‘Sunshine law’ suit
bogs down proposed
Maui water settlement

By Gary T. Kubota
Star-Bulletin

WAILUKU >> Maui County water board members yesterday delayed a decision on a proposed settlement with several major landowners because of a Maui Circuit Court lawsuit charging a violation of the state "sunshine law."

The lawsuit, filed Monday on behalf of the environmental group Maui Tomorrow, also charges that the proposed settlement involving the Central Maui Water Source Venture is against public policy and violates public trust.

Maui Tomorrow said the proposed settlement would put major Maui businesses at the top of the list for water, ahead of Hawaiian homesteaders and Valley Isle residents waiting for water meters.

Defendants include water board members Robert Takitani, Clark Hashimoto, Peter Rice and board Chairman Elmer Cravalho.

The proposed settlement arose from a dispute with the county and four companies -- Wailea Development Co., Seibu Real Estate Co., Hawaiiana Investment Co. and A&B Properties -- involved in developing water sources in central Maui in the mid-1970s, in return for a portion of the water supply.

The firms were to get up to 19 million gallons a day at a time when ground-water sources in central Maui were thought to be able to sustain a yield of 36 million gallons a day. The sustainable yield is now estimated at 20 million gallons a day, and the firms are using a total of 5 million to 6 million gallons daily.

Maui Tomorrow attorney Isaac Hall said many people agree the mistake about the estimate was mutual in 1975 and that the joint venture should receive no more water than now.

Hall said he was pleased that the board deferred the decision on the proposed settlement.

He said the settlement should not be signed and should be revised to incorporate the needs of other users, including Hawaiian homesteaders.

In its lawsuit, Maui Tomorrow charges that under the sunshine law, representatives of the board are required to have the scope of their authority defined at a board meeting before entering into discussions about a settlement.

The lawsuit alleges the authority was never defined clearly.