From FB post of Marti Townsend who has researched this issue extensively dated, March 14, 2019

This is all part of a well-executed scam. A&B got HB2501 passed in 2016, allowing them to divert stream water using temporary permits despite a court order telling them not to (paying the state pennies on the gallon for access to the water, btw).

That bill inflated the financial value of their land. Then A&B converted to a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), a type of business that does not pay state income taxes. (This was just after laying off the last of their workers at HC&S with little notice, almost no safety net, and a state-funded job re-training program).

Material below is from me (Hooser)

Readers Note: For the source of the $62 million dollar information go directly to the A&B and Mahi Pono purchase agreements linked below:

http://investors.alexanderbaldwin.com/…/af1aea4e-3c42…

2.7 Rebates. In order to reflect the diminished value of the Property due to lost farm revenue and the reduced productivity potential of the Property expected to result if EMI or Seller is unable to legally deliver irrigation water sufficient for Buyer to fully implement its farming plan, Seller will rebate portions of the Purchase Price (collectively, the “Rebates”) as follows:

(a) Seller will make a one-time rebate to Buyer of Thirty-One Million Dollars ($31,000,000) of the Purchase Price, and the Purchase Price shall be deemed to be reduced by $31,000,000 (the “Initial Productivity Loss Rebate”), if at any time prior to the earlier of (i) the date State Leases are obtained as provided in Section 2.7(d) below or (ii) eight (8) years after the Closing Date: (x) EMI or Seller is legally prohibited from delivering the Minimum Water Amount (defined below) to Buyer, and 👍 the amount of water that EMI is then not legally prohibited from delivering to Buyer is less than Buyer’s actual surface water need at that time, as determined by Buyer in its sole discretion, exercised in good faith, to meet the irrigation requirement of its then existing crops or crops planned for the upcoming 24 months in the area served by East Maui surface water (a “Productivity Loss Event”). EMI’s inability to deliver water in the Minimum Water Amount solely due to a major casualty or events beyond human control such as earthquakes, droughts or natural disasters that impair EMI’s operations shall not be considered a Productivity Loss Event.

(b) On the date one year after the initial Productivity Loss Event described in subsection (a) (the “Initial Productivity Loss Event”), Seller will rebate to Buyer an additional Thirty-One Million Dollars ($31,000,000) of the Purchase Price, and the Purchase Price shall be deemed to be reduced by $31,000,000 (the “Continuing Productivity Loss Rebate”), for a total reduction in the Purchase Price of $62,000,000, unless by that date the Initial Productivity Loss Event is cured. If a Continuing Productivity Loss Rebate is paid pursuant to this subsection (b) or the following subsection (c), the payment obligations set forth in this Section 2.7 shall be deemed satisfied and Seller shall have no further obligation to pay any further Rebate or seek the State Leases; provided, however, that Seller shall take any and all action reasonably necessary at that time in order for Buyer and EMI to continue to seek and obtain the State Leases without further involvement by Seller.

(c) If the Initial Productivity Loss Event is cured within one (1) year as provided in subsection (b) but at any time after such cure a Productivity Loss Event occurs again, Seller will immediately pay Buyer the Continuing Productivity Loss Rebate, for a total reduction in the Purchase Price of $62,000,000. Such Continuing Productivity Loss Rebate will not be refunded to Seller even if such second Productivity Loss Event is thereafter cured.”

hb1326 readers note….There is plenty of addition info…just go to the source link above