Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrawford, Kim Tsuneda, Kaci From:Kim Crawford <salinasckl@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2026 11:13 AM To:Council Testimony Subject:10/21/26 Bills 186 and 187 - Testimony in opposition Testimony in Opposition to Bills 186 and 187, Draft 4 Waikōloa Green Development Hawai ʻ i County Council | October 21, 2026 Aloha Chair and Members of the Hawai ʻ i County Council, My name is Kimberly Crawford, and I am submitting this testimony as a member of Hui Ola Ka Wai and as a kia ʻ i loko i ʻ a at Kaloko in North Kona. I respectfully urge the Council not to advance Bills 186 and 187 at this time. These bills propose changing the State Land Use District classification of agricultural land at Waikōloa to Urban and amending the county zoning to accommodate the proposed Waikōloa Green development, including a 400-unit multifamily housing complex. These are significant decisions that would change how this land can be used and developed. I believe those decisions must be informed by a much more comprehensive understanding of our groundwater resources, the cumulative demands already being placed upon them, and whether the development being enabled will truly serve the long-term needs of our communities. For many years, our work at Kaloko has centered around restoring the health of our loko i ʻ a and protecting the freshwater that sustains it. Through this work, we have come to understand just how deeply connected our groundwater is to the health of our coastal ecosystems, our cultural practices, and ultimately the well-being of our communities. We have also witnessed changes in our freshwater resources and heard the observations of kūpuna who recognized those changes long before they were reflected in modern water management discussions. I recognize the very real need for housing in Hawai ʻ i. Our families need homes, our children deserve the opportunity to remain in the communities they come from, and our workforce deserves to live near the places where they work. But I have serious concerns about continuing to reclassify agricultural lands for urban development without first understanding the cumulative demands being placed on our limited water resources and whether these developments are truly serving the needs of our communities. According to CWRM, reported withdrawals from the Waimea aquifer have already reached 90.4% of its established sustainable yield. This figure represents current reported pumping and does not include the full future demand associated with developments that have been approved or proposed but are not yet built. We are approaching the limits of what the state has determined this aquifer can sustainably provide, yet we continue to consider additional commitments without a comprehensive accounting of what has already been promised. 1 At what point do we recognize that we cannot continue doing business as usual? I believe designation of the Waimea aquifer as a Ground Water Management Area deserves serious consideration now, before we reach a crisis. Designation would establish a formal permitting process through CWRM, providing an opportunity to examine EXSISTING withdrawals, determine whether uses are reasonable and beneficial, evaluate conservation measures, and consider alternative water sources that could reduce our dependence on potable groundwater. We should be asking whether millions of gallons of potable groundwater need to continue being used for resort landscaping and golf courses when other options may be available. We should be examining where water use can be reduced, where diversification is possible, and how those changes could protect the long-term health of the aquifer. We cannot continue to look only at how much water is left to pump. We need to look at how the water we are already pumping is being used. I recognize that amendments have been proposed to address water conservation within this development. Those measures deserve consideration, but a water conservation plan for one project does not answer the larger question of cumulative demand across an entire aquifer. Nor does a revised estimate of a project's water needs necessarily demonstrate that the resource can sustain all existing and future uses, particularly as groundwater recharge is projected to decline. This is particularly important when considering Bill 186. Reclassifying land from Agricultural to Urban is not simply a decision about what can be built on one parcel. It is a decision that can establish the foundation for future development and the water demands that accompany it. We also need to consider what happens to the land's ability to receive and absorb rainfall when open ground is replaced by roads, rooftops, parking areas, and other impervious surfaces. We are not only increasing the demand for groundwater through development. We may also be reducing opportunities for that water to return to the aquifer in a pure pristine state. I think we also need to reconsider how we view these agricultural lands. Much of what we see today across the dry landscapes of Waimea and Waikōloa has been shaped by generations of grazing, land clearing, and changes in land and water use. These places were not always the open grasslands and barren landscapes we have become accustomed to seeing. Native dryland forests and plant communities once occupied portions of these regions, and remnants of those ecosystems still exist. We should be looking to these lands as maps that tell us something about what was there before. Their remaining native plants, soils, lava flows, and cultural landscapes can help us understand what has been lost and what may still be possible to restore. Rather than viewing open agricultural land only through the lens of its potential for urban development, we should also be examining its potential to protect cultural resources, restore native dryland ecosystems, improve the health of the land, and preserve opportunities for groundwater recharge. In these dry, fire-prone regions, the restoration of appropriate native, drought-adapted vegetation also deserves consideration as part of long-term land management. We have an opportunity to imagine a landscape that is healthier and more resilient, one that reflects the natural and cultural history of the 2 place rather than continuing to replace it. That opportunity should be part of the conversation before we permanently change how these lands can be used. Our groundwater is held in public trust. It is not simply a resource available to whichever developer can secure a will-serve letter. The State has obligations to protect traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices, the ecological systems sustained by groundwater, and the reasonable and beneficial use of this resource for the public good. Before approving land-use changes that would enable additional development, have we identified the water already promised to approved projects that remain unbuilt? Have we evaluated the cumulative impacts of those commitments alongside projected declines in groundwater recharge? Have we adequately considered the needs of existing communities and ecosystems that already depend on this resource? And have we considered how changing the land itself may affect its ability to support the natural systems that sustain our groundwater? These are questions that deserve answers before we continue making decisions that will affect generations to come. I also want to address the argument that this development is necessary to help resolve our housing crisis. I believe we need to be much more intentional about distinguishing between building housing and building housing that actually serves our people. Bill 187 would amend the zoning of this property to accommodate new residential development, including a 400-unit multifamily complex. While that may increase the number of homes that can be built, the question remains whether those homes will be accessible to the families who already live and work in Hawai ʻ i. When only 20% of a development is designated affordable and the remaining 80% is market rate, we need to ask whose market we are building for. In West Hawai ʻ i, market-rate housing is already beyond the financial reach of many families who live and work here. We have seen homes become investment properties, second homes, and vacation rentals for people with far greater purchasing power than our local communities. Without meaningful, enforceable protections, what assurances do we have that these new homes will actually serve the people who need them? We cannot assume that adding more housing automatically creates housing security for local families. And when development continues to cater to those who can afford increasingly expensive homes, we risk widening the disparities between wealthy homeowners and the working communities that sustain this island. Kānaka Maoli are left trying to remain connected to the lands of their ancestors while competing in a housing market increasingly shaped by outside wealth. But the consequences of this go far beyond housing. When our communities become unaffordable to the families who have lived here for generations, we lose much more than the ability to call these places home. We risk losing the very people who hold the knowledge, genealogies, stories, and responsibilities that connect our communities to these places. 3 The identity of a community is shaped by its people, by the generations who have lived on and cared for the ʻ āina, who know its history, its resources, and the relationships that sustain it. When those families can no longer afford to remain, the identity of that community begins to change. And with it, we risk losing the knowledge and practices that have protected these places for generations. We cannot separate the long-term health of our ʻ āina from the ability of its people to remain connected to it. When we talk about housing affordability, we are also talking about cultural continuity, the protection of our natural resources, and whether the next generation will have the opportunity to inherit not only the stories of these places, but the responsibility and ability to care for them. And even if we succeed in building affordable housing for our people, if we fail to protect the natural resources that sustain them, we have not fully served those communities. For Kānaka Maoli, the ability to live in their homeland is only one part of a much larger picture of health and well-being. Connection to ʻ āina is also found in the waters we gather from, the fish we eat, the places where our children play and learn, and the cultural practices that continue because those resources remain healthy and accessible. What does it mean to provide someone a home if the resources that have sustained their family and culture for generations are being diminished around them? Housing and environmental protection should not be competing priorities. We should not have to sacrifice one to achieve the other. If we create housing at the expense of the natural resources that our people depend upon, we risk causing lasting harm to the very communities we claim to be helping. These are considerations that should matter when we decide how land is classified, how it is zoned, and what kind of development we choose to accommodate. Land-use planning should not simply respond to what a developer proposes. It should reflect what our communities need and what our resources can responsibly sustain. So what are we actually accomplishing when we commit more of our limited groundwater to developments that may not meaningfully address the housing needs of our existing communities? This is not to say that we should not build housing. It is to say that we need to be much more thoughtful about what we build, who it serves, and what we are willing to commit in order to build it. As our aquifers approach sustainable yield, we need a larger, community-driven conversation about what prioritizing water for long-term stability should look like. How do we ensure that the needs of existing residents, genuinely affordable housing, local agriculture, groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and traditional and customary practices are meaningfully considered before making additional commitments? At Kaloko, we understand that the health of our loko i ʻ a does not begin or end at the kuapā. It begins in the mountains, where the rain enters the earth, and continues through the groundwater that eventually finds its way to the coast. What happens to that water along the way matters. The same is true for our communities. The decisions we make today will determine what is possible for the generations that follow. I urge the Council to defer further advancement of Bill 186, which would reclassify agricultural land for urban use, and Bill 187, Draft 4, which would establish the county zoning necessary to accommodate 4 this proposed development. Before taking those actions, there should be a comprehensive accounting of existing groundwater withdrawals and outstanding water commitments, an assessment of how the proposed land-use changes may affect groundwater recharge and opportunities for ecological restoration, a meaningful evaluation with CWRM of whether the Waimea aquifer warrants designation as a Ground Water Management Area, and a clear demonstration of how the proposed zoning and development will provide lasting housing benefits while protecting the natural and cultural resources that sustain the people who already call this place home. We have an opportunity to move away from reacting to development proposals one at a time and toward a more thoughtful, community-informed approach to land-use decisions, water management, and long- term planning. Our communities deserve that consideration, and our water deserves that protection. Mahalo for your time and consideration, Kimberly Crawford Hui Ola Ka Wai Salinasckl@gmail.com 5