I am writing to oppose Bill 1. Bill 1 fundamentally weakens Maui’s “Show Me the Water” protections by requiring approval of subdivision construction plans even when long-term water availability has not been verified. The bill’s mandatory language removes meaningful discretion and invites speculative development in areas that may not have water at all.
Particularly at a time when Maui is facing alarming levels of drought, this is not the time to weaken the “Show Me the Water” ordinance.Just this past October, Upcountry Maui was put into stage 3 water shortage restrictions the Director determined that anticipated water demand in that area is projected to exceed available water supply by 31% or more. We need to put protecting the longevity of our island's health and water systems first in any planning and legislation.
While the bill claims developers proceed “at their own risk,” history shows that once infrastructure is built, the public bears the consequences, through diverted water, degraded ecosystems, and emergency decision-making. The current reliance on engineering reports verifying long-term, reliable supply is a critical safeguard. Bill 1 dismantles that safeguard.
Maui cannot afford to plan development first and ask where the water will come from later. I strongly oppose any loosening of the “Show Me the Water” ordinance and ask that you defer or decline to move forward with this effort to weaken water protections.
Aloha Chair and Members of the Water and Infrastructure Committee,
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. I strongly oppose Bill 1 because it would weaken Maui’s “Show Me the Water” protections at the exact moment we need stronger, earlier verification of long-term water availability.
Supporters, including the Grassroot Institute, argue this bill would allow homebuilders to move forward with subdivision planning while they “figure out” where water will come from, and that any risk can be managed by the applicant because the bill states approval does not guarantee potable water. Respectfully, this framing misunderstands how land development actually works on Maui, and who ultimately bears the risk.
First, development without verified water is not a private risk; it is a public risk. Once a subdivision is approved and infrastructure is built, including roads, grading, utilities, lots, and homes, pressure inevitably mounts for water service to follow. When water is not available, the “solution” is rarely that the developer quietly walks away. Instead, the consequences fall on the community: increased competition for scarce water, emergency workarounds, new demands on already-stressed systems, and political pressure to reallocate water away from existing users and ecosystems. In practice, “at your own risk” becomes “at the public’s expense.”
Second, Bill 1 flips the sequence of responsible planning. Water is not a minor detail that can be sorted out later. Water is foundational infrastructure. Allowing subdivision approvals to proceed without verified long-term supply is planning backwards, approving growth first, then scrambling to justify or secure water later. That is precisely the kind of approach that has led to conflict, over-allocation, and harm in Hawaiʻi.
Third, the Planning Department is not equipped to be forced into mandatory approvals without water verification. Bill 1 uses “must approve” language that strips meaningful discretion and turns what should be an accountable review process into a ministerial rubber stamp. Even under current practice, long-term water verification is already too weak and too often deferred. Bill 1 would codify that weakness and make it harder, not easier, to ensure responsible, lawful water planning.
Finally, if the goal is truly to support housing, we should not lower the standard for water, we should prioritize water for truly affordable and attainable housing for Maui residents. What good is a home without water? It helps developers who can flip entitled properties. Real housing solutions for our community require real infrastructure planning, not speculative approvals that increase pressure on public water resources. Any policy that encourages luxury development in areas without confirmed water will predictably worsen scarcity and conflict, and will not deliver stable, livable communities.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Committee to reject or withdraw Bill 1, and instead focus on strengthening “Show Me the Water” and prioritizing our scarce water resources so that long-term water availability is verified before approvals are granted, not after communities are boxed into untenable outcomes.
I oppose Bill 1. All evidence and credible scientific studies point to a drier, hotter, and more volatile climate in our future, so why remove the requirement to prove a reliable water source for projects with this outlook? I know it is difficult to prove a long term water source for projects, but how does the community benefit from allowing development to proceed without a foreseeable source of water? Instead, the county should focus its limited administrative resources on projects that have viability and while also addressing Maui's infrastructure and housing shortages.
I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to Bill 1 (2026) and incorporate by reference my attached written testimony. As explained in greater detail therein, this bill is not a minor procedural adjustment but a substantive policy change that reverses long-standing water-first planning by allowing subdivision construction plans to advance without verified long-term water availability. The proposal shifts practical risk from applicants to the County and the public, creates a pathway for speculative entitlements and resale without water certainty, and diverts limited capacity away from completing existing approved projects and rebuilding Lahaina. For these reasons, I urge the Committee to defer or file this measure unless it is substantially narrowed and conditioned to protect water resources and the public interest.
Aloha Chair & Council members,
I am writing to oppose Bill 1. Bill 1 fundamentally weakens Maui’s “Show Me the Water” protections by requiring approval of subdivision construction plans even when long-term water availability has not been verified. The bill’s mandatory language removes meaningful discretion and invites speculative development in areas that may not have water at all.
Particularly at a time when Maui is facing alarming levels of drought, this is not the time to weaken the “Show Me the Water” ordinance.Just this past October, Upcountry Maui was put into stage 3 water shortage restrictions the Director determined that anticipated water demand in that area is projected to exceed available water supply by 31% or more. We need to put protecting the longevity of our island's health and water systems first in any planning and legislation.
While the bill claims developers proceed “at their own risk,” history shows that once infrastructure is built, the public bears the consequences, through diverted water, degraded ecosystems, and emergency decision-making. The current reliance on engineering reports verifying long-term, reliable supply is a critical safeguard. Bill 1 dismantles that safeguard.
Maui cannot afford to plan development first and ask where the water will come from later. I strongly oppose any loosening of the “Show Me the Water” ordinance and ask that you defer or decline to move forward with this effort to weaken water protections.
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify
Aloha Chair and Members of the Water and Infrastructure Committee,
Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. I strongly oppose Bill 1 because it would weaken Maui’s “Show Me the Water” protections at the exact moment we need stronger, earlier verification of long-term water availability.
Supporters, including the Grassroot Institute, argue this bill would allow homebuilders to move forward with subdivision planning while they “figure out” where water will come from, and that any risk can be managed by the applicant because the bill states approval does not guarantee potable water. Respectfully, this framing misunderstands how land development actually works on Maui, and who ultimately bears the risk.
First, development without verified water is not a private risk; it is a public risk. Once a subdivision is approved and infrastructure is built, including roads, grading, utilities, lots, and homes, pressure inevitably mounts for water service to follow. When water is not available, the “solution” is rarely that the developer quietly walks away. Instead, the consequences fall on the community: increased competition for scarce water, emergency workarounds, new demands on already-stressed systems, and political pressure to reallocate water away from existing users and ecosystems. In practice, “at your own risk” becomes “at the public’s expense.”
Second, Bill 1 flips the sequence of responsible planning. Water is not a minor detail that can be sorted out later. Water is foundational infrastructure. Allowing subdivision approvals to proceed without verified long-term supply is planning backwards, approving growth first, then scrambling to justify or secure water later. That is precisely the kind of approach that has led to conflict, over-allocation, and harm in Hawaiʻi.
Third, the Planning Department is not equipped to be forced into mandatory approvals without water verification. Bill 1 uses “must approve” language that strips meaningful discretion and turns what should be an accountable review process into a ministerial rubber stamp. Even under current practice, long-term water verification is already too weak and too often deferred. Bill 1 would codify that weakness and make it harder, not easier, to ensure responsible, lawful water planning.
Finally, if the goal is truly to support housing, we should not lower the standard for water, we should prioritize water for truly affordable and attainable housing for Maui residents. What good is a home without water? It helps developers who can flip entitled properties. Real housing solutions for our community require real infrastructure planning, not speculative approvals that increase pressure on public water resources. Any policy that encourages luxury development in areas without confirmed water will predictably worsen scarcity and conflict, and will not deliver stable, livable communities.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Committee to reject or withdraw Bill 1, and instead focus on strengthening “Show Me the Water” and prioritizing our scarce water resources so that long-term water availability is verified before approvals are granted, not after communities are boxed into untenable outcomes.
Mahalo nui for your time and consideration.
I oppose Bill 1. All evidence and credible scientific studies point to a drier, hotter, and more volatile climate in our future, so why remove the requirement to prove a reliable water source for projects with this outlook? I know it is difficult to prove a long term water source for projects, but how does the community benefit from allowing development to proceed without a foreseeable source of water? Instead, the county should focus its limited administrative resources on projects that have viability and while also addressing Maui's infrastructure and housing shortages.
I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to Bill 1 (2026) and incorporate by reference my attached written testimony. As explained in greater detail therein, this bill is not a minor procedural adjustment but a substantive policy change that reverses long-standing water-first planning by allowing subdivision construction plans to advance without verified long-term water availability. The proposal shifts practical risk from applicants to the County and the public, creates a pathway for speculative entitlements and resale without water certainty, and diverts limited capacity away from completing existing approved projects and rebuilding Lahaina. For these reasons, I urge the Committee to defer or file this measure unless it is substantially narrowed and conditioned to protect water resources and the public interest.