Maui Water Committee Meeting Summary (2025-12-04)

The Committee on Water, Environment, and Climate Action (WEC) convened to discuss two critical information-only items regarding the reviving of the Naulu Cloud Bridge and the implementation of aquifer mapping on Maui. The meeting featured extensive presentations from cultural practitioners, restoration experts, and scientists, alongside comments from county department directors. While no legislative action was taken, the council members expressed strong support for including both initiatives in the upcoming budget priorities, emphasizing the need for significant funding to restore watersheds and secure sustainable water resources.

Consent Calendar

• No routine approvals or unanimous actions were recorded for this information-only meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Royal House of Hawaii: Expressed concern that land descendants and holders under royal patents for the area were not contacted regarding the Naulu Cloud Bridge project. They questioned the status of title changes or land sales under Hawaii Revised Statute 172-11, which mandates that lands be returned to descendants. The speaker noted that many descendants in the Ahopaka area had not been contacted.
• Hina Newbull (Owke Ohina Pool Mohalan): Expressed strong support for the Naulu Cloud Bridge project. Mr. Newbull argued that restoration work is culturally aligned and necessary to combat desertification spreading across Hawaii. He clarified that desalination is not a solution to desertification; rather, large-scale restoration of a green corridor and the cloud bridge is required to draw moisture and hold the land. They emphasized that rebuilding the forest is the only method to bring fresh water back into the hydrologic system.
• Robin Knox: Expressed full support for aquifer mapping, modeling, and monitoring. Ms. Knox stated that actions without knowledge are ill-advised and supported expanding the study island-wide, noting South Maui's over-pumped wells and limited sustainable yield. They advocated for proactive management over reactive measures and supported landscape-scale nature-based solutions as the only method to increase fresh water.
• JC Law (Royal House of Hawaii): Re-joined the call to express interest in the Naulu Cloud Bridge project despite technical difficulties. They welcomed the Royal House of Hawaii's testimony and the council's consideration of the project.
• James Langford: Supported the presentation's information, noting that he posted data on smaller-scale water production and grant opportunities (USGAP, CDVG) to help fund projects. He suggested that these smaller multiples with matching funds could help honor existing Hawaiian needs.
• Richard Kikivi: Expressed support for the reforestation and restoration of Kaikinui. As a former manager of the Nakula Natural Area Reserve, they shared personal experience of the transformation from grassland to forest, calling the initiative a "missing link" for the cloud bridge.

Discussion Items

Agenda Item 1: Reviving the Naulu Cloud Bridge

• Presenters:

  • Andrea Buckman (Uhivai O Haleakala): Highlighted the collaborative effort with landowners, nonprofits, and state agencies to restore Leeward Haleakala forests. She emphasized the scientific and cultural necessity of reconnecting forested areas from the mountain to the coastline across Kahoolawe to re-establish the Naulu cloud bridge. She detailed the high costs of the work ($30,000 per camping trip for a crew of six, including helicopter time, seedlings, and maintenance) and the need for stable funding and long-term leases for community partners like Akua Poe.
  • CJ Elizarez (Protect Kahoolawe Ohana): Described the cultural significance of the cloud bridge as a connection between Haleakala and Kahoolawe, noting that the "Naulu" is a specific part of the larger "Kaleena Ulu" cloud system. He emphasized that the restoration work is about bridging organizations and people, not just the sky.
  • Dr. Jonathan Price (University of Hawaii): Provided scientific context on climate change and rainfall patterns, noting the extreme dryness of the area and the reliance on cloud cover (fog drip) for water resources. He expressed commitment to partnerships to use this data to hone restoration efforts.
  • Paul Higashino (Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission): Discussed the history of Kahoolawe, the impact of invasive animals (goats, sheep, cattle, and deer), and the challenge of hardpan soil that prevents digging. He noted the presence of unexploded ordinances (UXO) which limits digging but supports native planting techniques that do not require excavation (e.g., rock piles).
  • Alohi Farm (Kaohao O Kahiki Nui): Shared the community's perspective as independent homesteaders in the Kahiki Nui Moku. They detailed a fog drip project to collect water and their work on fire mitigation corridors, expressing a commitment to restore their Moku through both cultural and western lenses.
  • Akua Poe (Poe Brothers): Emphasized the immediate need for resources (water, electricity, greenhouse space, and funding) to propagate and plant native trees at scale, stating that the goal is achievable through collaboration.
  • Lance DeSilva (DLNR): Noted that the restoration work complements the Department of Environmental Management's climate action resiliency plan and expressed support for integrating traditional Hawaiian knowledge with science.
  • Cecil Powell (DEM): Confirmed the department's readiness to partner and support the initiative through sustainability grants.
  • Jordan Hart (Office of Recovery): Linked the project to the Lahaina Long-Term Recovery Plan, specifically regarding revegetation in the Kula and Lahaina areas.
  • Director Molitao (OEV): Suggested using traditional chants and oratory as a roadmap for restoration, advocating for a holistic approach looking both up from the mountain and down from the macai (coast).
  • Director Stuffelbean (Water Supply): Expressed support for the project as a complement to watershed protection work, noting that 4% of the water supply budget goes to watershed restoration, though this area currently has no direct nexus to existing supplies.

• Council Member Responses:

  • Vice Chair Senensi: Expressed stoked enthusiasm, noting that conservation work is a big part of Maui Nui identity. They inquired about funding for Kahoolawe cleanup, confirming that while there is no active clearance funding, current staff are trained to handle potential UXO issues.
  • Councilmember Cook: Expressed strong support, describing the meeting as the most pleasant and positive in a long time. He advocated for more before-and-after photos to capture community imagination and mentioned his own experience with flood mitigation and water retention projects.
  • Councilmember Paulton: Asked clarifying questions regarding the fog drip project's water collection potential (claimed 2,000 gallons/day on optimal days, effective at 4,000-6,000 feet elevation) and the certification process for harvested venison. They inquired about the constant presence on Kahoolawe, noting that current funding allows for about 400-500 volunteers a year rather than the previous 800-1,000.
  • Councilmember Hodgins: Expressed excitement about the budget priority inclusion and appreciation for the cultural and scientific integration.

Agenda Item 2: Aquifer Mapping and Long-term Monitoring of Water Resources on Maui

• Presenter: Dr. John Haley (San Diego Supercomputer Center/Scripps Institution of Oceanography) presented on the Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) imaging project.

• Key Points:

  • Problem: West Maui faces a crisis of overpumping, with declining water quantity and quality (saltwater intrusion). Current well data is insufficient to understand the complex, heterogeneous volcanic aquifer structure.
  • Solution: Use a helicopter-borne AEM instrument to map the subsurface 3D structure of aquifers (fresh vs. salt/brackish water) down to 500 meters. This provides a baseline "MRI" of the aquifers to improve modeling and adaptive management.
  • Scope & Cost: The initial project focuses on West Maui with a non-recurring cost of ~$2.5 million for the helicopter flight and a recurring cost of ~$0.5 million annually for the long-term monitoring program. Future expansion to the rest of Maui would cost an additional ~$2 million.
  • Timeline: Helicopter flights planned for 2026, with deliverables and modeling results expected by late 2027, transitioning into long-term operations thereafter.
  • Goal: To provide sustainable pumping limits, identify best/worst locations for future wells, and standardize a framework for water resource management that can be applied statewide.

• Council Member Responses:

  • Vice Chair Senensi: Clarified that the technology locates fresh vs. salt water and asked about aquifer collapse. Dr. Haley confirmed that subsidence is less likely in volcanic rock compared to sedimentary basins, though seawater intrusion is the primary risk of depletion.
  • Councilmember Cook: Asked about recharge rates. Dr. Haley explained that shallow recharge occurs in years/decades, while deeper water moves over centuries to millennia. He noted that artificial recharge (detention basins) could work but depends heavily on local geology and elevation.
  • Councilmember Paulton: Inquired about the role of ground-based surveys (like those by Tom Nance), confirming that the AEM provides a broader, higher-resolution synoptic view that complements rather than replaces ground surveys. They confirmed the 2.5M is for the one-time baseline map, while 0.5M is for monitoring.
  • Councilmember Hodgins: Expressed support for the budget priority and the scientific approach.

Key Outcomes

• No Legislative Action: Both items were designated as information-only; no motions, votes, or ordinances were passed during the meeting.
• Budget Priorities: Committee Chair Gabe Johnson and Committee Member Noelani U. Hodgins explicitly stated that both the Naulu Cloud Bridge restoration and the Aquifer Mapping project should be included as priorities in the upcoming budget cycle. Chair Johnson indicated they were "planting the seed" for next year's budget discussions.
• Council Support: Council members unanimously expressed strong support for the initiatives, acknowledging the high costs ($millions for cloud bridge; $3M+ for aquifer mapping) but agreeing that inaction is more costly in the long run.
• Funding Pathways: Discussions highlighted potential funding sources including County budgets, USGAP/CDVG grants, state grants, and federal programs (e.g., WIOA for green jobs, REPI grants).
• Next Steps: The committee will wait for the next round of budget deliberations to formally propose these projects as funding priorities. Council members are encouraged to reach out directly to presenters (Andrea Buckman, Dr. John Haley) for further technical discussions.