HB915 would expand Hawaii’s water-use and irrigation statutes to better accommodate nonpotable water and dual water-line systems in certain new developments. It amends the Board of Agriculture’s powers to expressly include investigating and surveying the availability of nonpotable water, while also preserving the board’s existing authority over irrigation projects, project boundaries, and related planning and feasibility studies.
The bill also revises the law governing lands included in irrigation projects so that, in addition to certain University of Hawaii experimental farms, residential and mixed-use developments may be included in irrigation projects if they are described in the amended water-management statute and use county-supplied R-1 water. In parallel, it broadens the dual-line water supply system statute to cover new residential and mixed-use developments in designated water management areas, allowing the Commission on Water Resource Management to require separate potable and nonpotable lines as a permit condition in those areas.
HB915 further directs the Department of Health, the Board of Agriculture, and counties to review and amend conflicting rules, ordinances, policies, and guidelines, including zoning, building codes, and reuse guidelines, so they do not block dual-line systems in residential or mixed-use developments. It also states that irrigation of a single-family home is permitted when a recycled water manager is designated, and it includes a preemption clause overriding contrary state or county restrictions to the extent they conflict with the act.
The bill’s impact would be to create a clearer statutory pathway for recycled-water infrastructure in new residential and mixed-use projects, especially in water-management areas, and to integrate those projects into existing irrigation frameworks. It would affect the Board of Agriculture, the Commission on Water Resource Management, the Department of Health, counties, developers, and landowners in designated water areas, while also requiring agencies to align their rules with the new authorization.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears generally pro-water-conservation and pro-infrastructure, with likely support from agencies and developers interested in recycled-water use, but it could also raise concerns about county home-rule authority, regulatory preemption, and the practical costs or feasibility of installing dual-line systems in new developments.
HB915 would amend chapters 167 and 174C, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to expand the Board of Agriculture’s authority to investigate nonpotable water and to allow certain residential and mixed-use developments to be included in irrigation projects when supplied by county R-1 water. It would also broaden section 174C-51.5 so the Commission on Water Resource Management may require dual potable/nonpotable water systems in new residential and mixed-use developments in designated water management areas. The bill would preempt conflicting state and county rules and require agencies and counties to revise their regulations and guidance accordingly.
No committee discussion or voting history was provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment to summarize from hearings or votes. From the bill’s structure and findings, the measure appears aimed at promoting water reuse and conservation, suggesting a generally favorable policy posture toward recycled-water infrastructure, though the absence of debate leaves open whether there was opposition over implementation, cost, or preemption.
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s preemption of state and county rules, its requirement that agencies and counties revise zoning, building, and reuse guidance, and the extension of irrigation-project treatment to residential and mixed-use developments. Stakeholders concerned about local control, infrastructure costs, or public-health and water-quality safeguards may question the mandate for dual-line systems, while supporters are likely to emphasize conservation, reuse of nonpotable water, and flexibility for new development in water-constrained areas.