HomeMy WebLinkAboutCase, Kanoeuluwehianuhea
Tsuneda, Kaci
From:Kanoe Case <kanoesc@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2026 10:41 AM
To:Council Testimony
Subject:Fwd: Opposition to Bills 186 and 187
Aloha County Council members,
I stand on my written testimony in opposition of Bills 186 and 187 in which I submitted for the last
hearing.
Mahalo,
Kanoe
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kanoe Case <kanoesc@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, October 4, 2026
Subject: Opposition to Bills 186 and 187
To: counciltestimony@hawaiicounty.gov
Aloha Chair and Members of the Hawaiʻi County Council,
My name is Kanoeuluwehianuhea Case, and I am submitting testimony in strong opposition
to Bills 186 and 187 and to the proposed Waikōloa Green development.
Waimea is my home. My moʻokuauhau lays in Waimea, lays in the Valleys of ʻAwini all the
way to Waipiʻo Valley in extension to districts in Hamakua to Honaunau, to Opihi Hale, to
Hiwilei in Pāhala. I am a lineal descendant of our sacred wai that flows allowing all wahi
pana from which we came from to thrive thus I am alive today. My relationship and pilina to
this place is not simply as a resident or someone observing a development proposal from a
distance. This is āina that raised me, ʻʻ my keiki and generations of our
bloodline to come.
Our wai beneath this āina is part of that relationship.ʻ
Our aquifer that sustains Waimea, Kohala and Waikōloa is not simply a water source to be
measured in gallons per day. To many who descend from Ko Pae āina ʻʻO Hawaiʻi, our wai
is our Kūpuna. They carry the life force of this place we call Home and sustains the people,
ʻāina, agriculture, and communities that depend upon it for generations.
Our Cuturally significant and Historic Sacred Wai is being threatened by the scale of
development being proposed.
I am asking the Council to reject Bills 186 and 187 and not allow this project to move
forward.
1
This is not a small development. The proposed Waikōloa Green project would facilitate a
major expansion of residential development across approximately 700 acres, including
hundreds of multifamily units and hundreds of agricultural lots.
A project of this scale cannot be considered simply as a question of whether water can
technically be delivered to individual homes.
The question is whether our water resource can sustain this development while continuing to
sustain the communities, agriculture, ecosystems, and existing water users who already
depend upon the same aquifer.
And that question becomes even more important because the project’s projected water
demand has changed dramatically.
The project’s earlier water demand was estimated at approximately 1.29 million gallons per
day. That projection was later reduced to approximately 362,000 gallons per day—a
reduction of roughly 72 percent.
That is an enormous change.
When the projected water demand for a development of this magnitude can change by
hundreds of thousands of gallons per day, I believe the public has every right to ask how
those numbers were determined, what assumptions changed, and whether the revised
projection truly represents the long-term demand that will be placed on our wai once the
project is fully built out.
We also cannot look at this development in isolation.
Our Waimea aquifer is a shared resource. The water does not recognize property boundaries,
zoning maps, or individual development projects.
Existing communities are already dependent upon this resource. Agriculture depends upon
it. Future generations will depend upon it.
And we have already experienced water restrictions in these districts. Ironically I donʻt
believe in coincedence, a water restriction has been places on this district this past week and
Iʻm assuming still in place.
That reality matters.
Water scarcity is not some hypothetical future scenario that we can address after
development occurs. We have seen the need to restrict water use in our communities as
becoming a normal part of living in Hawaiʻi. That is what we call Hoailona. A sign that
should not be ignored.
So when we are considering a development that would bring substantial additional demand
to an already finite water system, the burden should not be on the wai to accommodate the
development.
2
The development should be required to demonstrate that it is compatible with the long-term
protection of the wai. I donʻt believe this project is capable of this nor should they be
allowed to as this development proving to bypass laws thay are meant to protect us.
We also have to consider cumulative impacts.
How much water is already being withdrawn?
How much additional water is anticipated from other approved and proposed developments?
What happens during drought?
What happens when groundwater recharge declines?
What happens when agricultural demand, residential demand, emergency needs, and future
growth are considered together?
Letʻs not forget about the elephant in the room. How much of the water being withdrawn from the same aquifer is
currently being used to support Hawaiʻi Island’s tourism industry—including resorts, hotels, vacation accommodations, and other visitor-
serving development—and has the cumulative impact of that tourism demand been adequately considered before adding another large-scale
development to the same water system?
These are not questions that should be answered one project at a time while the cumulative
impact continues to grow.
I also have concerns regarding whether Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is
applicable to this project and, if so, whether the full cultural and historic significance of the āina ʻ
and wai has been adequately considered. Has the potential area of effect been evaluated for
impacts to culturally and historically significant water resources, including the aquifer and wai
that have sustained Native Hawaiian communities and cultural practices in Waimea and
Waikōloa for generations? If Section 106 applies, have Native Hawaiian descendants, cultural
practitioners, and Native Hawaiian Organizations with ancestral and cultural connections to this
ʻāina and wai been meaningfully included in the consultation process? I doubt that we have we
have been considered. If not we wouldnāhea to ʻt be standing here today with a last minute K
Kakoʻo.
As mentioned, Our island has finite resources. All must be kept in balance and for decades
neglect has been imposed on our land and people in the name of progress and development.
We cannot continue to approve development based on the assumption that there will always
be enough water to accommodate whatever growth is proposed. Assume thah our aquifers
will recharge with the evidence of climate change with immense global impacts even loss of
many lives. We the people of Hawaiʻi are done accomodating large scale developments and
in this case using a Housing Crisis to bypass essential Environmental Assessments and
thorough review of the cumulative impacts of our āina, wai and kānaka.ʻ
I am also deeply concerned about the environmental review surrounding a project of this
magnitude.
3
There have been questions raised regarding the applicability and adequacy of environmental
review under HRS Chapter 343. Regardless of the legal interpretation ultimately applied, I
believe the scale of this project demands a transparent and comprehensive examination of its
impacts before the County changes the land-use designations necessary to facilitate it.
That examination should include, at minimum:
• groundwater availability and sustainable yield;
• current and projected withdrawals from the Waimea aquifer;
• cumulative water demand from existing, approved, and proposed development;
• drought and climate-change impacts on groundwater recharge;
• agricultural water needs;
• emergency and firefighting water demand;
• wastewater and groundwater impacts;
• and the long-term effects of continued development in Waikōloa and South Kohala.
But beyond the numbers and technical studies, I ask the Council to consider what we are
actually making a decision about.
We are not simply deciding where houses will be built.
We are deciding what kind of relationship our government will have with the wai that
sustains our communities.
I am not opposed to housing. I have worked with our most vulnerable for almost a decade in
the social service field and endless barriers involving social issues.
I am opposed to treating our finite natural resources, our Kūpuna, Nā Akua as though they
are an unlimited resource available to accommodate every proposed development.
Housing policy cannot be separated from water policy.
Growth cannot be separated from the carrying capacity of the āina.ʻ
And development cannot be separated from our kuleana to protect the wai for those who will
come after us.
For me, this is personal.
I grew up in Waimea.
I know this place as my home and my wahi pana.
I carry a responsibility to speak for the āina that shaped me and for the wai that has ʻ
sustained generations before me.
4
That responsibility does not end with my generation.
Our Kūpuna deserve more than being treated as a resource to be extracted from. Our keiki
and moʻopuna deserve to inherit living aquifers, functioning watersheds, productive
agricultural lands, and communities with enough wai to sustain them.
We should not have to wait until the water is gone, the restrictions become permanent, or the
damage is irreversible before we acknowledge that we have exceeded what our āina can ʻ
sustain.
The question before you is not simply whether this project can be supplied with water today.
The question is whether we are willing to place another large demand upon our wai when we
already know that water availability is limited and when the projected demand for this very
project has changed so substantially.
I am asking you to exercise your kuleana as stewards of this island.
Do not approve Bills 186 and 187.
Do not move this project forward.
Protect the wai.
Protect the aquifer.
Protect our Waimea, Kohala, Waikōloa families.
Protect the āina that sustains us.ʻ
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Hawaiʻi County Council to vote NO on Bills 186
and 187 and reject the proposed Waikōloa Green development.
Wai is life.
Wai is Kūpuna.
Wai is āina.ʻ
And once we compromise the wai, we cannot simply build our way back to what we have
lost.
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.
Me ka mahalo,
Kanoeuluwehianuhea Case
5