The Maui news. [volume] (Wailuku, Maui, H.I.) 1900-current, 1922-07-18
Requests For Free
Water In Wailuku
Raise New Problem
Continued From Page One.)

notice except through your letter
above referred to.
Thanking you for giving the above
your consideration, we are
Yours truly
"WALUKU SUGAR COMPANY
"H. b Penhallow."
The board considered some of the
points made in the letter as well
taken.
Engineer Explains Further
The report of the engineer was
then continued as follows:
Lots 1, 2 and 8 refer to Lot 8,
Valley View Tract, Z. r. Bevins,
owner; Lot 5, Valley View Tract,
J. H. Trask, owner; lot Z, Valley
View Tract, Wendell F. Crockett,
owner; respectively.
"Mr. Penhallow's contentious are
well taken, and before any one is
granted free water he should be re-
quired to show
"Q) That the applicant is the I'M
disputed owner of the land for which
he is applying free use of water.
"(2) The kuleana on which the
land is situated, by map or other
satisfactory data.
"(3) Proof that the land in ques-
ton has taro land up to the amount
for which application is made, and in
accordance with the agreement en-
tered into between the county, ter
ritory, and the Waikiki Sugar Com
pany.
"(4) That the land is not drawing
any water from open auwais.
The preparation of these data, par
ticularly item 2, in most cases will
require considerable time and work
and neither the county nor the planta-
ton should be called upon to produce
the evidence. A sample of what is re-
CURED is herewith submitted.
The MAJ was made in compliance
with Mr.. Penhallow's letter relative to
the several lots in the Valley View
Tract. Fortunately, l had access to
notes and surveys recently made by
Mr., A. G. Alexander, otherwise, the
work of getting out such a map would
have occupied weeks of time.
Difficulties Multiply
incidentally this map illustrates a
number of difficulties your honorable
board would run into in ~endeavoring
to grant free water to those living
on lands that once had taro acres. You
will note that the Valley View Tract
comprises portions of l.. C. A. 444 to
Lumilani, L. C. A. 1898 to Naleipule-
hua, and Crown Lands to Kahilikaula.
l.. c. A. 444 and L. C. A. 1893 have
taro-acres of 0.07 acre and 0.0S acre,
according to the agreement of 1912,
respectively: the Crown Lands to Ka-
hilikaula have no taro acres. There
is nothing now to show where the 0.07
taro acre is in L. G. A. 444 or 0.08
taro acre in l.. G. A. 1898. And when
lots l, 2 and 8 apply for free use of
water, unless n of the three can
conclusively show that the 0.07 acre
of taro land was situated in his lot,
how will your Honorable Board meet
the difficulty?
Lots 8, 5 and 7 have been granted
free use of water. Lot 3 alone has an
area of 0.21 acre, more than the whole
Valley View Tract may ever hope to
claim. Lot 5 is situated on a Kulea-
ma having no taro-acreage whatever,
and Lot Z is only a portion of a piece
of land having comparatively small
acreage in taro land.
The problem of water-rights in the
town of Waikiki presents many real
difficulties. Those enumerated above
are but a few of the many. ] would
therefore respectfully recommend that
your Honorable Board reconsider your
actions in granting free use of water to
Lots 8, 5 and 7 of the Valley View
Tract, and deliberate at length on the
question of water-rights in the town
of Waikiki.
"In taking up the former question
of ownership of free water rights with
Mr.. Penhallow, l had occasion to re-
fer to the transferring of rights from
one piece of land to another. Mr.,
Penhallow stated emphatically that he
would not approve of any such trans
fer, and, in his opinion, such transfer
vas not legal"
crux of Problem
1t will be seen that the cruX of
the question lies in whether a large
area is entitled to free use of water
when, prior to the closing of the au-
wais but a small portion of such land
used water for irrigation purposes.
A grant might include water rights
and yet those rights may have been
available to only a small part of the
area owing to the contour Of the land.
Thus in a ten acre tract there may
have been half an acre that could
use the water from an auwai though
the grant of the whole ten acres con
tanned a grant of "waterrights." The
plantation claims it can be required
to furnish water to the extent it was
used before closing the auwai while
owners OF land now built upon with
homes are in some instances, claim
ing free water under the words of
the grant. Thus the plantation might
be required to furnish free to the
county and the county free to water
users water for ten, twenty, thirty
or more times the area that used wa
ter to the closing of the auwais and
the putting in of pipe lines from. re.
servoirs.
The board reconsidered its action
and will probably take the attitude