BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING


Taken at the HGEA Conference Room, David Trask
Building, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at
11:00 a.m. on June 8, 2000.
 

Reported By:  Rachelle Primeaux, CSR #370
              Iwado Court Reporters, Inc.


ATTENDANCE:

Members Present:
Elmer Cravalho
Peter Rice
Bob Takitani
Mike Nobriga
Clark Hashimoto
Orlando Tagorda, Chair

Staff Present:
David Craddick, Director
Howard Fukushima, Corporation Counsel
Fran Nago, Secretary
George Tengan
Mike Quinn
Herb Chang
Herb Kogasaka


BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING


CHAIR TAGORDA:  I would like to call to order
the meeting of the Committee of the Whole.  It's
Thursday, June 8th, 2000.  It's 11 a.m., and we're
having this meeting at the HGEA Conference Room, David
K. Trask Building, Room 207, Wailuku.  In attendance,
Fran, would you call the board members present.

MS. NAGO:  We have Board Members Clark
Hashimoto, Peter Rice, Elmer Cravalho, Orlando
Tagorda, Committee Chair, and Robert Takitani.  We
have staff David Craddick, Howard Fukushima, Mike
Quinn, Herb Chang, Herb Kogasaka and George Tengan,
Deputy Director.  We have Doug Sameshima and, I'm
sorry, I didn't get you folks' names.

MR. SAMESHIMA:  This is Mr. Henry Lindsey and
Arlene Lindsey.

MR. TAGORDA:  Do we have anyone who wants to
give testimony, Fran?

MS. NAGO:  Testimony, did you folks wish to give
any testimony now?

MR. SAMESHIMA:  I want to give testimony on the
record regarding our matter.  I don't know if you want
it now.

MR. TAGORDA:  I think I'm asking for the members
of the public.

MR. SAMESHIMA:  Well, I'm an advocate.

MR. TAGORDA:  You can just wait.  We have two
items on the agenda.  Read the first item, please,
Fran.

MS. NAGO:  Communication 00-11, Request from
attorney Douglas J. Sameshima on behalf of PF2
Partners and PF3 Partners for a petition for a
declaratory order in the matter of the interpretation
of Department of Water Supply rules and regulations
concerning subdivision water systems.

MR. SAMESHIMA:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
committee members.  My client is asking this committee
to consider its petition for declaratory order
regarding the subdivision water improvements for
Piiholo Subdivision 2.  The petition seeks a ruling
that the additional approximately 700-foot extension
being required by the Department of Water Supply is
not applicable under the facts of this petition.

Land development is an evolutionary process, and
that's what happened in this case.  As outlined in the
statement of facts contained in the petition, the
initial application and water system requirements were
for a two-lot subdivision.  My client then evolved the
subdivision into a three-lot subdivision.

This called for redrawing of lot lines in
conformance with new lot boundaries.  In accord with
the boundary changes, plans by Toma Engineering were
presented to extend adequate water supply and fire
protection to the subdivision as it evolved and under
the currently proposed boundaries, all of the lots
fall within the required 500-foot radius for both
water supply and fire protection.

This would be from standpipe 72 as indicated in
Exhibit E attached to our petition.  Unfortunately,
while this evolution was taking place, the initial
requirement to extend the six-inch water line further
along Piiholo Road was not addressed.  However, as a
result of the current evolution of the subdivision, it
is not necessary to extend the six-inch water line
along the road because, number one, as stated above,
the evolved subdivision is now legally covered through
the modified lot lines as currently set forth.

Number two, this coverage is adequate under
current rules for both water supply and fire
protection.  Number three, there was no further access
to the subdivision below the point of adequacy and
entry at standpipe 72.  That access is prohibited by
subdivision conditions imposed by Land Use and Codes
Administration and physically impossible given the lay
of the land as there is a ten-foot embankment at the
bottom of the subdivision preventing any entry or exit
to Piiholo Road from the subdivision.

So, therefore, under the subdivision that's
currently proposed, the additional extension is not
required by the law nor necessary to adequately supply
the subdivision.  As outlined in our petition, my
client has spent over $100,000 on the water system.
Given the modifications to the subdivision and the
feedback regarding plans for extensions to the system
for Subdivision 2, my clients acted with the
understanding that the requirement for the additional
extension had been superseded.

This was a logical presumption given the fact
that such an extension was not required to provide
adequate water supply or fire protection.  They have
complied with all other requirements of the
Department.  And as indicated, the proposed extension
is not a minor item.  The cost would be an additional
$54,000-plus to my client and this is at a time when
they thought they were at a position to receive final
subdivision approval.

And another consideration is why if it is not
necessary for water supply and fire protection should
they be -- should my clients be ordered to extend the
water line, and for whose benefit is that?  It's not
for my client's benefit or necessity.  The only one
that would benefit would be any possible developers
further down the road and at an unfair and substantial
cost to my client.

We're not asking to modify any subdivision
requirements.  What we're saying is that this
extension, this requirement is not really a
requirement anymore.  The subdivision has changed.  As
argued above, the evolution has made it moot, a
nonissue, and my client should be given final
subdivision approval based on the water system as
currently contemplated and completed.  Thank you.  Are
there any questions?

MR. TAGORDA:  Any questions from the Board?
Mr. Sameshima, I had one question about the stand
pipes that was spaced 350 feet apart that was changed
from 700.  Was there any reason why it was placed 350
feet apart instead of the 500 feet?

MS. SAMESHIMA:  Well, obviously the 350 feet is
better essentially.  As the subdivision evolved, it
allowed my clients -- it seemed to become unnecessary
to put in that extra extension.  And since they were
putting in, they did put in over 700 feet of pipe, so
rather than space them 500 feet, then 200 feet, they
basically took that extension that they did install
and split it in two so the stand pipes would be
relatively equal length apart.

MR. TAGORDA:  The reason why I brought that up
is in one of your concerns is that the Department
wants you to add one more stand pipe and you stated
there that adding one more stand pipe is not necessary
because those two lots will be covered with the radius
of 500 feet, so there's no need for one stand pipe or
that stand pipe 72.

MR. SAMESHIMA:  No, stand pipe 72 is in.

MR. TAGORDA:  Yes, yes.  But adding one more
stand pipe --

MR. SAMESHIMA:  Beyond that would not be
necessary given the final configuration that was
applied for for the subdivision, which is what it is
now.  The entire radius -- the entire subdivision lot
is within that 500-foot radius.

MR. CRADDICK:  The staff has not finished their
report preparation on this matter yet, and in light of
this being handled with an attorney, we're also trying
to get our attorney involved in it, and I think until
that happens, I would appreciate it if the matter was
deferred until we could get a report to the
committee.

MR. TAGORDA:  Can I entertain a motion.

MR. TAKITANI:  So moved.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Second.

MR. TAGORDA:  So moved and seconded that these
matters can be deferred and until the Department can
give it to the staff and talk with its lawyer.

MR. SAMESHIMA:  One of our concerns is the time
involved.  As I indicated in my testimony, this is at
the end of a subdivision process that has gone on for
approximately seven years, and we're in a market that
avails itself to sell these kinds of properties, which
is that happens to be good timing.

But the problem is if we have an open-ended
extension, how long is that going to be, how long do
they need to do a staff report?  The real question,
the factual question is does, in fact, stand pipe 72
provide the required safety and water supply necessary
under the rules, and our position is that it does.
All you need is a compass to go around there and see
if everything falls within 500 feet.  I'm not sure how
complex a staff report you need to determine that.

MR. TAGORDA:  Go ahead, David.

MR. CRADDICK:  I hear him keep saying the fire
improvements for the subdivision.  But let's say they
weren't providing any fire improvements.  We asked for
a hold harmless not only for their improvements but
those outside that are damaged from allowing them to
go forward.  And when fire improvements are put in,
they're not only to protect the improvements that go
in, but they're to protect people outside those
improvements that could be put in further jeopardy
because of the increased that goes on inside there, so
can a fire come down a straight-up cliff?

MR. TAGORDA:  How soon can you be ready to
answer -- have your staff report so we can put this in
the agenda?

MR. CRADDICK:  Herb.

MR. CHANG:  I think we made the response to your
April 17th, we have some feedback for attorneys to
look at, so we can give it to Howard today.

MR. CRADDICK:  So then if the meeting were
scheduled in another two weeks, theoretically, there
might be enough time for --

MR. TAGORDA:  Would that be okay with you, sir,
while we can have this on our -- coincide with our
Regular Board Meeting on the 22nd?

MR. SAMESHIMA:  That would be fine.

MR. TAGORDA:  Okay.

MR. SAMESHIMA:  We appreciate you accelerating
the process.  Thank you.

MR. TAGORDA:  Do we need a vote to defer this,
consensus?

MR. CRAVALHO:  Consensus, Mr. Chair.

MR. TAGORDA:  Thank you.

MR. SAMESHIMA:  And just for the record, what
time is that?

MR. TAGORDA:  It's going to be 11, same time.

MR. SAMESHIMA:  Okay.  Thank you.

MR. TAGORDA:  The second item, Fran, please.

MS. NAGO:  Discussion/possible action regarding
computer security.

MR. TAGORDA:  Do we need to go into executive
session here, David?

MR. CRADDICK:  If you want us to discuss
anything about it.

MR. TAGORDA:  That's the pleasure of the
members?

MR. CRADDICK:  We have a report here.

MR. TAGORDA:  Can I entertain a motion to go to
executive session?

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chair, I'm not prepared to
make a motion, neither am I in favor of going into
executive session.  If this is the same matter that I
had discussed with Mr. Craddick sometime ago, I
express some very deep reservations as to the
protection of confidentiality that's contained therein
if that was the same proposal.  It ostensibly makes
reference to computer security, but if that is the
same agreement with the FBI --

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. CRAVALHO:  -- the contents of that agreement
also provides, as I understand it, for the potential
to use a vernacular squealing and testifying and
charging by members of this group or whatever against
anybody and everybody if so desires.  It is more than
meets the eye, and I believe that I am right.

And, therefore, I will be very much, very
reluctant to go into an executive session, and this is
a matter that will be -- have an impact potentially on
a entire community.  It sets up the potential for an
information system putting into operation with freeing
people who function in this capacity.  Perhaps that is
the method by which justice moves, and I have my
reservations about that.

I think we have to protect the confidentiality,
especially this time, yeah, of anybody and everybody.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this
particular provision -- this particular document
provides for the so-called opting out situation with
respect to security.  When the Congress and/or the
Federal Government or anybody, for that matter, makes
a proposal of rules and regulations and procedures
that would have the effect of law and contain therein
that affected people would have the opportunity to opt
out, that means everybody is included in until such
time as they opt out.

The average person does not pay that much
attention to that provision, yeah, of opting out.
Now, we go through it all the time in the credit
union, whether it's past rules and regs, they say,
well, they can opt out.  We say, huh-uh, not as far as
our credit is concerned.  If a person wants, he can
opt in if he wants to, but you don't blanket him in
and give him the opportunity to opt out.  And the
document is all full of legalese.

Whatever the Board decides and whatever the
Committee of the Whole decides, referring to the full
Board, whatever the case may be, we can take up that
discussion at that time.  And Mr. Craddick more than
likely has expressed my concerns to the parties
involved.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, that's what I want to pass
out here.

MR. CRAVALHO:  I have no objection to that.  I
prefer having this so we can respond to that, too.

MR. CRADDICK:  I guess the problem is this
organization does not want the information made
public.  It defeats the purpose of being a party to
this organization.

MR. CRAVALHO:  But Mr. Chairman, Mr. Craddick,
that's not all that it proposes to do.  If it were
limited to that only, the protection, yeah, of the
confidentiality only without the authority to the
potential participation in our areas and providing
information, unsubstantiated hearsay or whatever, that
I think can become quite dangerous and quite unfair.

MR. CRADDICK:  I think -- I think the Board can
decide what they want to have on.  Our billing system
is already going to be on because we go through the
state network, and the state is participating in
this.  The County finance -- the County finance
system, I do not know whether they are participating
or not.  The main reason we would participate is to
protect our SCADA system.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chairman, the same argument I
made before, I make again.  At what price, and what
does it do potentially?  Now, we have a classic
example today, Mr. Chairman.  When the Department
brought in a list of all accounts to be charged off
with people named, you tell me that's not a violation
of their Constitutional Rights.  I say it is, and it's
an invasion of their privacy.  Your Department
participated in this.  My understanding is if we get
into this agreement, this potential, yeah, would also
be present and available.

Now, the fact if the Department of Finance or
any other department of government participates in
this program, to me, it doesn't mean squat.  If they
don't want to protect the rights of their members and
their constituents here, that's their business.  I
should not be placed in the position of automatically
going along with that.  I think it's very, very
dangerous.  Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the Director
receives the kind of information we get.

Finally, the Federal Government now is beginning
to wake up in some areas and they're warning, yeah,
about the absolute necessity to protect the
confidentiality of our members.  With particular
reference to Internet and computer systems and how
they can be invaded and how information can be gotten
and people can be hurt, and if we're going to make
this kind of an agreement, I think it's our
responsibility to exercise all possible effort.

Now, if an organization, Mr. Chairman, wants to
hold us harmless, and will take necessary bondings for
us, I have no problem, or I have a reduced problem,
okay.  The question, Mr. Chairman, of security is a
very serious one one the entire community.  We all get
warned about utilization of Social Security numbers,
credit card numbers, be careful how you dispose
information that can be picked up and utilized.  We
get warned about that all the time.  Anything that can
identify a person I think can be very, very
dangerous.

Now, if we provide all the safeguards and all
the protections and all the indemnifications for the
Board, well, that's different.  Maybe, Mr. Chairman,
the same arguments when I sat on the grand jury and
fought against indictments because in the eyes of the
public, there is a presumption of guilt once an
indictment is published, and that will come out in a
list, okay.  And when it's dismissed, well, you find
it will be gone.  But the impact of the person and if
there are children involved, the sons and daughters of
kids who go to school get told by their friends,
"What's up with your old man?"  I would say it like
this, caution.  That's my position only.

MR. TAGORDA:  Go ahead, David.

MR. CRADDICK:  I share that same caution, but on
our SCADA system, there's no listing of any names.
It's a system that operates our water system, and what
this service provides is watching.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, what
that system provides --

MR. TAGORDA:  Let him finish.

MR. CRAVALHO:  That's not what the system
provides.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, that's -- if it doesn't
provide that, then I'm under a mistaken concept of
what it is that they are providing.  But the
infrastructure protection program that is being
offered to us is something to monitor our system, and
that monitoring is monitoring hacking attempts to get
into our system.

We don't have the expertise to do that kind of
stuff.  If somebody gets into our stuff, they could
shut our entire SCADA system down.  We wouldn't even
know what happened.  All would be done is it is a
severe handicap, and what is going on with this group
is they are watching this on many, many utilities
across the country.  And if they see wide areas of
hacking going into systems, they obviously know
something is up.

MR. CRAVALHO:  A similar question,
Mr. Chairman.  Is that a narrow, yeah, authority
limited to that only?

MR. CRADDICK:  You can limit it.

MR. CRAVALHO:  The proposal that came in, answer
my question, Mr. Craddick.  The proposal that came in,
is it limited to that only, or does it provide the
opportunity for the dispensing of any kind of
information real or otherwise?  And I'm right.

MR. CRADDICK:  I have to say I don't know
whether that's correct or not.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Fair enough.  Let's go look at
it, okay.

MR. TAGORDA:  So it's going to be deferred until
the next meeting of the Committee of the Whole then,
David.

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know.  I think I have
information here that addresses that if anybody wants
to look at it.  I don't think it's appropriate to pass
it out and not in executive session.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Well, it's up to the committee
to -- if that's the decision, then, fine, go ahead.
I'll walk out.  I won't be part of that decision,
okay, and I'll participate on the other side to resist
it because, as I understand that, Mr. Craddick and
Mr. Chairman, it is not limited to only what you
said.  It does contain these other elements that I'm
concerned about.

And if it is limited only to what you said, I do
not have a problem.  But if it goes beyond which I'm
reasonably sure it does, I do have a problem, and I'm
only one.  The majority does whatever it feels like
it.  And we're going to see what comes up.

MR. CRADDICK:  We only have one system, and
that's our SCADA system.  Everything else we
participate in other people's systems.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Craddick, we're playing with
words, and you know that.  Because when you talk about
the system, you are a participant in that system.  You
are referred to as a participant of whatever it may
be.  Now, being a participant in that particular
operation, is it limited to one person only in the
Department, only one set of records in the Department
that only within person has access to, or is it
available to many, whether it's two or three or five?
And I believe I'm dead right on this one.

MR. CRADDICK:  The operations people have access
to the SCADA system.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Correct.  And what authorities do
they then have?

MR. CRADDICK:  They can adjust our pump levels,
water tank.  They can do anything in that system.

MR. CRAVALHO:  The participant has authority,
and if you wish to pass out the draft, do so, and if
it isn't what I'm saying, I stand corrected.  But I do
believe it does give them authority to say anything to
anybody basically at any time and not solely limited
only to the contents of your computer system.  I think
there is the elements of a quasi blind check in
there.

MR. TAGORDA:  Anymore discussion on the computer
security?

MR. CRAVALHO:  I say defer it.

MR. TAGORDA:  Any second?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

MR. TAGORDA:  It's been moved to defer and
seconded this item on computer security.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chairman, I have no problem
if Mr. Craddick will answer the question to the
committee that I have raised, and if my concerns are
without merit, I stand corrected.  But if they are
valid or the possibility of its being valid, I say,
hey, let's take a look and see what can be done to
limit our involvement.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  To make a decision, I don't know
what this is all about.

MR. TAGORDA:  I have no idea, too.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  I know it's some kind of
computer security and computer system.

MR. TAGORDA:  So if we can get some more
information without going into executive session.

MR. CRADDICK:  The part of the agreement is not
to be open to the public, so if I'm going to honor
that, then I cannot openly discuss it in open
session.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chairman, this is not a star
chamber type of operation.  I do not believe that we
should grant blanket authority to anyone without being
completely understood as to what is involved.  We are
not sitting in a high clearance type of a situation
where we, in effect, try to function as such.

I don't believe there should be with anybody in
the Department this type of authority.  Our function
is to represent the public, and so I think a deferral
is in order.  The Chairperson, not the Chair, but the
Director feels like there should be possibly no public
discussion.  I shudder at the idea of any Governmental
agency getting involved in any activity which does
affect the public where the public does not have the
right to be aware and informed.

And, if I may, Mr. Chairman, part of our
problems that we have been trying to wrestle with has
been the tendency of the Department, intentionally or
otherwise immaterial, but it has been the practice of
the Department of doing things without the knowledge
of the public without the knowledge of the Board.  And
we've run into massive problems because of that.  And
we're being asked to put our stamp of approval on it.
I cannot.  And I will not.

I think our job again is to protect the public
and to serve the public.  I don't see how this is
going to be done.  Now, with respect to the necessity
of this of protecting your computer system, well, we
have a computer system where we operate and we're part
of an international computer system.  Electronic Data
System is worldwide, and we're never asked to do
that.

We provide the necessary protection and we have
the necessary sanctions against any of us if we
provide information we're not supposed to about
anybody.  The fact that the general public and the
average person does not know what his rights may be
does not excuse us if we attempt to ignore those
rights intentionally or otherwise.  And I say this is
full of danger.  If Mr. Craddick, again, comes up with
an agreement that limits my concerns and at the same
time protects the system without jeopardy to the
public, I say let's go.  But until such time as that
is done, no.

We've run into those problems, and we've run
into them with respect to water.  We've run into them
with respect to meters.  We've run into them with the
Director's overt action in ignoring stuff and mandates
and instructions that came from corp counsel's
office.  There was the selectivity of enforcement,
which I want to see us avoid.  This is not personal,
but this is reality, an even playing field.

Simple, Mr. Craddick, the Director,
Mr. Chairman, provide us with the assurance, and I
will be your strong supporter.  And I'm not talking
about -- I've told you this before.  Stay by the law.
Do what we need to.  I am not an opponent.  I have
said this.  But when we attempt to depart from it,
okay, you've sent communications out that undermined
in my judgment, you've undermined the activities of
the Department and of the committees.

And I called one of these to your attention, and
shortly thereafter, you sent another one out that
undermines, that undermines the Finance Committee.
You called the affected party and you sent the
communications, informed them of what the Finance
Committee did or didn't do, and you told them to call
me.

MR. TAGORDA:  Okay, there's a motion on the
floor to defer this item.

MR. TAKITANI:  Mr. Chair.

MR. TAGORDA:  Go ahead.

MR. TAKITANI:  I share Board Chair Cravalho's
concerns about the security and public input, however,
in order to make sure that we get a meaningful report,
is it possible to get possibly Fiscal Officer Quinn or
somebody to generate the kind of report Mr. Cravalho
is asking for?

MR. CRAVALHO:  I have no problem.

MR. TAKITANI:  I share the -- you know, we want
this security to be in place as far as the
confidential data, et cetera.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chairman, my suggestion I
think is a reasonable one, defer while we get these
things and the assurances made.  I think Mr. Quinn
will be very willing to say that never once have I
ever called him or questioned any activity or any
matter.  And I've complained about the Board, but I
think this is an area that we do need to protect
ourselves if necessary.

MR. TAGORDA:  Go ahead.

MR. CRADDICK:  There is our SCADA system.  It
has nothing to do with our financial system.  It's our
SCADA system that I'm talking about.  Is that clear to
everybody?  Whether the County -- if the County and
State participate on their own on the financial system
or a billing system, there is nothing we can do about
that.

They participate in that on their own.  We are
participating for our SCADA system, and I will find
out from them if we can limit, you know, if we
participate in our SCADA system -- I mean our SCADA
system is not tied to the financial system, so I don't
know how anybody could get into the other systems via
our SCADA system.  But be that as it may, I will find
out because I don't know.  I will have to find out
whether that can happen.  This is about the SCADA
system, and that is all.

MR. CRAVALHO:  I want to express my concern
again.  It is this Board's prerogative to decide and
to request and to utilize personnel as resources for
whatever the case may be.  I believe we need to have
an objective report, one that will address the
questions that I have raised.  It would be improper,
Mr. Chairman, for me to write such a report because
I'm on one side of the question.

It would be equally improper for the person on
the other side of the question to write the report.
Third party, yeah, who we all have confidence in I
think would function to the satisfaction of all
parties concerned.  If you, Mr. Craddick, if the
Director writes a report, then I want to have the
privilege of getting a copy of that in writing my
report and citing it, and I think, Mr. Craddick, I'll
stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I think I'm right.

MR. TAGORDA:  Ready for the question?

MR. CRAVALHO:  Yes.

MR. TAGORDA:  Those in favor to defer this item
say "Aye."

VOICES:  Aye.

MR. TAGORDA:  Opposed?

(No response.)

CHAIR TAGORDA:  This meeting is adjourned.

(The deposition concluded at 11:40 a.m.)