The state Supreme Court affirmed Friday a state Land Use Commission decision in 2017 that allows Pulama Lana’i to use water from two wells to irrigate the Manele Golf Course.

The court in a 4-1 decision ruled that the developer was not using potable or drinking water for irrigation in a decision that centered on the definition of potable water and whether brackish water is potable water.

“The County of Maui would not have accepted the water in Wells 1 and 9 as potable,” wrote Justice Richard Pollack. “That finding is not clearly erroneous, and the resort accordingly did not violate” the LUC administrative order.

The plaintiff in the case was the community group Lanaians for Sensible Growth, which has been driving opposition to the golf course’s water use. The dispute goes back to 1989 when Lanai Resorts, an owner preceding Pulama Lana’i, requested a district boundary amendment to develop the golf course in Manele.

In 1991, the commission granted the request. About 110 acres were reclassified from rural to urban, while 38 acres were changed from agricultural to urban for the development of an 18-hole golf course.

However, one condition prohibited the use of “potable water from the high-level groundwater aquifer for golf course irrigation.” Instead, Lanai Resorts was required to develop and use only nonpotable sources of water (such as brackish water and reclaimed wastewater) for golf course irrigation.

Lanai Resorts drew water from two main wells, but critics, including Lanaians for Sensible Growth, complained the course was squandering potable water on irrigation. They argued that some brackish water could be used for drinking purposes and were concerned about high-quality drinking water leaking into the wells.

In 1996, the commission ruled that Lanai Resorts had violated irrigation rules and ordered it to stop using water from the aquifer.

In the legal battle that broke out, the Hawaii Supreme Court decided in 2004 that the 1996 decision “was clearly erroneous.” The case made its way through the court system and back to the Land Use Commission, which held public hearings on Lanai, Molokai and Maui.

In June 2017, the LUC determined that while there were no contaminants in the wells that would make the water nondrinkable the water was above the 250 milligrams per liter of chloride in secondary Environmental Protection Agency standards. There are taste issues as well as deposit build up and corrosion issues, the decision said.

The water in both wells have been above the 250 mg/l standard, the LUC said, adding that the county would not consider the water drinkable.

This decision was the source of the legal dispute that made its way to the state Supreme Court in the current ruling.

It was a major decision for Pulama Lana’i, whose lawyer told The Maui News in 2017 that an adverse decision would have played a role in whether the resort and other projects would continue. If the water was deemed potable, Pulama Lana’i would have had to cease using the water or risk reversion of the land to its original agricultural classification.

“We are pleased with today’s Supreme Court’s decision allowing us to continue using water from the aquifer,” said a statement from Pulama Lana’i on Friday. “We value the water resources of the island and will ensure that this public trust resource is used and managed responsibly.

“We remain committed to reducing waste and making Lanai’s water system efficient and responsive to the present and future needs of the community.”

The high court’s ruling did undercut the LUC’s basis for its 2017 decision.

“In 2017, the Land Use Commission of the State of Hawaii determined that, when it prohibited a resort from irrigating its golf course with ‘potable’ water as a condition of its administrative order issued almost 30 years earlier, it did not mean ‘potable’ by any common definition of the term,” the high court ruling said. “Instead, the Land Use Commission found that the term was intended to carry a special meaning that the commission does not define — other than to say it excludes brackish water that contains chlorides over an unspecified level.

“Based upon this special interpretation of ‘potable,’ the Land Use Commission determined that the resort had not violated the administrative order. But neither the text of its administrative order nor the circumstances in which it was adopted offer any reason to depart from the plain meaning of the condition, which was intended to prohibit the resort from watering its golf course with water that is suitable for drinking under county water quality standards.”

So the ruling is based on whether the water from the wells is “potable” by common understanding.

The ruling also clarified the possibility of leakage of potable water from drinking water aquifers into the wells, a contention of the plaintiff.

“Leakage would result in a violation . . . if the commingling of freshwater with brackish water changes the composition of the water in Wells 1 and 9, such that it becomes suitable for domestic use under county water standards and the resort thereafter uses the water for irrigation.”

* Lee Imada can be reached at leeimada@mauinews.com.

** This story includes a correction from the original published Saturday, May 16,2020.