BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING


Held at Waikapu Community Center, Waikapu, Maui, 
Hawaii, commencing at 6:00 p.m. on May 23, 2001.

REPORTED BY:   LYNANN NICELY, RPR/RMR/CSR #354
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

A P P E A R A N C E S

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Jonathan Starr, Chairman
Mike Nobriga
Orlando Tagorda

STAFF PRESENT:
David Craddick, Director 
Howard Fukushima, Corporation Counsel
Ellen Kraftsow

MR. STARR:  I'm going to bring the meeting to 
order.  This is the Operational Review Committee of 
the Maui Board of Water Supply.  I'm going to ask that 
we hold this in a slightly informal, more workshop 
setting than many board meetings and we'll proceed 
with the presentations. 
 I'm Jonathan Starr, I'm committee chair, and 
Orlando Tagorda, board member, is with us.  We also 
have Ellen Kraftsow of the department, head of 
planning.  We have Howard Fukushima, corporation 
counsel; James Kumagai, who is consultant on the Water 
Use and Development Plan; Charlie Ice of the Hawaii 
State Commission on Water Resource Management, Carl 
Freedman, Haiku Design; and Peter Adler.  We have 
board staff ably represented by Shirley and also 
Jacky from the director's office is with us.  And 
thank everyone for coming, as well as our 
stenographer. 
 Anyway, I don't see too much of the public 
here pushing to testify, so we can proceed with our 
presentation.  I'm going to turn things over to Ellen 
Kraftsow to give us a short overview of the Water Use 
and Development Plan.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Thank you for coming.  Can 
everybody see this?  It's actually more much more 
clear on the screen.  So we're going to talk today 
about the Maui County Water Use and Development Plan.  
Briefly, this is just going to cover -- there is a lot 
more information in your handouts than what I can 
really speak today, but I'm going to cover the -- when 
I say here on the slide the old requirements and 
progress, what I mean is the requirements that are 
already stated in the constitution and Hawaii Revised 
Statutes and Hawaii Administrative Rules.  And the new 
requirements and progress, what I'm talking about is 
the statewide framework for updating [inaudible] that 
was approved by the commission in February of 2000. 
Our proposed contracts and the reasons for those 
contracts, schedule and constraints, and a little bit 
about our reporting and interim products and 
milestones. 
 Just for those of you who aren't familiar with 
[inaudible], in six districts, we have about 727 miles 
of pipe representing two-thirds of our system value 
and a total system value of $715 million with an 
average investment of $25,000 per customer, versus a 
national average of between $4,000 and $8,000.  So 
part of that is because there are very few customers 
per mile of pipe compared to the national average.  
But what that means is we have an expensive system to 
operate. 
 There are various requirements I'm going to go 
over -- constitutional, statutory, Hawaii Revised 
Statutes, the Hawaii Administrative Rules, County 
Charter, and the County Code. 
 I wanted to stress here about the 
constitution, that the constitution says that the 
state -- I added the underline here "and its political 
subdivisions" have responsibility to conserve and 
protect resources, of which water is on the list, and 
provides for a water resources agency.  In other 
words, the state has an obligation to protect 
resources, but so do the counties, which are limited 
to the subdivisions of the state. 
 Hawaii Revised Statutes.  So the statutes 
basically set forth that there will be county plans, 
what they're supposed to meet, and that they should 
cover things like the status and inventory, future 
needs, resource protection, water quality, and so on. 
 Then when you get on the Hawaii Administrative 
Rules, they essentially expand upon the state 
requirements.  They say that we need to be consistent 
with state and county land use policies, as well as 
the state water resources plan and water quality plan.  
And not just consistent, but use information from 
those plans, considering a 20-year projection update 
as needed.  They give more detail on what the required 
inventory and status should include.  And again, more 
detail on all of the -- fleshing out all the 
requirements that are basically in the statutes.  Also 
adding the state water projects plan to that list of 
state plans that we need to comply with. 
 Under the county requirements, Section 8 of 
the County Charter says that we must have a long-range 
plan, that it needs to be approved by council, and 
that it should comply with community plans.  And 
County Code Chapter 2.88A sets forth the process by 
which the council adopts the plan. 
 And then finally, in 1993 the board also 
passed a resolution moving that the county -- the 
long-range plan required in the county charter and the 
plan for all three islands be the same.  And the 
wording is a little awkward here, but the basic gist 
of it was to make these two plans into the same plan 
in part because during the 1990 and 1992 approval 
process of the Water Use and Development Plan, one of 
the reasons that the State Water Commission did not 
accept any of the water use and development plans in 
1992 was because most of the counties had completely 
different developments plans than their water 
department [inaudible].  They were not consistent and 
that was one of the reasons that the commission 
rejected them. 
 Also, it was a matter of public input 
integrity in that it was seen that if you spent all 
this time doing a master plan only for the department 
without so much public process and then you go into 
the public process plan, that the public might 
perceive that as lacking in forthcomingness or 
integrity.  So for those two reasons, the board 
elected to make these two plans into one. 
 This is the status of the community plans that 
we're required to comply with.  They're not completed 
yet and we don't have digital maps for any of them 
except for there is a website map of [inaudible] but 
the plan is not completed.  So that's the status of 
the existing plans. 
 Now, when we started this contract, we also 
knew that the State Water Commission was moving 
towards Integrated Resource Planning model.  They had 
not yet published the requirements.  But we knew 
basically that Integrated Resource Planning involves 
looking at a range of different demands and supply 
side options, considering all costs -- meaning not 
just the financial costs, the revenue costs, but also 
social, economic, and environmental -- looking at 
externalities or impacts of your decisions, involving 
a strong public participation component, allowing 
consideration for policy objectives like the ag rate 
would be considered a policy objective of the county 
because it supports a policy objective.  Exclusive 
consideration of uncertainty and measurable criteria 
for ongoing participation and evaluation. 
 So based on knowing those basic main points 
about IRP, we negotiated a modified smaller budget IRP 
for Maui.  I should say that the IRP for Honolulu has 
a $1.2 million budget.  The anticipated budget for 
Kauai I think is either $500,000 or $600,000, it's in 
those handouts there.  So what we have in our 
contracts is very small compared to what a full IRP 
could be. 
 We also negotiated that we would do a minimum 
public process component where we [inaudible] people 
more on the same page.  And this is what we learned 
about that public process component.  Basically, 
genuine public process takes more than a few meetings.  
It can be complex.  Examples would be a very small and 
involved community, like we've had 10 percent of 
Molokai show up at a water meeting once.  Can you 
imagine if 10 percent of New York City showed up at a 
water meeting?  Or 2 percent of Lanai?  Even if 2 
percent of Honolulu showed up at a water meeting.  So 
small communities are highly involved, which is really 
nice but it takes longer. 
 Controversial issues like we can probably look 
at some time dealing with the East Maui stuff.  Or a 
lot -- a broad range of private interests that we need 
to incorporate with all the private systems in 
Lahaina.  Those things can make the public process 
take a little bit longer. 
 But with Lanai, we did finally get down to 
five main critical issues which were forest 
management, a continued mechanism for community 
involvement, we recognized that we need to reach 
agreement on water allocations to different land uses, 
to set operational guidelines for pumping because the 
sustainable yield is so low, and to come up with 
conservation measures and milestones.  So those became 
the five top issues for the Lanai plan. 
 This slide just shows why that was so 
important.  Here's some relatively good forest and 
here's some fully degraded forest.  Ex-forest, I 
guess, on Lanai. 
 Together the community came up with a proposal 
to protect the watershed, the most controversial 
element of which was a fence, but we did reach a 
relative degree of community consensus and elect to go 
with this fence which upon further aerial and field 
survey has migrated to this shape and we decided that 
we're going to have to build it in 3-inch increments 
because getting the funding was too difficult.  But we 
have obtained two-thirds of the funding for the first 
increment so far. 
 In terms of demand projections for Lanai, we 
didn't use regressions because Lanai was in this case 
where its major industry, pineapple, was going out and 
projections based on historical trends simply were not 
going to be accurate.  You can see that water trends 
continually went down and just started to turn back up 
sometime in 1998, December or so. 
 So this next slide shows what the land use 
allocations -- water to land use allocations were and 
the committee also agreed on various operational and 
conservation implementation measures. 
 Moving on to Lahaina, we've had six meetings 
so far, the first just introductory and getting 
people's ideas of what their top issues were.  The 
next was an introduction to all the private purveyors 
and large land owners' plans and prioritizing the 
issue list that we came up with in the first meeting.  
The third meeting was completely devoted to different 
kinds of resource protection.  The fourth was capital, 
operational, and demand and supply options.  The fifth 
was updates on projected water requirements and 
forecasts.  And then we began a series of discussions 
on group policy issues including the Waiahole panel. 
 So right now we're in the process of drafting 
a partial draft based on what we've covered so far.  
One of the big issues for Lahaina is the fate of 
agriculture and how the diminishment of agriculture 
will affect not only demand but also recharge 
patterns. 
 Meanwhile, we've been developing some 
forecasts for the island.  These are not complete, but 
just to give you a sense of where those are heading.  
The base case forecast -- this is still incomplete 
data -- is looking at 2020 demand for just the county 
only of about 53 million gallons with a low end 45 and 
a high of 59. 
 Now remember, we can't only look at our plan.  
We have to look at county-wide demand for all things.  
So we're not close to the end here, but we had to 
start with our own demand picture. 
 Along about February, as we were getting going 
on the Lahaina project, the state passed its statewide 
framework which basically it increased the 
requirements and it also restated and expanded upon 
the existing requirements under the state statutes and 
administrative rules.  But it also requires much more 
explicit description of the coordination with the 
commission.  It requires that we also integrate not 
only the Water Resources Protection Plan and State 
Water Quality Plan, but also the State Water Projects 
Plan and the Agricultural Water Use and Development 
Plan and that all those four plans specifically 
discussed in our county plan. 
 It also requires a much more substantial and 
much more explicit description of the public process 
component and gives more description of the IRP steps, 
options, and evaluation criteria.  It requires that we 
extend our planning horizon beyond the 20 years 
mentioned in the statute where resource issues are in 
question.  It also requires that we define and 
describe all of our modeling tools.  And it also 
describes in pretty much depth the screening process 
by which we examine supply options and balances.  
Finally, it also requires that there is well defined, 
implementible, and measurable results. 
 So clearly to meet these kind of requirements 
our existing tools at the time were not going to fly.  
So in anticipation of this, we have been talking to 
the commission all along, we knew some of this was 
coming, that to meet this level of requirements we had 
to develop a more credible program for water resources 
management and protection and improve our demand 
forecasting tools, and do some other things.  So here 
are a few things we've been doing. 
 We developed an annotated bibliography of -- 
that should say of water availability policies around 
the country.  A capital improvement program list, 
that's a 20-year capital list that we use and that 
we're still improving upon.  We've developed GIS thing 
to look at our system maps.  Hydraulic model.  A 
replacement planning and asset evaluation model -- the 
board is familiar with that because Mike's committee 
just finished that.  The demand forecast and 
conservation model.  We've been doing some source 
water protects work and there have been other public 
input forums like the Iao Round Table and the 
Upcountry [inaudible]. 
 So here are some examples of those.  This is 
our CIP.  This is just a slide from our CIP.  This is 
not really showing a database.  This is a GIS.  You 
can see all the lines here that are yellow, red, or 
orange are undersized, which is John's comment 
[inaudible] which ones aren't. 
 This is an example from our hydrology model.  
It shows pressures and flows.  This is an example of 
the replacement asset.  It gives you an estimate of 
funding required.  This is just one sample run of it. 
 And then the wellhead protection program.  
Model zones of contribution for our wells.  This is a 
different annotated bibliography.  This is on 
[inaudible] measures around the country.  We've been 
working on a land use inventory of the wellhead 
protection areas and inventory of potential 
contaminant sources through field survey and a study 
of other management options.  What that looks like is 
this is our model and where we don't have model data, 
we just define broad and gradient areas to protect.  
Where we inventory potential contaminating activities 
and see how they might affect our groundwater and then 
create layers like this.  We've also been developing a 
database of best management practices that will 
eventually be added to our website so that somebody 
can say, oh, I'm doing this, what can I do best to 
protect water resources.  This is easier to see this 
map on land use. 
 Then of course we've been working towards 
forming watershed partnerships.  And Lanai hopefully 
will be formed sometime this year.  This shows our 
increasing commitment to resource protection, which is 
something that we do need to show more explicitly in 
the new requirements. 
 But again, getting back to the requirements 
and to the contracts and what they are going to cover, 
there are a few things we have to comply with.  We 
have to define -- we have to comply with state 
agriculture and water use plan and we have to look at 
the impacts on agriculture of the current resource 
picture and proposed demands.  Agriculture water uses 
shown on that slide, the green is agriculture use.  
The reason Lanai still has so much agricultural use is 
because it's from 1995 before pineapple was really 
finished.  Or from the 1995 report which probably was 
1994 data. 
 The stream water, except for Lanai, is very 
important.  We've had -- since the 1990 Water 
Resources Protection Plan, we've had changes in 
sustainable yields and there is really no adequately 
compiled data on stream flows. 
 So returning to the process, in the context of 
what we need to do, we need to comply with these four 
plans, we need to -- you can see we need to do a 
screening of scenarios.  And one of the more complex 
aspects of this is that we cannot just look at our 
county needs but we have to look also at county-wide 
needs including private purveyors. 
 This diagram is probably more to the point.  
We have to screen and characterize resource options, 
combine them into sequences and strategies, and then 
go through the screening process on those.  Carl can 
give you more information on that. 
 So we have two existing contracts currently  
and then we're proposing two additional contracts.  
The two existing contracts were both issued prior to 
issuance of the framework.  The two proposed are since 
the framework. 
 So here are the key elements of the contracts.  
This initial contract was just the update of the Water 
Use and Development Plan.  The only thing that's 
changed here is there was a forecasting component 
that's been moved to the demand forecasting contracts, 
but basically we went over the negotiated elements 
with the commission.  Those were all key elements of 
this contract.  It was a very small budget relying 
mostly on in-house staff.  We're recognizing we were 
in the process of building these tools.  But it 
involves descriptions of the regulatory framework, 
system description, operational consideration, 
especially the hydraulic analysis, an engineering 
perspective on resource options, assistance with 
recharge regimes analysis, and engineering 
perspectives on contingencies and policy issues. 
 The proposed -- no, the existing calibration 
of the IWR-Main demand, forecasting, conservation, 
savings and cost benefit modules involves the 
establishing a demand forecasting work station, 
gathering the data necessary to properly forecast a 
model, developing a range of forecasts for each of our 
planning districts, and breaking it down and just 
aggregating it in some cases by [inaudible] uses.  
Documenting forecast procedures and assumptions.  
Gathering data for the conservation cost/benefit 
module, preliminary cost/benefit estimates and 
measures, documentation and recommendations for more 
data, and training of staff in forecasting model. 
 Now, our proposed contracts involve 
facilitation -- there is a heavy public -- if you read 
the framework or [inaudible] slides in detail, there 
is a heavy public processing component now to what the 
commission wants.  So this is for facilitation and 
documentation of the public participation process.  
Assistance in compliance with the framework.  
Documentation and reporting and preparation of the 
final report on the participation process. 
 And the other proposed contract key elements 
are basically the primary economic and financial 
analysis for the IRP process, including estimates of 
marginal costs and supply by district, 
characterization and screening of resource options 
employing the IRP framework, evaluation of capital, 
operational and avoided costs.  Screening of 
strategies in terms of their life cycle, capital, 
operating, financial, and other costs.  Looking at 
things from various cost perspectives -- that means 
not just from the perspective of us as a utility, but 
also from the rate-payer and the community at large.  
Reporting, documentation, and presentations.  And also 
some work on helping us to improve our billing 
database so we can use it better in-house. 
 We have put together a consultant team or team 
of proposed consultants depending upon who wins the 
one IRP, but so far we have a range of these specs 
anyway that call for extensive engineering background, 
forecasting background, public process background, and 
economic analysis background.  So we've covered all of 
the main directions of expertise that we need. 
 The proposed schedule is three years.  This is 
a very challenging schedule for three years.  We 
report to the board every six months in the order 
shown here.  The commission already attends staff 
meetings, so that will help with commission process 
but we're thinking of every year we would also report 
back to the commission. 
 Some of the constraints are there really still 
is no adequately compiled data on stream flows and 
even private well use.  Even when there is data, it 
can be difficult to obtain or utilize it and a lot of 
times we get data from the commission reported by 
different private owners and there are conflicts 
between it or it doesn't match or we have to try to 
reconcile it somehow. 
 The community plan and zoning layer data have 
not been made available to us yet.  We still have 
problems with our own billing data that we're working 
on.  The logistics of public process are complex and 
can involve everything seems to take longer than it 
needs to.  The state and community plans that we need 
to comply with, none of them are complete.  And even 
where they are complete, there are conflicts within 
and between them.  The budget is still low.  In fact, 
even if we got every single contract and everything 
we're asking for, we would be spending less than half 
of what any other county is anticipating spending.  
And of course, staff has other work, too, it's a small 
staff. 
 Again, these are the community plan status.  
Some of them are completed, some of them are not 
completed.  Where they are completed, we don't have 
the maps. 
 These are the water plans.  The only one 
that's completed is the State Water Projects Plan and 
just parenthetically there is a 700-acre piece of 
Hawaiian Homelands property in the West Maui district 
we're working on now that we have to by code account 
for, but it wasn't listed in the State Water Projects 
Plan.  So even where we have those plans, we have more 
work to do.  But we're proceeding and some of the 
benefits that will be gained along the way are better 
forecast through districts, some districts and by use 
class.  Better itemization of demand and supply side 
options and analysis of the cost and benefits of those 
and other source options.  A comprehensive analysis of 
supply options.  Phased hydraulic model calibration 
which each phase will give successively more value to 
that hydrology model.  Integration of the demand and 
hydraulic model data so that we can load different 
scenarios into the model of demand and see how that 
will affect our systems.  Improvement of our GIS.  A 
wellhead protection ordinance proposal.  An updated 
and maintained regulatory calendar and just improved 
public relations that result from going through the 
process.  And that's it.

MR. STARR:  Thank you.  I would like to 
acknowledge Glenn Shepherd is here.  Do you have any 
testimony for us, Glenn?

MR. SHEPHERD:  [Inaudible] Could you go 
through this again so we can attach it?

MR. STARR:  I'll let you ask questions, but I 
can't ask her to do it again.  If you have comments, 
come up and give us your name or if you have 
questions, I'll let you ask her some questions.  But 
be a little more specific.

MR. SHEPHERD:  My comments are kept pretty 
much within the four walls of my house.  None public.  
I'm afraid to say something.

MR. STARR:  You're certainly welcome to say 
what you want.  Anyway, no comment.

MR. SHEPHERD:  I just tapped this thing and 
right in the middle of it and I don't know what the 
hell --

MR. STARR:  Well, if you want to make comments 
later, they will still be welcome.  Ellen.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I was just going to explain 
what we're doing is proposing to the board two 
contracts; one is to allow Peter Adler to facilitate 
our meetings. 

MR. SHEPHERD:  Who's Peter Adler?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  This guy right here.

MR. SHEPHERD:  What's Peter do?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  He's the facilitator, he's the 
one that comes to meetings and -- and he also helped 
write the public process.

MR. STARR:  I don't want this to really break 
down into dialogue.  So we'll get there.  We haven't 
gotten to that yet.

MR. SHEPHERD:  What's the objective of this meeting?

MR. STARR:  Let me state our objectives.  One 
is to give a presentation of the Water Use and 
Development Plan process, which Ellen has done.  And 
then there is a desire to look at certain contracts 
for different parts of the process.  There are some 
contracts that were awarded in the past and there are 
some contracts that are currently under award and 
there is I believe one contract left that's desired to 
be awarded that will allow us to proceed with the 
Water Use and Development Plan. 
 And I know I get a little bit -- I'm a little 
bit confused as well as everyone about the different 
contracts.  I would like to ask Ellen to first explain 
-- first starting with the oldest and existing 
contracts, please, very slowly and clearly, explain 
what we're talking about.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Okay.  What I would like to do 
is do it real quick, like one minute or less --

MR. STARR:  No.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Wait, wait.  And then give each 
of the consultants on existing contracts a chance to 
present that.  Because they --

MR. STARR:  I'll ask them to present.  What 
I'm asking you to do is very slowly and clearly 
explain about the existing contracts and what we're 
looking to do.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Okay.  Well, part of how we 
designed this presentation when we were preparing for 
it was that I would give the presentation and give 
each consultant a chance to speak about their own 
contract.  But if you turn to page 10 of your slide 
handouts, the top left slide there, that is the basic 
contract that we began with.  It's about an $80,000 
contract to update the Water Use and Development Plan. 
 Now, basically what's happening is that's an 
$80,000 contract with about a half a million dollar 
scope.

MR. STARR:  When was this awarded?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  '97.

MR. STARR:  '97?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yes.  With some amendments since then.

MR. STARR:  Before we start with that, as I 
understand it, there was a contract that's much older 
than that and that is still -- that's still involved 
and that was a contract awarded to M&E, which was -- 
that's why I'm saying I want to start oldest first.  
So please go back to there.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Those contracts are older than 
my time here, okay.  That contract existed before I 
ever got here.  I'm not even sure if I've ever seen 
it.  I just knew about it. 
 But the only thing that remains from that 
contract is the retainage which was for printing of 30 
approved copies -- 30 copies of the final approved 
document.  All else from that contract was completed 
and paid out before we ever even began.

MR. STARR:  So is that correct, Jim?

MR. KUMAGAI:  The contract had to do with 
coming up with a draft which was we call it the '92 
draft of the 1990 update which was published in 1992.  
So that was the draft that was put out and that 
contract and the [inaudible] when completed the profit 
remained as drafts.  So that profit was [inaudible].

A VOICE:  You made a draft -- that draft was 
accepted by the Maui board, if I'm correct.

MR. KUMAGAI:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  And then it was sent to the state 
commission.

MR. KUMAGAI:  No, it was sent to the council.

MR. STARR:  It was sent to the council.  And 
what did the council do? 

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Never acted.

MR. STARR:  So it never actually reached the state.

MR. KUMAGAI:  No.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Well, the state had it.

MR. STARR:  Just for my clarification, anyone 
know why the council never acted on it?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I think that at that point 
there was some sense already that the state was going 
to reevaluate the requirements for the plan and was 
never going to approve any of the county's plans 
anyway.  I don't know if there was more to it than 
that.  Jimmy can maybe comment on that.  Jimmy? 

MR. KUMAGAI:  I'm sorry.

MR. STARR:  I'm trying to understand why it 
died.  I never understood.

MR. KUMAGAI:  I can't really say for sure why.  
But there was some confusion back and forth between 
the board, the council, and the commission, commission 
staff, as to what this plan represented and what it 
should represent.  That's the way I'm paraphrasing it.  
So the end result I think following that about the 
1990s there was some attempt by the commission to come 
up with some guidelines.  And then there was some 
discussion on it as far as the applicability of the 
existing draft.  And after that, I'm not quite sure  
what really happened.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Jimmy, what you're talking 
about now is the update of the original plan; is that 
correct?  Or are you talking about the original plan?

MR. KUMAGAI:  Well, okay, I'm not sure what 
the original plan is.  The plan that was adopted was 
the 1990 plan.  Now, there was a requirement to update 
it every two years.  And this was the earlier contract 
that was supposed to update the 1990 plan.  So there 
was a 1992 draft.  And that's statewide, all the 
counties.  In fact, I don't think the commission or 
anybody adopted anything from the 1992 effort.  So 
things kind of just --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  But the point I was trying to 
make is there is a Water Use and Development Plan 
currently adopted by the council in existence.  It may 
not have been acted upon by the Water Commission.

MR. KUMAGAI:  No, it was acted on.  There is a 
Hawaii plan.

MR. STARR:  Howard, the 1990 plan was adopted.  
However, it's actually expired in a sense because as I 
understand isn't there a requirement to have a plan --

MR. TAGORDA:  May I ask this question of corp 
counsel?  Is there an expiration once you adopt the 
Water Use and Development Plan, there must be 
something about amendments because drafted at the 
later date.  But if the council did not act on that 
amendment, then the old Water Use and Development Plan 
is still going to be the Water Use and Development 
Plan.  But the amendments is not going to be included.  

There is no action.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's correct.  And even if 
there is by law a mandated update, if that update is 
not done, that doesn't void the original plan.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  And also actually the wording, 
I don't think it says every two years or whatever.

MR. STARR:  Every 10 years.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  No, I think it says as needed 
to remain consistent or whatever.  And the reason it 
came up with 10-year estimate is because the community 
plan around was theoretically like that. 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I'm not mistaken, I believe 
the ordinance require an update whenever the community 
are updated.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Right.  And that update has 
never been completed.

MR. STARR:  When was the last general plan?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  That's on slide number -- on 
page 3, your top left slide.


MR. STARR:  Okay, 1990.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  And the slide immediately below 
that, by the way, that exactly was the scope for the 
original contract for each of the six districts with 
the minimum participation component.  Those two 
slides, that was the original scope of the M&E 
contract that we issued in '97.  Okay?  Since then, 
first it was postponed with M&E's agreement because 
the community plans simply weren't moving.  Then it 
was rescoped for a later time frame, understanding 
that it would take more time.  And then it was -- now 
just recently we've talked with them about rescoping 
it to take the demand forecast out to leave it because 
we have a demand model being built and rescope it like 
that. 
 But basically this scope is -- to do it really 
in depth and rigorously would be half a million dollar 
scope.  And so the reason it was accepted by M&E and 
by Jimmy, I think, besides out of the kindness of his 
heart for such a small amount of money, was because he 
understood that it would be mostly done in-house.  
Now, in-house, most of those years has been one or at 
the most two people doing that and along with 
everything else that they were doing.  So it's not 
realistic.

MR. STARR:  So what -- I would like to ask 
Jimmy what the status of the M&E contract is.

MR. KUMAGAI:  The status of the contract, 
still in force, the current contract is still in 
force.  And the proposal is to redistribute the 
workload.  So part of it will be -- part of the 
workload will be taken up in the contract and will be 
taken out by one of the existing contract  
[inaudible].

MR. STARR:  As I understand it, then, really 
what's happening is the -- because the process has 
changed, has widened through the IRP, then instead of 
asking for extras, you're asking that work, you know, 
work be delegated out to other, you know, to other 
people.  Is that --

MR. KUMAGAI:  Yeah, that's part of it.

MR. STARR:  But you're willing to continue to 
work on the [inaudible].

MR. KUMAGAI:  Definitely.

MR. STARR:  Which I appreciate it because I 
know you've already put in a lot of work.  So that's 
-- is there anything that needs to be done regarding 
-- you're not with M&E any longer, though?

MR. KUMAGAI:  No.

MR. STARR:  So how does that work?

MR. KUMAGAI:  I'm acting as a subcontractor.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  The contract stipulates him as 
the principal investigator. 
 The only other thing I should mention is we're 
taking some work away, but we're also deepening some 
of the work like the hydraulic analysis and 
engineering analysis, they will be able to focus more 
on those as we delegate other issues away.

MR. STARR:  So pertaining just to that M&E, 
Orlando, do you have any questions or do you 
understand that?

MR. TAGORDA:  No, my question would be the 
existing contract with M&E, since that was issued 
before the completion of water resource management 
have publicized that new statewide framework, do you 
have any problem trying to adhere to the requirements 
by the state.  Commission water resource management.

MR. KUMAGAI:  I think the basic requirements 
still stand as far as [inaudible] commission or not.  
Some of the IRP elements will be taken up by Carl's 
existing contract as well as the new proposal.  Plus, 
you know what needs to be proposed for [inaudible].  
So those are the issues covering limitations. 

MR. TAGORDA:  That's all.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  Now, moving beyond M&E, 
which is the next of the other --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  The next existing contract is 
the development and -- it's the second slide on page 
10, the development and calibration of IWR-Main demand 
forecasting, conservation savings, and cost-benefit 
modules.  That was awarded to Haiku Design and 
Analysis with Carl Freedman as the principal 
investigator.

MR. STARR:  When was that awarded?

MS. KRAFTSOW: '99 or 2000, I'm not sure which.  
Either like at the very end of '99 or --

MR. STARR:  I would like to ask Carl to tell 
us what that means and what that will do because it's 
a very complicated title. 

MR. FREEDMAN:  It's not all that complex, 
actually.  The contract is to configure an existing 
computer model that's been designed specifically for 
water systems for Maui's system and all the sub 
systems on Maui.  And this is intended as one of the 
inputs to the water use and development process, but 
the contract is not explicitly tied to the process.  
It's on its own time frame.  And although it's a 
building block, the contract isn't really tied to the 
Water Use and Development Plan. 
 So the IWR-Main model is a model that -- what 
it means is the IWR is the Institute for Water 
Resources and Main stands for Municipal And Industrial 
Needs.  But it has two basic components.  One is to 
forecast future water needs and it uses various types 
of forecasts to do that, some of them simply trends, 
some of them very sophisticated on a metric forecast.  
The other part of the model is an economic assessment 
for conservation programs and conservation actions.  
So it uses what's called an end use approach for 
looking at all the water needs, figure out how the 
water is being used in each class or what types of 
uses, and then a cost/benefit analysis to figure out 
what types of efficient appliances or water management 
programs might be cost effective. 
 The purpose for having that type of a 
capability for one is to do long term planning.  As an 
input, you need to know what your water demands are 
going to be.  And the hope is that this model will 
increase to the accuracy and the level of detail, the 
amount of disaggregation so we can look at the 
different customer classes, the different regions of 
the model, and to get a grasp on what the underlying 
factors are that affect growth. 
 And the other most explicit purpose is 
important within the water use development plan and 
that would be to look at some demand side or demand 
management approaches to meeting future needs and are 
those cost effective.  And there are a number of 
ancillary things that could be done, too, to look at 
evaluating job descriptions, consumption impacts, 
different types of rate structures, how that would 
affect demand.  So there are many potential uses for 
it. 
 The current status on that is that I've 
assembled a fairly robust set of demographic and 
economic data to be used, put together some regression 
models.  We have some preliminary forecasts for all 
the districts.  And a substantial amount of work has 
gone into improving the department's historical 
consumption data, which is one thing. 
 The timetable for this whole project has been 
deferred substantially.  I think it was supposed to be 
completed about now, maybe in some prior months.  But 
with the agreement of the department, the ecometric 
[inaudible] analysis has been deferred primarily 
because of the historical data base needs, the 
department's data needs to be updated.  We're 
continuing to work on that.  And also the ongoing 
promise of year 2000 census data which is just now 
getting to be out there.  I don't think this contract 
has delayed water use and development process.  We've 
provided forecasts as necessary in going along and it 
looks very good now we're ready to rock and roll and 
really get the census data out and we're just now 
getting the historical database to the point where 
it's starting to look reliable. 
 So we're still at the beginning of turning out 
work product for this, but I think we're making good 
progress.

MR. STARR:  I would like to welcome Kathy 
[inaudible] representing Council Member Joanne 
[inaudible].  Did you have something --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yeah, just two things.  One is 
another reason for the schedule delay.  The contract 
is not explicitly tied to the Water Use and 
Development Plan, but there is language in there that 
it won't be like -- I don't remember the exact words, 
but it says kind of it will go along with.  And I 
would say not only it has not hindered the Water Use 
and Development Plan process, but it has augmented and 
helped it speed along to have Carl working on those 
things, some of which again were out of the goodness 
of his heart. 

MR. FREEDMAN:  I've been working putting a lot 
of work way beyond the scope of my contract.  I'm 
trying to help with --

MR. STARR:  It's good to have that knowledge 
base there.  Orlando? 
 I have a couple of questions.  First of all, 
you know, I'm trying to kind of understand it.  This 
is kind of an ephemeral type thing.  Is this -- is it 
based around a piece of software that you're writing a 
-- what did we used to call it like a template for it 
to fit our unique needs? 

MR. FREEDMAN:  The piece of software was 
actually designed by the Institute For Water Resources 
and the Army Corps of Engineers and several large 
purveyors.  And the purpose of the model was so that a 
water utility like Maui could just plug in its data 
and go.  In reality, it's not quite that simple.  What 
the contract says is that's what I'm supposed to do  
is plug in the data and put out some contracts and 
train the staff in the use of the model.  So in its 
simplest sense, the answer is yes, that's what we're 
trying to do.  But what the project has turned into 
is, in large part, trying to get the department's data 
in good enough condition that we can actually use it 
in the model and also it is in the scope and is 
largely done is gathering of various types of data 
together within the model needs in order to be 
configured.  I don't know if that answers the 
question.

MR. STARR:  Yeah, it did.  In other words, you 
don't just -- you can't just take a table of numbers 
that's there and just plug them in and have it work.  
You need to create your data input.

MR. SHEPHERD:  And I've done that.  I have 
plugged Maui's numbers into the model and it has 
generated forecasts.  And I don't think I say they're 
worth much more than some other forecasts I might come 
up with by myself until we look very carefully at all 
of the inputs and know that what we're putting in is 
reasonable.

MR. STARR:  Now, this model, is this only 
related to those waters that are under the control of 
the department and the board, or is it all of the 
waters of Maui or somewhere in between the two?

MR. FREEDMAN:  Well, if I understand the 
contract right, the contract is for the Department of 
Water Supply systems.  But there is no reason that 
other purveyors like Kaanapali and Aqua Source and 
some of the other purveyors could not also be used.  
And in the context of the Water Use and Development 
Plan, I think we have to go one route or the other.  
We either take the purveyors' projects and add them in 
or perhaps -- we haven't done this -- we could use the 
model to make projections for that.

MR. STARR:  I know that's one of my big 
concerns with the plan is the fact that we are 
creating a plan that's much bigger than we are.  We 
control approximately 12 percent of the waters of the 
developed water on Maui, but we're creating a Water 
Use and Development Plan that deals with 100 percent 
of not only the developed but undeveloped waters.  So 
how -- you know, where do we, you know, where do we 
make that jump.  And you had some comments.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yeah.  One is remember, Carl's 
contract was issued prior to the publication of the 
framework.  But we knew it was coming.  But for us, 
until our own house is in order, until we have our own 
data in a utilizable format, until we're able to work 
with where to get this projection and that projection 
and that beyond the things that plug in, it's no point 
in assigning him to analyze all the private systems, 
too. 
 For this plan, yes, we have to do that.  And 
on a separate note, we've been getting data, the 
commission has been providing some data, we've been 
looking at what can we forecast using that data and 
what can we not do using that data.  And 
unfortunately, there is a lot on the cannot side right 
now.  But that is part of what makes this process a 
really long process.  People think, oh, you just write 
a plan.  It's like, yeah, we can do that.

MR. STARR:  I know that has been my big 
problem with the 1990 plan and even, you know, when we 
questioned John Mink one day about data that was in 
the 1990 plan, not pertaining to our own, you know, 
our own system, but outside of it, and where that data 
came from, he said that to his knowledge they just 
took numbers from the 1970-something plan and added, 
you know, a percentage that had to do with, you know, 
they figured it was growth.  You know, there was no 
tabulation of actual water use and water sources and 
all of that. 
 So I for one am going to want to see, before 
this is over, that there is actual, you know, data 
where it reaches beyond our own system.  And I don't 
know if -- what I'm asking, is that going to flow 
through Carl or is that going to be generated by some 
other mechanism?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Some of it -- I mean, once Carl 
has completed the forecast for our systems and has 
trained our staff on doing the model, meanwhile while 
this other scope that's still in RSP format is being 
analyzed, there is no reason that -- if once we know 
where to find all the inputs and how to use them 
appropriately, if we can gather the inputs for private 
systems, there is no reason that they can't be used in 
the model.  But it's a matter of even the State Water 
Commission to whom these things are reported does not 
have everything it needs.  Right?  And we're required 
to comply with information set forth in plans the 
State Water Commission has to write that they haven't 
even gotten funding to write. 
 So yes, it should be done, but if you want it 
done in three years, I don't think they will even be 
done -- the State Water Resources Protection, State 
Water Quality and Agricultural Water Use and 
Development Plans, within three years.  I don't think 
so.  So we can do some, but it won't be perfect.  It's 
like each one is an iterative process.  The '90 plan 
was passed, good start.  The '92 plan came along, it 
improved on a lot of areas.  The next plan hopefully 
will improve on a lot more.  Will it be perfect?  
Probably not. 

MR. FREEDMAN:  I just wanted to make a 
comment.  In Lahaina, the department has -- all the 
different purveyors and all different users and all 
the different water supply folks have put on the table 
a projection over the time frame of what they think 
their uses and the amount of supply that they are 
going to have would be.  So in addition to the water 
department hasn't done it, but the water department 
has gone out in the Water Use and Development Plan and 
process and obtained from all the individual 
purveyors' projections.  And that is now the water 
demand table.  And I don't know if all the numbers are 
credible, but some of them are done -- but there is a 
basis for all the numbers that are going in so far.

MR. SHEPHERD:  What is the validity of the 
utility when there isn't a county-wide master plan 
development plan?  There is no regional plan, there is 
no master plan.  We have these piecemeal community 
plans, but no overall master plan.  So what's the 
utility of demand side studies when you don't know 
where we're going?  

MR. FREEDMAN:  Well, I could give you an example.

MR. SHEPHERD:  You could give me a high point 
and a low point. 

MR. FREEDMAN:  The cost for the water 
department to serve water to people on different parts 
of the island is very different.  And if you look up 
in Olinda or Upcountry, the marginal cost of serving a 
thousand gallons up there may be higher than what 
they're getting from the bill from that person.  Now, 
if there are old buildings up there and they don't 
have the new low-flow toilets, it may save everybody 
money on the system for the water department to go up 
and offer free retrofit of low-flow toilets if the 
marginal cost of water is very high. 
 So I'm just giving that as one example of 
having some analysis that shows what are the costs of 
implementing a program, what are the costs to the 
resources, what are the savings over time if you take 
good track of all the dollars that are being spent, 
cost of the money over that period of time, is it 
worthwhile to do a targeted demand side management 
program on part of the department's system. 
 Now, that is something that's going to -- it's 
not necessarily on the part of Water Use and 
Development Plan.  It's a tool that can be valuable 
for evaluating a specific demand side management 
program.  Your question in a larger sense is a good 
one as a rhetorical question.  It's very difficult to 
be doing a Water Use and Development Plan that is 
supposed to be consistent with the adopted county 
plans when there is no consistent county plan and 
there are a lot of internal things.  And this is a 
difficult problem and it's going to be an ongoing one.  
And so I don't know how to answer that part of it.  
But just so I take that it's a conundrum.

MR. STARR:  Ellen.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Just as a planning perspective, 
just the mere act of every meeting in the beginning 
John Min would e-mail me, do you really think my staff 
needs to be there.  And I would be like yeah, your 
staff needs to be there, every meeting your staff 
should be there because we shouldn't be writing this 
plan without coordinating with Planning. 
 And now it's to the point where they want to 
be there.  And not only that, they want to get started 
with their general plan and they want to meet with us, 
too.  And not only that, we've had talks about doing a 
facilitated meeting between their staff and our staff 
about how land use planning and water planning can 
work better together.  So just the act of the process 
of getting everybody to the table to say, okay, here 
are these issues and they're not answered, how do we 
work together to answer them, has value because, you 
know what I mean, if you just sit and wait.  And this 
has been the issue of the plan.  Some of the other 
counties are just waiting -- they're not waiting, 
they're doing all the backup stuff, same backup stuff 
that we were doing.  But it's like if you just wait 
until you have everything that you're supposed to 
comply with set in stone, it's just like it will take 
forever.  You have to start somewhere, wherever you 
are, and say okay, these are the pieces we're missing, 
which ones can we get and can we improve the process 
by trying to get there, you know, can we improve water 
and land use coordination by trying to work together 
through this process.  To me that's the value.

MR. STARR:  Glenn, I'll be happy to take your 
questions, but you know, put your hand up or 
something.

MR. SHEPHERD:  I thought it was an informal --

MR. STARR:  It may be informal, but I'm still 
controlling it.  Put your hand up. 

MR. SHEPHERD:  Are you telling me that John 
Min is working on a general plan?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  As I understand it they are  --

MR. SHEPHERD:  And what's the definition of 
the general plan?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  -- they're talking about 
starting.  Whether or not they have actually 
commenced, I don't think so yet, but I think that 
they're getting ready to, you know what I mean, 
they're getting ready to discuss it anyway.  Yeah.  
And I think that working together on this is worth it.  
It will help us both have better plans.  They will 
have a better general plan and we'll have a better 
water plan if we can work together.

MR. SHEPHERD:  It will help Carl immensely, if 
we could formulate a plan, that would make his work 
much easier.  Much easier.

MR. STARR:  Unfortunately we have very little 
control over the Department of Planning.  Orlando?

MR. TAGORDA:  Nothing, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

MR. STARR:  Let me understand as far as 
contractually, you're working under an existing contract. 

MR. FREEDMAN:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  Is there any action needed related 
to Carl's contract?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Not at the moment, no.  It may 
be in time that Jimmy's contract may need a little bit 
more, but not right at the moment either.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  I do, from my own personal 
contract, want to express appreciation to both of them 
for going above and beyond the confines of the 
contract.  I know if there were other people sitting 
there, they would be sending us a hundred little 
requests for x-rays and all kinds of stuff and instead 
they're trying to create a very good knowledge base 
that we can use.  So I do want to express some 
appreciation. 
 I also want to recognize Sally Raisbeck.  
Sally, did you have any comments? 

MS. RAISBECK:  No.  I apologize, I meant to be 
here at 6:00, but things came up, I wasn't able to get 
here and I will read the minutes to see what I missed.  
But I don't have any input at this time.  Thank you.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  So where do we go?  Where 
do we go next?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Well, as I understood it, you 
wanted to go through all the contracts.  So the next 
one, speaking of people who do things without any -- 
out of the goodness of their hearts, there is another 
one.  This is a contract that has been bid and the 
successful bidder was Peter Adler.  By the way, Peter 
has already been doing facilitation without a contract 
and without -- and some of that was done also out of 
the goodness of his heart, the first few, and the rest 
was done out of the goodness of Jimmy's heart.  But we 
did put it out to bid. 
 The purpose is to facilitate the water 
advisory committees.  I have learned some things in 
working with these committees.  Number one, it matters 
what kind of room you're in.  If it echoes and it's 
uncomfortable, people don't pay attention and they get 
cranky.  Number two, it matters how they're 
facilitated and there is nobody better at facilitation 
that I've seen than this guy.  But his job and the 
contract would be to make those committees go 
smoothly, keep them cordial, keep them on point, to 
make sure that we're covering all of the elements of 
public participation that are listed in the framework 
and help us stay on track with that.  To also train 
myself and other staff in points of group management 
so that we'll be more effective staff as we move on, 
and to document and report on the public process, and 
finally to create -- to draft a report which hopefully 
will be good enough to be incorporated as the public 
process chapter of the Water Use and Development Plan 
as well as preparing and assisting with meeting 
agendas and coordination. 
 Any one of these meetings takes -- regardless 
of any material that you're going to present at the 
meeting, regardless of any work that you've done on 
the plan itself, just the work to prepare the meeting 
is a three-day to one-week process.  So that's the 
purpose of this contract. 
 Because such extensive public process is 
required, with objective getting and everything, we 
thought we needed somebody who was an expert in public 
process. 
I'll turn it over to Peter.

MR. STARR:  I'm still a little bit unclear.  
He's -- he's been working without a contract, which I 
appreciate.  Now, you put out -- you put out an RFP.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  When was that done?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I can pull out the 
advertisement.  Do you remember when it closed?  I 
think we closed in April.  But I can check on that.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  And how many different 
bidders did we get?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  We had four or five people 
collect the RFP but only one person actually bid it.

MR. STARR:  So we only had one response.  And 
has that been accepted?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yes.  I mean, we put together a 
contract, we sent it to the board.  You'll see over 
there there are copies of the contract.  That actually 
includes some edits which corp counsel -- corp counsel 
has been helping us with the contract and gave me some 
corrections today which I made which I prepared copies 
of for people who attended for Peter, who hasn't seen 
them yet because I just finished typing them in.  But 
they're mostly stylistic.  There is only one 
substantive point.

MR. STARR:  So there is a contract here that was issued --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  That is on the agenda for 
approval by the board, yes.

MR. STARR:  And that's based on the RFP and 
the response that you got from the one bidder.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yes.  And if I'm correct, I 
think the general terms and the RFP are also connected 
there to the copy that you have -- to those copies.  I 
would have to look, but I think that it's -- I hope 
it's in there.  I think it's in there.

MR. STARR:  I would like to recognize Mike 
Nobriga, who is here with us.
 Peter, can you explain about you know about 
what it is you've been asked to do and what you intend 
to do?

MR. ADLER:  As you heard from Ellen's slide 
show, there is a public involvement component that 
involves identifying state [inaudible], analyzing 
information on community values and [inaudible] 
community values in this plan and documenting how that 
happens, public outreach, and ultimately staging a 
series of meetings where people could wrestle with 
some of the dilemmas and some of the data and 
information and get their input. 
 I spent most of the day today with another 
state agency that developed an extraordinarily good 
technical plan that is failing because there is no 
[inaudible], because they didn't do the things that 
you're trying to do here.  And I think we've all seen 
that where we've developed good technical analysis but 
somehow there is a miss with public. 
 So this process involves meetings in all six 
of the districts and working with both technical 
information and with community information and trying 
to get the best of everybody's knowledge on the table 
and building some [inaudible] but also producing a 
plan that has real traction to it. 
 We still have planning to do on the sequencing 
of the meetings and the -- a lot of specifics are to 
be done.  But we know that some of those -- some of 
the things that Carl has mentioned about demand 
forecasting and water quality management and resource 
protection and, you know, developing scenarios and all 
that has got to be a part of this.  So that's the 
challenge.  I don't know if there is any reason why it 
can't be done, but it is a long process because it's 
an ambitious development plan.

MR. STARR:  But I mean, what are you really 
going to be doing?  It goes beyond facilitating 
meetings, yeah? 

MR. ADLER:  I think there is several things.  
Part of it is designing and facilitating a series of 
meetings, working closely with other consultants to 
make sure that it meshes, that the public fall into 
the technical part of it and the engineering part are 
working hand in hand so that it has coherence.  I 
envision wrestling with scenarios in this.  We still 
have the discussions they have.  But I think at the 
end of the day, it's about generating different water 
scenarios in different districts and trying to 
understand what the community's preferences are and 
how they balance different values.  But at the end of 
the day, the activities are to design, facilitate and 
report on a series of meetings to make sure that we 
capture the public's views on it.

MR. STARR:  Are you involved with selecting 
the group that is going to be attending the meetings 
or do you just show up for the meeting? 

MR. ADLER:  I think I would like to help make 
sure -- one of the principles for good facilitation is 
to make sure that you do have all the voices that are 
representative of different groups around the table or 
in the room when these things are discussed.  So I 
think that's part of the design and I would hope to 
ensure that principle.

MR. STARR:  Ellen, how have the groups that 
you've been using so far been selected?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I'm happy to answer that, but I 
just want to acknowledge my boss over there has his 
hand raised.

MR. STARR:  I see his hand is up.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  On Lanai, there was a lot of 
controversy, there was a subcommittee established by 
council, then taking over as a working group by the 
State Water Commission.  We basically inherited that 
group and that group voted based on unanimous 
consensus to add a balance of three more people to be 
selected from the at-large community.  We published an 
advertisement asking who was interested, received 
applications, and the existing working group voted on 
the three additional members and became the Water 
Advisory Committee.  So that was the Water Advisory 
Committee to Lanai. 
 For Lahaina, I have a mailing list of over 75, 
maybe over 80 people now that I invited, keep 
informed, whatever.  So it depends on the community.  
A small community like Lanai, Molokai, you invite 
eight people and 20 show up.  A big community like 
Lahaina, Central Maui, you invite a hundred people and 
maybe 50 show up.  So just to keep an ideal group of 
between 20 and 30 people, say, for Lahaina going, I 
have to invite over 70, and I do, for every meeting. 
 So I didn't really form like a committee per 
se, although it's getting to the point where the same 
20 or so -- 20 to 30 people pretty much starting to be 
consistent now who shows up.  And it is actually a 
nice balance.

MR. STARR:  Orlando, or Mike, do you have 
anything else? 

MR. TAGORDA:  No, thank you.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  We did require that to be a 
voting member of the committee, you should either live 
or work in that district.

MR. STARR:  And David had his hand up.

MR. CRADDICK:  I just wanted to say when Ellen 
started, we got a list of names that we felt was 
representative of the community and that list was 
turned over to the board and the board really did 
nothing with it.  So I would expect that the board 
would have some input in there, certainly if they 
wanted to have somebody on that committee that wasn't 
there or -- it certainly would be a board function 
anyways to participate in that process, I would think.

MR. STARR:  I have a real problem there.  And 
I know I've gone at you before on this, David and 
Ellen, but for the last three years I've been asked to 
be noticed of all of these meetings and I'm not always 
noticed of the meetings.  Sometimes I am the day 
before.  And you know, I know I've read the, you know, 
what the ER IRP is supposed to be about and it's a 
process designed to be very, very open and, you know, 
I've kind of felt that if I as a board member can't 
get information about it in a timely fashion about 
when the meetings are going to be held, I assume that 
members of the public who might be concerned -- like I 
want to -- Kathy, have you gotten notices of when all 
the board meetings are --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  We haven't had a meeting since 
they've come in.

A VOICE:   We haven't [inaudible] that at this 
point in time.

MR. STARR:  But I mean, I would assume that 
council offices should be on the list.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Dennis Nakamura got notices of 
every meeting.  I have not held the meetings since 
Joanne came on board.  I have not held another other than --

MR. STARR:  Yes, you did.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Other than the Waiahole panel, 
which everybody in council got and everybody on Maui 
Tomorrow list got and everybody in the paper got and 
everybody got.

MR. STARR:  How about the meetings that 
preceded that Waiahole panel?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I can check the dates, but when 
you first requested -- the first time that you asked, 
I remember being confused and thinking you wanted just 
the Lanai ones.  And so I remember there was a month 
or two there where I gave you just Lanai.  But since 
then, whoever I have on my list there, I contact all 
of them.

MR. STARR:  But certainly all board members 
should be informed of them.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yeah, I've been instructed as 
such.  But that did not used to be my modus and I was 
mistaken and I started -- like Peter, when Peter spoke 
to me, he said I'm the board member for Lahaina.  This 
is before he was chair.  And so I've been notifying 
him of Lahaina meetings.  And when he said he didn't 
get enough notice, it was only like two weeks' notice, 
so then Waiahole one I gave him like two months' notice.

MR. STARR:  I had two days' notice of that one.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yeah, because I had mistaken 
your request.  But David has taken care of that, I 
have to send it to everybody.

MR. STARR:  But beyond that, my only concern 
is that, you know, we go through hoops to make sure 
that the public is not only notified but that they're 
-- that the process is done in such a way that they 
feel welcome, that these meetings are announced in the 
newspaper, not just in the legal notice, but, you 
know, places where people can stumble upon the 
information and get involved if they want to.  And I'm 
asking Peter how we can do that because that's -- I 
think that's -- you already mentioned that your job is 
to get public to buy in.

MR. ADLER:  My job is to help facilitate those 
discussions and get the highest levels of consensus 
and that implies that kind of [inaudible]. 
 Mr. Chairman, I think we can get this right.  
I don't think there is a perfect way of doing these 
things.  But I think that there is some combination of 
creating a working group, which we've seen on Lanai, 
and having public meetings where a working group is 
pretty careful listening to what others think besides 
just themselves.  And I think we can evolve that 
pretty quickly once we get it into the stride on this.  
So I don't know how all the pieces of how it's 
happened in the past, but I think we can solve some of 
those problems and I know it will never be perfect, 
there is no one perfect way, but I think we can go be 
better and that's part of the challenge.  I don't see 
any reason why it can't be done.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  That's true also.  You want 
people to come, but you don't want a circus at every 
meeting.  You don't want 200 people all screaming.  
You can't get anything done.  But we do notify and we 
did -- I did personally call people and ask them if 
they knew of anybody else and asked them if they knew 
of anybody else.  I made an effort to try to make sure 
there were local people, to try to make sure there 
were environmental people, to try to make sure there 
were medical people, to try to make sure there were 
technical people, to try to make sure there were land 
developers, to try to make sure there were 
condominiums.  I called people who I knew from each of 
those areas and asked them for more names and called 
those names and then called those names. 
 So if you want to add to the list, feel free.  
But it's like for me logistics on this are already 
absolutely a nightmare.  Like when I finally am doing 
the straw man draft, I have a mailing list of over 80 
people.  The copying alone is going to take Kinko's --  
I mean, you know, it's like I respect your desire for 
public process, but there is a point where it's just 
overboard.  And I'm sorry, Sally is welcome at any 
meeting, Glenn is welcome to any meeting, he's come to 
many of the meetings.  You know what I mean?  It's 
like you've come to many of the West Maui watershed 
partnership -- the West Maui Water Advisory Committee 
meetings.

MR. SHEPHERD:  Yeah, what about it?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  That's it.  You've come.  Do 
you know what I mean?  But it's like if you know of 
somebody who wanted to come who isn't coming, I would 
be happy to include them.  But I don't want to go 
through some huge --

MR. STARR:  Sally had her hand up. 

MS. RAISBECK:  I wanted to ask -- I'm sorry, I 
don't know your last name.

MR. ADLER:  Peter Adler. 

MS. RAISBECK:  I wanted to ask Peter, my 
experience has been that Hawaiian law is so 
complicated with the state/federal regulations, county 
level, different bodies, the council, the mayor, the 
water board, that this makes the process of making 
anything happen so difficult.  When you get 80 people 
who are interested but not necessarily knowledgeable, 
there is an incredible waste of time in the fact that 
they don't know all these very complicated ins and 
outs.  So how can those meetings be made more 
productive where you don't have to teach so much to 
the people who know nothing that people who know 
something and want to have input get tired of sitting 
around listening to --

MR. ADLER:  It's a real challenge.  If I can 
say in these meetings, if you have set up six, six 
meetings in each district to produce the work that 
needs to be done.  Six probably is sufficient, but any 
more than that is going to get budgetarily impossible 
for the county.  So we said there is six meetings.  
Then we know that the first couple meetings has to be 
a learning curve for the working group and the public 
that is there.  And we also know some people will come 
to the second meeting that didn't make it to the first 
meeting and they will miss the learning curve.  So 
Carl or Jimmy, some people will present some technical 
information or legal information or demographic 
information or demand and supply information, and we 
know that a group has to sort of build a knowledge 
base before they start rushing.  And part of my job is 
to try to create some discipline in the group so they 
can do that and part of the toughest challenge is when 
new people come in who are at the third meeting but 
they missed the first two.  There is some ways to try 
to work with that, but it's not a very simple task.  I 
think that's the challenge of building that learning 
curve in the first couple meetings and not to make 
everybody water experts but to figure out what's the 
salient information about their district that they 
need to understand in order to begin to do the 
weighing, the balancing, the thinking of the values 
about water, sometimes [inaudible].  So it's not an 
easy task, but I can also say that I've seen groups do 
this and I've seen communities do this and wrestle 
through these things.  So it's a messy process.  I've 
given up on linear rational planning.  Carl probably 
would be more of an advocate for that than me.  But I 
think I've seen groups kind of struggle with important 
things and succeed and I continue to be an optimist 
that that can be done, even on something as tough as 
water issues.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  Anyone else has any -- have 
any comments on this?  Or questions?  Mike. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  This is my ignorance, but I was 
reviewing the handout of the slides, on the second 
page on the bottom it says in 1993 the board adopted 
or accepted a long-range plan.  What would that plan be?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  This was a motion of the board 
to make the long-range plan of the water -- of the 
county as required under the charter and the Water Use 
and Development Plan the same, have them be developed 
as one and the same plan and updated.  And I think 
they were starting with the '92 draft, accepting that 
as the third like interim thing, and updating it 
currently, it and its updates.  Basically they wanted 
to take the Water Use and Development Plan and make 
that the long-range plan under the charter. 
 And they did that for two reasons.  Even 
though the wording is awkward, one of the reasons that 
the State Water Commission refused to accept the 1992 
draft Water Use and Development Plans was because for 
many counties the Water Use and Development Plan and 
the long-range plan of the Department of Water Supply 
were two different documents and they weren't 
consistent.  The state looked at both and found that 
they didn't think that was acceptable, that the two 
plans -- if there were two master plans for water, 
they should say the same thing. 
 And the other reason that the board I think 
took that action back then is if we made one big 
master plan separately and then did this whole public 
process thing, it might be seen as, you know, that we 
weren't including the public in our planning and we 
had already written the plan before we included the 
public.  So they elected to do it together. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  So let me sum up what I hear you 
saying, that in 1993, the Water Use and Development 
Plan that was accepted was basically not anything. 

MS. KRAFTSOW:  They accepted the 1992 draft 
pending updates -- basically all they were doing was 
-- trying to do was decide whether the charter 
requirement that we have a long-range plan, and the 
Water Use and Development Plan part of the state 
statutes, whether those are the same plan or not.  And 
this motion was to say yes, they're the same plan, and 
the 1992 draft as far as the board is concerned is 
that plan, pending updates and revisions as needed.

MR. NOBRIGA:  So there is a plan.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  There is a 1990 approved plan 
and a 1992 draft plan, yes.

MR. NOBRIGA:  And what did those plans show?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Well, since the gentleman who 
wrote the 1992 plan is right here, I'll let him -- he 
said a lot.

MR. STARR:  He wrote the 1992 one, Jimmy 
Kumagai, but it was never accepted, Mike, so it's 
nothing but a paper.

MR. FREEDMAN:  It was accepted by the board, right?

MR. CRADDICK:  No, it was never accepted by 
the board either because of the outside plans, the 
outside areas, the board couldn't pass on whether that 
was true or not true and so they said they were just 
accepting it and passed it on to the council and the 
council rejected it because the board wouldn't approve 
it, came back to the board, and I think the board did 
approve it then, but at that point council didn't want 
to do it --

MR. FREEDMAN: The 1990 plan made it 
[inaudible] -- the 1992 plan didn't get anywhere.

MR. CRADDICK:  Correct.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Including the State Water 
Resources Protection Plan and the State Water Quality 
Plan in 1992.  Those plans generated by the state were 
also not accepted by the state.  The entire 1992 draft.

MR. STARR:  So none of the other counties got 
theirs approved either.  Everyone still goes on the 
1990 which was before the 1990 general plan. 

MR. KUMAGAI:  That is correct.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I'm just saying that this is 
like eight years, yeah, have gone by since 1993.

MR. STARR:  Forget 1993; it's 1990.  It's 
eleven years, getting on twelve. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  So we're now currently entering 
the process that we should have had 10 years ago.

MR. STARR:  Yes. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Appreciate it.

MR. CRADDICK:  That's not correct because the 
community plan is not yet done, so how do you make a 
plan for a community plan that doesn't exist?

MR. STARR:  It's our job to do it whatever it 
takes.  Orlando?

MR. TAGORDA:  Just a followup question here.  
We have very bright consultants here who have an 
existing contract with the board.  And it seems to me 
that because of a lack of data and information from 
the department, they cannot really complete their 
jobs.  Am I right here?  

MR. KUMAGAI:  Right.

MR. TAGORDA:  That's my point.  I don't know 
how are we going to try to update the Water Use and 
Development Plan when they need some data from the 
department, we don't have any.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I think what you asked and what 
Jimmy answered are not the same thing.  I don't know, 
I may be mistaken. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Because when I was listening to 
Mr. Freedman, he was talking about his data that he 
needs to finish up or complete his job, his scope of 
work with the board, and without that, the timetable 
is being deferred substantially.  So I don't know 
really what are you looking for from the planning 
department or the Board of Water Supply or the 
Department of Water Supply to complete your contract 
with us. 

MR. SHEPHERD:  Why don't you take that 
question to the council or the mayor?

MR. STARR:  Glenn.  Carl. 

MR. FREEDMAN:  I think at this point I pretty 
much have what I need and along the way it's taken a 
lot of work to put the data together, but that's part 
of what I was brought on board for was to put that 
data together. 
 In terms of the data necessary for doing a 
Water Use and Development Plan, I think within the 
scope of the RFP that's out, that's part of the work 
that's in that scope of work is to develop some of the 
data, and we'll have to see.  Certainly the department 
is still going to have to come up with more 
information as we go along.  But I don't think 
everything has to stop for a lack of data.  And the 
same point, you have an equal problem with the Water 
Use and Development Plan has to rely on other plans. 
The county plan is just one of them.  Resource 
protection plans under the state plans also need to be there. 
 So I think the point we hear from the 
commission, talking with Charlie and the commission, 
is everything has to kind of start, even though 
everything waits for everything else, if it's ever 
going to get going, everything has to go. 
 But I would say, and I'm glad you mentioned 
it, that in order to make this process move, it is 
going to be necessary to have direction from the board 
and from the department for the staff to be timely in 
providing information and cooperation needed with the 
public process and consultants to keep things going. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, this is a question 
for Charlie.  I don't want to put you on the spot, but 
since you're here already, and looking at the 
presentation of Ellen tonight, Maui County is you 
think is heading in the right direction in the 
compliance of the IRP, modified IRP for Maui County.

MR. ICE:  Yeah, very much so. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Because I don't want them to go 
ahead and then pull back and the Commission on Water 
Resource Management says no, that's not what we want 
you to do.  And now that you're here, I want you to 
give us some comments.

MR. ICE:  The staff is very much on track.  In 
fact, there has been a lot of communications back and 
forth so that they feel comfortable and we feel 
comfortable.  I think that they've put in an 
incredible amount of work, good work on getting this 
framework put together.  So I think that if you 
succeed with following through on this, that Maui 
County is actually looking better than some of the 
other counties, including Honolulu. 

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I'll repeat that.  Maui is 
looking better than some of the other counties, 
including Honolulu.  And I would like to add that 
Honolulu has a $1.2 million budget.

MR. STARR:  Orlando, anything else?

MR. TAGORDA:  Thank you.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  Any other -- Sally, go ahead.

MS. RAISBECK:  I had a question.  Often it's 
easier, if you're coming into a subject, to have 
something presented to you and pick holes in it than 
to just have nothing and try to come up with 
something.  And I wondered if there is any intention 
or whether with Lanai on the west side they started 
with the 1992 draft, say, and then by updating the 
data included in that and by having the public 
component work more on the goals and what they see as 
the future and so on and laugh at what they thought in 
1990 was the future, that that would provide some -- 
is there any intention of using either the 1992 or the 
1990 as a starting point?

MR. STARR:  I think that's to Jimmy.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  No, I think that's to me, 
actually.  We -- in Lanai, one of the main 
recommendations that Jimmy had made in 1992 was that 
there needed to be an ongoing mechanism for public 
process, which is the Water Advisory Committee, which 
we formed.  So in the process of forming that, and 
doing the action and getting the Water Use and 
Development Plan that specified that, you were 
actually implementing recommendations that had been 
made in 1992. 
 And for Lahaina, we started in our first 
meeting we gave out Lahaina chapters of the 1992 Water 
Use and Development Plan.  So yeah, there is very much 
an intention to work with and start with that, but we 
don't, you know, we also -- I think we've discussed 
that we would like to also present certain things 
updated -- if we could have had all the information 
together, we would like to have a [inaudible] to hand 
out the first day.  The issue in Lahaina is there are 
so many private developers and private purveyors that 
we really -- we can only tell them and we did on the 
first day tell them our demand forecast by regressions 
anyway, that we're still building the model or 
[inaudible]. 
 But yeah, there is a look at the old plans and 
there is consideration of the old plans, but it's -- 
it hasn't been that we've passed out the entire book 
to every member that might or might not show up.  You 
know, we made copies of the chapters that --

MS. RAISBECK:   Well, I think the budget ought 
to include having Kinko's do the xeroxing.  I don't 
think staff time should be used to xerox any copies of 
anything.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  No, but I mean this stack of 
handouts, just one copy of what we've handed out so 
far is like this.  Including the 1992, all the Lahaina 
relevant sections of the Lahaina in 1992.  Not just 
that chapter, but anything.  And anyone who requests a 
full draft, we'll arrange for it. 

MS. RAISBECK:  Yeah, I would like to put in my 
request now to be on the central working group and see 
a copy of the 1992 draft, if I may.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  You may.  The central -- you 
mean for Central Maui?  Because there isn't one -- 
there is like six --

MS. RAISBECK:  Yeah, Central Maui.

MR. STARR:  Has anyone else got anything on 
this?  We're going to need a short break, but before 
we do that --

MR. CRADDICK:  Can I say one thing, talking 
with Charlie.  My intention in asking the board to 
hold this meeting was more to have a general workshop.  
There is three things going on.  There's two contracts 
that the board needs to approve on, one has already 
been bid out, the other one hasn't been bid I don't 
think yet, right, Ellen?  We haven't evaluated.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  It's been bid, the bid hasn't 
returned yet.  The opening date is May 28th.

MR. CRADDICK:  There is those two things, plus 
the entire process that we're using here has to be 
approved by the Water Commission.  I didn't think it 
was appropriate to go to the Water Commission and say 
oh, here's what we're doing, without the board 
weighing in on it.  I felt the board had to weigh in 
on this thing first before we go to the Water 
Commission and tell them because we're actually 
supposed to give a presentation to the Water 
Commission and they are actually going to vote on 
whether the process is correct or not.  And we need 
that same process with the board, I think. 
 So even though the needs are immediate for 
doing something IWR or demand things and getting Peter 
Adler on board, there is also the other of getting 
this whole framework approved by our board and then 
going on to the water commission and get them to 
approve --

MR. STARR:  We as the committee could not 
approve anything; all we can do is recommend to the 
board.  But I want to take a short recess for 
technical reasons and we'll be back in a couple of 
minutes.

(Brief recess.)

MR. STARR:  I'm still trying to understand 
everything that is before us before we go to any -- 
before we go to an action item.  So as I understand, 
we've been talking about Peter Adler and that there is 
a contract that will be before us.  But I've been 
trying to understand all of the contracts that are 
there.  There is one additional contract; is that 
correct?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  There is one additional 
contract which the board has received a copy of the 
specs which went out.  The contract bid has been 
published.  We had four people, I think, request 
copies.  Three or four people.  Anyway.  And it is 
supposed to be turned in by June 8th.  And that is for 
services to augment the Water Use and Development Plan 
process which includes covering the resource strategy 
and supply options, the characterization and screening 
that you saw, they require in their process which 
includes the cost/benefit and financial analysis, and 
some certain portions of the demand analysis that were 
taken out of Jimmy's contract that were not strictly 
covered under the existing contract with Carl. 
 But the main thing is the primary economic 
analysis for Water Use and Development Plan including 
estimates of marginal and supply cost by district; 
characterization and screening of resource options; 
evaluation of capital, operational and avoided costs; 
lifecycle, capital, operating, financing 
characterization of strategies.  Looking at it from 
various cost perspectives, like the utility and the 
rate payer, et cetera.  Reporting, documentation, 
presentations.  And improvement of our billing data. 
 Now, that contract has not been assigned to 
anyone yet.  It has been bid.  However, if you want 
deeper explanation than that, I will refer to Carl who 
has a lot of experience in doing just this sort of 
thing and he can -- if you have any more technical 
questions than that.  I mean, I can answer some --

MR. STARR:  So as I understand, it's similar 
to the kind of work that Carl is already carrying out, 
but it's more of that same type of work that will be 
done by a consultant like Carl or someone else, an 
analyst/consultant.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  It would be done by the 
successful bidder.  And it is not actually the same 
kind of analysis -- I mean, to the extent that all 
analysis has something in common, yeah, it is.  But 
it's more economic cost perspective and also just 
characterization and screening.  To meet that -- if 
you see the diagram on page --

MR. STARR:  This is in the presentation, the 
power point.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yeah, if you look at page 9, 
those two flow diagrams, and also to the extent that 
you can see them, let's see, and also at page 6 where 
it's spelled out in bullet points that Screening 
Resources & Supply Alternatives, and includes 
description of planning objectives, et cetera, those 
two top -- on the top right and the one below it.  
It's basically those elements that we're asking to 
cover this additional contract.

MR. STARR:  Carl, you are familiar with the 
scope of that second contract, that one that's being bid?  

MR. FREEDMAN:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  Could you explain to us a little 
bit more about why -- you know, how it's different 
from other things that we've dealt with so far? 

MR. FREEDMAN:  Yes.  Maybe what I could do 
that might be helpful is to try and explain very 
briefly how this IRP process flows through.  Because 
mainly what this scope of work is for is to do the 
analysis to support that.  I don't think it would take 
too long to do.  And I would kind of move my chair  
because I'm feeling like I'm talking behind my back.  
I'll come over here so you people can still hear me. 
 The Integrated Resource Planning process is a 
carry over from the electrical power planning 
industry.  And it used to be called something called 
least cost planning.  And they kind of went away from 
the idea of least cost because everybody just wanted 
the cheapest [inaudible].  And one of the ideas of 
IRP, it's supposed to take into account all the 
different costs that are out there, whether they're 
dollar costs or other types of costs that are impacts. 
 But the keys to the process are -- I guess 
there are three things being integrated in integrated 
resource plan.  One is the public's participation.  So 
instead of just the utility engineers coming up with 
the plan, you have the public involved.  And the idea 
in the electrical industry was in order to get plans 
approved or power plants built, you needed the public 
buy in, you needed to tell decisionmakers that you've 
already taken into account the public concerns and so 
you want to do that up front. 
 The second thing that gets integrated is the 
demand side as well as the supply side.  Conservation, 
or what you can do to meet the needs using less water, 
it's just as good as just providing more and more 
water. 
 And the third thing to get integrated is the 
non-dollar costs.  The environmental impacts or the 
things that don't get tabulated up in just a pile of 
money.  And that's the idea. 
 So the process as it's evolved and is now 
formulated or identified in the state's framework 
that's been adopted starts with the public process 
where you identify what your objectives are you're 
trying to meet.  And those might be things like -- 
what are some good ones, reliability, upcountry 
reliability would be an objective.  Everybody wants 
costs to be low.  Everybody wants their water to be 
clean. 
 So you come up with a list of objectives and 
that's where Peter is going to be out there trying to 
get from the public what it is we're trying to do with 
the plan. 
 And then after that, with some help from the 
technical people, you get measures of those things.  
How are you going to measure -- well, the cost is 
easy, it's dollars.  How are you going to measure the 
reliability?  How are you going to measure the 
cleanliness of the water?  You want to get some metric 
or some measure you can assign to those objectives so 
that later on in the process when you've got plans, 
you can figure out which is the best plan or which one 
might be the best meeting or the best combination of 
objectives. 
 Then you go to the technical stuff, really.  
And then you have to know what your demands are, 
that's where the demand model comes in.  How much 
water do you need to plan for over the next 20 or 30 
years?  And you need to know all the different ways 
you can meet that demand.  What are your sources, what 
transmission is necessary, what storage might be out 
there, what are all the different ways you can meet 
them.  And the demand side, reclaimed water, dual 
systems, you make a list.  Every single item anybody 
comes up with, you put on the list, squeezing moss up 
in the Waikamoi, you know, whatever it is.  You make 
an initial list that includes all the options.  You 
put them on the table and you try to characterize 
those and you try to screen that down and say we're 
upcountry now, what makes sense.  And let's put these 
into some strategies to meet the objectives. 
 So let's come up with one strategy that might 
be the least cost.  You want to get the cheapest water 
possible to do what.  Well, we just take it out of the 
ditch and pump it right in people's pipes.  I mean I'm 
being flippant here.  Or you might do another one 
that's the most reliable.  Or the one that uses the 
most stream water or the least stream water or you 
take the objectives that you've got from the public, 
you take the options that are available from the 
suggestions of the water department engineers and the 
public, you put together some strategies to meet the 
objectives, and then you have to figure out what -- 
you characterize all of those and you score them, so 
to speak, or you come up with some kind of a 
decision-making process or discussion process where 
you want to say, you know, well, this plan meets a lot 
of the objectives and maybe we want this one or maybe 
there are factions, maybe Peter in the public process 
has to get people to give up a little or if it's 
possible you might come to a consensus.  If it's not 
possible, the water department might have to say well, 
this is the one we're choosing and we're bringing to 
the council or to the board and the council.  So it 
can take some different ways and it's going to go 
different ways in the different districts.  But the 
general idea is you start with the objectives, you 
identify all of your options, you put them together in 
strategies, you evaluate the strategies, select the 
plan, and keep track of all costs and the 
characterization of that along the way. 
 So that's kind of a simplified nutshell.  But 
what this scope of work is that's the new one is to do 
the economic analysis, the resource characterization, 
to assist with the screening of the different options 
with -- what else is in there?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Marginal costs [inaudible], 
[inaudible] capital operation and avoiding, lifecycle 
capital [inaudible] financing. 

MR. FREEDMAN:  So it's a lot of economic 
analysis.  And in doing that, there has to be the time 
value, money has to be taken into account because 
we're talking about 30-year, 50-year time frames for 
some of these options. 
 And the other thing I just mentioned is you 
want to be able to look at uncertainties.  Nobody 
knows really what demand is.  You want to make sure 
that you've got something that's robust that if things 
go quickly, it's okay.  If things flap now, it's okay. 
 I know from talking with some of the state 
commission staff that we're going to want to see some 
analyses of what happens if there is -- if some of the 
stream waters get redirected into the streams, what 
kind of impact is that.  If you're planning to be able 
to still survive that type of a decision.  Anyway, 
that's a little step.

MR. STARR:  Orlando?

MR. TAGORDA:  Nothing, thank you.

MR. STARR:  I'm a little bit confused, though, 
about what action the board is going to be asked to 
take on this, if any.  Because it's something -- it's 
something that has been put out to bid, but bids 
haven't been received yet or the closing date hasn't 
occurred.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Right.  Well, there are two 
things.  One is we did not budget for this again for 
2002, okay, because I was assuming you would have it 
-- for this particular contract, I had planned 
originally not to bid it.  I had planned originally to 
write the contract and I had checked with the county 
purchasing agent as well as the purchasing agent in 
our department, not David but the guy who actually 
does the purchasing, whether that was appropriate 
under procurement regulations to just take my existing 
consultant team and amend one of their scopes of work.  
And that was allowed under procurement regulations. 
 But because it is such a large increase over 
the amount that we were going to spend, I think David 
felt that propriety demanded that we go to bid and 
write some specs and put it to bid properly.  Now I'm 
behind the eight ball schedule-wise. 
 So what I wanted to do was present the board 
with the concept of the contract, with the specs for 
the contract.  I'm going to be rushing whoever is the 
successful bidder to get a contract together by the 
end of the fiscal year.  I was hoping that by doing 
this and presenting it first to the committee or 
workshop, that A, maybe we could expedite the finish 
by the end of the fiscal year, or if not, B, maybe we 
could encourage the board to let us lapse and 
reallocate the funds so that we can get it going in 
July. 
 Basically I'm trying to make sure that we 
don't lose the money for the contract, get the board 
to buy in to the proposed specs so that we don't just 
lose the money because it gets referred to the 
committee or [inaudible].  That was my concern and 
reason for bringing this second one to your committee.

MR. STARR:  David?

MR. CRADDICK:  In the budget, there is 
$150,000 for what I'll just call speeding up the 
process and that's where this money would come from  
for these two contracts.  If we don't award this 
second one, whatever we don't award will lapse.  But 
it's not money that is figured into the revenue source 
for next year.  The lapse is going to be additional 
money that's added in for next year.  So as we go 
through the budget process, if we don't get this 
awarded, it will just have to be lapsed and add it to 
next year's budget. 
 But that was what Ellen said there and we, you 
know, not wanting to just straight up award it to Carl --

MR. STARR:  But now I have a problem.  I would 
have a problem recommending to the board something 
that has not -- it went out to bid, but we haven't 
accepted -- we haven't accepted the bids yet.

MR. CRADDICK:   We're not asking for that.

MR. STARR:  What are you asking?

MR. CRADDICK:  There is one that has been bid.  
We're expecting that one to be dealt with.  I don't 
know how you get over this process that the whole 
process we're using needs to be approved by the board.  
I myself think there needs to be more involvement.  
But if this committee thinks they can convince the 
rest of the board that this is the process to use, I 
think I would add one more step to that --

MR. STARR:  This is very unconventional, 
though, to do it this way.  Usually the board would 
approve it before it went out to bid.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, no.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  This is budgeted already to the 
extent that every budgeted item --

MR. CRADDICK:  It's already budgeted.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  We normally send it to bid and 
then during the contract to the board for approval.  
And the contract incorporates the specs, right?  But 
what I wanted to do was just bring you the specs like 
to sort of put the board on notice that this is 
coming.  Because I'm worried that basically the board 
will be so angry that they lapse the funds completely 
and the whole, you know, or that they will just say 
yeah, okay, and you know -- basically I'm doing this 
just to sort of -- this second contract what I'm 
bringing to you is just do these specs look okay, is 
there any particular thing you're concerned about 
adding to the contract when I write it, can we hold 
the money over, can we either when we get the contract 
written can we send it to the -- if we get it out in 
time for the board packet, can we have the board 
review it without sending it to another committee?  Or 
if they do send it to another committee, can we ask 
the board to please hold the funds over for the 
project, you know, or reassign them to next year's 
budget.

MR. STARR:  Frankly, I'm not going to try to 
-- I wouldn't want to try to do the work of the 
finance committee, which is where --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  The contract would go.

MR. STARR:  Yeah, where it should be.  I don't 
understand why it wasn't just included in the new 
budget and then let lapse and then just became a new 
budget item.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Well, that would be our other 
[inaudible] do that because originally when we first 
submitted our budget practice, it was like March or 
April and the CIP was going on at the same time and I 
was thinking oh, I'm not going to be bidding this one, 
I'm going to be just writing a contract.  And so I can 
do that, so I'm working on my budget, I can get a 
contract out before the end of the year, no problem. 
 Now that I have to bid it, it's a longer 
process, it adds 30 days plus the week that additional 
notice to the newspaper, plus the time that it takes 
to draft the specs in the first place.  So behind --

MR. CRADDICK:  Ellen, you don't have to rebid 
the thing just because they don't [inaudible].  If 
they want to wait until next year to award it, that's 
an option.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I'm afraid they are going to lapse it.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, it may lapse, but the bid 
is still going to be all right if they reappropriate 
the money.  That's not going to be the issue.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I think that's my real question 
is will you please reappropriate the money or 
expedite, one of the two.

MR. STARR:  Orlando, any wisdom here?

MR. TAGORDA:  Let me clarify what I can 
understand what you guys trying to.  Mr. Freedman has 
the contract with us existing, right?  And that's 
going to be encumbered until the fiscal year.

MR. CRADDICK:  Already encumbered.  That was 
encumbered in 1999.

MR. TAGORDA:  That's already encumbered.  Now 
with this new services to amend what you folks was 
discussing now, you have money on your professional 
services that might lapse when this new schedule comes 
in.

MR. CRADDICK:  Right.

MR. TAGORDA:  So you want a contract made so 
you can encumber, yeah, if the board accepts the 
contract, so you can encumber the money; is that 
right?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's right.

MR. TAGORDA:  That's what I understand, right.

MR. CRADDICK:  That's Peter Adler's now that 
has already been bid, we have it, we have the 
recommendation to the board, they can pass on that 
one, we obviously can't do the next one because we 
don't have any price to give to the board.  That will 
come next month.  And at this point here, it goes to 
the committee next month, then the budget has to be 
amended. 

MR. TAGORDA:  But your suggestion here is for 
this new consultant services to amend the Water Use 
and Development Plan, et cetera.  If it can be opened 
before the new fiscal year, we get money, right?

MR. CRADDICK:  There is money budgeted right now, yeah.

MR. STARR:  Mike?

MR. TAGORDA:  Because what I heard is the 
2002, there is no budget for this services.  It's not 
included.

MR. STARR:  My own feeling on this would be 
perhaps we should just report to the board and try to 
explain to them about the situation but not with any 
recommendation as far as action but just insofar as 
where it stands, that perhaps the money should be 
encumbered in next year's budget or else some other 
action be taken, but not to recommend specifically any 
action.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Well, you're talking about the 
augmenting contract?

MR. STARR:  Yeah, I'm talking about --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  The one that's still being bid.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  The only action or 
recommendation that I would even ask you to make to 
the board would be to either do -- to either, yes, do 
one of two things, or no, not do one of those things.  
And the two things, either one of which would make me 
happy, is expedite the review process so it can be 
done in June or, and just as good, take the money that 
we had budgeted outside of whatever happens, however 
it gets diminished by the [inaudible], and let us 
rebudget it for the year 2002.  You know what I mean?  
So that we don't lose the chance to initial the 
contract.  That's all.  Just like take the money and 
don't -- and lapse it and rebudget it or however you 
name that, but --

MR. STARR:  Well --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  We can't even bring it to the 
board in July if there is no money for it.

MR. STARR:  I don't think I'm really ready to 
recommend either of those two actions, but rather to 
just explain it and let the finance committee decide 
how they want to deal with it.  Orlando?

MR. TAGORDA:  I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, 
yes.  But I think this item will be on the board -- 
another board meeting.  It's on the agenda tomorrow 
and we can bring that up.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Is that because you're not sure 
you approve of the proposed work or is that because 
you just feel like it's a financial question?

MR. STARR:  It's a financial question.  And 
second of all, I don't want to approve a contract for 
which we haven't received the bids yet.  You know, I 
have -- this process is just kind of a little bit too 
weird to try to go for a loop hole and there are 
plenty of ways of dealing with it inside of the 
process.  I think that the board will find a way to 
deal with it inside the process.  I'm sure the finance 
committee will deal with it fine.  But you know, I 
will try to make that an explanation of the situation.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Can I ask one more question?

MR. STARR:  Yeah.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Just my concern is will the 
board interpret -- okay, it's a financial question.  
But will the board interpret that this committee like 
we're requesting to somehow still have the money be 
available, however that happens, and whether or not 
the board even decides eventually to award it, but 
just not to lose the opportunity to bring something to 
the board.  And I'm wondering if the board will 
interpret no recommendation as if you were saying 
well, you don't want to see this whole work as 
necessary somehow.

MR. STARR:  I personally feel, you know, 
favorably about it, but, you know, and I don't know 
what the other members feel, but I don't -- I don't 
want to presume to do something that's not in our, you 
know, not in our kuleana.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  That's fine, that makes me feel better.

MR. STARR:  Is that -- should we leave it at that?

MR. TAGORDA:  Yeah, let's not encroach on the 
finance committee budget and reviewing.

MR. STARR:  It is a financial and a matter of 
time, time and money.  It's not a matter of --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Lack of support for --

MR. STARR:  Dave, do you have a comment?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Jonathan, you've heard the 
presentation from Peter and Jimmy and Carl.  And Carl, 
he didn't spend quite as much money coming from Haiku 
as the other two did coming from the other island, and 
Charlie Ice. 
 Now, I would hope the committee could find 
their way clear, having seen all this information, 
making some recommendation to the finance committee 
that either you like the process that's being 
presented to you that we're trying to use from an 
operational standpoint that you like the process and 
you want to recommend that we go forward with the 
process subject to whatever financial concerns there 
may be, money issues, but not operational issues.  If 
we could make some kind of recommendation from the 
operations side. 
 And what I was saying before where you need 
the board actually to vote up or down on this process 
that we're using.  I think also if the board votes on 
that, I would think it would probably be appropriate 
because when we're going through this process that 
ultimately the council has to vote on it also, that 
also before we go to the Water Commission, the council 
also have their day with this presentation on what 
we're trying to do with the process here.  And that's 
an operational issue, not a financial one.

MR. STARR:  As far as the process, frankly, 
I'm positively impressed by it and I think an attempt 
is being made to do it as well as it can be done with 
the financial constraints.  I understand we can't do a 
full IRP that would cost a million bucks.  But you 
know, I think that their -- I think we should continue 
on with trying to do it right. 
 But I don't know, Orlando, what is your 
feeling on this whole thing?

MR. TAGORDA:  Based on what I saw tonight, 
Mr. Chairman, I think I'm very strongly convinced that 
we should do something to -- either to the finance 
committee or to the full board about our 
recommendation that this process should continue.  And 
that's my feeling, my own feeling.  And I can go 
attend the finance committee meeting and say 
something, what I learned, what I learned tonight, 
from watching tonight.

MR. STARR:  Mike, are you favorably impressed 
with this or do you think it's wrong or what's your 
feeling?

MR. NOBRIGA:  I don't think it's wrong.  I 
don't think there is any problem in jeopardy to the 
funding.  It's just -- we'll find out tomorrow.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  But I mean, how about the 
committee coming forward with a favorable response to 
having looked at the process and recommend that the 
board look at it favorably in its action, or something 
to that effect?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah.  Long overdue.  How's that?

MR. STARR:  Okay, got it. 

MR. TAGORDA:  You can say those things, 
Mr. Chairman, but we just take this issue, I think we 
give them sometime to review instead of just trying to 
be from us a very strong recommendation.  We give them 
a lot of time.

MR. STARR:  Frankly, I wish all nine members 
of the board were here for this presentation.  I think 
that that, you know, and at some point I think that 
will have to happen.  But I would like to come forward 
and get some positive comments about that tomorrow.  
And what would you need a specific action on?  Do you 
want to do it by motion or do you want to do it by 
consensus?

MR. NOBRIGA:  For the record, I will move that 
the operational review committee strongly recommend 
forward progress with this project. 

MR. TAGORDA:  I second.

MR. STARR:  By consensus we all agreed with 
that.  And in my own personal comments, I'll dress it 
up a little bit in my own comment. 
 Now, there is something that we do -- we are 
being requested to have specific action on and that is 
the contract for Mr. Adler's facilitated and related 
services.  And that's before us.  And unfortunately 
what's before us is not -- has been changed, there is 
corp counsel's comments, and there is also Mr. Adler's 
minor changes, so there is some unsubstantive changes 
that have been made to this.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Can I just point them out briefly?

MR. STARR:  Yeah, go ahead.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  And Howard, you're here to 
correct me if I'm in any way wrong.  Basically the 
majority of the changes were I used "will" instead of 
"shall" or I referred to Peter as Peter Adler instead 
of "the consultant."  That's the bulk of it is 
stylistic and things like that.  Putting an S in or 
taking an S out or something like that. 
 But the one substantive change is in item D of 
the Scope of Work where it refers to consultant will 
assist staff [inaudible] -- the old contract version 
reads, "The consultant will assist department staff 
and full consultants in writing the description and 
summary of public process and related topics including 
suggestions for the development of tables, matrixes, 
or other visual aides as appropriate." 
 Now, in talking about it, this is the only 
item that we were going to pay as a deliverable.  
Everything else was a per hour basis.  And actually so 
is this item, but it's just -- it's just -- it's 
something that we want as part of the final report.  
And so I don't have my copy of the contract in front 
of me, but the new contract basically reads that the 
consultant will write the report and submit the report 
to us.  And that's the only difference.  The payment 
was already laid out that he would get paid for this 
item at -- the first half of this item at submittal of 
the draft and the final at acceptance by the board.  
So it's already -- just to make it more consistent 
with the payment process that was already in.  What it 
reads now is -- okay.  "The consultant shall assist 
department staff and full consultants in writing the 
description and summary of public process and related 
topics including suggestions for and assistance with 
development of tables, matrixes or other visual aides 
as appropriate."  That part is identical. 
 Then it adds, "The consultant shall deliver a 
report to the department which describes public 
process and related issues with sufficient depth and 
detail for incorporation into the plan."  Okay.  That 
is the one sentence that's substantive that was added.  
And that was added to make it more consistent with 
compensation and payment schedule where it says item 
C, "Compensation for item D in the Scope of Work which 
is above shall be made in two installments."  That was 
already like that and that one sentence was added to 
make it more clear. 
 I will say that Peter himself has never seen 
it before.

MR. STARR:  I have a problem with this.  I 
have a feeling Mike does, too.  Mike?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Shouldn't the report be 
delivered to the board?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  The report is one of the 
working documents of the thing and we can bring it to 
the board, but it has to be delivered to staff so that 
we can incorporate it and work with it first. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  I don't know Howard is going to review it. 
 The other question I had was why would you 
want to be paid daily?  Give a check every day?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman, in 
response to that, Mike, we are going to be working on 
the compensation schedule.  I think the consultant as 
well as myself agreed that perhaps there will be a 
better way to formulate the compensation schedule.  In 
reviewing this again, there ought to be another change 
in item C which sets forth the amount which is going 
to be paid for these two installments or, strike that, 
the amount of the installments to be paid under 
section C.  I didn't consider that, but I think that 
should be changed also.

MR. STARR:  I'm going to express some 
criticism of staff for not having this together for us 
when we're being asked to recommend approval and it's 
not in its final form is problematical.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I have to apologize, Jonathan, 
although I will say I got the corrections at 4:00 this 
afternoon, typed them and made 10 copies to bring here.

MR. STARR:  I'm sympathetic, but I'm still critical. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Maybe the corporation counsel 
can review this contract and then get back to us. 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I got it on last Thursday.  
I've been out of the office for two days, Monday and 
Tuesday.  I was able to work on it today.  I mean, if 
that criticism was directed at me --

MR. STARR:  No, it's not.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  -- I would be a little 
concerned.  But it's not -- yes, I will be working -- 
I'm working with staff on this so we can get it in its 
final form.  I will continue my discussions with 
Peter, hoping he can give me some ideas of a fair way 
for compensation to be made rather than daily.

MR. TAGORDA:  Is that fair enough? 

MR. ADLER:  I know where we've got to get to.  
We've got to get to clarity and measurability and 
we've got to make sure the work has been done and have 
a benchmark.  So what would seem as several iterations 
of the way it was originally set up, specs and bid, so.

MR. STARR:  Is there a way we can pass out on 
a recommendation without it being in its final form?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Subject to corp counsel.

MR. TAGORDA:  Subject to corp counsel --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman, 
I think, and there may be some disagreement, but I 
think the compensation portion of it is fairly minor.  
What we're looking at is the maximum compensation of 
$36,000 and how that's going to be scheduled for 
payment.  I think that's the primary point.  I think 
the more important points are the Scope of Work and 
what the various responsibilities are under the 
contract Mr. Adler would have. 
 Like I said, I would hope that the committee 
would look at the compensation and the method of 
compensation as being sort of a minor detail and the 
more important portions of the contract relate to the 
scope, the scope of performance.

MR. STARR:  Even the scope has a change in it, too, so --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  You know, it's not fair to put 
Peter on the spot like this because he hasn't seen it.  
But I will say that I think he was planning to write a 
report anyway.  And in fact, he had already in 
principle agreed to the other contract which has him 
being paid at delivery of first draft of the report.  
You know what I mean?  So it's not clear and he has 
every right to review it, but it's not even really a 
change to the actual scopes or change the way the 
contract covers the scope.

MR. ADLER:  I don't have a problem with this.  
I really don't.  So I mean, I think we have some 
details to work out and we can work them out. 

MR. STARR:  Okay.  The question is should we 
pass it on to -- should we pass it on to the full 
board to make a recommendation?

MR. TAGORDA:  Yes, Mr. Chairman, let's 
recommend this contract for approval.

MR. STARR:  How about a motion?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  It's by consensus then  
that we're going to recommend -- that we'll recommend 
that it be passed on to the board for approval but 
that it not be signed until final unsubstantive issues 
have been resolved to the satisfaction of corp counsel 
and staff and also Mr. Adler.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  If there are particular words, 
I can make those changes like tonight or early 
tomorrow morning.

MR. STARR:  No, don't try to rush it, Ellen.  
Shirley, do you have a -- do you have that motion? 
 Is there any other business before us here?  
David?

MR. CRADDICK:  I make a suggestion that if the 
board approves the process, that you want it to go on 
to the council first before we go to the Water 
Commission.  Because I -- well, Ellen, I know you say 
no, but when the report is finally finished, it goes 
to the council so if they don't buy in, you know, I 
mean, I see both of us as [inaudible] Water Commission 
-- so --

MR. STARR:  I think we're a few years away 
from that point, David.  I think we'll have other 
opportunities --

MR. CRADDICK:  We have to go to the Water 
Commission right away.  We have to go to the Water 
Commission right away.  So you know, the quicker it 
can get done, the better.  It's just whether you feel 
it's appropriate to go on --

MR. NOBRIGA:  How come we got to go to the 
Water Commission right away?

MR. STARR:  The Water Commission is here and he's smiling.

MR. NOBRIGA:  [Inaudible].

MR. STARR:  One at a time.  Mike, rephrase 
your question for us here.  Because everyone answered it. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  This is new information now that 
I'm hearing from the director that we have to go to 
the Water Commission right away.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, no.

MR. STARR:  David.  Charlie, do we need to go 
to the Water Commission right away with this? 

MR. ICE:  I think when the board does come on 
board with this, that the commission wants to hear 
that, and not just the staff but the commissioners 
themselves.  They want -- they would like a 
presentation so that they can say yes, this is what we 
were asking for, looks good, go for it and do great 
things. 
 So I think from the staff point of view, we're 
good with this and I think as soon as you can, when 
you're ready, that it's appropriate to go to the 
commission and have them [inaudible] --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  They have asked that we go to 
them prior to the scope.  And if you look at page 5, 
the bottom right slide, it describes requirements for 
the County Water Use and Development Plan under the 
statewide framework, which is that it be drafted in 
coordination with the commission, that we submit the 
proposed process description to the commission and 
coordinate -- as well as coordinating throughout.  So 
this would be submitting the proposed process 
description.  We did do that by negotiation in '97 
with the original contract, but it wasn't with the 
commission staff, it was prior to the publication of 
the framework.  So that's what Dave means by right 
away.  Before we get going on the process, the 
commission would like that we come to them and 
describe it.

MR. CRADDICK:  And before you go to the 
commission, do you want to involve the council because 
they have to approve this, too.

MR. STARR:  Carl?  

MR. FREEDMAN:  I just wanted to make one 
comment, too, is you might want to see what you get in 
terms of proposals in response to your RFP.  Because 
I've looked at this, I'm thinking of bidding on it, I 
know that I'm going to submit at least two proposals, 
one more aimed at what can you do with this amount of 
money, and one is how much would it cost to really do 
the whole thing that's listed there.  And hopefully 
you'll get some bids from some other people and maybe 
you might be enlightened by some proposals you get and 
get some good ideas from them.

MR. STARR:  My own feeling is I think we've 
taken this as far as we probably should at this step 
and, you know, maybe when the other contract is let 
and, you know, we can look at it again and then that 
might be suitable.  Orlando?  Mike? 
Okay.  How about a motion to adjourn?

MR. TAGORDA:  Move to adjourn.

(WHEREUPON, the meeting was adjourned.)

IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.