evaluation and assessment
process that emphasizes the consideration of various planning scenarios incorporating
uncertainties, environmental externalities, and public needs into a strategic decision-making
process. Using an Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process to update the plan, all types of
supply-side and demand-side resources would be assessed and weighed equally, including new
source development, wastewater reuse, conservation, alternative rate structures, and other
demand-side management methods.
This IRP-based planning approach has been endorsed by the CWRM and is set forth
within the statewide framework for updating the HWP. The framework delineates and
establishes minimum requirements for each component plan, as well as the overall-planning
framework that should be followed by responsible state and county agencies.
Comm. No. 72~
Fila No.
Kef. '1'0:
Ref. llate MAR 2 9 2000
Mr. James Y. Arakaki MAP 2 ~ 1';i,:
Page 2
The HWP framework should be viewed as a long-term vision to preparation of a "living
document" which over several iterations will result in a truly comprehensive water resource
protection and management plan. The CWRM envisions that the use of integrated resource
planning techniques and the incorporation of a public and stakeholder participation process as
proposed under the HWP framework will result in the achievement of each agency's desired
planning objectives. As part of our continuing public outreach efforts, we have also posted the
framework document on the CWRM's Website at w"w.staie.hl.usdlnr~cwrm to facilitate public
access by interested parties.
The Commission on Water Resource Management looks forward to working with you
and your administration throughout the updating process of the Hawaii Water Plan. We thank
you for your support, assistance, and continued cooperation in protecting our most precious
resource. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Linnel Nishioka,
Deputy Director for the Commission on Water Resource Management at 587-0214.
Sincerely,
~.;~c~ii ° ~t~~(
TIMOTJ'IY/~E. JOHNS
Chairperson
DNad
Attachment
STATEWIDE FRAMEWORK
FOR UPDATING THE
HAWAII WATER PLAN
February 2000
'J
h
Commission on Water Resource Management
Department of Land and Natural Resources
State of Hawaii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section I -Framework Objectives .........................................................................1-1
Introduction l -1
Framework Objectives ........................................................................................1-1
Status ojthe Hawaii IYater Plan ........................................................................1-2
Organization ojthe Framework Document .......................................................1-2
Section II -Framework for the Hawari Water Plan ............................................2-1
Genera/ ................................................................................................................2-1
The Planning Context .........................................................................................2-1
Integrated Approach jor the Hawaii Water Plan ..............................................2-3
Relalionships between Plan Components ..........................................................2-5
Elements ojan IRPApproach ............................................................................2-6
Integration of tke County Ltvel ..........................................................................2-8
Section III -Roles, Responsibilities and Requirements for the
Hawaii Water Plan ....................................................................................3-1
Genera! ................................................................................................................3-1
Commission on Rater Resource blanagement ..................................................3-1
Water Resource Protection Plan ....................................................................3-1
Legal Mandate and Specific Statutory Requirements ..............................3-1
Recommended Plan Elements ..................................................................3-2
Declaration ojCWRMGoals, Objectives, and Policies ....................3-2
Nature and Occurrence of Resources ................................................3-3
Resource Management and Protection ..............................................3-3
Resource Conservation and Augmentation ........................................3-4
Department ojHealth .........................................................................................3-b
Water Quality Plan .........................................................................................3-6
Legal Mandate and Specific Statutory Requirements ..............................3-6
Recommended Plan Elements ..................................................................3-7
Source Water Assessment Program ...................................................3-7
Developing Effective Linkages Between Inter-Agency Programs .....3-8
Recommended il'QP Guidelines ........................................................3-9
Department ojtand and Natural Resoruces .....................................................3-9
State Water Projects Plan ...............................................................................3-9
Legal Mandate a»d Specific Statutory Requirements ..............................3-10
Recommended Plan Elements ..................................................................3-10
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Department ojAgriculture .................................................................................3-13
Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan .............................................3-14
Legal Mandate and Specific Statutory Requirements ..............................3-14
Recommended Plan Elements ..................................................................3-14
County Government ............................................................................................3-18
County Water Use and Development Plan ....................................................3-19
Legal Mandate and Speck Statutory Requirements ..............................3-19
Recommended Plan Elements ..................................................................3-19
Need
jor Flexibility .................................................................................3-26
Development ojCounty-Specific Project Description .............................3-26
Summary ojFramework Guidelines jot LfWP Components ............................3-28
Section IV -Framework Implementation Plan ....................................................4-1
Overview .........................................................................:....................................4-1
Detailed /mplementatmn Steps - Phas~ / ..........................................................42
Detailed Implementation Steps - Phast II
.........................................................4-10
Detailed Implementation Steps -Phase III .......................................................4-13
ii
LIST OF FIGURF,S A.'VD TABLES
Iv'umber Description Page
Figure 2-1 Framework for the Hawaii Water Plan ...................................................2-4
Figure 2-2 Elements of an IRP Process ..............................................•-....................2-7
Figure 4-1 Schedule for Adoption: Hawaii Water Plan Framework ........................4-4
Table 4-1 Summary of Tasks and Activities: 1999 Update of the R'RPP ..............4-5
Table 4-2 Summary of Tasks and Activities: 1999 Update of the SVJPP ..............4-7
Table 4-3 Summary of Tasks and Activities: 1999 Update of the Oahu WUDP ...4-9
Ill
LIST OF .4BBREVIATIO\S
AWUDP: Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan
BWS: Honolulu Boazd of Water Supply
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
CWRM: Commission on Water Resource Management
DI IHL: Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
DLNR: Department of Land and Natural Resources
DOA: Departrnent of Agriculture
DOH: Department of Health
GIS: Geographic Information Systems
GW: Groundwater
HHCA: Hawaiian Home Commission Act
IIRS: Hawaii Revised Statutes
HWP: Hawaii Water Plan
IRP: Integrated Resource Planning
MAPS: Multi-Attribute Prioritization of Streams
SCAP: Stream Channel and Alteration Pemvt
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SLH: Session Laws of Hawaii
SPAM: Stream Protection and Management System
SWAP: Source Water Assessment Program
S WPP: State Water Projects Plan
SY: Sustainable Yield
TMK: Tax Map Key
UIC: Underground Injection Control
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
WQP: Water Quality Plan
WRPP: Water Resource Protection Plan
WUDP: (County) Water Use and Development Plan
iv
SECTION I
FRAAiER'ORK OBJECTIVES
Introduction
The State Water Code, Chapter 174C, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), requires that the
Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) implement and utilize
comprehensive water resources planning in iu regulation and management of our State's
water resources. As part of this mandate, the water code requires the development and
updating of the Hawaii Water Plan (HWP) to guide the CWRM in executing its general
powers, duties, and responsibilities assuring economic development, good municipal
services, agricultural stability, and water resource protection.
The State Water Code calls for coordination between the CWRM, the counties, and other
state agencies to "formulate an integrated and coordinated program for the protection,
conservation, and management of waters in each county To effectively implement
these requirements, a Statewide FrameworkJor Updating the Hawaii Water Plax,
incorporating the techniques of Integrated Resources Planning, is hereby set forth to
address current complexities associated with planning, regulation, and management of
our water resources. This planning framework will be utilized to integrate and update all
the components of the Hawaii Water Plan, which include the:
1) Water Resource Protection Plan (WRPP);
2) Water Quality Plan (WQP);
3) State Water Projects Plan (SWPP);
4) Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan (AWUDP); and
5) County Water Use and Development Plans (WUDP).
Framework Objectives
The objectives of developing and outlining a statewide framework for the Hawaii Water
Plan are:
• To achieve integration of land use and water planning efforts that are undertaken by
federal, state, county, and private entities so that a consistent and coordinated plan for
the protection, conservation and management of our water resources is achieved;
• To recommend guidelines for the HWP update so that the plan and its component
parts aze usefirl to the CWRM, other state agencies, the counties, and the general
public;
• To develop a dynamic planning process that results in a "living document" for each
component of the HWP which will provide county and state decision-makers with
well formulated options and sVategies for addressing future water resource
management and development issues;
• To better define roles and responsibilities of all state and county agencies with respect
to the development and updating of the HWP components;
Page 1 - 1
• To describe and outline the techniques and methodologies of integrated resource
planning as the basic approach that should be utilized in developing and updating the
County WUDPs;
• To facilitate permitting and to identify potential critical resource areas where
increased monitoring or baseline data gathering should proceed.
• To establish an overall schedule for phased updating of the HWP; and
• To outline an Implementation Plan foc near-term and long-term actions.
Status of the Hawau Water Plan
The initial Hawaii Water Plan prepazed by various state and county agencies wet
formally adopted by the CWl2M in 1990. CWRM adoption of the 1992 update to the
HWP was deferred pending further refinement of plan components. In the interim, the
existing HWP should be considered as a first step toward "comprehensive wale resource
planning". More importantly, the currently adopted HWP continues to serve as a valid
planning and resource management tool.
While it may be argued that the current HWP falls short of its intended objectives,
sufficient provisions established in the 1990 plan, together with policies subsequently
adopted by the CWRM, currently provide for appreciable guidance to the CWRM in
carrying out its duties and responsibilities. This is not to say that the current components
of the HWP should not be updated or that specific elements do not require fintt>er
revision and/or modification Specific plan recommendations that emanated from the
initial preparation of the HWP clearly identified the need for further studies, assessments,
and follow-on actions that should be undertaken by each responsible agency. This
inherent need to improve upon the existing plans forms the basis for the proposed HWP
framework.
The State Water Code further provides that the CWR2vf may add to the HWP any other
information, directions, or objectives it feels necessary or desirable for the guidance of
the counties in the administration and enforcement of code provisions.
As such, the proposed Statewide Framework fot Updating the Hawaii Water Plan is
intended to provide focus and additional "guidance" to each agency responsible for
updating specific components of the plan. The framework should be viewed as a long-
term vision to preparation of a "living document" which over several plan iterations will
result in a truly comprehensive water resource plan.
Organization of the Framework Document
This framework document is organized into four Sections. Section I briefly outlines the
objectives of establishing a statewide framework for updating the Hawaii Water Plan and
its various component plans. Section II discusses the overall framework for the Hawaii
Water Plan, including a discussion of the integrated approach, the relationships between
HWP components, elements of an I12P process, and the need for integration of resource
development strategies at the county level. Section III outlines the roles and
Page 1 - 2
responsibilities for those agencies chazged with preparing/updating the ~~arious
components of the Hawaii Water Plan. 11ris section also identifies the minimum
requirements of each component plan and the recommended elements that should be
included within an integrated resource planning approach. Lastly, Section IV outlines a
schedule and preliminary implementation plan for the phased updating of the Hawaii
Rater Plan and its components.
Page 1 - 3
SECTION II
Eraroework for the Hawaii Water Plan
General
This section describes the overall framework structwe for updating the Hawaii Water
Plan components and the overall integrated resowce planning methodology for
integrating the five components of the Hawaii Water Plan. The relationships between the
components of the HWP and the need for integration of resource development strategies
at the county level will be discussed herein. This section therefore provides an overview
of the proposed planning process that will eventually result in a more integrated and
comprehensive Hawaii Water Plan.
The Planning Context
In their current adopted form, the HWP components and in particulaz the County
WUDPs, were developed within a planning framework that may be summarized in the
following manner:
• The existing framework is fragmented and in some cases too narrowly
focused primarily due to the fragmentation of jurisdictional responsibilities for
preparation of the various HWP components.
• Uncertainties in futwe water requirements and availability of resources are
addressed by making simplifying assumptions which arrive at a single
manageable scenario to be considered.
• The tradeoffs between competing uses for the same water resource are merely
acknowledged as an issue to be dealt with in the detailed planning of specific
projects or in the further development of a particulaz resource development
strategy, and are not adequately addressed within the overall planning context.
• All proposed resource development strategies are geared to meeting asingle-
point future water demand projection (as opposed to a range of scenarios),
regardless of the physical, environmental or other socioeconomic costs and
impacts of the strategies.
The existing planning framework has therefore resulted in planning documents that are
static in natwe. However, water resource planning is an ongoing process that requires a
dynamic framework which results in planning documenu that provide alternative
strategies addressing futwe uncertainties. The following complexities in planning for the
futwe use and development of water resources further support the need for a more
effective and coordinated planning process:
• There is growing competition for available potable water resources in the
aquifers that have been designated as ground-water management areas. As
Page 2 - 1
future demands grow for potable water, competition w111 also intensifj• in
other aquifers not currently designated as ground-water management areas.
Intensified competition for available resources calls for an integrated rather
than a fragmented planning approach.
• Major changes have occurred and aze still occurring in the agricultural
industry, which currently represents the greatest demand for potable and non-
potable water in the State. The demise of sugaz production and the long-term
feasibility of replacement crops or other agricultural activities imply that
future agricultural water demands will need to be further defined. Changes in
various water demand sectors such as the military, urban land development,
and tourism are also significantly driven by events outside the control of our
State and local governments. Planning for future water resource development
must therefore address these uncertainties with greater sophistication in
defining future water demands.
• Public awazeness of proposals for water resource development projects is
growing. This increased awareness calls for invoh~ing the public during the
development of the overall strategies for water resource development a~ in
the identification of resource development options. Amore comprehensive
public information and education program coupled with venues for public
participation in the planning process can provide for effective dialogue to
occur between entities having various water interests. This can lead to eazlier
identification of issues and greater public input in the selection and
implementation of resource development options and strategies.
• The availability of existing and inexpensive water resources is declining and
in certain aquifers has reached levels that warrant closer monitoring and the
implementation of management strategies to protect the aquifer from
degradation due to over-withdrawal. Continued and increasing demands on
these aquifers cannot be met without potential impacts to tbe quality (and
cost) of the water that is being withdrawn. In addition, the changes in
agricultural water usage and irrigation practices have reduced the recharge
component and ground water availability in specific aquifers.
• As the opportunities for development of inexpensive water resources decline,
the resulting increase in development costs will make the use of alternative
resources such as reclaimed water and desalinated water more attractive. In
such an environment, the appropriate use of the various classes of potable and
non-potable sources becomes more important in achieving an optimum mix of
future resource supply. Achieving the optimum mix will require decision-
making processes and approaches that consider varied and sometimes
conflicting factors and impacts of proposed resource development options.
Greater consideration will also need to be given to achieving the desired
outcomes with non-structural options such as greater demand-side
management and conservation programs.
Page 2 - 2
' • There is a need to recognize and plan for the water requirements for legally
protected water rights under the water code, State Constitution and Hawaii
case law, e.g., future water needs for the DHHL, appurtenant tights, and
traditional and customary practices of native Hawaiians.
To provide a more effective planning framework for the Hawaii Water Plan, one that will
enable the development of alternative strategies that can address the future uncertainties
identified above, the C WRM has incorporated the approach known as Integrated
Resource Planning (IRP).
Integrated Approach for the Hawaii Water Plan
Using the principles of IRP, the CWRM has developed a framework structure that charts
a path each agency should follow over the established planning horizon. The framework
for updating the HWP strives to identify the requued interactions between the various
plan components and planning steps to be undertaken. It should be recognized that each
county's situation is unique and not all of the frarrtework steps will look the same or
receive the same degree of emphasis during the updating process.
The framework structure for updating the Hawaii Water Plan is schematically depicted on
Figure 2-l. The framework structure shown in the figure has three major branches. The
first is a branch shown on the right that encompasses the component plans that are
prepazed b}• state agencies. The second is a central core that results in the development
of the County Water Use and Development Plans. And lastly, an implementation,
monitoring and feedback branch, shown at the left, provides for adjustment of future
planning efforts.
The Hawaii Water Plan components that aze prepared at the state level include the Water
Quality Plan, the Water Resource Protection Plan, the Stale Water Projects Plan, and the
Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan. These components, as shown on Figure
2-I, should be updated in coordination with the County Water Use and Development
Plans.
Federal and state regulations and policies with respect to water quality and resource
protection should be implemented under this framework principally through the Water
Quality Plan and the Water Resource Protection Plan These components of the Hawaii
Water Plan provide critical guidance for the counties in, updating the WUDPs. This
linkage is shown in the framework schematic.
The WQP and the WRPP also provide guidance for the state agencies responsible for
development of the State Water Projects Plan and the AWUDP. These latter two
components represent water use and development plans for all state agencies, state
projects, and private agricultural projects, respectively. Since projects undertaken by the
State will have an impact on water resources within each of the counties, the planning
effort at the state level ultimately must be integrated with the planning at the county level.
Tlvs linkage is also depicted in Figure 2-1 as occurring at each of the four stages of the
county IRP process.
Page 2 - 3
Figure 2-1
Frame«~ork for the Hawaii Water Plan
Feedback (or CWRM
Commissiot oa ~1'attt
Adjustment oC Water Resource
Future Plans Resource Maaagemeot Protection Plan
Coanty DOH
Public Prepares WUDP Water Quality Plao
Comment ProjeM Description Source Water
Assessment Program
Monitoring.k Coulltle3 DOA DLNR
Evaluation Undertake Sure R':ter
WUDP Project ~ Projects PLa
Implementation
Hawaii Oaha Kaasi
Commission Maui Molokai Lanai
Adopts
County
WUDP
Objectives and
Evaluafim Criteria
MultipbScenario
PubUc Planning Forecasts
PartfcfpaNon
And
Pubfk
fnfornratlon Suppy-ade B
Demand-side
Resourte Options
Resaace
Development
Straregies
Caunry COUNTY
Councff Water Use &
Adopts WUDP Dt:vdop®ent
Plu
Paget-4
The framework structure described in the foregoing should result, in the end, in a more
integrated and effective Hawaii Water Plan. However, as will be discussed in detail in
the implementation Plan, the neaz-term implementation of the framework will need to be
phased in due primarily to constraints in funding and the need to coordinate efforts that
may already be underway. For example, the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP)
being undertaken by the DOH has a project time frame that will likely be longer than that
anticipated for the Oahu WUDP update. Thus true integration of the results of the SWAP
with the Oahu WUDP effort may not materialize until the next plan update or cycle. The
framework structwe thus sets forth that continual monitoring and feedback with respect
to the planning process must occw in order for future planning efforts to be appropriately
adjusted and coordinated.
Relationships between Ptan Components
Because different state and county agencies prepare the separate components of the
Hawaii Water Plan, it is critical that the components are interrelated in order for the
overall HwP to be cohesive. The relationships between the various component plans,
depicted in Figure 2-l, are discussed as follows.
The Water Quality Plan and the Water Resource Protection Plan are the two plan
components that are critical to determin_~ng water usage and determining strategies for
developing water resowces. These two components outline the regulations, standards,
and resowce management policies that define the availability of ground- and surface-
water resources and the quality to be maintained in these resources. In addition, the
quantity of ground- and surface-water resowces that can be withdrawn on a sustainable
basis is determined as part of the WRPP. The WQP and WRPP therefore provide critical
inputs to the State Water Projects Plan, the Agricultural WUDP and the WUDPs
developed by the fow counties. The initial WRPP and WQP were adopted in 1990 by the
CWRM. The SWPP, AWUDP, and County WUDPs must be consistent with these 1990
plan components until a subsequent update of the WRPP or WQP is adopted by the
CWRM.
The relationships between the plans prepared by the state and the WUDPs prepared by
the fow counties aze best understood by noting that the County WUDP must, by statute,
encompass all water usage and water development plans projected throughout tbe county.
Since the various state agencies ultimately build their projects within one of the fow
counties, their water use demands and their proposals for developing various resowces to
meet those demands must be factored into the overall water demands and development
strategies of each of the counties. This relationship is depicted in Figure 2-1 as input
from the state level to the county level. In practice, the relationship should be more in the
nature of a cooperative dialogue and joint planning effort, if a cohesive Hawaii Water
Plan is to be achieved.
As shown on the figwe, the HWP Framework, developed by the CWRM, principally
guides the updating of the various Water Use and Development Plans of the fow
counties. As part of each county's WUDP update, aCounty-Specific Project Description
shall be prepared by each county and submitted to the CWRM. As will be discussed later
in detail in Section III, the WUDP Project Description should present the specific issues,
Paget-5
planning activities, schedule and objectives to be met by the county in its planned update
of the County Water Use and Development Plan.
The Project Description document should serve as the basis for implementing the
recommended integrated resource planning provisions identified in this framework. The
IRP approach, as shown on Figure 2-1, is characterized by a multi-stage planning process
beginning with setting objectives and evaluation criteria, developing multiple-scenario
planning forecasts, identifying supply- and demand-side resource options and concluding
with the selection of resource development strategies.
Throughout this generalized four-stage WUDP planning process, the IRP approach calls
for a concerted public participation and public information program to achieve an
appropriate level of public consensus with respect to the objectives, criteria, forecasts,
options and strategies that are being considered. Integration of the planning effort being
conducted at the state level will be achieved by bringing tbe results of the state planning
efforts into the county planning process at each stage.
Elements of an IRP Process
The recommended IRP approach can best be described as a comprehensive form of
planning that encompasses least-cost analyses of resource management options, as well
as a participatory decision-making process. It involves the development of water
resource alternatives that take into consideration communities and envvonments that may
be affected, the numerous institutions concerned with water resource development and
protection, and the potential for competing policy goals. IRP attempts to coasider all
direct and indirect costs and benefits of demand-side and supply-side management, and
augmentation of supply. This is achieved by using alternative planning scenarios,
analyses across disciplines, evaluation of social and environmental impacts, and
community involvement in the planning, decision-making, and implementation
processes.
Figure 2-2 illustrates the key components of an IRP process. However, every element
may not be applied the same way for each county. The planning approach should be
adapted to meet county-specific conditions and objectives. A well~oordinated process to
inform and involve the public must be provided for which accompanies the steps shown
in Figure 2-2.
A distinguishing featwe of IRP is the definition of multiple planning objectives.
Identification of conflicting objectives can be expected as part of the IRP process.
Notwithstanding, planning objectives should fotm the basis for criteria against which
resource scenarios will be evaluated. The definition of planning objecfives must be more
precise than just phrases such as "minimize costs," "protect the environment," or
"maintain a reliable system." Planning objectives must address the kinds of costs, over
what time frames, what types of environmental protection, and what is meant by a reliable
system. IRP assumes that trade-offs will be made among conflicting planning objectives.
As such, the IRP process should provide decision-makers with a framework and necessary
information W make these difficult trade-offs. Consideration of trade-offs must, however,
recognize that parties may be bound by certain legal or regulatory constraints.
Paget-6
Figure 2-2
ELEMENTS OF AN IRP PROCESS
Planning Objectives Demand Forecast
Resource
Assessment
Characterize • Supply-side
Evaluation Criteria Resource O lions
p • Demand-side
Define Future
Uncertainties and
Potential Outcomes
Form Potential
Resourrz Sequences
Narrow
Test Sequences
Against Evaluation
Criteria
Narrow
Form Resource
Strategies
Probabilities of Evaluate Resource Institutional
Outcomes Strategies Feasibility
Narrow
Final
Recommendations
Page 2 - 7
One or more measurable evaluation criteria should be developed for each planning
objective. Evaluation criteria should be designed to measure the performance of resource
options against planning objectives. Measurable criteria may be expressed in various ways
such as dollars, percentages, concentrations, or rankings and should not be limited to
merely one kind of unit value (e.g. dollars). In some cases, evaluation criteria may be
resource-specific in order to assess individual resource options.
As part of the IRP process, supply-side and demand-side options should be assessed and
ultimately evaluated against the criteria adopted to measure how well various
combinations of options meet specific planning objectives. Typically, potential (supply-
side and demand-side) resource options will be filtered and screened to eliminate
inappropriate options. The goal being to end up with a manageable number of resource
options that will be combined into resource sequences which lead to the selection of
viable resource strategies.
The IRP process should provide for consideration of future uncertainties that may play a
significant role in determining resource decisions. However, actual outcomes for these
uncertainties (e.g. permitting) cannot be reasonably predicted. Recommendations, as
such, should be made for different sets of possible outcomes. Using the example of
permitting uncertainties, the timing of a paRicular supply option will be dependent upon
the issuance of required permits, therefore agencies must identify alternative actions
which address various permitting outcomes.
The delineation of planning objectives and associated evaluation criteria, the screening of
supply-side and demand-side resource options, and defutition of future uncertainties
described above together comprise the necessary components to develop recommended
resource strategies which best achieve established planning objectives.
Integration at the County Level
The preceding discussion of the HWP framework and the relationships between the plan
components establishes that comprehensive water planning must be effectuated at the
county level. As previously stated, the State Water Code mandates that the County
WUDP "be prepared by each separate county... setting forth the allocation of water to
land use in that county." To achieve this objective within the proposed framework, water-
planning efforts related to municipal and non-municipal water demands should be
coordinated and integrated at the county level.
As depicted in Figures 2-I and 2-2, the county planning process serves as the key, central
role in coordinating and integrating all water use and development planning for each
pariiculaz county. Under the proposed Hawaii Water Plan framework the county agency
or agencies responsible for this planning effort will need to bring the many other water
planning agencies at the state and federal levels and from the private sector into a process
that integrates everyone's efforts. It is envisioned that the use of integrated resource
planning techniques and the incorporation of a public and stakeholder participation
process will result in the achievement of these framework objectives.
Page 2 - 8
SECTION III
ROLES, RESPOVS[BILITIES AND REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE HAWAII WATER PLAN
General
The State Water Code defines certain responsibilities of specific state agencies and the
roles and responsibilities of the county in general with respect to the preparation of the
Hawaii Water Plan componenu. These roles and responsibilities aze discussed herein
within the context of the integrated HWP framework.
In addition to identifying the roles and responsibilities of specific agencies and entities,
this section also presents specific guidelines for updating the components of the Hawaii
Water Plan. The guidelines identified herein will ultimately result in a fully integrated
Ifawaii Water Plan. However, as previously stated, funding constraints and existing
project timetables may not allow the responsible agencies to immediately fulfill all the
informational requirements identified herein. In Section IV, an overall implementation
plan will be presented which will identify neaz-term as well as long-term planning
priorities and activities.
Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM)
The CWItM is responsible for the general administration of the water code and has the
final authority in all matters relating to the implementation and administration of the code
provisions. Among the specific powers granted to the CWRM are the regulation of both
ground and surface water; designation of water management areas; allocation of water
use in designated water management azeas; and regulation of well drilling, pump
installation, stream channel alteration and stream diversion.
To effectively carry out these duties, the CWRM is responsible for the formulation of an
integrated program for the protection, conservation and management of the waters of the
State. In addition, the CWRM is responsible specifically for the preparation and updating
of the Water Resource Protection Plan component of the Hawaii Water Plan.
V1'ater Resource Protection Plan (WRPP)
The major objective of the R'RPP is to protect and sustain statewide ground- and sudace-
waterresources, watersheds, and natural stream en~~ronments. Such protection shall be
established through a comprehensive study of occurrence, sustainability, conservation,
augmentation, and other resource management measures.
Legai Mandate and Specific Statutory Requirements - R'RPP
To accomplish the objective stated above, the State Water Code (under Section 174C-31,
HRS) mandates that the CWRM shall undertake the following activities:
1) Study and inventory the existing water resources of the State and means and
methods of conserving and augmenting such water resottrees.
Page 3 - 1
2) Review existing and contemplated needs and uses of water including state and
county land use plans and policies and study their effect on the environment,
procreation offish and wildlife, and water quality.
3) Study the quantity and quality of water needed for existing and contemplated
uses, including irrigation, pother development, geothermal pother, and municipal
uses.
4) Identify rivers and streams, or a portion of a river or stream, which appropriately
may be placed within a wild and scenic rivers system, to be preserved and
protected as part of the public trust.
5) Study other related matters as drainage, reclamation, flood hazards, floodplain
zoning, dam safety, and selection of reservoir sites, as they relate to the
protection, conservation, quantity, and quality of water.
The State Water Code also identifies the minimum requirements to be addressed in the
WRPP. These minimum requirements are as follows:
1) Nature and occurrence of water resources in the State;
2) Hydrologic units and their characteristics, including the quantit?~ and qualit} of
available resource, requirements for beneficial instream uses aad environmental
protection, desirable uses worthy of preservation by permit and undesirable t>ses
for which permits may be denied;
3) Existing and contemplated uses of water, identified in the water use and
development plans of the State and the counties, their impact on the resource, and
their consistency with objectives and policies established in the Plan;
4) Programs to conserve, augment and protect the water resource; and
5) Other elements necessary or desirable for inclusion in the Plan.
Recommended Plnn Elements
To meet these requirements, an updated WRRP should consist of the following plan
elements:
Declaration ojCWRMGoals, Objectives, and Policies
A comprehensive WRPP should clearly describe and define the goals, objectives, and
policies established by the CWRM. The specific application, as well as limitations, of
these policies as they relate to the CWRM's protection and management of the State's
water resources should be discussed within the plan. Policies should be defined as to
statewide and regionaUaquifer specific provisions and should serve to guide agencies in
the development of supply-side and demand-side options.
Page3-2
These "guiding principles" or policies should include, but not be limited to, applicable
Decision and Orders, Declaratory Rulings, and pertinent regulatory actions approved
and/or adopted by the CWRM. Where appropriate, legal determination by the
Department of the Attorney General should be solicited to clarify statutory mandates or
provisions set forth in the State Water Code.
In addition, new policies as they may be developed, as well as modifications to existing
provisions that may be further clarified by the courts, should be incorporated within
subsequent updates to the WRPP.
The information required in this section of the plan should include, but not be limited to:
1. Declaration of the CWRM's Overall Goals and Objectives;
2. Current Ground-Water Protection Policies/Guiding Principles and Resource
Development Provisions;
3. Current Surface-Water Protection Policies/Guiding Principles and Resource
Development Provisions;
4. Current Water Conservation and Resource Augmentation Policies; and
5. Current Watershed Protection Policies
Nature and Occurrence ojResourees
This element of the WRPP should address the inventory, assessment, monitoring, and
description of all ground- and surface-water resources. The information required in this
section of the plan should include, but not be limited to:
1. An inventory and assessment of existing ground water and surface-eater
resources. Such inventory shall include a description of aquifer classifications,
identification of hydrologic boundaries, current estimates of aquifer sustainable
yields and instream use and protection provisions for surface watercourses (i.e.
Instream Flow Standards).
2. Evaluation of current ground water-and surface-water monitoring programs and
projects. Such assessment should include the status of existing ground-water
monitoring and surface-water gaging and future plans for development of a
strategic statewide ground-water and surface-water monitoring program.
Resource Management and Protection
This element of the WRPP should assess the existing and alternative management and
protection programs for all ground- and surface-water resources. 71te information
required in this section of the plan should include but not be ?united to:
Page 3 - 3
Delineation of statewide, regional, and/or aquifer-specific measwes for protection
of ground- and surface-water resowces. Existing water management/protection
measures and resowce development provisions should be identified, including
permit- and resowce-related data requirements.
2. Use ofground-water modeling, including applicabilih of current models and
compliance with modeling guidelines to determine model acceptability.
3. Assessment of alternative ground-water and surface water management strategies.
Such assessment should address establishment of acceptable methodologies to
evaluate minimum instream flow and other resource criteria.
Resource Conservation and Augmentation
This element of the WRPP should address programs and requirements to conserve and
augment the water resowces of the State. 'Ibe information required in this element of the
plan should include, but not be limited to:
1. Goals and objectives for a statewide water conservation program. Water
conservation guidelines and planning criteria should be discussed in the context of
current and futwe water conservation efforts.
2. A framework for state and county coordination in the development and
implementation of water shortage plans, including development of a statewide
drought mitigation plan.
3. Current resowce augmentation policies and guiding principles. Planning and
implementation of augmentation practices including, but not limited to, reuse,
rechazge, and desalination should be addressed. Criteria to evaluate and prioritize
augmentation options should be developed, including identification of potential
negative impacts.
The foregoing requirements should lead to an inclusive Water Resowce Protection Plan
with an emphasis on resowce evaluation, resotuce managemenUprotection and
conservationlaugmentation for all ground water and surface-water resowces. However,
existing funding constraints will require phased implementation of recommended WRPP
elements. Several plan iteralions and continued funding support will be required to
complete the updating of the technical and resource management components of the plan.
A "living document" approach to updating the WRPP will provide for future amendments
and supplements to the plan that lead to better effectuation of State Water Code
objectives.
I~'otwithstanding the relative importance of each recommended element, it should be
clearly recognized that there is insufficient funding at this time to complete a
fulUcomprehensive update of the WRPP. As such, plan elements should be prioritized
based upon available funding and the compazative importance of each plan element
Page 3 - 4
should be appropriately weighed. Elements initially required or which aze supportive of
future actions, assessments, or determinations should be implemented on a priority basis.
Such priority elements may include, but are not be limited to:
• Periodic review of sustainable yields and all pertinent hydrologic data and water
quality parameters.
• Assessment of current surface water monitoring. Current data gathering should be
reviewed and evaluated as to its present adequacy and statistics! basis.
• Deg elopment and implementation of a statewide resource monitoring and data
collection program.
• Delineation of watershed areas suitable for adoption as surface water hydrographic
units and codification of perennial streams statewide.
• Development of a statewide inventory of all stream diversion systems.
• Assessment of physical characteristics and stream flow parameters and development
of an initial stream classification system. "Ibis initial classification should serve as a
beginning framework for decisions about instream values and minimum stream flow.
• Identification of required studies/actions that will lead to the establishment of
permanent instream flow standazds.
• Development of adequate provisions to recognize and provide for legally protected
water rights.
The phased implementation of these plan elements is presented in Section IV.
It is critical to ensure the development of adequate provisions for protection of traditional
and customary Hawaiian rights, appurtenant and correlative water rights, and the current
and foreseeable needs of the Department of Hawaiian Home lands. Steps to establish
and implement such measures should also be addressed within a comprehensive WRPP.
In addition, appropriate consideration of these elements should also be included in the
formulation and update of each County WiJDP. At a minimum, the beginning
foundations for these provisions should be discussed and initially set out within a
comprehensive WRPP.
Accordingly, the current update to the WRPP should initiate efforts to more effectively
clarify and establish measures to protect these water rights. The CWRM, however,
recognizes the complexity and magnitude of issues that must be addressed to clearly set
forth legal and administrative provisions for meeting these objectives. As such, this
framework hereby recommends that acceptable forums for addressing water rights be
instituted as part of this update cycle. It is envisioned that the findings of this effort will
Page3-5
formulate the basis for establishing water rights provisions and promulgation of effective
administrative rules, including consideration of the appropriateness of the CWRM's
continued regulation of certain activities, e.g., taro loi cultivation.
The CW12M's ultimate discharge of its duty to protect water rights should, at a minimum,
be governed through adoption of appropriate administrative Hiles. Such rules should set
forth the practice and procedures under which the CWluvl shall exercise its powers and
duties to protect current and future water rights. In developing these administrative Hiles,
the CWRM shall give consideration to the cultural appropriateness of those regulations,
the practices of ancient Hawaiian water systems, objectives necessary to protect
traditional and customary Hawaiian uses of water, and the water demand forecasu of the
Hawaiian Homes Commission.
The current and foreseeable water needs of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL) shall continue to be incorporated within the State Water Projects Plan (SV6PP)
component of the HWP. Forecasted water demands for DHHL projects should be
integrated with source development strategies developed as part of the updated SWPP.
Department of Health
The Water Code provides that the Department of Health (DOH) shall have primary
jurisdiction and responsibility for administration of the State's water quality control
programs. These responsibilities include formulation of a State \L'ater Quality Plan for
all existing and potential sources of drinking water. The DOH in coordination with the
C WRM shall periodically review and revise the Water Quality Plan as needed.
In formulating or revising the plan, DOH shall consult with and carefully evaluate
recommendations of concerned Federal, State and local agencies, particularly county
water supply agencies.
Water Quality Plan (WQP)
The major objective of the WQP is to protect the public health and sensitive ecological
systems by preserving, protecting, restoring and enhancing the quality of ground and
surface waters throughout the State of Hawaii.
Legal ManAate and Specifrc Statutory Requirements -WQP
The WQP is the component of the Hawaii Water Plan that addresses the need to protect
all existing and potential sources of drinking water from contamination due to acti~~ties
that discharge pollutants into ground and surface waters. Development of this component
of the HWP is the responsibility of the State Department of Health.
The A'QP shall provide for:
• FederaVstate/county goals, objectives, and policies related to water quality;
• Water quality criteria for designation of water management areas;
• Water quality standards, monitoring requirements and enforcement provisions; and
• Water quality management programs and recommended strategies.
Page 3 - 6
Recommended Plan Elements
The current WQP was adopted in 1990 and a draft revision was prepazed in December
1992. The draft revision compiles existing policies, regulations and programs at the
federal, state and county levels that relate to protecting all sources of drinking water. In
addition, new reseazch needs and programs aze discussed. The CWRM has not acted
upon the current draft revision of the WQP. Further efforts to update the WQP have been
deferred due to lack of funding. In addition, the State DOH is currently undertaking an
assessment of potentially contaminating activities that may threaten existing drinking
water sources, the results of which will be integrated into an updated WQP. That
assessment project is described as follows.
Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP)
The ] 996 reauthorization ofthe Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) included an
antendment requiring states to develop a program to assess sources of drinking water and
encouraging states to establish protection programs. The drinking water source
assessment is the first step in the development of a comprehensive drinking water source
protection program. The assessment requires delineation of the area azound a drinking
water source through which contaminanu might move and reach that drinking water
supply. In addition, it requires an inventory of activities that might lead to the release of
microbiological or chemical contaminants within the delineated area. This enables a
determination to be made as to whether the drinking water source might be susceptible to
contanrination.
The goals of the Hawaii SWAP program include the following:
• Develop guiding principles for the assessments of sources of drinking water
supply to benefit public water systems of the State.
• Assess potential impacts to drinking water quality and support effective
management and protection of water resources now and in the future.
• Raise awazeness of drinking water issues.
• Encourage proactive community•based strategies to protect drinking water
sources.
• Prioritize cleanup and pollution prevention efforts for all sources of drinking
water.
• Meet federal requirements for establishing a drinking water source assessment
program.
• Develop linkages to other water resource protection and planning efforts and to
upcoming water quality regulations.
The procedures and activities to be undertaken in conducting the drinking water source
assessments to meet the state goals include the following:
• Preparation of an implementation plan for the S WAP activities;
• Conducting a public involvement program;
• Locating sources;
Page 3 - 7
• Delineation of assessment azeas and zones for surface-water sources, ground
water under direct influence of swface water, and ground-water sowces;
• Identification of possible contaminating activities that are considered potential
origins of significant contamination within each assessment area and zone;
• Determining susceptibility of drinking water sowces to contamination from
potential contaminating activities within each assessment area and zone; and
• Assessing new drinking water sottrces as they aze identified and developed.
The completion of the Hawaii SWAP program is currently scheduled for December 21101.
A program plan was submitted in February 1999 and has received EPA approval. It is
anticipated that demonstration projects will be initiated as the first step of the program
implementation plan. The demonstration projects will be undertaken to test the validity
of the assumptions made in establishing the assessment azeas and zones and assumptions
made in the modeling of potential contaminant transport modes and routes.
The SWAP is the initial effort to assess the potentia] for contamination of all drinking
water sources serving the general public. It is expected that these assessments will lead
to a comprehensive prevention and protection program, including the inventorying and
monitoring of contaminants, identification and implementation of management measures
and development of contingency plans to control and mitigate contamination sowces.
Because the SWAP project scope is limited to the activities stated above, the
development of management measures and contingency plans for mitigation must await
the results of the assessments currently underway. Therefore, it is prudent that the
updating of the WQP should await the results of the SWAP project "Ibis deferment of
the WQP update will allow the DOH and CWRIvI to better define required elements of
the plan and coordinate the development of water quality protection programs with other
resource protection programs.
Developing EJJective Linkages Between Inter-Agency Programs
As discussed in the preceding section, the CWRM is responsible for coordinating regulaz
updates of the HWP, including the update of the WQP compocent In fiilfilling this
mandate, the CWRM has actively participated with the Department of Health in its
development of the SWAP project These collaborative efforts, we believe, have led to
the beginnings of more effective linkages to other water resowce protection and
management programs in the State.
It should be reiterated that the DOH is statutorily required to update the WQP.
Compliance with this mandate should be viewed as an excellent opportunity to integrate
similaz intea- and inter-agency water protection programs. Elements of SWAP, the
Source Water Protection Strategy, and other DOH programs (e.g. iJIC, Wastewater, etc.)
should be compiled and coordinated as part of a comprehensive inter-agency strategy for
water quality protection.
Coordination and identification of program linkages and effective integration of related
programs should result in a comprehensive assessment of current/foreseen problems,
Page3-8
identification of available mitigation measures, and the development of improved
management strategies.
Program achievements that may result from such coordination include, but are not limited
to:
• Providing continual program updates and status reports;
• Identifying required follow-on actions by each agency;
• Coordinating data collection and monitoring efforts;
• Developing a common database and ensuring data consistency;
• Establishing a protocol for more effective data sharing; and
• Identifying relationships between regulatory and non-regulatory program efforts.
Recommended WQP Guidelines
Procedures and program measures for coordinating and streamlining agency activities
and pem»tting requirements of similaz federal, state and county programs should be
established to ensure effective linkages betwcen agency programs. The major goals and
objectives of this effort should include, but not be limited to:
• Maximizing efficient use of agency time, staff and program resources;
• Identification of overlapping and/or duplicative program/statutory responsibilities;
• Establishment of more effective inter-agency coordination and communication;
• Consolidation (wherever possible) of agency review and permitting requirements;
and
• Resolving conflicting permit approvals or other agency requirements (if any),
including procedural disagreements between agencies.
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)
DLNR's Land Division has jurisdiction over state projects and, in conjunction with other
state agencies, is responsible for preparation of the State Rater Projects Plan.
State Water Projects Plan (SWPP)
The major objective of the S WPP is to provide a t}amewor~ for planning and
implementation of watec development programs to meet projected water demands for
state projects. The plan shall be implemented in coordination with the County WUDPs to
insure orderly authorization and development. The SWPP shall provide for:
• An inventory of existing state water systems;
• Identification of proposed state projects/developments;
• Assessment of future water demand projections;
• A water development strategy outline, strategy implementation plan and
recommendations; and
• Incorporation of an Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan
Page 3 - 9
Legal Mandate and Specific Statutory Requirements - SRPP
The State Water Projects Plan (SWPP) is the component of the Hawaii V1'ater Plan that
addresses water needs for all state agencies on a statewide basis. The plan, in general,
shall include, but not be limited to:
1) Status of state water and land developments and their existing water use
requirements for domestic, industry, agriculture, hydropower, water reclamation,
and recharge;
2) Future land uses and related water needs (e.g. projected DHHL water demands);
and
3) Statewide plans for water developments including recommended and alternative
plans, costs, adequacy of plans, and relationship to the Water Resource Protection
Plan and the Water Quality Plan.
Recommended Plan Elements
The elements of the SWPP presented herein include the guidelines as outlined in Title 13,
Chapter 170, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), and the recommended elements for
utilizing an integrated resotttrz planning approach to stale water projects planning. The
SWPP shall be consistent with the WRPP and WQP and should include the following
elements:
1) Consistency with the WRPP - The S WPP shall comport with the provisions of the
Water Resource Protection Plan and should utilize the ground-water hydrologic
units and surface-water hydrognphic units designated statewide by the CR'RM
for the presentation of data and analyses.
2) Current and Future Demand Forecasts - Tbe SWPP should evaluate current and
future state projects and related water demands to insure orderly authorization and
development of existing water resources. Demand forecasts shall include the
current and foreseeable potable and non-potable water needs of DHHL. The
SWPP shall consider atwenty-yeaz projection period for analysis purposes. The
review of all existing and contemplated water projects shall be based upon water
consumption guidelines and water demand unit rates used by the CWRM for the
purposes of its water use pettnit application re~iew• process. All projects should
indicate the following information, at a minimum:
a) Type of project;
b) Source of water,
c) Existing uses;
d) Contemplated uses;
e) System capacity;
f) Locatiott/fax Map Key (TMK);
g) Project schedule;
h) Quality of water needed;
Page 3 - 10
i) Basis for water demand projections (e.g. azea, units, etc.); and
j) Primary source development plan for the project(s).
3) Water demand
forecnsting techniques -The forecasts developed by state agencies
should identify the significant demand determinants used by each agency which
may include but are not limited to:
a) The data, the sources of data, the assumptions, and the analysis upon which
the forecast is based;
b) The relative sensitivity of the forecasts to changes in assumptions and varying
conditions; and
c) The procedures, methodologies, and models used in the forecast, together with
the rationale underlying the use of such procedures, methodologies, and
models.
The approach used by state agencies in their forecasts should be based on
sufficient historical data and at a minimum should result in high, medium, and
low forecasts of average day demands. Additional forecasts of annual, seasonal,
and peak-day system demands, as may be necessary should be based upon
forecasted average day demands. The validity and reliability of the approach used
by state agencies must be demonstrated and the agencies must be prepared to
discuss unexplained variation in demand.
4) Integrated Resource Planning Elements - To provide consistency and
coordination between the State Water Projects Plan and the County Water Use
and Development Plan, the following elements of the 1RP approach should be
followed in the preparation of the SWPP:
a) Demand Forecast -The SWPP shall include a range of forecasts of the
amount of water required over the planning horizon. Agencies shall develop
forecasts for multiple scenarios that are necessary or appropriate in the
development of the SWPP and the County WUDP. Among the scenarios are
the base case scenario (a scenario based on the most likely assumptions), a
high-growth scenario, and aloes-growth scenario.
Forecasts shall be based on yeazly increments for the first 5 years. Thereafter,
forecasts shall be based on 5-year increments to the yeaz 2020. The agencies
are encouraged to extend their forecasts beyond the yeaz 2020, particulazly
when their forecasts for the initia120-yeaz period indicates that the limits of
particular resources aze within reach.
b) Water System Profiles -The SWPP shall include a thorough description of
State-owned supplies, major conveyance facilities and storage reservoirs, re-
use programs, and conservation programs that are currently operated by state
agencies. This description shall also include resources, if any, to which the
Page 3 - 11
State has made commitments. The ability of the current (and, if applicable,
committed) system to meet future demands should be explored
c) Resource Development Options - As applicable, the SVVPP shall address the
following types of resotuce options:
• Supply sources, including both surface-water and ground-Hater supplies
and vazious combined uses of the two. The issue of inter-basin transfers
should be examined, with due regard to the environmental and cultural
impacts in the basin of origin.
• Transmission and other infrastructure, including, but not limited to,
major conveyance, treatment, and pumping facilities to relieve existing or
anticipated constraints on effectively utilizing existing supplies.
• Storage facilities, to take advantage of annual, seasonal, daily, or diurnal
variations in demands and/or available supplies.
• Conservation programs for residential, commercial, industrial,
agricultural, and institutional customers. Conservation options should be
considered as carefiilly as supply and facility options as to their ability to
achieve objectives. In particular, the estimates for future program
participation, costs, and savings should be enumerated and explained. As
used here, the term "conservation programs" also includes conservation-
oriented rate designs.
• Direct and indirect use of reclaimed wastewater for non-potable uses.
Such options must be consistent with federal= state, and county laws and
regulations.
d) Source Development Plan - The S WPP must include a source development
plan based upon selected resource options. The plan shall be divided into three
periods as follows:
Near-term (initial 5 years): For this period, the source development plan
must detail all of the actions that need to take place to accommodate state
project water demands anticipated for the initial 5-year time frame. A
neaz-term implementation schedule and a detailed description of each
action shall be presented. This schedule shall reflect the anticipated timing
and sequencing of all neaz-term actions. The schedule shall also include
expected supply-side capacity additions and demand-side program
penetration levels by year. Neaz-term actions may include, but aze not
limited to pre-design, design, construction, obtaining financing,
information-gathering, staff hiring, execution of initial conservation
program phases, and additional stakeholder and public involvement
Page 3 -12
activities. The 5-}'ear plan should also include estimates of incremental
annual capital and operaling costs.
• Medium-term (subsequent 5 years): The source development plan for
the medium-term will require less detail, and should focus on major
decision points and actions such as plan reassessments, and other actions
that may require substantial advance preparation. Precise scheduling and
sequencing of events is not critical. However, such information will need
to be developed as part of subsequent updates to the SWPP.
• Long-term (fina110 years):11te long-term source development plan
should serve to highlight major events that are anticipated in the final
portion of the planning period. It is expected that detailed information
may not be available for long-term plans, however, available data should
be identified and sufficiently described.
5) Resource Strategies -The resource and facility options that are identified by the
state agencies in the SWPP must be combined into t~esource strategies and
integrated with the county strategies. A resource strategy is defined as:
A flexible sequence of supply, infrastructure, storage, and conservation program
additions intended fo meet state water needs over the planning period
The state agencies must be prepazed to develop alternative strategies and to
evaluate each strategy against the other. During the update of each County's
WUDP, state agency strategies should be revaluated based upon county-specific
objectives and measurable criteria developed under tbe prescribed IRP process.
The final product of this step should result in a manageable number of strategies
within the WUDP from which a final recommendation will be selected.
6) Uncertainties -Future uncertainties should be considered in the development of
resource strategies by state agencies. Source development strategies should
provide for futwe contingencies that may arise in the face of pazticulaz outcomes.
Sensitivity analysis of strategies developed by state agencies should be performed
to evaluate the sensitivity of forecasts and outcomes to various future scenarios.
7) Updating -The responsibility for maintaining, monitoring, and updating the
S WPP document resides with the DLNR. However, it is recommended that each
state departrnent annually update project information in order to monitor demand
forecasts and implementation of water development strategies. State departments
should establish a mechanism for regulaz review of existing, planned, and
proposed water resources to meet department project requirements.
Department of Agriculture
Pursuant to Act 101, Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 1998, the Department of Agriculture
(DOA) shall be responsible for preparation and regular updating of a State Agricultural
Water Use and Development Plan (AWUDP). The initial plan shall be prepared and
Page 3 - 13
submitted to the legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the regular
session of 2000. Preparation of the AVI-'UDP by DOA shall be coordinated with the
CWRM for future incorporation into the SWPP.
Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan (AWUDP)
The major objective of the AWUDP is to develop along-range management plan that
assesses state and private agricultural water use, supply and irrigation water systems.
The plan shall address projected water demands and prioritized rehabilitation of existing
agricultural water systems.
Legal Mandate and Specific Statutory Requirements - AK'IJDP
Based on the provisions of Act 101, SLH 1998, the AWUDP shall provide for:
• A master inventory of irrigation water systems;
• Identification of system rehabilitation needs, costs and sources of funding for
repair and maintenance;
• Development of prioritization criteria and a 5-year program for system repairs;
• Set up of a long range plan to manage the systems; and
• Incorporation of the above findings into the SWPP.
Recommended Plan Elements
The effort described above is identified in the Act as a "master irrigation inventory plan"
and should therefore be considered as an initial step in the development of a
comprehensive Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan. The additional steps that
would need to be taken to complete a comprehensive AWUDP shou]d include the
following:
1) Based on existing statewide agricultural land uses, assess the existing agricultural
water irrigation needs of each of the counties.
2) Based on long-term agricultural crop development plans, develop a range of
future agricultural irrigation water needs for each of the counties, including
projected agricultural water demands of the DHHL.
3) Based on the information from the WRPP and the °master irrigation inventory
plan," identify existing sources for irrigation water and assess any shortfalls or
excess capacities in existing imgation systems.
4) Identify options for development of additional and alternative imgation water
sources.
5) Identify options for conserving imgation water and/or managing the uses to
reduce the total irrigation water demand.
6) Develop strategies encompassing both demand management and resource
development options.
Page 3 - 14
In order for the AWUDP to be consistent with the SVI'PP, the V1RPP and WQP, it should
include the following elements:
1) Consistency with the WRPP -The AWUDP shall compoR with the provisions of
the Water Resource Protection Plan and should utilize the ground-water
hydrologic units and surface-water hydrographic units designated state~tiide by the
CWRM for the presentation of data and analyses.
2) Current and Future Demand Forecasts -The AWUDP should evaluate current
and futwe water demands for agricultwal programs and projects stateHide to
inswe orderly authorization and development of existing water resowces. The
AWUDP shall consider atwenty-year projection period for analysis purposes.
fhe review of all existing and contemplated agricultural projects shall be based
upon water consumption guidelines and water demand unit rates used by the
CWRM for the purposes of its v~ater permit application review process. All
projects should indicate the following information, at a minimum:
a) Type of project;
b) Source of water;
c) Existing uses;
d) Contemplated uses;
e) System capacity;
f) I,ocationll'ax Map Key (TMK);
g) Project schedule;
h) Quality of water needed;
i) Basis for water demand projections (e.g. azea, units, etc.); and
j~ Primary sowce development plan for the project(s).
3) Water demand
forecasting techniques -The forecasts developed by the DOA
should identify the significant demand determinants used by the agency which
may include but are not limited to:
a) The data, the sowces of data, the assumptions, and the analysis upon which
the forecast is based;
b) The relative sensitivity of the forecasts to changes in assumptions and varying
conditions; and
c) The procedures, methodologies, and models used in the forecast, together with
the rationale underlying the use of such procedures, methodologies, and
models.
The approach used by the DOA in their forecasts should be based on sufficient
historical data and at a minimum should result in high, medium, and low forecasts
of average day demands. Additional forecasts of annual, seasonal, and peak-day '
system demands, as may be necessary should be based upon forecasted average
day demands. The validity and reliability of the approach used by the DOA must
Page 3 - I S
be demonstrated and the agency must be prepared to discuss unexplained
variation in demand.
4) Integrated Resource Planning Elements - To provide consistency and
coordination between the State Water Projects Plan and the County V4'ater Use
and Development Plan, the following elements of the 112P approach should be
followed in the preparation of the AWUDP:
a) Demand Forecast - The AWUDP shall include a range of forecasts of the
amount of water required over the planning horizon. The DOA shall develop
forecasts for multiple scenarios that aze necessary or appropriate in the
development of the SWPP and the County WUDP. Among the scenarios are
the base case scenario (a scenario based on the most likely assumptions), a
high-growth scenario, and aloes-growth scenario.
Forecasts shall be based on yearly increments for the first 5 years. Thereafter,
forecasts shall be based on 5-year increments to the year 2020. The DOA is
encouraged to extend their forecasts beyond the yeaz 2020, particularly when
the forecasts for the initial 20-year period indicates that the limits of particulaz
resources are within reach.
b) Water System Profiles - The AWUDP shall include a thorough description of
current supplies, major conveyance facilities and storage reservoirs, re-use
programs, and conservation programs that are currently in operation. This
description shall also include resources, if any, to which the State, county, or
private agricultural entities have made commitments. The ability of the
current (and, if applicable, committed) system to meet future demands should
be explored.
c) Resource Development Options - As applicable, the AWUDP shall address
the following types of resource options:
• Supply sources, including both surface-water and ground-wafer supplies
and various combined uses of the two. The issue of inter-basin transfers
should be examined, with due regard to the environmental and cultural
impacts in the basin of origin.
• Transmission and other infrastructure, including, but not limited to,
major conveyance, treatment, and pumping facilities to relieve existing or
anticipated constraints on effectively utilizing existing supplies.
• Storage facilities, to take advantage of annual, seasonal, daily, or diurnal
variations in demands and/or available supplies.
• Conservation programs for agricultural water users. Conservation
options should be considered as carefully as supply and facility options as
Page 3 - 16
to their ability to achieve objectives. In particular, the estimates for future
program participation, costs, and savings should be enumerated and
explained. As used here, the term "conservation programs" also includes
conservation-oriented rate designs.
• Direct and indirect use of reclaimed wastewater for irrigation uses.
Such options must be consistent with federal= state, and county laws and
regulations.
d) Source Development Plan - The AW;JDP must include a source development
plan based upon selected resource options. The plan shall be divided into three
periods as follows:
Near-term (initial s years): For this period, the source development plan
must detail all of the actions that need to take place to accommodate the
projected agricultural water demands anticipated for the initial 5-yeaz time
frame. A near-term implementation schedule and a detailed description of
each action shall be presented. This schedule shall reflect the anticipated
timing and sequencing of all neaz-term actions. The schedule shall also
include expected supply-side capacity additions and demand-side program
penetration levels by year. Near-term actions may inchide, but are not limited
to pre-design, design, construction, obtaining financing, information-
gathering, staff hiring, execution of initial conservation program phases, and
additional stakeholder and public involvement activities The 5-yeaz plan
should also include estimates of incremental annual capital and operating
costs.
• Medium-term (subsequent 5 years): The source de~tlopment plan for the
medium-term will require less detail, and should focus on major decision
points and actions such as plan reassessments, and other actions that may
require substantial advance preparation. Precise scheduling and sequencing of
events is not critical. However, such information will Head to be developed as
part of subsequent updates to the AWUDP.
• Long-term (final 10 years): The long-term source de~•etopment plan should
serve to highlight major events that are anticipated in the fmal portion of the
planning period. It is expected that detailed information may not be available
for long-term plans, however, available data should be identified and
sufficiently described.
5) Resource Strategies -The resource and facility options that are identified by the
DOA in the AWUDP must be combined into resource strategies and integrated
with the county strategies. A resource strategy is defined a~
A flexible sequence of supply, infrastruc?we, storage, and conservation program
additions intended to meet agricultural water needs over the planning period.
Page 3 - 17
The DOA must be prepared to develop alternative strategies and to evaluate each
strategy against the other. During the update of each county's WUDP, the DOA's
strategies should be re-evaluated based upon county specific objectives and
measurable criteria developed under the prescribed IRP process. The final
product of this step should result in a manageable number of strategies within the
WUDP from which a fmal recommendation will be selected.
6) Uncertainties -The DOA should consider future uncertainties in the development
of resource strategies. Source development strategies should provide for future
contingencies that may arise in the face of particulaz outcomes. Sensitivity
analysis of strategies developed by the DOA should be performed to evaluate the
sensitivity of forecasts and outcomes to various future scenarios.
7) Updating -The responsibility for maintaining, monitoring, and updating the
AWUDP document resides with the DOA. However, it is recommended that
agricultural stakeholders annually update project information in order to monitor
demand forecasts and implementation of water development strategies. The DOA
should establish a mechanism for regular review of existing, planned, and
proposed water resources to meet projected agricultwa! requirements.
County Government
Each of the four counties is responsible for the prepazation of a Rater Use and
Development Plan in accordance with the requirements of the State Water Code. The
framework should additionally guide the preparation of each County WUDP if the
WUDPs aze to be effectively implemented by the county and utilized by the CW}tM for
resource management purposes. The responsibi]ity for actual prepazation of the County
WUDP rests with the specific entities charged with water planning as may be enumerated
by county ordinance. As part of the county-specific framework guidelines, each county
shall specify the actual roles and responsibilities of the various county agencies involved
in the development and prepazation of the WUDP.
The State Water Code mandates that the counties adopt their Water Use and
Development Plan by ordinance and calls for formal adoption by tbe CWRM. In
accordance with this framework, the specific steps, responsibilities and projected
timetable for the updating and adoption process should be included in the project
description and submitted to the CWRM for approval prior to undertaking the update
process.
In the development of the County WUDP, each county should designate a lead agency or
agencies for the undertaking of the WUDP update. In the context of the integrated
resource planning approach, the roles and responsibilities of the lead agency or agencies
are envisioned as follows:
• To develop a scope of work and budget for the WUDP update;
• To secure funding for the project;
Page 3 - 18
• 7o develop and coordinate a public and stakeholder participation process; and
• To coordinate the planning efforts of the various levels of government ti~th the efforu
of the private sector in order to achieve an integrated WUDP at the county level.
County Water Use and Development Plan
The County WUDP is intended to insure that the future water nceds of the county are
met. The WUDP should also provide guidance to the CWRM for decision-making on
water uses and water reservation requests. The county shall provide an executive
summary of the plan and of the analyses conducted and appropriately index its
submissions to the CWRM.
Legal Mandate and Specific Statutory Requirements -WUDP
Updating of the WUDPs shall be in compliance with the overall goals and objectives of
the HWP and the required provisions outlined in Section 174C-31, Hawaii Revised
Statutes. These statutory requirements which must be followed inchrde:
i . Preparation of a WUDP that sets forth "the allocation of water to land use" in each
county which shall be adopted by ordinance and submitted to the CWRM for
approval and adoption.
2. Requirement for periodic updates and modifications to the WUDP to maintain
consistency with zoning and land use policies;
3. Appropriate recognition of the current and future development needs of the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL); and
4. Preparation of "regional plans for water development including recommended and
alternative plans, costs, adequacy of plans and relationship to water resource
protection and quality plan."
Recommended Plan Elements
The County WUDP update process should incorporate the following recommended
elements:
Submission of a County-Specifrc WUDP Project Description - In conjunction with
updating the WUDP, each county shall submit a WUDP Project Description for review
and approval by the CWRM. Specific elements of the required project description are
described in subsequent sections of the framework. The CWRM shall undertake and
complete its evaluation as expeditiously as possible so as not to unreasonably delay the
county's updating of its WUDP.
Coordination with Commission on Water Resource Management-Each county shall brief
the CWRM and its staff in conjunction with any planned updates of the County WUDP.
The purpose of this briefing shall be to present the scope of work (i.e. WUDP Project
Description) that will be followed in the planned update of the County WUDP. At this
briefing, the county should be prepazed to discuss the specific scope, project activities
Page 3 - 19
and schedule to be undertaken by the county in its updating of the WUDP. The Project
Description should also describe how SWPP and AWUDP information will be integrated
and used in the updating of the County WUDP. Such briefing before the CWRM shall
also serve as additional opportunity for public comment and input into the WUDP
planning process.
In addition to presenting the County WUDP Project Description, periodic milestone
briefings to the CWRM shall be required. Such briefings shall be for coordinating each
county's planning activities with those activities to be undertaken by state agencies
responsible for the other components of the HWP. Milestone briefings shall serve as an
opportunity to review demand projection methodologies and determine if state project
demands aze accounted for by county projections, eliminate "double counting" of
demands, and check for consistencies in the use of unit rates by land type. Milestone
briefings by the county shall also serve to provide the CW1tM with regular progress
reports, including identification of any constraints encountered as part of the WUDP
update.
ilpon completion of the plan update and subsequent approval by the County Council,
final adoption of the County WUDP by the CWRIvI shall be effectuated within the
subject county to maximize public participation in the updating of the County WUDP.
Stakeholder and Public Involvement -Substantial and credible stakehoider and public
involvement (SPI) is critical to the success of the County WUDP. While the precise form
of the SPI effort will vary, each county should conclusively demonstrate that the public
and identified stakeholders were sufficiently informed about the progress of the plan and
that they had adequate opportunity to provide input. The WUDP should dixuss how such
input was incorporated into the development and evaluation of resource strategy
alternatives.
At the start of its WUDP process, each county should develop a detailed SPI strategy that
reasonably conforms to the following guidelines. Counties aze encouraged to conduct
greater efforts to inform and involve the public and stakeholders.
• Essential stakeholders should be identified. These stakeholders should be kept
infonned about plan progress and their input at critical stages of the plan development
should be solicited.
• Sufficient information on important community values with respect to water
resources and water supply should be systematically gathered, analyzed, and
disseminated.
• A group of key individuals may be created and effectively used in an advisory
capacity throughout the development of the plan.
Page 3 - 20
• Other special-purpose groups (e.g. technical advisory committees, focus groups,
community teams, etc.) may be convened to provide input and assistance in particular
plan phases.
• Public forums of some type should, at minimum, be held at each of the following
points of plan development:
• Developing planning objectives
• Screening resource options
• Developing and evaluating resource strategies
The county should use multiple vehicles to infornt the public at large in advance
about these forums. Information at these forums should be presented in a non-
technical manner designed to facilitate public understanding and participation.
• The incorporation of the results of the foregoing activities into the plan must be
clearly demonstrated.
Defining Jhe County Public Participation Process - A critical cornerstone of the IItP
process is the use of an effective public participation process to identify and evaluate
issues, objectives, options and strategies that are of concern to the public and entities with
a stake in the outcome of the planning process. Each county should set forth the specific
activities that will be undertaken to inform and involve the public and specific
stakeholders in the WUDP planning process. Possible activities include, but are not
limited to:
• Well-publicized public workshops, meetings, or hearings
• Individual organizations and stakeho]der interviews
• Surveys and questionnaires
• Focus groups
• Formal or informal presentations to community groups
• Newsleriers
• Utility bill inserts
• Fact sheen
• Slide shows or videos
• Local press coverage
• Information provided on web pages
The public participation strategy developed by each county shall be adequately described
and incorporated into the county's WliDP Project Description.
Objectives and Criteria -Each update of the WUDP should include a careful process to
develop and refine a set of planning objectives and associated evaluation criteria. "This
process must include essential stakeholders and consider available information on
community values regazding water resource issues. (If such information is not available,
Page 3 - 2t
the county should employ a process to gather it, such as surveys, focus groups,
interviews, etc.).
The planning objectives form the basis of the evaluation of altemative resource strategies.
Their wording and meaning must therefore be carefiilly developed. Their completeness
must be insured. Each objective will have associated with it one or more measurable
evaluation criteria. These criteria may be quantitative or qualitative and it is not expected
that they be measured in the same or similaz units.
Each county should develop its o~vn unique set of planning objectives. Planning issues
for which objectives may be developed include, but are not limited to:
• Water supply reliability
• Costs and/or rates
• Environmental impacts
• Water quality
• Appurtenant and correlative water rights
• Traditional and customary gathering rights
• DHHI, water rights (Section 221, HHCA)
The above list is intended to provide a starting point for each county to develop relevant
planning objectives and evaluation criteria for its own unique water resource planning
needs. ]t is expected that each county will need to expand on this list to reflect its own
?eeds in updating the WUDPs.
Each WUDP should describe the process by which the planning objectives aze identified
and defined. The description of the process should be in sufficient detail to assure the
public that the process has resulted in objectives that meet the foregoing requirements
and accurately reflect community values. The plan should also describe in detail the
manner in which the evaluation criteria were used to compare the efficacy of altemative
resource strategies.
Counties are not required to use the above examples of potential planning objectives.
They are presented to assist counties in their own plan development
Consistency x~ith the WRPP -The WUDP shall comport with the provisions of the Rater
Resource Protection Plan and should utilize the ground-water hydrologic units and
surface-water hydrographic units designated statewide by the CWRM for the presentation
of data and analyses.
Current and Future Demand Forecast -Each County WUDP should include a range of
forecasts of the amount of water required over the planning horiwn. The WUDP
forecasts shall incorporate the most recent SWPP and AWUDP forecasts of water
requirements within the county. It shall also include forecasts of water requirements of
federal and private sector purveyors.
Page 3 - 22
Agencies should develop forecasts for multiple scenarios that are necessary or
appropriate in the development of the County RZ,~P. Among the scenarios are the base
case scenario (a scenario based on the most likeh• assumptions), ahigh-growth scenario,
and aloes-growth scenario. To facilitate review' of water use permit applications by the
CWRM, the county should develop demand forecasts for the initial s-year period based
on specific projects consistent with state and county land use plans and designations. The
demand forecasts for the initial 5-yeaz period should also be developed based on the
water use and demand guidelines used by the CV1'RM or a refined set of guidelines based
on actual water use. Different approaches to forecasting may be used beyond the initial
5-year projection period, but each forecast should identify the significant demand
determinants used by the county which may include but are not limited to:
• The data, the sowces of data, the assumptions, and the analysis upon which the
forecast is based;
• The relative sensitivity of the forecasts to changes in assumptions and varying
conditions; and
• The procedwes, methodologies, and models used in the forecast, together with the
rationale underlying the use of such procedures, methodologies, and models.
The forecast approach should be based on sufficient historical data and, at a minimum,
develop high, medium, and low forecasts of average day demands. Additional forecasts
of annual, seasonal, and peak-day system demands, as may be necessary, should be based
upon forecasted average day demands. The validity and reliability of the forecast
approach used must be demonstrated and any unexplained variation in demand must be
discussed.
Forecasts shall be based on yearly increments for the first 5 years. Thereafter, forecasts
shall be based on 5-year increments to the yeaz 2020. The counties are encowaged to
extend their forecasts beyond the yeaz 2020, particulazly when their forecasts for the
initial 20-year period indicates that the limits of particular resowces are within reach
Finally, demand forecasts shall be consistent with county land use plans, development
plans and/or community plans.
Rater System Profiles -The WUDP should include a thorough description of current
supplies, major conveyance facilities, storage reservoirs, re-use programs, and
conservation programs. This description shall also include resowces, if any, to which the
county has made commitments. The ability of the current (and, if applicable, committed)
system to meet futwe demands should be explored.
Resource and Facility Options -Each WUDP mast describe the resowce and facility
options that were considered. The planning process must begin with a broad group of
options and must successively screen out inappropriate options. In this context, an
• "inappropriate" option is one that can be shown to do an unacceptably poor job of
achieving one or more of the planning objectives.
Page 3 - 23
It is expected that many options will be screened out with a minimum of analytical effort
Anal}•tical resources should be focused on those options that have the highest likelihood
of meeting planning objectives. Counties must clearly document the reasoning behind the
inclusion or exclusion of any option.
As applicable, each WUDP shall address the following types of resource options:
• Supply sources, including both surface water and ground-water supplies and various
combined uses of the two. The issue of inter-basin transfers should be examined, with
due regard to the envvonmental and cultural impacts in the basin of origin.
• Transmission and other infrastructure, including, but not limited to, major
conveyance, treatment, and pumping facilities to relieve existing of anticipated
constraints on effectively utilizing existing supplies.
• Storage facilities, to take advantage of annual, seasonal, daily, or diurnal variations
in demands and/or available supplies.
• Conservation programs for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and
institutional customers. Conservation options should be considered as carefully as
supply and facility options as to their ability to achieve objectives. In particular, the
estimates for future program participation, costs, and savings should be enumerated
and explained. As used here, the term "conservation programs" also includes
conservation-oriented rate designs.
• Direct and indirect use of reclaimed wastewater for non-potable uses. Such options
must be consistent with federal, state, and county laws and regulations.
Each resource or facility option must be initially characterized to enable a decision to be
made regarding its retention or removal. For those options that aze retained, sufficient
information must be collected and analysis perfoaned to proceed with the development
and evaluation of resource strategies described below.
Strategies Development and Evaluation -The resource and facility options that arc
retained in the preceding step must be combined into resource strategies. For purposes of
WUDP development, a resource strategy is defined as:
A flexible sequence of supply, infrastructure, storage, and conservation program
additions intended to meet county water needs over the planning period
Using whatever modeling tools are deemed necessary and appropriate, alternative
strategies should be developed and evaluated against each of the measurable criteria that
will have already been defined
The final product of this step must be a manageable number of strategies from which a
final recommendation w111 be selected. The size of this final set will vary, but it is
Page 3 - 24
suggested that it include no more than six strategy alternatives. The manner in which the
universe of possible strategies is narrowed to this final set must be carefully described in
the WUDP.
Uncertainties -Future uncertainties should be considered in the development of resource
strategies. Source development strategies should provide for future contingencies that
may arise in the face of particulaz outcomes. Strategies must explicitly account for futttre
uncertainties by use of the techniques of sensitivity analysis. Such techniques test the
sensitivity of the forecasts and outcomes to different futures, and specify how future
actions may change in the face of particular outcomes.
Final Strategy Selection - tt is expected that no single strategy will perform best against
every evaluation criterion. Tradeoffs will therefore have to be made among criteria and
each WUDP must make those tradeoffs explicit. The process by which those tradeoffs are
made may be formal or informal, and may or may not involve numeric weighting of
criteria. It is the responsibility of each county to select and apply a process and
thoroughly describe it in the ~i'UDP. The logic of the final strategy selection must be
made clcaz.
Modeling Tools -Each WUDP must carefully describe and document the computerized
modeling tool(s) that were instrumental to completing the plan.
Implementation Plan -Each WUDP must include a plan to implement the adopted
strategy. The implementation plan shall be divided into three periods as follows:
• Near-term (initial s years): For this period, the implementation p]an must detail
all of the actions that need to take place to accomplish the first phase of the
adopted strategy. Such actions include, but are not limited to pre-design, design,
construction, obtaining financing, information-gathering, staff hiring, execution of
initial conservation program phases, and additional stakeholder and public
involvement activities. A detailed description of each action shall be presented.
The 5-year plan should also include estimates of incremental annual capital and
opernting costs.
A neaz-term implementation schedule is also required. This schedule shall reflect
the anticipated timing and sequencing of all neaz-term actions. The schedule shall
also include expected supply-side capacity additions and demand-side program
penetration levels by yeaz.
• Medium-term (subsequent 5 years): The implementation plan for the medium-
term will include significantly less detail, focusing on major decision points and
actions such as plan reassessments, major investments, bond elections, and other
actions that may require substantial advance preparation. Precise scheduling and
sequencing of events is not critical. However, such information will need to be
developed as part of subsequent updates of the WUDP.
Page 3 - 25
• Long-term (final 10 years): The long-term implementation plan will serve to
highlight major events that are anticipated in the final portion of the planning
period. Projects and strategic actions to be undertaken during this period will
likely be described only in conceptual temvs.
Underlying Assumptions and Data -The WLTDP must clearly indicate all of the
assumptions that underlie the plan and the sources of all data used in the plan.
Need jor Flexibility
The statewide framework identifies guidelines that state and county agencies should
follow, but also recognizes the need for appropriate flexibility that may be necessary due
to institutional and/or funding constraints. Plan versatility is also necessary to encourage
innovation as well as to accommodate unique and county-specific concerns that may be
addressed within the WUDP.
Notwithstanding this need for flexibility, the framework serves to establish important
planning elements and issues that should be addressed as part of the IRP process and
minimum requirements that should be incorporated into the updated WUDPs. In defining
such requirements and recommended plan elements, attention was given to each agency's
existing statutory and regulatory requirements. It is the intent that these requirements and
recommended planning elements will provide a more cohesive approach for effectively
assessing water supply options, project proposals and sequences, conservation and
demand-side management strategies, and long-term plans for developing and managing
existing and alternative water resources.
Therefore, each county must be provided with sufficient flexibility to implement the
integrated resource planning framework in a context that is more specifically tailored to
the county's individual needs and priorities. The following section descn~bes the process
and provisions by which each county may tailor the framework guidelines a its own
water use and development planning process.
Development oJCounty~Specifie Project Description
The framework requirements and specific guidelines presented above define the overall
parameters that each County's WUDP must meet. However, the CWRM recognizes that
each county faces a unique set of conditions that have an impact on the county's planning
process, including:
1) The nature and occurrence of water resources and existing infrastructure in the
county;
2) The planning issues and water use priorities the county must address;
3) The financial resources available to the county; and
4) The financial and organizational structure that has been established by its County
Council and administration.
In light of such conditions, counties should develop a scope of work for updating its
WUDP which best meets its overall objectives. The process by which these objectives
Page 3 - 26
are to be achieved should be set forth in a detailed project description and schedule for
updating the County WUDP.
Establishing Priorities and Objectives - As part of the WUDP Project Description, each
county shall identify specific issues relating to land use, water use and resource
development, and the relative priority of the issues to be addressed in the update of the
WUDP. To the extent possible, the priority of the issues shall be developed in
coordination with the County General Plan, Development Plan and/or Community Plan.
In addition to identifying and prioritizing specific county issues, each county shall also
provide the CWRM with its proposed methodology for identifying planning objectives
and evaluation criteria as required to meet the HWP framework requirements.
Defining the County IRP Project Scope - A major element of the county-specific WUDP
Project Description shall be the definition of a specific project scope that the county will
undertake in its update of the WUDP. This scope of work shall be based on the
techniques of integrated resource planning and shall outline the county's specific
proposals in the following arenas:
• Establishment of planning objectives and evaluation criteria
• Publidstakeholderpxrticipation and public information program
• Water demand forecasting considering the uncertainties of the future
• Identification of conservation and demand management programs
• Identification of source development options, and any potential impacts to the
resource
• Development and integration of resource development strategies
The county's proposed scope of work (i.e. Project Description) should be sufficiently
detailed to enable the county to identify the specific water resources planning expertise
that would be required to complete the WUDP update. In addition, the scope of work
should be sufficiently detailed to identify specific planning tasks and activities that will
be undertaken to address the specific issues and priorities pre~~ously identified by the
county.
Establishment of WUDP Schedule - In order to coordinate the county's planning efforts
with the planning activities being undertaken by various state agencies to update other
components of the Hawaii Water Plan, the WUDP Project Description shall contain a
schedule for the county's updating of its WUDP. This schedule shall be as specific as
possible in outlining the different stages and activities of the county's planning effort
The schedule shall also indicate the approximate times and anticipated duration for public
participation activities. In addition, the schedule shall indicate the approximate time
frame for county approval of the WUDP and submittal of the WUDP to the CV1'Rivt for
its adoption.
Page 3 - 27
Summary of Framework Guidelines for HWP Components
To ensure that the HWP components are dynamic processes rather than static reports, the
framework sets out the following guidelines pertaining to planning, programming,
implementation and evaluation:
1. State and county agencies should set priorities and develop appropriate strategies to
meet the counties' growing water demands as part of their current planning and
decision-making processes. Implementation of integrated resource planing should
comport with state and county environmental, health and safety laws. In addition,
resource development plans should be consistent with the Water Resource Protection
Plan, Water Quality Plan, and with formally adopted state and conty land use and
community development plans.
2. State and county agencies should develop a robust evaluation and assessment process
emphasizing the integration of various planing scenarios into a strategic decision-
making process that addresses uncertainties, environmental externalities and public
needs.
3. State and county agencies involved in water use and development planning should
consider least-cost planning and equal treatment of all types of resources (supply-side
and demand-side). '17re integrated resource planning process should require
consideration and analyses of the costs, effectiveness, and benefits of all appropriate,
available and feasible supply-side and demand-side options.
4. State and county agencies involved in water use and development planning should
identify resources or a mix of resources for meeting neaz- and long-term wafer needs
in an efficient and reliable manner at the lowest reasonab]e cost
5. State and county agencies must adopt a 20-yeaz planning horizon with requirements
for regulaz 5-year updates. Each 5-year update cycle shall commence on the 3'~ yeaz,
with adoption of a revised HWP component by the 5° yeaz.
6. State and county agencies should incorporate a public participation and education
process involving the community, public interest groups and govemmeat agencies.
The integrated resource planning process should provide for an open public process.
Opportunities should be provided for participation by the public and governmental
agencies in the development and adoption of the County Water Use and Development
Plans.
7. To facilitate regulation and permitting, the county should develop demand forecasts
for the initial 5-yeaz period based on specific projects consistent with state and county
land use plans and designations. The demand forecasts for the initial 5-year period
should also be developed based on water use and demand guidelines used by the
CWRivi or a refined set of guidelines based on actual water use.
Page 3 - 28
The framework that is outlined above focuses on the integrated resource planning process
as a model process for undertaking future updates of the Water Use and Development
Plans. This framework further endorses that all water resource development options and
strategies planned by federal, state or count;' agencies, and private sector entities be
integrated at the county level In achieving this integration at the county level, a
comprehensive and long-term strategy for efficient and beneficial use of all the water
resources within each county and the State az a whole can be effectuated.
Page 3 - 29
sECTIOx rv
F12A_1tEWORK IMPLE~iEVTATI01\ PLAN
Ocen•iew
The planning framework described in the three precious sections represents a dramatic
shift in the process by which the Hawau Water Plan components are developed. The
framework proposes a more integrated approach particulazly at the county level and
identifies recommendations for substantive elements for each plan component that either
go beyond current mandates and statutory requirements or provide amplification of the
statutory requirements. As a result, implementation of the framework will require close
coordination and cooperation between the variotu agencies charged with preparation of
the component plans and future amendment of existing statutes may be warranted.
In certain cases, updating of the component plans may already be underway with project
scopes fixed by current funding levels and project agreements. The ability to obtain
additional funding or to revise existing project agreements is constrained by the current
budgetary and financial condition of the State and county governments. These factors
indicate that implementation of the requirements and recommendations contained in this
framework document will need to be phased over the next several years and possibly over
successive iterations of the updating process for the Hawaii Water Plan.
Full implementation of the proposed framework foc the Hawaii Rater Plan can be
achieved in three phases identified as follows:
Phase I: Framex~ork Adoption and Initial Updates to NWP Components
1. Adoption of the framework by the CR'RM;
2. Undertaki»g of an extensive information and educational outreach effort
regazding the framework and the use of integrated resource planning
techniques for state and county agencies and other stakeholders with an
interest in the Hawaii Water Plan components;
3. Completion of existing scopes of worlr for the WRPP and SWPP, as
negotiated;
4. Completion of the SWAP scope of work, as negotiated; and
5. Completion of the AWUDP in accordance with Act 101, SLH 1498.
6. Initiation of the Oahu WUDP update.
Phase II: Development and Funding oJR'ew Framework Initiatives
1. Development and funding of project scopes for instream studies, aquifer
sustainable yield studies and other water resource protection and management
measures relevant to the WRPP;
2. Development and funding of project scope to identify water quality
management measures leading to a comprehensive watershed protection
Page 4 - I
program based on the results of the SWAP, leading to a more comprehensive
scope for the WQP;
3. Development and funding of comprehensive AWUDP scope of work based on
recommended elements as identified in this framework;
4. Funding of SWPP updates with specific emphasis on the Counties of Kauai,
Maui and Hawaii;
5. Development and funding of project scopes for the updating of WUDPs for
the Counties of Kauai, Maui (including Molokai and Lanai= and Hawaii.
Phase III: Component Integration Phase
1. Update the WRPP based on instream studies and more refined aquifer
sustainable yield modeling;
2. Prepare a comprehensive WQP based on the results of SWAP and water
quality protection measures developed in Phase II;
3. Update the AWUDP based on refinement of agricultural development plans,
statewide;
4. Update the SWPP based on refinement of state agency projections and
development plans, statewide; and
5. Update the County WUDPs incorporating all mandatory and recommended
framework provisions, subject to improvements as indicated by public and
agency feedback from previous efforts.
"fhe phasing of the Implementation Plan presented above provides agencies with the
opportunity to transition current planning efforts and projects that have been previously
developed on the basis of the existing requirements and planning methodologies to the
CW12M's proposed framework that is based on integrated resource planning
methodologies. More importantly, the phasing provides an opportunity for orderly
development of scopes of work for the various resource assessments, water resource
protection planning and water demand assessment tasks, and to allow for appropriation of
required funding to implement the resulting scopes of work.
Detailed Implementatioe Steps -Phase I
The first objective in this phase of the framework implementation is to establish a new
direction and provide guidance to the agencies responsible for specific components of the
Hawaii Water Plan. To accomplish this objective, the actions that should be taken aze:
I . Adoption of the proposed HWP framework that calls for an integrated
approach to water planning particulazly at the county level.
2. Undertaking of an extensive information and educational outreach effort to
stakeholders and agencies with regazds to the proposed framework elements.
A schedule for adoption of the framework that also includes initial efforts to provide
information and educate agencies and stakeholders about the proposed framework is
Page 4 - 2
outlined in Figwe 4-1. This schedule would result in CWR~4 adoption oCthe proposed
framework as guidelines in calendaz }'ear 2000.
Following the framework adoption and undertaking of initial educational outreach
actions, as outlined in Figwe 4-], a second objective of Phase I is to complete the current
update of the various components of the Hawaii Water Plan. The actions to be
undertaken to meet this objective include:
3. Completion of existing scopes of work for the WRPP and SRPP, as
negotiated;
4. Completion of the SV1'AP scope of work, as negotiated;
5. Completion of the AVVUDP in accordance with Act 101, SLH 1998; and
6. Initiation of the Oahu WUDP update.
Each of these action items and the rationale for undertaking them in the limited manner
indicated are discussed as follows.
Action items 3, 4, and 5 above essentially involve updating the component plans of the
HWP that are the responsibility of state agencies. It is acknowledged that the scopes of
work and funding levels for these component plans were developed prior to the
development of the new framework and recommendations contained in this document.
In the case of the WRPP, the scope of work and priorities that have been established for
the project were developed in conjunction with the conceptual development of the
proposed HWP framework. However, the funding for the WRPP was obtained prior to
development of the framework concepts and represents a practical constraint in
undertaking elements of the plan such as extensive instream studies, aquifer sustainable
yield studies and other water resource management measwes. Nevertheless, under the
currently negotiated scope of work, the WRPP will begin to address certain tasks and
activities relating to such elements as shown in Table 4-1, Summary oJR'RPP Taskr and
Activities.
In the case of the SWPP, the current scope of work and funding should be able to provide
relevant water demand information and projections for use by the counties in their efforts
to update their WUDP. Using Oahu as an example, water demand information for state-
sponsored projects which could be accommodated by the existing or planned BWS
system will be given to BWS for integration into their Oahu Water Use and Development
Plan. The summary of tasks and activities to be undertaken under the current scope of
work for the SWPP is presented in Table 4-2.
Page4-3
G
O
O
N
L
w
Y
L
w
0
C
Y
A
U ~ m
~ LL
tb fb
N r
U
W
D
O O O
Z 2
O z ^ r
x
~ ~ R ~QR
°a
~ N N NN
a
v Q e
` ~ a v
~ CL u
o~ m y m
W 7 ~ C
L3 ~
4
~ ; a rn
a
~ ~
x
m
0
G
0
m
s
Q V
- m
a= m O c a c O
c~n~ ~ L' adc~n
mmm~ ~ C m oilcO
~a3~ m aa"i3 a ~ m aoiQ
wok a mmH~ ac=s
0 0
Gm°-'~ a~~EE~ =moo,
oZ W a o ~~UU c °,8 € m
m pQU maL~df E ~ ~$x
E n~ P E m~ c~ E E m s m
L° ~~m L°~~m~o L°=g 5
LL~.OS LLN V1 U LL CNIL
_ Y
p O
V Q C
o ~8 ~N9r8 ~ ~
0
ag: ~FCOO,gyg ~ i
. a ~~gr~ a 4 oa p:v
~ S a a E gar°N~
~~YY •z aS Nye ° cnE
~a~O$Ea 3a~~wiyg~° Eoo
u ~
~ ~ ~~~g€~Q~ ~p~~aSN~~€~aya~
° $~gP~,~ $~poS~pN1 Ti ~g~~i~Na
YyCC 00 ~ c OaaC~~~ 'RCN ~ .~S
v ' .
K ~oa°io U $o.-.- O ~ ~ a
F.
a
Vi O d O .
~ 0. g
~ .
Gy ~ . 3
3 N
ar as a$
'a yyw ~ eases a e~~~ . g~~ `c w ~
v .Y O 4S pW 3.4 S m~E~~ egi C
d ~ m
Z,~ ~ g ~a~~~~ o~gg ~ sg~~
i .
p pE8 °~m
eY `y3dt~Esea @,~@.~@.°~ ~5~?L. ~ ~°E~~sy~~~~W~~Q$S~ng
E U5~4 ~oeY~g S~ ~ N2~L .~~~a
b
W ~ ; ;
W C S
2 ~
3 a U'E a
a ~
S m
m
• ;
•
mg
3
v
a
3
•
s ~ a ~ r+
m a 7 ~ W i o M
a ~ ~
•
~~~~~~a ~~4a d~ A
q~ qg3§ p
A u~•~un~ ~•8~:2 M~ O
~ X22 w y p
Q n.
Z 3 u ,y
• u ! • ~ s ~ .n. 6
3 F'~ $ iiiroyyy
L~ y
3
a
8 o i
fa
D•b'~
~$$°s Z
~s~ n
~
y M
QL' a
m N
N
•
o v
r
0
Y T ~ ~
3 i
° d m
~ . r
s ~ ~ 3
_
o' ~ c -i
~ • 3
9
a_
$ c
S
Y'8~ YY ~ g .a:
o;..=
SS g5 $ 4 s
v ~~~~~~~g g~ N~a °°iy ya~sw~~ ~ ~ ,wpm
to
2 ° o ~ 'fl o
a ~ ~ 3$4 ~ ~~~a am ~ N
~ a s~~~ ~ o
° _ ~ ~ S E 3 " a
~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~
3 w ~ o' <
w
g¢ E a A
0
a ~ °
o aY d u 3 H
° 2 °
~
g~
a'~o~n ~~~s
~3°`z '8 '•a~ w
• ~ . ~ . s
_ 43O
~ 4 O
C
Y
~ w
. g
~
R'ith respect to the AWUDP, Phase [ of the Implementation Plan proposes that the
Department of Agricultwe undertake a scope of work that meets the requirements of Act
101, SLH 1998. It is ackno~ti•ledged that this scope of work essentially undertakes only
an inventory of imgation systems and identifies the extent of repair and rehabilitation
that would be required over afive-year period. Such a scope would not pru~ide for the
development of agricultural water demand projections, which are critical inputs needed
by the counties in their WUDP update. For this phase, the agricultural Water demand
projections for agricultural lands served by state imgation systems will be developed
under the scope of work for the S WPP (Department of Agricultwe and DHHL
projections are being compiled as part of the assessment of water needs for all state
agencies). Projections of agricultural water demands for privately held agricultwal lands
are not covered under any current scopes of work for any of the projects being
undertaken by the various state agencies. However, for Oahu, prelirninan• projections
may be developed as part of the work to be undertaken within the planned update of the
County WUDP as will be discussed shortly hereafter. For the other counties, the required
assessment can be undertaken in Phase II of the Implementation Plan.
With respect to the SWAP and R'QP, it has already been pointed out thaz the SNAP is
likely to provide critical water quality protection and management requiretnents as a
result of the identification and assessment of potentially contaminating activities for
drinking water sowces. This work should therefore be completed to provide a basis for
developing effective watershed management measwes, which would be a central element
of a comprehensive Water Quality Plan.
The last item identified in Phase I of the Implementation Plan incorporates the planned
update of the Oahu WUDP. The update of the Oahu WUDP should be coordinated with
updates of the other HWP components and should be prepared in compliance with the
li WP framework provisions.
The project scope of work that was publicly issued by the Honolulu Board of Water
Supply for its consultant selection process and the tasks and activities that will be
undertaken are summarized in Table 4-3. The scope of work contemplated for the Oahu
project will provide for compiling and developing water demand projections for
domestic, industrial, agricultural, and non-potable uses of municipal, state, federal and
private water systems on Oahu. It will also include assessment of environmental factors
as part of the project objectives and evaluation criteria to be developed for the purpose of
evaluating resowce options and water management strategies for Oahu.
Page4-8
~ ~ ~
x $
P ~ ~ ~
~ ~
_ ~ ~ yo c m
_ ~ ;
• w ` ~ ~
a w ~
N VI
Z r
~ • .,p
w~ ~ a ~ ~~~a ~ ~ ~ ~
•o ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ u O ~ w
q ~o ~ q ~,a
~ C a
~ ~
R
$ a ~ ~ ~ , b
~~s~m
e~a~
~ b
gQ ~;r~s~gs$~sg~:
~S 3.~5 °~s~='~ ~ pp
g3~ ~3:~ga~WOQ~~n i
S. ~ ~ ~~n~.~ F ~
a
a w ` 3 w x
~ °s~ a a
F ~ ~ r
S ~ V ~ L
~ 3 =s
a
Detailed Implementation Steps -Phase II
Phase I of this Implementation Plan, described in the previous section, could be expected
to require a time period of approximately 2-3 years. The various projects identified in
that phase have been funded and contracts have been issued fur the work.
Phase II of the implementation Plan represents the period wfien the required and
recommended elements for neazly all the components of the HWP should be supported
with the necessary funding based on development of appropriate scopes of work. Some
of the effort in developing appropriate scopes of work for elements such as instream
studies and aquifer yield studies may be completed in the previous phase. The effort in
Phase II would then focus on both expanding and refining the scopes for such studies or
focus on identifying and obtaining the required funding to undertake the work.
Phase II would also represent that period of time when the scheduling of projects to
update the various components can begin to reflect a more logical progression of
planning activities. For example, projects and studies that aze critical to the R`RPP and
the WQP should be scheduled and initiated in this phase in coordination with projects and
studies critical to the WLJDPs that the state and counq agencies undertake. Such
scheduling will allow for the timely completion of additional resource assessments and
development of water quality management measures which can provide further guidance
to state and county agencies during future updates to the HWP.
The action items to be undertaken in this phase include:
1. Development and funding of project scopes for instream studies, aquifer
sustainable yield studies, and other water resource management measures relevant
to the WRPP;
2. Development and funding of project scope to identify management measures
leading to a comprehensive water quality protection program based on the results
of the SWAP, leading to a more comprehensive scope for the WQP;
3. Development and funding of a comprehensive AWUDP scope of work based on
recommended elements as identified in this framework;
4. Funding of S WPP updates with specific emphasis on the Counties of Kauai, Maui
and Hawaii; and
5. Development and funding of project scopes for the updating of WUDPs for the
Counties of Kauai, Maui (including Molokai and Lanai) and Hawaii.
These action items are discussed in some detail as follows.
Instrzam studies, aquifer sustainable yields, and water resource protection and
management measures (affecting the activities of agencies and other entities with respect
to resource development) are critical to determining the extent and availability of the
State's natural resources and the measures needed to protect the quality of the resources.
In order to develop a comprehensive Water Resource Protection Plan and Water Quality
Plan, these studies must be undertaken with appropriate scopes of work and with
adequate budgets to complete the work. There will also be a need to undertake these
Page 4 - 10
studies over an adequate time period to allow for the collection of historical and
statistically reliable data.
In this phase, the initial scopes of work for resource assessment studies and water
resource management planning activities that have been identified in the previous phase
should be refined and expanded as necessary. This scope-refinement activity should be
undertaken at the very outset of this implementation phase due to the importance of the
studies and the need to provide an adequate time period to establish statistically reliable
data.
The scope refinement activities should also identify the types of expertise required and
the methodologies for undertaking the studies. In the past, these issues have proven
difficult to resolve especially when qualified experts have publicly disagreed on the
theories, methods and assumptions that should be used to analyze and evaluate data. The
use of facilitated workshops involving a team of experts to achieve consensus in project
scope, basis, and methodologies would likely be necessary. Some of these workshops
may be undertaken in the previous phase. If not, they should be conducted as part of the
scope-refinement effort of Phase II.
Following the scope-refinement activities, effort should then be focused on identifying
appropriate budgets, identifying funding sources (federal, state, rntmty and others) and
completing the corresponding steps to obtain the necessary funding for the projects. It
should be noted that due to the current financial condition of all levels of government in
the State, funding from the State Legislature and from the County Councils would likely
be very limited. Therefore, it will be important to identify other funding sources such as
federal and private-sector sources and to successfully apply for such funding.
The completion of the SWAP project currently being undertaken by the DOH represents
a critical prerequisite study for the V1'QP. Currently, the SWAP is scheduled for
completion in 2001. The project will only identify potentially contaminating activities
and provide an initial assessment of the risk for contamination of all known drinking
water sources. Following the completion of this project, a mote difficult task will be
faced: identifying appropriate watershed management measures to protect the drinking
water sources and obtaining support for tbe implementation of such measures. It is
proposed that this VVQP-related effort be undertaken as part of Phase R of the
Implementation Plan
With respect to the other state components of the HWP, the AWUDP will require the
most attention in this phase of the Implementation Plan. This is because in the preceding
phase, the only work that is contemplated under this plan would encompass inventorying
existing state imgation systems and developing afive-yeaz repair and replacement
program. And although the SWPP will make initial estimates of state agricultural water
demands in the preceding phase, more extensive demand projections for private
agricultural water needs will have to be developed. This is especially true for the
Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii. Tbe initial demand estimates developed as part of
Page 4 - 11
the SVIPP and any additional information derived as a result of the planned update w the
Oahu WUDP will need to be incorporated as part of the A~l2.~DP update in this phase.
A major effort is anticipated with respect to identifying and projecting agricultural water
requirements for privately held agricultural lands. A critical planning activity in this
effort will be to identify and quantify the types of crops that will be grown and t0 project
the extent of agricultural lands that will be under cultivation over the planning horizon
covered by the HWP. Tbis effort essentially requires that a comprehensive statewide
agricultural development plan be developed to provide the basis for projecting realistic
agricultural water demands.
Obtaining the funding for the type of AWUDP contemplated in this framework is also
likely to pose a significant challenge during this phase of the H~l'P Implementation Plan.
Act 101, SLH 1998, which mandates that the Department of Agriculture undertake the
AWUDP, did not provide the necessary funding for even the modest scope of wvdc
identified in the legislation. Again, given the current financial condition of the Slate and
county governments, the availability of funding for an expanded agricultural
development planning effort and subsequent agricultural water needs assessment would
likely be extremely limited. Federal funding and assistance from private-sector sources
will be needed. Because of its importance in assisting the counties with their overall
water use and development planning effo?ts, the identification and pursuit of funding for
the AWUDP is considered a very critical task to be completed in this phase of the HWP
Implementation Plan.
The final action items in Phase II of the HWP Implementation Plan focuses on the SWPP
and WUDP updates for the Counties of Kauai, Maui (including Molokai and Lanau) and
Hawaii. During the time period that this phase encompasses, the DLNR and county
agencies should develop the scopes of work required for their urpdates and identify the
level of funding that is appropriate given the unique situations of each county. Ii may be
appropriate to undertake the type of WUDP planning called for in this framework only
for those azeas or regions within those counties that have reached a critical stage with
respect to the use and availability of water resources.
The time frame for undertaking the fast two phases of the HWP Implementation Plan
could encompass a time period ranging from five to ten years depending on the level of
funding that can be provided for the various planning tasks and studies. Given the
complexities of the technical work required for some of the studies, the
comprehensiveness of the issues that must be addressed, and the time required to
establish historical and statistically reliable data, achieving a moderate level of success in
implementing the projects discussed above will be a significant challenge. If the
Implementation Plan is further constrained by inadequate funding levels during the first
two phases, the time frame for achieving full inmplementation of the proposed HVJP
framework will be significantly delayed. Such a delay could have an impact on critical
future resource management decisions because the types of rtsourrz assessments and
management program measures that should be conducted or developed may be delayed.
Page 4 - 12
Detailed Implementation Steps -Phase III
Adequate funding of the first two phases would allow the HR'P planning process to move
into this final phase ofthe HWP Implementation Plan. 'This third phase would represent
the first iteration of the new framework in which the various component plans would not
only be more integrated but would begin to reflect the initial results of the long term
studies to determine permanent instream flow standards and more reliable aquifer
sustainable yield models. 77te action items to be undertaken in this phase include:
1. Updating the WRPP based on instream studies and more refined aquifer
sustainable yield modeling;
2. Development of a comprehensive WQP based on the results of SWAP and water
quality protection measures developed during Phase II;
3. Updating the AR'UDP based on refinement of agricultural development plans,
statewide;
4. Updating the SWPP based on refinement of state agency development plans,
statewide; and
5. Updating all the County WUDPs incorporating all mandator`' and recommended
framework provisions, subject to impro~ ements as indicated b}' public and agency
feedback from previous efforts.
The action items in Phase III indicate that the component plans would be updated based
on the results of the work in the previous phases. More importanil}-. the planning
activities, especially with respect to the updates of the County WL"DPs, ~~ill be based on
more comprehensive resource assessments and projections of ~•ater requirements (e.g.,
total State and private agricultural water demands based upon comprehensive agricultural
development plans.)
Page 4 - 13