State Judge Lisa Cataldo on Tuesday ordered the Board of Land and Natural Resources to hold a contested-case hearing over the one-year revocable permit that allows Mahi Pono to divert East Maui streams, and she temporarily cut back how much water the company can take while the lawsuit moves forward. The ruling marks a new chapter in a years-long fight over stream flows that community groups and conservationists say have harmed cultural, ecological and recreational uses in East Maui.
Cataldo reversed the board’s December renewal of the permit and lowered the interim diversion limit to 31.5 million gallons per day until a contested-case hearing is held, according to the ruling. She directed the board to begin that process “as soon as practicable” and set calendar targets for scheduling a pre-hearing conference and a hearing. As reported by Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the order spells out those timing benchmarks.
Permit history and the legal challenge
The contested permit traces back to a Dec. 12, 2025 Land Board action that staff records say would allow roughly 35.22 million gallons per day to be diverted from East Maui streams to support agriculture and related uses. Records from the DLNR meeting show revocable permits were issued to Mahi Pono LLC and East Maui Irrigation Co., and conservation groups immediately requested a contested case. The Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi and Nā Moku ʻAupuni o Koʻolau Hui appealed the board’s denial and asked the courts to order an evidentiary hearing to test the agency record. Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi has driven much of the litigation and public advocacy around the issue.
Mahi Pono, which operates former Alexander & Baldwin plantation lands in central Maui, has been at the center of the controversy as it expanded irrigated agriculture on old sugar tracts. That shift in ownership and water use has sharpened questions about whether a private operator should control large shares of the island’s surface water and how the state balances cultural and environmental claims. Local coverage has tracked the ownership changes and the debate over whether county or state entities should play a larger role in water management. Honolulu Civil Beat provides background on that debate.
Reaction from advocates
Advocates said the order validates long-standing calls for a public, fact-finding forum. “For the better part of a decade, all we’ve asked for is a meaningful look at how much water actually needs to be taken from East Maui,” Sierra Club leaders said in describing earlier rulings and filings, arguing that the court’s action pushes the Land Board to confront public-trust duties and Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices. Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi maintains that contested-case procedures are the proper way to sort out competing claims and evidence.
Legal implications and precedent
The order leans on a string of recent court decisions that have tightened due-process protections around revocable permits for stream diversions. In 2025 the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court affirmed that, in comparable circumstances, aggrieved parties may be entitled to a contested hearing before the board finalizes short-term permits, a precedent that shapes the current dispute. Justia and recent filings on the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary site outline the legal framework and fast-moving appellate work that have framed this year’s hearings.
The Department of Land and Natural Resources told reporters it does not comment on pending or impending litigation, and Mahi Pono did not respond to requests for comment, according to coverage of the order. The board now must set a pre-hearing conference date and a contested-case schedule that will determine what evidence and which witnesses can be heard, and community groups and Upcountry Maui residents say they plan to participate. For local context on recent water-authority and community planning efforts in East Maui, see reporting on recent East Maui water work. Honolulu Star-Advertiser has also tracked the dispute and related community efforts.
