BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE


Taken at the David Trask Building, Conference Room 207,
Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 1:00 p.m. on
October 22, 2001 pursuant to Notice.

REPORTED BY: GLORIA T. BEDIAMOL, RMR/RPR/CSR #262
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

Members present: 
Peter Rice, Chair
Clark Hashimoto
Mike Nobriga
Jonathan Starr
Orlando Tagorda
Kent Hiranaga

Staff present: David Craddick, Director
George Tengan, Deputy Director
Herb Chang, Engineering
Fran Nago, Board Secretary

Others present:
James Williamson
Dorothy Williams
Glen Shepherd
Diane Shepherd
Doya Nardin
Alan Arakawa
Sally Raisbeck
Mo Moeller
Ed Lindsey
Steven Anthony
Steven Gingrich
John Mink
Bill Meyer
Roy Hardy
Eric Hirano

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

 * * *

CHAIRMAN RICE: I'm going to call to order the
meeting of the Board of Water Supply, Committee of the Whole.
It's Monday October 22nd, 1 p.m. Present board members are
Howard Nakamura, Kent Hiranaga, Orlando Tagorda, and Clark
Hashimoto. Director David Craddick. Fran, you know staff and
members of the public who are present.
 Vice-chair Howard Nakamura has recused himself from
chairing the Committee of the Whole and central water
availability. If there's no objection from the other board
members, I'll assume the duties of the chair. Hearing none,
we'll proceed.
 There are no minutes from the previous meeting. Is
there testimony from the public at this time? We have two
items on the agenda, if there's members of the public that
would like to testify on Upcountry, let's do that first.
 Sir, come up here, state your name and fire away.
Let the record show Mr. Starr walked in. No
business has been transacted at this point.

DICK MAYER: My name is Dick Mayer, and I'm board
member of the Kula Community Association. I'm the coordinator
for the mauka group. I understand on the agenda was to be a
statement by Mr. Craddick regarding the Upcountry situation. I
know you'll be talking about water meters later on today at the
meeting -- the requirements to both of those.
 It was pleasing to read in the Maui News that the
board obtained rights to 100,000 gallons of water from the
Dowling Company. It was also reported that the water
department plans to issue additional meters. The water board
and water department surely knows that the
Makawao-Pukalani-Kula Community Plan makes a very specific
statement on the priority allocation of water.
In several places in the plan, it states that the
highest priority for the allocation of water should be for the
use of the diversified agriculture and Hawaiian Homelands
development.
 For example, on page 34 of the Makawao-Pukalani-Kula
Community Plan, it states, "Prioritize the allocation of water
as new resources and improvements become available as follows:
(a) for maintenance and expansion of diversified agricultural
pursuits and for Department of Hawaiian Homelands projects; and
then (b) for other uses including houses, commercial and
public/quasi public uses."
 This concept is repeated many other places in the
plan. See, for example, page 11, under "Water," and again on
page 28, No. 2 of the plan, it states, quote, Recognize and
support the allocation of water resources for the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands projects, consistent with the State and
Federal Laws, unquote.
 The water board and water department is required to
follow the community plan and its unambiguous clarity with
respect to water use.
 Existing residents of the Kula area have often been
put on both voluntary and enforced water-use restrictions
during the past few years. Therefore, before any new meters
are issued, the department must assure the existing residents
in ordinance that they will no longer be put on water-use
restrictions.
 If such a binding assurance cannot be given, then
you will only create a bigger problem if even more meters are
issued. In other words, existing residents plus new
meter-holders will be put on both -- both will be put on
restricted use.
 In summary, the water board, water department and
water director should (a) follow the Makawao-Pukalani-Kula
community plan; and (b) protect the existing residents from
future water restrictions.
 I was also vice-chair of the Upcountry advisory
committee that helped develop the plan assigned by the mayor.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Mr. Mayer.
Any questions from the board members? Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: Mr. Mayer, water service usually has a
certain percentile of dependability associated with it. Are
you saying that there should be absolute 100 percent
dependability that even in, say, a hundred -- historic drought,
it would be wrong for there to be cutbacks, or is there, in
your view, a limit to what degree of dependability -- because
usually systems are not created for 100 percent dependability.
They are created for a little less than that.

DICK MAYER: Does the board have a percentage of
dependability that they use as a standard?

MR. STARR: I don't believe we do, but I'm asking --

DICK MAYER: I'm asking a standard be set for
dependability for existing residents before additional meters
be put on line that would endanger the existing residents
further, as well as the new people also being endangered.
There's -- some standard cannot be set -- I think it should be
set so that existing residents will not be impacted. If more
meters continually are given out, all we do is keep adding to
the problem for more and more people.
 One of the things you certainly should consider
would be a standard that will not allow -- if we don't have
enough water to guarantee 99 percent, 98 percent, whatever that
percentage would be, I think we really should question whether
we should be issuing meters since Hawaiian Homelands has first
priority, and agriculture as well.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions of Mr. Mayer?
Thank you.

DICK MAYER: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other public comments on the
Upcountry water situation, source adequacy? Let me make a
statement at this time. The Board of Water Supply, Committee
of the Whole has had two meetings on the Upcountry water
situation and we would like to focus today on the Central Maui
source availability. So that is really going to be more of our
focus at this meeting today.
 So hearing and seeing no other comments on
Upcountry, we'll move into certification of Central Maui source
availability. Is there any public commentary on that issue at
this point? Sir? I see Mr. Williamson.
 Let the record show the arrival of board member
Michael Nobriga.
Go ahead, Mr. Williamson.

JAMES WILLIAMSON: Good afternoon. I'll apologize
to those who have seen most of this before; but there are a lot
of people who have not, so we're going to go through the flip
charts as before. And there is one being added to it.
My name is James Williamson. I am representing Maui
Meadows Homeowners Association. The board is being asked by
the director to confirm the water availability for the Central
Maui system. He has submitted a three-page letter dated
September 26th as the basis for this requested information. We
find that the director's analysis is fatally flawed in a number
of significant respects and results in a recommendation for
water availability that is unrealistically optimistic and not
"very conservative" as stated.
 There are several assumptions which are
questionable. However, there are two principal subjects in
this report which in themselves result in the conclusions being
very inaccurate as follows:
 First, contrary to the report, the Iao and North
Waihe'e aquifers are directly hydraulically connected, so that
the sustainable yield from North Waihe'e is not 8 million
gallons a day but close to zero - nada.
 The statement that the water level head is so much
greater than the actual head is invalid, and is contrary to the
USGS findings. It's based on unsubstantiated extrapolation of
an empirical analysis for two very limited pump shutdown tests,
and incorrectly assumes up to 700 feet of fresh water available
over the entire aquifer.
 President Williams will assist me in showing flip
charts which demonstrate the impact of these assumptions on the
lack of availability of water from the Central Maui water
system.
 Flip chart 1. This is a map that shows -- this is a
map that shows the plan of the Iao aquifer, estimated plan of
Iao aquifer, and also where the North Waihe'e wells are being
drilled. Note how close the North Waihe'e wells are to the
aquifer boundary.
 There is no physical barrier between these two
systems, and obviously the North Waihe'e wells are basically
simply an extension of the Iao aquifer proper.
 Flip chart 2 --

MR. CRADDICK: We need to let the board members see
what's going on.

JAMES WILLIAMSON: This map shows highlighted
location of wells, North Waihe'e, test hole A1, and the deep
monitor wells and test hole B. Note the remarkable similarity
in the pattern of the Iao aquifer and the North Waihe'e wells
systems.
 Now, of course, if there's going to be some kind of
a drawdown from North Waihe'e, that early -- in early years,
there was very little pumping, so you would expect that to have
been close to the level and it's not level. It follows very
closely the shape of the well systems, water level systems in
the other aquifer. Those are all in the Iao aquifer itself.
 This flip chart and the previous map demonstrates
that there's no separation between the two well systems, and
therefore the estimated sustainable yield of 20 million gallons
a day, not 28 million gallons a day, applies to the combined
well system.
 Flip chart 3. This is a plan which compares -- a
table which compares the water availability as posed by the
director and the Maui Meadows Homeowners Association. The
director has a subtotal of 30 million gallons a day and we are
showing 21 1/2 million gallons a day.
 Now, you'll note that we have Iao stream which shows
at 1 1/2 million gallons a day, and the director actually shows
the tunnel has 2 million gallons a day. We found out later
that the Iao stream is no longer connected and -- because the
contract has lapsed and therefore it should be zero where we
have 1 1/2 million gallons a day.
 We have a real discussion about whether the tunnel
is already in the 20 million gallons a day and should not be
separate. Even assuming no contingency allowance, we show a
deficit of 1.9 million gallons a day versus a surplus of 3.6
million gallons a day.
 Flip chart 4. This is a critique of the water level
head calculations, which was just done recently. This, first
of all, was an empirical analysis used because the data did not
fit the more exact hydraulic equation.
 Second, empirical method made a number of
assumptions, any of which could invalidate the results. It is
to be expected that there would be some nominal increase in the
water level during a pump shutdown. Further, the increase in
water level could simply be the result of inflow into the
aquifer.
 Four, we believe it is really stretching to
extrapolate a 7-inch rise in water during a test to arrive at
an equilibrium head of 17 1/2 feet.
 Five, as I will discuss on the following flip chart
5, a principal erroneous and unsafe assumption is that the
underlying freshwater lens is the same depth of about 700 feet
as measured in the Waihe'e deep monitor well over the entire
area of the aquifer.
 It's also based on the ratio of the depth of the
freshwater lens to the head to be 40 to 1, which is an
unverified assumption for this site.
 The director's assumption is that the equilibrium
head for the aquifer is much greater than the existing head,
17 1/2 feet versus 7.5 feet. If this is so, why hasn't the
water level increased, rather than falling, since pumping on
the Iao aquifer proper has decreased over the last several
years?
 Flip chart 5. This chart shows the chloride
concentrations for Mokuhau and Waihe'e Height wells. These are
the wells which have shown chloride levels that are getting
close to the legal limit. Mokuhau 1, 2 and 3, the elevation of
the bottom of the holes is about minus 250 and the chlorides
are around 250 parts per million.
 Waiehu Heights A and B, the elevation of the bottom
of the wells varies from 206 to 338 below sea level and the
chlorides are around the 250 parts per million or approaching.
The deep monitor well is the depth of minus 900, and at minus
605, estimated that the chlorides are around 250.
The chloride levels are determined during pumping,
incidently, for the Mokuhau and the Waiehu Heights wells, so
that the concentrations at the bottom of the well will be
somewhat higher than the average value.
 The location of the three wells described above is
highlighted on flip chart 1. If you could go back. You can
find Mokuhau well and Waiehu Heights "A" are right in the
center of the aquifer.
 As can be seen, the bottom elevation of Mokuhau is
about minus 250 and Waiehu Heights is minus 338, and B is minus
206. These depths at which water is too salty for consumption
are from one-third to one-half of the depth found for similar
conditions in the deep monitor well. It's not prudent to
consider the deep monitor well conditions apply all over the
area. Far from it.
 Instead of 600 to 630 feet of fresh water remaining
in the overall aquifer, a more prudent average estimate would
be 250 feet, and this depth is being diminished day by day.
Go on to flip chart 6. This is a discussion of the
inclusion of the Iao tunnel as a separate source. Which is
what the director did. We don't believe that there's 2 million
gallons a day outside of the Iao aquifer sustainable yield. We
thought this was an amount for the Iao stream diversion, since
we are convinced that Iao tunnel pumping is part of the 20
million gallons a day amount and has been shown that way up to
now.
 We were corrected at the meeting of September 26th
and later found, to our surprise, that the Iao stream contract
with Wailuku Ag has lapsed. I hope it will be corrected and
that it will end up being signed in operation again. If Iao
stream is not renewed, then the water deficit by our reckoning
becomes 3.4 million gallons a day deficit instead of 1.9
million gallons a day deficit.
 Exhibit B shows the Department of Water Supply
calculations of Iao aquifer pumpage in 1993 and '94. Difficult
to see, but what was done at that time was to include a basal
amount, which is the top amount, Dottie, and confined dike
amount which included Kepaniwai well, the two amounts are added
up to arrive at the total pumpage of the aquifer of just above
20 megawatts -- 20 million gallons a day in mid 1994.
It was this pumpage amount which brought warnings
from the State Water Commission of the possibility of the state
designation. This would not have transpired if the tunnel
pumpage was excluded and the publicized pumping was less than
18.5 million gallons a day.
 Exhibit C, the bottom exhibit, is a division of
Water Resources Management map with Iao tunnel included as a
Maui DWS well, No. 5332-02. This is further confirmation that
the tunnel is indeed a part of the Iao aquifer. Surely, John
Mink's sustainable yield calculations, which support his letter
of September 9, 1995 to Rae Loui, must show whether or not the
tunnel pumpage is included in the 20 million gallons a day
amount.
 The well levels in the aquifer continue to decline
and the salt level rises at an increasing rate. In the face of
this, it's inconceivable that the Iao aquifer has a surplus of
water available.
 In conclusion, we recommend to the board that it
does not confirm the amount of water available proposed by the
director for the Central Maui water system. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Board members, questions?
Thank you, Mr. Williamson.
You had your hand up next.

A VOICE: That was referring to Upcountry water.
That's a different subject. I think you have another meeting
this afternoon?

CHAIRMAN RICE: That's a rules committee meeting.

A VOICE: Oh, okay.

DIANE SHEPHERD: Good afternoon. My name is Diane
Shepherd -- you want me to sit? You are signaling to me.

CHAIRMAN RICE: I'll recognize each speaker. Okay,
thank you.

MS. NAGO: I want you to stand up to be recognized.

DIANE SHEPHERD: I have a couple of questions.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Please state your name for the
record.

DIANE SHEPHERD: My name is Dr. Diane Shepherd. A
couple of questions and this relates directly to Wailea 670.
What is the connection between the Kamaole aquifer and the
Central Maui aquifer? And the next question is, how does the
state designate who has access to water? Because all water is
held by the State of Hawaii as a trust for the public, and so
how is it decided who gets how much out of an aquifer?
These are just questions that I think many people
have in their minds, rather than statements I'm making. So can
anyone answer those?

CHAIRMAN RICE: We're here to take your comments;
we're not here to engage in a dialogue. Okay? The board is
here to hear some more information on the Central Maui water
availability.

DIANE SHEPHERD: Can any of our authorities tell us
what the connection is between the Kamaole aquifer and the
Central Maui aquifer?

CHAIRMAN RICE: Why don't we write down your
questions and get some answers for you. How about that?

DIANE SHEPHERD: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Is there any other public
testimony?

DOYA NARDIN: If I could, I would like to address
the Upcountry issue, even though I know you passed it. It's a
very brief statement.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Wait --

DOYA NARDIN: Sit there?

CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, sit there, please.

MS. NAGO: Give your name for the record.

DOYA NARDIN: My name is Doya Nardin. And my only
question is that I heard the end of Mr. Mayer's speech where he
said he thought there should be no issuance of water meters
until there's a guarantee of usage. And I'm somebody without a
water meter who has been on my property since 1987 and we're
requesting a meter since 1987. So I'm in conflict with
Mr. Mayer's point of view.
 And I just wanted to state that point of view, that
I think people have been waiting, especially just citizens who
are not developers, who are just sitting and waiting for water
year after year, it's very difficult, and it becomes more and
more difficult for everybody has it gets drier here. It's
difficult for us who are on water catchment. It's impossible
for us on water catchment.
 It's difficult for people who are in your position
to allocate water when there's a drought. I see there's a
conflict of interest here. And I just wanted to express my
point of view as a citizen who has been waiting since 1987 for
a water meter, and that I disagree with Mr. Mayer that there
should be no more individual water meters until there's
approval of usage.
 I think if everybody gets a little bit of water,
that's a lot better than nobody getting -- some people not
getting water, not being able to bathe. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Appreciate your opinion. Thanks.
Before we go on, any other Upcountry testimony?
Yes, sir.

ALAN ARAKAWA: May I? It's Upcountry.
Mr. Chairman, board members, as a chair of the Land Use
Committee, we have been looking into the water issues and there
are several issues we would like for you to clarify for us.
This is pretty much general through all areas.
First of all, we have a state record of what we have
as far as our aquifer. We're seeing more and more applicants
coming in and asking to do their own wells. We would like to
have quantified, to the best of the board's ability, what
exactly we should be looking at as a number that are true -- as
true record numbers, what are the official numbers.
I have been told these charts are the official
numbers, and at the same time I've been told I can't believe
the charts. I would like to, at some point, get verified what
all of the different numbers are and whether or not we can
believe those numbers or not.
 At the same time, the question that Diane came up
with earlier is another thing we need to be able to quantify.
The water that is available in each of these areas. As people
are trying to put wells in more and more because of delivery
system and the Central Maui area has been weak and perceived as
not having enough water, when we designate water, who gets
first priority, who should get first priority to the water
available? How are we going to allocate that water?
In other words, when we ask the water department, Do
we have enough water? We're told there's plenty of water. The
question then follows up is, Then why haven't we developed all
of that water to make sure we have that water available? And
the answer has been, We develop the water as is necessary. As
we have the projects on line, they are approved, they are
coming before us, then we develop the water.
 Looking at the overall water picture, and if we're
ceasing the water, aquifer water that's available, we have at
least three bodies that are looking at major wells to be able
to take water for those projects. Are they to be allowed to
just drill those wells and use the water? Or are we going to
then reallocate the water for the water department to develop,
as the water department's says it should be doing according to
the planning process for the people in the various areas?
The question will come before this board as to the
cost associated to developing the water. If we're dropping
wells close to the project areas, it's obviously a lot less
expensive than dropping wells over East Maui or in Hana or far
over as possible transmitting all of that water and pumping it
up to the various levels.
 So I would like to get from this board some kind of
an explanation, some kind of quantification as to what the
policy is and how these waters are going to be disbursed. No
matter how you look at it, there are limited resources. Even
if we use these numbers as the basis, we need to be able to
explain, for instance, to the Upcountry residents why have you
been waiting for water meters, you are on this list for some
30, 40 years, and you have not been given water meters.
At the same time, I think we do need to address what
is happening with the issuance of water meters in the Upcountry
area. I don't think that it's farfetched to say that people
who have gotten lots have been given water meters, while those
who have been on the waiting list sometimes much, much longer,
have not been given water meters. And if the water meters are
issued because of the need and the water sources are developed
because of the need has been explained, then why isn't it that
those needs have not been met to this point?
 I leave with you those questions and we're going to
be watching what happens, because we need to have answers to
some of those questions in order to be able to quantify what we
need to do from land use. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Mr. Arakawa.
Do you have something to say Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: First of all, I would like to thank you
for coming and sitting with us today. I would like to thank
everyone who came and took their time. I think that that's a
very important step for the county council, the planning --
especially the planning committee, to be looking at these
questions and for us to be looking at them together. And I
hope we really come out with some good answers today or at
least we know what the next step of questions to ask are.
I think until we ask them and until you ask them and
until we explore this together, I don't think any of us is
going to have a real true knowledge of what the water situation
for Maui County is. We do not know -- the water board does not
know what the demands that will be placed on us in the future
are; nor do I think anyone knows what exactly are the resources
available.
 I know that this board has made some attempts to
work with the planning department to try to create more of a
dialogue with the planning department and planning commission,
and certainly with the council we're heading in the right
direction.
 Certainly, the numbers on these charts, the only one
that's been tested is the Iao, and when all of the numbers were
originally put on the chart, the number for Iao was 60 million
gallons. And I have a letter from USGS dated two days ago that
says that they don't believe the 20 is a sustainable number for
Iao.
 If Iao is not sustaining one-third of the number
that's on there and none of the other numbers have been tested,
they could just be as suspect as the original 60 million gallon
number was in its timing.

ALAN ARAKAWA: Our question to you is, as decision
makers, we need to be able to depend on some numbers. The
official version that we have been told are these charts. If
they need to be adjusted, we need to know what the adjustments
are so we can make best decisions on the number.
 I understand all of these are by necessity --
depending on the situation, but we need to have some kind of
policy set as you control the water, your jurisdiction to the
water as to how that allocation should be met and what numbers
we should depend on. We have been asking for those numbers to
be able to make good decisions.
 And it's not within our jurisdiction to determine
what those numbers should be, rather it is in our jurisdiction
to take your numbers and use them as something real to make
decisions on. At this point, it's been very -- we have been
very -- I've been very uncomfortable in depending on any one
set of numbers. If I use the official numbers, I've been told
that's what you should use, but they are not real.
 Again, we need to get to some point where we can
depend on those numbers and policy as to how the availability
resources should best be expended.

MR. STARR: I don't want to carry it long before
presentation, but is the water commission represented here
today?

MR. CRADDICK: Yes.

MR. STARR: Who is that?

CHAIRMAN RICE: We're going to get information
today; we're gathering information. Thank you, Al.

ALAN ARAKAWA: I'll be sitting back and watching.

CHAIRMAN RICE: More public testimony? Wait. Fran
has a list here. Hold on. Everybody will have a chance.

SALLY RAISBECK: My name is Sally Raisbeck. I live
in Wailuku. I strongly urge the board not to confirm these
figures since I don't believe them, and I hope we'll have
testimony as to their accuracy or lack of it. I do agree with
Mr. Williamson that the 2 million gallons a day from the tunnel
is probably part of the 20 million gallons a day, but maybe
we'll find that out today.
 As far as official numbers on that map, it's my
understanding that sustainable yield numbers are guesses in
advance of the fact as to how much water you can expect to get
out of a given aquifer. It's only a guess and, obviously,
sometimes a very wrong guess.
 So that to say the sustainable yield is 20 million
gallons a day, if that's not being born out in practice, and to
me it's not being born out in practice, because the salt is
rising and we all know that the level of salt water under the
fresh water in the Iao aquifer continues to rise.
Mr. Craddick's letter says, well, it used to be
rising 10 feet a year, now it's only rising 5 feet a year.
That's still a rise. If you are only taking what was being
recharged, why would it rise? It would be a zero rise if you
are only taking what was going in from rainfall. So it's my
lay opinion that the aquifer now is being overpumped.
I think playing games with drilling wells just
outside of the aquifer and saying that those aren't part of the
aquifer and it's an independent source, I don't think that's
true. I hope you will take this under advisement, get reliable
information from people you trust.
 And I see no reason whatsoever that you would
certify that there's water available when the 8 million gallons
a day that Mr. Craddick quotes from the North Waihe'e aquifer,
that's just a guess. They may be getting four and five, but
that may be overpumping it, and you don't know that you are
going to get eight. So I don't think you can confirm that you
have excess water in the Iao aquifer. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Any questions for Sally?
Thank you, Sally.

GLEN SHEPHERD: Mr. Chairman, my name is Glen
Shepherd. One thing I would like you to do, any subsequent
meetings that's held is going to have numbers of people like
what we have here today, I urge you to have some kind of a
venue where we can all see and hear what is going on. People
back here can't see; people back there can't see; people back
there can't see.
 And if this is supposed to be an informational
meeting, then you're not getting the word out. So I appeal to
you to pick the venue where these illustrations, all the power
point things can be pulled up so that everybody can see it and
everybody can hear it. The acoustics in here are lousy. I
have lousy hearing to start with, so I'm blanked out on many
things.
 Secondly, the thing I want to ask, are we going to
have an expose by the USGS here today?

CHAIRMAN RICE: We're asking these gentlemen to give
us information to enlighten us. The expose, I know what expose
means, but we're going to get something from them.

GLEN SHEPHERD: We're going to have a show and
tell?

CHAIRMAN RICE: We're going to take under advisement
and decision making --

GLEN SHEPHERD: Can we come back with comments after
that?

CHAIRMAN RICE: No. We're not making decisions here
today. We make that clear. We're just gathering information.

GLEN SHEPHERD: I want you to get that information.

CHAIRMAN RICE: That's all we're doing.

GLEN SHEPHERD: Let me say this, then. I might be
shooting off my mouth ahead of time here. I've seen maps put
up on the board here that indicate the limits of the Iao
aquifer. My estimation with 35 years of petroleum exploration
production, we're dealing with hydrodynamic principles,
different ones, different things involved, but nevertheless
those principles are still there. The limits of the Iao
aquifer as shown by that last map is erroneous.
 Second thing is, there are too few data points which
to draw any kind of conclusions about how much water is there.
There may be too much water than we think, or there may be less
water than we think. But you certainly cannot extrapolate good
decisions based on too few data points. You are shooting
yourself in the foot sometimes by going ahead and doing things
without knowing what you are playing with.

CHAIRMAN RICE: We agree 100 percent, that's why we
have these gentlemen here to give us more information.

GLEN SHEPHERD: I have bones to pick with them too.

CHAIRMAN RICE: You may, sir. Thank you, sir.
Next?

MO MOELLER: Aloha, I'm the spokesperson, Mo
Moeller, for our ohana Ka'Ohana O Kahikinui. We're here today
(1) to educate ourselves to our present water situation; (2) to
trace the origin of an old Kula pipeline that runs through the
aina of Kahikinui which starts at Waikamoi and ended at Kupuna
gulch; (3) to advise this board and our community that there is
a resettlement movement of 105 native Hawaiian families moving
onto our 22,809 acres of Hawaiian lands in Kahikinui.
 The bottom line is, more native Hawaiians needing
our wai. And also to advise this board that we're in dire need
of our wai, and we hope to work closely with you in making this
our reality in our community. We're prepared to give you a
complete presentation of our ohana's goals and desires, water
needs in the near future if requested. Mahalo from our ohana
Ka'Ohana O Kahikinui.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you. I'm sure we'll take you
up on your offer.
Is there any other public testimony?

MS. NAGO: No one else signed up with me.

ED LINDSEY: Aloha, board members and community. My
name is Ed Lindsey. It was not my intent to come up here and
testify, but the very fact that we're over here gathering
information and checking up to see what our water situation is,
is a red flag. The very fact that we are talking about
recycling water is another red flag, and the numbers that we
seem to be getting are off colored, it's another red flag.
So it behooves us to take care of the people who are
here now. A lot of the developers and people, you know, they
have every right to do what they want to do, but a lot of the
people who come here, they want to live here, and that's fine,
but we have to take care of our people first. And the
residents who live here always seem to be getting the tail end
of things. Always.
 And the people who come with their money always seem
to get in the front of the line. Now, what's really important,
in my opinion, is that we take care of as many people as we
possibly can. Including the ho'opu, the he'ewai (phonetic),
the mamake and the plants that depend for water along the
streams.
 Now, as salt comes up and we have these peaks coming
out here, you take more water from the stream, Iao stream, and
that in turn breaks the cycle for the natural things that grow
here, the things that make Maui special.
 So what I would like for this board to do, and I
have been told that the constitution, parts of the state
constitution is only a paper until Hawaiian tries to violate
that paper, then it's -- all of a sudden it's enforced to its
maximum -- that Article 12, Section 7 be considered in your
decisions that Hawaiian things are not -- right now we're at
the bottom -- come back up on the top again where it should
be. Where the state constitution says it should be and where
morally it should be.
 Give our wai ola (phonetic), our stream wai ola a
chance to survive. Right now there are only two streams that's
mother loding (sic) the native plants and animals. That's one
in Nahiku and one at Makamakaole. Everything else is all shut
off. What does that say about us? Aloha.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Any questions of Ed?
Thank you, Ed.
Let's take a second here. You folks who are behind
the screen, when we start to have the presentation, you want to
move out here around us? Let's take a minute -- we'll take a
two-minute recess here while people can redistribute
themselves.

(A recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. Is there any other public
testimony? Okay. As I said, this is a committee meeting,
we're here to gather information. We have with us some guests,
some experts who are going to give some presentation, comments,
something of that nature to the board to release to the Central
Maui water availability. Gentleman, is there a way -- is there
an order we should do this? David?

MR. CRADDICK: I leave it up to you, the guys have a
presentation ready.

CHAIRMAN RICE: You are with the USGS?

STEVEN GINGRICH: That's correct.

CHAIRMAN RICE: State your name. And down those
lights, Fran, a little bit.

STEVEN ANTHONY: My name is Steven Anthony, I'm the
associate district chief with the U.S. Geological Survey here
in Honolulu. I would like to thank the chairman and members of
the board for inviting us to speak here today on a very
important subject of water availability from the Iao aquifer.
 Our district chief, Gordon Treble (phonetic),
unfortunately was not able to attend because he's on the
mainland this week. But I brought along with me Dr. Steven
Gingrich, our groundwater specialist, who will be giving a
presentation after I cover a few points the board asked me to
read to you here today.
 First of all, many of you may be aware that the U.S.
Geological Survey is not a regulatory agency, and as such, we
do not make water resource recommendations or decisions.
However, it is within our mission to provide unbiased
scientific information, to facilitate informed effective
management and policy decisions in the public interest.
As a result, there are several points I would like
to make with regard to water availability from the Iao
aquifer. First, it's important to distinguish between the
regulatory level of sustainable yield and the amount of
groundwater of acceptable quality that can be pumped on a
long-term basis using an existing infrastructure. In essence,
a number on paper does not necessarily translate into reality.
 Second, there's no single fixed value for
sustainable yield. The amount of groundwater that can be
pumped over the long term depends on many factors. Some of
these factors include the distribution of pumpage, the dynamic
flow of groundwater and climatic variability. The current
values of sustainable yield are based on analytical model with
simplifying assumptions that ignore these factors.
 Three, under the current distribution of pumpage,
the regulatory level of 20 million gallons a day for the Iao
aquifer does not appear to be sustainable. This is based on an
assessment of available water level and chloride data collected
during periods of high pumpage. This information is contained
in this USGS publication.
 In addition, an evaluation of the method used by the
Commission on Water Resource Management to set sustainable
yield values in Hawaii, it's contained in this second
publication.
 The fourth point I would like to make is that
delineated aquifers in the state water resource and protection
plan are not independent, and pumpage from one aquifer can
affect another. As a result, pumping from areas adjacent to
the Iao aquifer will affect water levels and the availability
of water from within that aquifer.
 Then, finally, although the recent tests involving
the shutdown of Maui Department of Water Supply wells in the
Iao area illustrates that water levels are affected by pumpage,
it is not relevant to the long-term sustainability of the
aquifer. These comments are offered as starting points for
discussion on how better to assess the amount of water that can
be pumped from the Iao area.
 The presentation of existing information should
allow you to judge for yourselves how the aquifer has
historically reacted to different levels of pumpage and see
current trends in both water levels and chlorides. Additional
information can define the estimates of water availability from
the area.
 So at this point, I would like to turn it over to
Steven Gingrich who will give his presentation. And again,
thank you for inviting us to be here today.

STEVEN GINGRICH: Judging from some of the
presentation I have seen already, this may be a repeat, but
hopefully I can clarify some things or point out how the USGS
goes about studying the groundwater system and what kind of
information we need to look at.
 A little review may be first. You know, any
hydrologic system, you can look at it as a box. You have the
aquifer, you got an input to it, water, recharge coming in; you
got output, water discharging into the ocean or pumpage. And
then you also want to know stuff about that box, the geology,
permeability of the rocks. Then you want to know the water in
the box, how much water is in there and the quality of the
water, can you drink it.
 Quickly going through that, things that involve
input, when you want to a study system you have to measure all
these things. You have rainfall. There's new information
suggesting that you can get a substantial amount of input from
fog drip, which typically is not measured with a rain gauge.
One of the things that goes into an input calculation would be
the runoff; how much runs directly from the stream into the
ocean that does not recharge the aquifer.
 You have a component of what is called
evapotranspiration, what the plants suck up that does not get
into the aquifer. The plants use it or the sun evaporates it.
You have a component of water that's stored in soil moisture.
You need to understand that. You need to understand the amount
of groundwater flow from adjacent systems. For Iao, that's
important.
 You heard a lot about the aquifer boundaries of the
Iao aquifer, but very little is known about what groundwater is
flowing into this system from Central Maui, from parts of West
Maui, and how much groundwater is flowing out of the system.
So that's another factor.
 I highlighted here in red for Iao aquifer, these are
the things that have not really been analyzed at all. This is
more information that could be found to help refine your
estimate as to how much water is going into the system. So
most of this information has been based on studies in other
areas. For Iao itself, most of this has not been looked at.
 When you think of the aquifer, you want to know the
thickness and distribution of volcanic rocks and the caprocks
that top off the aquifer. You want to know how that rock can
transmit water, the permeability and the storage properties.
You pump a well, how quickly will the water flow into that
well. That's information you have to find out if you want to
know how the aquifer will react when you pump it.
You want to know what we call hydrologic boundaries,
where is the ocean, where are dikes that have low permeability
that affect where you pump it, where are the streams that may
be gaining groundwater, where is the caprock that may be
confining the groundwater from reaching the ocean.
 Again, we have a fairly decent understanding of the
thickness and the boundaries of the aquifer; we don't have a
real good understanding of the permeability in storage
properties of the aquifer. There's a lot more standard aquifer
tests that you could do using accepted methods of analysis to
figure out how the rock will transmit water.
 The water itself you can estimate, you can figure
out how much is there based on water levels that you measure in
monitoring wells, in pumping wells. And you want to know the
quality of the water, the water you pump, measure of chlorides
to see if it's acceptable.
 You measure chlorides in transitions of wells that
go down through the fresh water into the salt water beneath.
You can monitor that to see the thickness of the freshwater
lens supply. Then there's the possibility of other
contaminants. I had not heard much about agricultural
contaminants in the Iao aquifer area, but that's always a
concern that you went to keep in mind too.
 Then the output from the system. With the absence
of any pumpage, before anybody developed the Iao aquifer, all
the groundwater that fell into the system discharged out to the
ocean or possibly to streams or springs. Also, some may flow
to adjacent systems. We have not looked into that too much.
You can go into Central Maui where they do a lot of
agricultural pumping and look how much connection there may be
between that part of the island and the Iao system.
Again, once you start pumping it, you will reduce
the amount of groundwater that discharges naturally because
you'll be taking it out of wells. The output is important both
for the volume that you pump out of the system and also the
distribution of your wells. If you try to pump 20 million
gallons a day out of one well, it would be a bad idea, you
could get -- so your distribution of where your wells are is
important. You can minimize saltwater intrusion at any one
place.
 Again in red, these are the components of a system
that I feel we really have very little understanding about for
the Iao aquifer. Maybe some for streams and springs, but
there's a lot more work that could be done on that. Definitely
discharge into the ocean, we really don't have a number for, or
flow to an adjacent system.
 You have seen this picture a couple of times now.
The blue line there we call the Iao aquifer boundary. That's
the state's boundary, that's the regulatory boundary, and I
have shown this, but I'm not claiming that that's a true
physical boundary. But that's the area that we're talking
about here. Then I have highlighted in red some of the main
pumping areas.
 And then USGS and the other entities collect a lot
of data that we can use to analyze the system. Weather service
collects rainfall data. It's important to know what's going
in. We collect water levels in wells. The water department
collects chlorides, and from pump wells, and we also measure
the chlorides in the deep transition zoned wells. Then we have
a record of how much water we pump out.
 When we put out our quarterly reports on a data, we
get data that we collect plus fluoride and pumpage data from
the Department of Water Supply. So we cooperate there and they
give us timely information that we can put into our reports.
Let me talk a little bit about some of that data.
 Up in the upper left, I have a map of the Iao area, with five
areas, different wells, where we get water level data that I
want to go through here. Let me show you the top first. When
we talk about rainfall data, this is a -- my time scale did not
show up yet -- but this is plot from 1983 through the present.
 My rainfall graph, what I'm showing here is the
variance of rainfall from the long-term average. So starting
like in '83, this would be a rainfall deficit. This time
period of a few years, rainfall was below average; we had an
above average period. Some ups and downs. For all time, you
can expect nothing will fall in the average; it will be above
or below at some point.
 You can see here from about '97 to the present, we
have had a pretty significant deficit of rainfall. That's one
major component for the Iao system, this prolonged drought we
have been in. That's going to have a big impact on the water
availability. Not showing the scale, just to be clear, but
this is like a 50 percent deficit to this area. Almost half
the rainfall for this extended period.
 And then on the next graph we show a record of
pumpage from '83 to the present. My green line, the top of the
green line represents the 20 MGD limit, sustainable yield limit
that we're talking about. So you can see pumping has increased
from about 10 MGD in '83, the highest point in '96, '97, where
your -- some parts of the year were over 20 MGD, but I guess
the yearly average equaled out to about 20 and the current
pumping we're at right now.
 Then coupled with this increase in pumpage over time
and the periods of decreased rainfall, we can look at water
levels. There's my time scale, finally. Water levels ranging
from 0 to 25 feet above sea level. These are important when
you look at a freshwater lens system. I have these kind of
colored coded, so this is test hole A here, starting here at
18, 19 feet has been declining steadily over time.
Green, test hole B, test hole E, Waiehu deep well,
and the North Waihe'e well across the regulatory boundary
here. One thing that's pretty striking is they all follow the
same pattern, both the annual variations due to higher demand,
seasonal demand, and the long-term rise and decline of the
water level over time.
 Basically, a decline in water level occurs because
you are taking water out of the system and the more you take
out, the further the water levels will decline. It's pretty
straightforward. Most of the water levels that we have
recorded over time have been at or near the record lows in the
past year or two. That's a combination of the pumping and the
rainfall deficit. So you look at water levels.
 Another thing you want to look at is chloride
concentrations when you pump water. That's what you are
supposed to be drinking. Again, same plots of pumpage and
rainfall at the top. You have four different wells here to
show some of the chloride concentrations with time.
The Waihe'e well system started off around 20 and
slowly increased to around 50 or 60 milligrams per liter. The
green line up here represents 250 milligrams per liter, EPA
recommended drinking water limit. You don't want water much
saltier than that to drink. Another well, this is Waiehu 1,
you can see it started off at around 60 or 70, but in the past
three or four years has climbed fairly precipitously to
occasionally being over the recommended limit.
 Again, this is Mokuhau 1, same sort of pattern, you
get some variations over time depending on pumping. If the
well has been pumping for a week or something, you go out and
sample it, you may get a higher chloride than if you just
turned it on. So that would explain some of that variability
in the data. But the long-term trend is fairly obvious, as you
go along in sort of a rapid increase in the last few years.
There are some other wells I have not shown. I'm
going to guess which one. I don't know if it's Mokuhau, the
area where some of the chlorides -- or Mokuhau 2 well,
chlorides were 4- or 500 milligrams per liter. Then this is
shaft 33, a major source here, collected chloride data not as
long. You can see a bit of a gradual increase in time; last
few samples have been higher than previous. So all of the
chloride values show at least increasing trends of chloride
concentration with time.
 We also talk about chloride concentration. We can
look at the thickness of the freshwater lens. We use the
Waiehu deep water monitor well. We go out quarterly, we take
some samples at depth. These triangles, squares, diamonds show
areas where we have collected historic chloride concentration
and we use that to look at the thickness of the transition
zone. This is depth here in feet, sea level, the top scale was
showing chloride concentration. You get up here to 19-, 20,000
milligrams per liter, that's seawater.
 Let's talk about the mid point of transition, that
would be about 9500 milligrams per liter of chloride, that
would be right in here. And then what is actually probably the
most important is your drinking water limit, which is only
250. So that's this area way in here. What I did was, for
illustration here, I highlighted this area from 50 up to --
this is basically 2 percent seawater, which is very close to
the drinking water limit. It's an easier number to use.
 So this is the upper half of the transition zone,
which is what we're looking at, how that is rising over time or
how it's spreading over time. So you can see once you start to
get to this point where you are hitting 250 milligrams per
liter chlorides in your well, you don't have to go very much
deeper to start hitting 300 and 400 and 500.
 If you are pumping from here, chlorides will stay
stable and slowly rise over time, but once you start to hit
this point in the transition zone where it's high, it doesn't
take much more to get really high. It's important to notice
that.
 What I did here was I took some of the wells where
we have chloride data. This is the well, the deep well where I
have this profile, and that pink area that I showed in the
other slide is highlighted here from 2 percent to 50 percent
seawater in the deep monitor well. It falls right here. Here
is sea level, here is the depth of the pumping wells in the
area.
 If you look at the chlorides in that well, it sort
of positioned -- take the position of this transition zone and
apply it to all of those wells, this is kind of an approximate
guess as to about where the transition zone lies when you
compare it to those wells. Wells like Mokuhau pump 2, you've
got a significant amount of transition zone that's probably
being already penetrated by the well. Waiehu Heights 1, pretty
high, and then North Waihe'e, Waihe'e 3, those there you have a
little more thickness.
 One thing that's important, you don't want to look
at the thickness from the sea level down to the 50 percent or
midpoint of the lens, because you are not going to drink 50
percent seawater. You want to look at the thickness from the
bottom of your well to the 2 percent seawater and how much room
you have to play with before you start to get intrusion of the
well. As you can see here, two of the well fields are
significantly impacted.
 And another thing we hear a lot of talk about is the
movement of the transition zone over time. This is a plot,
same plot for the most current data in red here. Then the data
collected from the well. From the first time it's collected,
sampled in that same well in 1985, as you can see, some of our
sampling that's a little different, but you can draw a line
through the values and estimate the position of the transition
zone, and then we figure out the midpoint, you estimate how
quickly is that coming up.
 Again, that data is based on chloride samples at
various depths in a single well. One concern with that is that
it has something what is called mortal flow. If you have a
single open hole and it's open to the salt flows at different
levels, sometimes you can have more a permeable layer where the
water can flow in, and close up the hole in another area and
sometimes that can affect the values you are getting.
 Occasionally, you have to be able to interpret, you
have to be able to see through the data to know if you are
maybe not measuring exactly what you think you are measuring.
What we're seeing at some of these depths that we have measured
quarterly since far back as '85, you can see how the transition
zone, how the whole thing has gotten saltier over time.
 If you look at the deepest well, the deepest point,
at one point in '85, that was fresh water down here. But now
the transition shown has moved up; it's pretty much seawater at
that depth. As you go up the scale, you can see how these
trends are continuing over time. Right now, 50 percent
seawater is going to fall somewhere in this 675 to 700 foot
depth.
 What I did was I took this data and then plotted
that up, basically looked at the 50 percent seawater line based
on that data. What I'm showing here is the position of that 50
percent line over time. And also, since we're not drinking
that water, I plotted up 2 percent seawater, which is basically
the limit of water you would not want to drink. But to show
how that has risen over time as well.
This is a good way to see the rate of rise over
time. What you can see is the steeper part of the curves is
rising faster, flattens out here. Since the early '90s, it
started to rise quicker. It's pretty much risen at that same
rate since the early '90s right through the present.
I think you are probably not smart to look at one
time period over another and saying it's slowing down or
speeding up, because you want to look at the long-term trends
to see how over time this rise is continuing.
And I think also, at least in my opinion, it would
be a mistake to just throw a ruler on here and draw and say,
well, in 2023, it will hit the bottom of the well. It's not
that simple to extrapolate a single line and say where it is.
It's too complex for such a simplified assumption like that.
Getting back again to talking about the rate of
rise. This is that same 50 percent line. Again, I just kind
of blew it up. What I wanted to show was this value here on
the right scale, what I'm trying to show is -- I don't know if
this is easy to explain -- it's basically the rate of rise.
When you have value here, near the beginning of this
is like 20 feet per year, rising at that rate. As the rate has
slowed down, at some periods in this area here, the rate of
rise is near zero. It's not as stable. Then we started
pumping more, the rate of rise increases again. This is a
really steep point here.
 Again, what's important to show is how it's kind of
maybe a little bit cyclic. You can't look at one month to the
next and say it's slowing down. It's speeding up. You want to
look at the long-term trend to see how variable it is. This
curve here is based on -- kind of took each quarter's position
and looked back a year, plotting a rate of rise over a year
average. And what I also did was I looked at it over a single
quarter.
 If you measure it today, we get a value, then we go
back three months, look up what we measured and see it rose a
foot per year or something like that. You got to look at the
green line to see how variable that can be from quarter to
quarter.
 I think that's for the state to look at. You need
to look at the long-term trend. It shows the importance of
continuing to collect data over time to see the long-term
trends. Not just the vagaries of a rainy month, or heavy
pumping that month, or we did not turn that well on that month,
something like that. So it's important to keep looking at the
long-term trend of the system.
 Another point with these deep monitor wells, for the
Iao system there's only one. So we're measuring the thickness
of the transition zone so we get one point. Perhaps in another
area where you have heavier pumping, it's probably going to be
thinner; you might go to the back of the aquifer where there's
not much pumping, it could be thicker.
 So, again, you are using one point to figure out the
whole system and that's not the best way to do it. Ideally,
you have more of these wells that you would monitor on a
regular basis to see what's happening.
 I think that's all the data I have for now. That's
basically the presentation I am going to give, so if you have
questions.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Board members, questions?

MR. NOBRIGA: Is the USGS report dated to 1997 still
valid?

MR. CRADDICK: Water budget for Iao?

STEVEN GINGRICH: I would say it's valid until we
refine it. It's probably the best water budget we have for the
island, but I would not say it's the final answer to the
island. For one thing, it doesn't incorporate the
boundaries -- so that actually might provide more recharge in
the system.
 Basically, as time goes on, we refine ways of
estimating the water budgets. Like I say, at the time it was
done, it was probably the best estimate, but more refined
techniques could be used to give you a better idea.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Is that it, Mike?

MR. NOBRIGA: Yes.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Jonathan?

MR. STARR: I would like to thank you for the good
presentation. Waihe'e aquifer segment, have you done any work
on Waihe'e?

STEVEN GINGRICH: Not really. The only thing I had
was the plot I showed here of the water level. Given the same
trend as the well in Iao aquifer system. But not real -- I had
not done much with Waihe'e, no.

MR. STARR: I know some years ago I had seen a
report that was part of a water commission staff report. I
believe that was about '97, and I thought that that was a USGS
report regarding some rejections for availability for the north
and south segments of Waihe'e. Does that ring a bell?

STEVEN GINGRICH: Not for me.

STEVE ANTHONY: I don't recall USGS.

MR. STARR: Within a couple of miles of Iao aquifer,
there is probably a hundred million gallons a day of other
pumping taking place. In your opinion, do you think that that
may be affecting Iao in any way, or do you think that the water
budget for Iao, which is definitely showing downward trends and
not equilibrium, do you think it's affected by pumping outside
of the aquifer?

STEVEN GINGRICH: I think it's definitely possible.
Like I say, we have not looked at that issue exactly to prove
it or not, or see how much affect it would have. That's
something that's easily looked at, but the water budget does
not account for any pumping outside of there. That can be a
concern.
 I'm not quite familiar with the geology that -- I'm
sure it's not a direct influence depending on the salt flows
and the sediments of the rocks, there is some degree of -- not
disconnected -- what's the word -- there's probably a low
degree of connectedness between the areas, but with that great
amount of pumping, there's almost bound to be some affect.

MR. STARR: I know on the central aquifer segment
that includes Kahului and Paia and Makawao and Kamaole,
sustainable yield of 27 million gallons a day with pumpage of
maybe four or five times of that. I know I have gone to the
water commission and asked them how much pumpage is taking
place. They don't know.
 What would be a mechanism if members of the board or
the public wanted to have a better understanding of how the
water is flowing and whether the aquifers are distinct or
whether we really are having a case of water flowing from one
aquifer into another?

STEVEN GINGRICH: What you want to do is expand the
existing monitoring program, first find out how much is being
pumped. You want to measure -- stay with same hydrologic data
in the Central Maui area, the water levels. You can do things
like aquifer tests where you would turn on the heavy pumpage
for a while and measure water levels throughout the Central
Maui area to see if you can analyze that to find out what's
going on.
 But ultimately, you probably use that for a system
like this with a complex geology of East Maui and West Maui
coming together, with the caprock above it, rainfall and
distribution and all the pumping, you probably have to go to
something like a numerical model that can incorporate all of
that.
 Put in new information about the geology,
permeability, rainfall distribution, pumpage distribution, and
then you can try to match the water level and the chloride
levels that you see in the area, then you can use the model,
turn on the -- look at how the freshwater lens would sink with
time under different pumpage distributions.
 And once you have that model worked out, calibrated,
approved, you can try to use it for like "what-if" scenarios.
What if we turn on a lot more pumping here, or what if we
spread out the pumping, maybe we can get 20 MGD, but we have to
stop pumping here and we can move the well back here. There's
all sorts of games you can play that way, and basically with
this kind of system you almost have to go to that level of
complexity to figure out what's going on.

MR. STARR: Is that what is called a
head-and-shoulders model? Is that the right term?

STEVEN GINGRICH: For Maui, yeah, you would probably
model from the shoulders to the neck and to the head, including
the Lahaina area and the whole thing. Because you want to know
the affect of groundwater from East Maui flowing towards
Central Maui.
 You want to know -- by including the whole head, you
avoid the idea of drawing an aquifer boundary and saying this
stream to this dike, that's a boundary. If you model the whole
head and shoulders, you let the model decide what the boundary
is. You don't tell it -- this is a boundary, you basically
test the model and see what is most important.
 You might find out that you need to put a boundary
in at a certain stream to match the hydrologic data that you
collect, and then you would say yeah, that's probably right,
this stream is a boundary and affects don't cross it, but
without really testing that scenario, you are not quite going
to figure it out.

MR. STARR: Would this be a project that the USGS
could do if they were asked to do it and if it would help with
the budgeting for --

STEVEN GINGRICH: We certainly could do it. There's
a lot of hydrologists that do that sort of thing. That's
something we have done in cooperation with a lot of state or
county agencies all across the United States. Most of the
groundwater modeling software, a lot of it has been written by
USGS researchers. So we have that expertise that we can draw
on.

MR. STARR: Is that kind of system the standard
throughout the United States now, or does most of the country
still go on an aquifer-based-water-budget type model like we're
using now?

STEVEN GINGRICH: It's a combination, I think, of
the whole range from small towns, you know, going by the seat
of their pants to huge L.A. County kind of -- they have a huge
model. I know someone has been working on a Santa Barbara
model where they incorporate the ditch flow, reservoir flow,
saltwater intrusion.
 It's a major entity doing this model and they use
that to manage and optimize the system where they know to pump
more during the winter and bring more reservoir water in during
the summer, and things like that. So there's a lot of areas
that use big models to manage --

MR. STARR: How would you characterize what we're
doing now, is that seat of the pants or --

STEVEN GINGRICH: I would not want to use that.

STEVE ANTHONY: At the same time, we should
compliment the board, that all the data you are seeing here
today is collected in cooperation with the board and we would
not know what we know without it. It's limited, but it is good
to have.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Go ahead.

MR. NAKAMURA: In your presentation, you indicated
there's quite a bit of information that you don't have and that
was pointed out by some of the people that testified. What
would be the -- I'm sure it would be difficult to obtain all
this information that you don't have, but do you have some feel
for what would be involved?
 You talk about a model, but in order to have a
model, you really need the information. I would think that
would be a pretty formidable task.

STEVE ANTHONY: It's a large task with the existing
information we have today. One could put together a numeric
model, but that would then lead you to ask more questions about
what additional information you would need to refine that
model. So it's an imperative process one has to go through.

MR. NAKAMURA: What are the resources available
through USGS to do this? Or what kind of assistance, I guess,
primarily financial, would be looked at between the state and
the county to get into something like that?

STEVE ANTHONY: As with our current monitoring
program, we interact with the Department of Water Supply. USGS
has matching funds available. Our budget is uncertain at times
and we have demands from other cooperating agencies as well.
 So I could not say to you today that if you wanted
to embark on a particular investigation, whether or not we
would have the funds available to match it 50 percent; but
given the importance of this issue, I'm sure Gordon Treble
would rank it very high and do his best to make funds
available.

MR. NAKAMURA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: My colleagues have leapt ahead in
their terrific thinking. But just so everybody understands,
the aquifer boundaries drawn on that map are estimates by
someone at some point in time; correct?

STEVEN GINGRICH: Yes.

CHAIRMAN RICE: And given all the information we
have heard, it's likely that some of those boundaries may not
really exist. The two aquifers could be one, or they could be
two flowing into each other because of the geological strata of
that point; right?

STEVEN GINGRICH: Right.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Or the boundary could be slightly at
a different place; is that correct?

STEVEN GINGRICH: (Nods head.)

CHAIRMAN RICE: But the information you are showing
us and you have seen so far, lends you to be very cautious
about any continued pumping in that area. Is that the correct
statement to make?

STEVE ANTHONY: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRMAN RICE: What my colleagues have done was
jump ahead to a bigger modeling program so we can refine our
predictions going forward and you would be cooperative in
helping us.

STEVE ANTHONY: As well as some other people would
be willing to help too.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Sure.

MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question. In
your presentation on hydrologic system components input and
output, why is it that on a groundwater discharge, you guys did
not make any studies or gather information?
 Because I think by having those information, you
would say clearly to us that aquifers are independent or not --
are independent or dependent from each other. Meaning to say
that without those information, because I am facing with the
problem of whether Iao aquifer and North Waihe'e aquifer are
independent from each other or not.
 And on Mr. Treble's letter it says right here and it
doesn't really say on the -- on the fourth point that was
mentioned about water availability from Iao aquifer, it says
that the delineated aquifers in the state water resource
protection plan are not independent and pumpage from one
aquifer can affect another.
 In the absence of those information, like I said,
you guys didn't pick up groundwater discharge, do you think it
would be hard to pinpoint exactly with clarity whether those
aquifers are independent or not?

STEVEN GINGRICH: On the absence of looking at water
level, seeing water levels in one aquifer corresponding with
different water level changes in another separate aquifer, they
do the same thing.

MR. TAGORDA: May I ask a question, because I'll ask
the same question to Mr. Mink and people of your -- people like
you. Can you say with clarity and leaving us no doubts that
the Iao aquifer and the North Waihe'e aquifer are two
independent aquifers?

STEVEN GINGRICH: No, I would not begin to say that,
no.

MR. TAGORDA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Let's move it along on the other
presentation.

MR. STARR: I have a question.

CHAIRMAN RICE: We have to get more information
quick.

MR. STARR: The latest data I have is for August of
this year, our pumpage is from Iao aquifer 19.476 million
gallons a day and from Waihe'e and this is just a southern
portion of Waihe'e. We have five million four hundred and some
odd million gallons a day. Do you feel that we can expect to
increase those numbers, or do you feel that there's a certain
amount we should be looking to decrease those numbers?

STEVE ANTHONY: I think that's a decision that you
have to make. As an agency, I think it's not appropriate for
us to recommend how you should proceed based on the information
that you've seen and heard. I think you have to draw your own
conclusions and decide what is best.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Sir, you are with the Commission of
Water Resource Management?

A VOICE: I'm a private citizen, but I was invited
by the board to give a presentation.

CHAIRMAN RICE: You are next, then. Let's go down
the line.

JOHN MINK: I wonder if I can get up next. I have
to catch a flight.

CHAIRMAN RICE: It doesn't matter to me. You want
to go ahead?

JOHN MINK: Yes. My name is John Mink. And in many
respects, I'm responsible for all the controversies that have
arisen about the Iao aquifer. Let me start by saying a little
bit about these aquifer systems as they are drawn. They were
never meant to be drawn as precise aquifers. That's a
misunderstanding that has been propagated.
 If one were to read the water protection plan for
the state, they would understand that these are very
qualitative. Also the sustainable yield values given in those
aquifer systems have been qualified very greatly within that
plan and they are not precise numbers and they can change. In
only a few places are they held in high confidence. So there
shouldn't be any argument or any discussion about what the
meaning of those things are. They change with time.
When you are dealing with water resources, the best
gauge on what the availability of the water is, what the size
of the aquifer, etc., is experiments. It's a matter of
developing within certain constraints, and then find out what's
happening as you go along.
 I must admit I'm responsible for setting up the
sustainable yields for all of the islands' systems throughout
the state when we did the water protection plan, and I feel
very offended that people misinterpret them and in many ways
use them as an instrument to diminish the utility of these
things. These are meant as management systems, as a guide to
management. Not as absolutes. So I want that to be clear to
everyone.
 Now, when it comes to the 20 million gallons per day
sustainable yield, that came about as a result of a study I did
in 1977. Prior to that, both the USGS and the state had
concurred with a number which was extraordinarily high for the
amount of recharge coming into the Iao -- what is now the Iao
aquifer system.
 When I was hired by C. Brewer to take a look at it,
this was after the joint venture signed all of its contracts,
on the basis that the Board of Water Supply would get the 19
million gallons per day first, and then a remaining 36 million
gallons can be developed. When I looked at those numbers, I
was very puzzled by how they could possibly come about with
that until I started reading the reports.
 When I submitted my report to Brewer, and I was
hired as a consultant, when you are hired as a consultant and
you have a client, you want to tell them things that maybe they
would like to hear, but I told them things that they certainly
did not want to hear, that it was not anywhere near the amount
of water that had been bandied about, and I set as an estimate
a yield of about 20 million gallons per day.
 Let me say one more thing about the yields, the
sustainable yields, they are based upon optimal development
that is the best means of extraction. The most optimal
development in any aquifer is to have a billion syringes and
take one drop of water out of a billion points. There's never
really a way that can be done, but that's what the sustainable
yield as they are written means. Optimal development.
 Every development has to be suboptimal. So it's a
degree of suboptimality (sic) that you are willing to contend
with as to what you can actually get out of a system. So
instead of a hypothetical sustainable yield, you can say an
allowable sustainable yield which takes into account depth of
the wells, the spacing of the wells, all of this is implicit
and the amount of water that you can take out.
 But I do believe that the sustainable yield of 20
million gallons is very reasonable for the Iao aquifer. This
aquifer has been under development since 1948. It's had its
ups and downs.
 Measuring the water table as the indicator of the
health of the aquifer is sort of like a phrenology, you feel
the skull of a person, the bumps and the depressions, then you
make a judgment about what the brain is like. Well, isn't it
far better to plunge a needle into the brain and find out what
the brain is really like?
 That's what the monitor well -- although there's --
only one has been done. The water table measurements really
are so transient and so frivolous, in a sense, that they don't
really tell you what the condition of the aquifer is.
 Now, the aquifer of -- the Iao aquifer, the
transition zone, the 50 percent point which is equivalent to --
in the standard hydrology analysis -- the 40 to 1 ratio, is at
about 700 feet now. It started off maybe 850 or so feet. The
transition zone has been rising.
 Now, somebody, I think Sally Raisbeck said the
transition zone is rising, therefore we're overdrawing. Just
remember that the moment you take one drop of water out of an
aquifer, the transition zone will rise. There's no way that
you can take any water out of an aquifer and keep the
transition zone in its original position, because you are
disturbing that initial condition, and the initial condition in
the Iao aquifer was a maximum head, at least down near the Iao
section of 28 feet.
 Once you disturb it by extracting a little bit of
water, the head goes down. The transition zone comes up one --
40 times the drop in the head. These are fundamentals, and
they have to be recognized when we are talking about the
allowable sustainable yields that can be employed.
 The other thing is the nature of the connection
between Iao and North Waihe'e. It was never said in any of my
reports, certainly, that this was an absolute boundary. The
boundary -- there is a suppressing boundary that reduces the
hydrologic continuity between Iao and North Waihe'e.
 Remember now, when we talk about North Waihe'e, we
are not talking about that sliver where the development is
taking place, North Waihe'e has been defined as the aquifer
going all the way up to Kahakuloa. Which is a pretty big chunk
of land. And there is, of course, connection.
 But if you look at it, the wells on the immediate
eastern side of Waihe'e Valley or southern side of Waihe'e
Valley have a head probably 10 feet higher than they do on the
immediate northern side of the valley, which indicates that
there is a suppression in the hydrologic connectivity between
these two things.
 If you are going to include North Waihe'e as part of
Iao in your management, then you have to add to the sustainable
yield. You can't add North Waihe'e and say that all of the
water is coming out of the Iao. That's not true. There's a
tremendous amount of recharge that feeds to the North Waihe'e
aquifer.
 I think the main matter of -- well, I won't say
contention -- but disagreement between myself and the
geological survey is in the nature of what we use as the
measurement for the health of the aquifer. I use as the
measurement the depth to the transition zone which is about 600
feet. That means 600 feet of fresh water. That is a very
inertia bound boundary. It does not move very much, because so
much water has to move up or down for that boundary to change.
 The USGS has been using the water table. And I
think the water table in my experience is a trivial -- much
more trivial parameter to use to determine the health of the
aquifer.
 Now, I've done work in many, many places in the
world. I just want to give you one example. In Sri Lanka, the
northern part of Sri Lanka, the Jaffna peninsula, which is an
aquifer very similar to our caprock limestone.
 The usual agriculture and irrigation starts in
January and at the end of the monsoon, the water tables are
high, it's all groundwater up around 4 to 5 feet. And the
farmers plant their crops, their peppers, potatoes, and what
have you, they irrigate and pump heavily.
 By June, the water table is below sea level. If
that's the case, you should be getting salt water, but they get
fresh water for the next three months until the monsoon comes
again in August. So that the water table itself is not the
criterion upon which we should base the decisions -- the
management decisions that have to be made.
 One last comment Jonathan brought up about the
matter of whether the pumpage in the Central Maui area has an
affect upon the Iao aquifer. Just remember that the pumpage in
the Central Maui area has been going on for a century
practically, virtually at the same rate. In 1946, the initial
head of the Iao aquifer is 28 feet. The pumpage in the Central
Maui was at the same rate, if not higher, as it is today.
 The fact that the heads in Iao are going down --
this is the true head, based upon the transition zone -- means
that even if there was water moving off into the Central Maui,
it's being reduced as the head goes down. The other thing is
that the only way that you can get an increase would be for the
pressure in the Central Maui aquifer to draw very precipitously
and that would be a change in the water level there.
 Well, the water level change under that heavy
pumping is only a few feet, and changing the pressure
relationships by 1 or 2 feet is not going to increase the
amount of water coming out of Iao through the caprock and all
the impediments to enter into the East Maui volcanics. So
that's a problem that deserves some attention, but I don't
think it's a primary problem that we have to face at this
time. Any questions?

CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: You mentioned the water level not
decreasing. I have never seen the water level -- the head
measurements for central. I know in Iao, you are right, they
started at 28 feet and now we're looking at between 7 and 11
feet. You don't feel that that's some source of concern?

JOHN MINK: Let me give you an example. In 1953,
when there was a very severe drought year, the Wailuku sugar
company pumped shaft 33 between 11 and 12 million gallons per
day as an average. The water table elevation dropped from 28
feet to 14 feet within a year. That's a total of 13 feet.
 When the pumping ceased or did not cease but it
became smaller, the water table began to increase again. But
in order to have a drop of 13 feet in one year, if we're
dealing with standard hydraulics of the saltwater, freshwater
systems, and we're dealing with it because they apply to
everywhere in Hawaii, you would have had to have had 13 times
40 movement of the bottom of the lens coming up. Well, that's
just impossible. There's no way that that ever happened or
could happen.

MR. STARR: First of all, I didn't -- I disagree
with you when you seem to feel that your work is being
attacked, Mr. Mink. In my opinion, it's not, you brought us
this far and you have been very brave in the past. I know when
you came up with the 20 million gallon figure for Iao in the
'70s, that must have been a very difficult and brave move and
certainly one that I respect.
 Our real point is where do we go from here? And I
think you would agree with us that knowledge is the best thing
we can have and more data points and more use of technology to
gain that is good, and that's our thrust. Not to attack
anyone's work in the past, but rather to find the best
direction to go in the future.

JOHN MINK: I appreciate that and I agree with you.
There's a lot more that has to be learned, because from
Mr. Gingrich's presentation, you notice all the variables that
have to be taken into consideration and the number in which
there is insufficient data.
 So in order to fit those things into any kind of a
model, numerical, analytical or word model of any sort, you
have to make assumptions. Unless you can get data to somehow
make those assumptions more real than they might be, just as if
they are opinions, it's going to be very difficult.

MR. STARR: I want to ask you about Waihe'e a little
more. I've seen reports where they divide Waihe'e into two
segments, northern part and a southern part, and I believe all
the wells we currently have are in the southern part.

JOHN MINK: I think what you are referring to,
C. Brewer owns the land up to the boundary on the southern part
of Makamakaole drainage. Since a lot of the decisions made
were on the basis of the land, who owned the land, that's the
line you may be referring to. There's no difference.

MR. STARR: I know we're currently pumping 5 1/2
million gallons out of the wells we have.

JOHN MINK: We shouldn't think about 8 million
gallons as coming from that southern part. I didn't realize
the public was so high -- David, what are you doing?

MR. CRADDICK: It's not that high.

MR. STARR: It says daily average. This is your
report.

MR. CRADDICK: I'm going by a 12-month average.

MR. STARR: The 12-month average is only 5.14.

JOHN MINK: Even that is a little --

MR. STARR: Didn't I see a report from you saying
that it should be kept at three?

JOHN MINK: At four.

MR. STARR: Wasn't there a three -- some number out
of four on a long-term average?

JOHN MINK: Yes. When you are dealing with the
yields of an aquifer, you really are dealing with what you can
pump from day-to-day and it has to be an average for some
period of time. The bigger the aquifer the longer the period
of time that you can do the averaging.

MR. CRADDICK: Jonathan is including Iao tunnel,
which is -- the actual pumpage is 3 1/2.

JOHN MINK: That's what I thought it was.

MR. STARR: 3 1/2?

MR. CRADDICK: Yes.

MR. TAGORDA: Before you go, Mr. Mink, may I ask you
again about the relationship of the North Waihe'e aquifer and
the Iao aquifer. There are three things that I read in this
book about the North Waihe'e aquifer that says that two
aquifers are quasi independent and the North Waihe'e aquifer is
an uninterrupted extension of Iao, and the North Waihe'e
aquifer is -- the connection is quick from Iao aquifer. Would
you explain that to us?

JOHN MINK: Well, at least the way I have
interpreted it, because of the differences of the head change,
then if you do some mathematical modeling of why it should be
that way, when you have a valley like Waihe'e, you have, first
of all, a lot of alluvium that accumulates, particularly in the
lower part of the valley.
 And then there's the phenomenon of as the water
percolates through the valley, through the bottom of the
valley, the weather -- the soil is a weathering -- if you get
down a little bit, it's clay. It's not soil. This is what
happens as you go down below a stream valley; therefore, the
permeability increases and so that becomes the partial
impediment of the reduction in the permeability.
 And although the water can move, it will lose its
potential energy as it goes at a much greater rate, so that
when you are on the south side you have a potential energy,
say, in terms of head of 10 feet on the north side -- 7 feet,
which is far greater than the normal gradient in the aquifer.
That is why we call it a weak connection. But there's a
connection amongst everything.

MR. TAGORDA: You are not certain that the recharge
of North Waihe'e aquifer is not from Iao?

JOHN MINK: No, it's not likely.

MR. TAGORDA: Thank you.

MR. STARR: Just to clarify, it's -- dropping of Iao
tunnel is about 4.6 is what we're pumping out of the wells and
in the southern part of North Waihe'e?

JOHN MINK: Even that is a little high.

MR. STARR: Do you have any suggestions on what tact
we should go to gain more knowledge, what kind of test points,
what kind of monitor wells we would like to see?

JOHN MINK: I think what Dr. Gingrich said is
important, that you do have a more extensive data collection.
The monitor well in North Waihe'e would be ideal. Another one
south of Iao, but that's the sort of thing that we know we need
them, but insofar as the details and the particularities, you
would have to deal with the study to determine where the best
sort of information would come from.

MR. TAGORDA: One more question, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Go ahead.

MR. TAGORDA: One more question, Mr. Mink. Would
you say, then, Mr. Mink, that the 8 MGD sustainable yield that
I have been seeing floating around from the North Waihe'e is
not a prudent recommendation from you or it should be less?

JOHN MINK: No, you would have to spread the wells
all the way up to Kahakuloa. Because that's what is defined as
the North Waihe'e aquifer system. So it would include
Makamakaole, Wailena, up to Kahakuloa, and you can't take
everything out of one spot, as has been said earlier.

MR. STARR: One more question. The Iao tunnel, what
do you consider that? Is that part of an aquifer, or is that
surface water?

JOHN MINK: That's high level dike water that comes
out. So it's not part of the lens aquifer.

MR. NAKAMURA: One quick question. The 8 million
gallon estimate for North Waihe'e, Mr. Mink, that was based on
the work that you had done?

JOHN MINK: Yes, I had done that some time ago. I
can't emphasize too strongly the fact that all of the numbers
that we talk about have a pretty wide margin of uncertainty at
this time, and that they can be refined greatly.
 But I have found from the experience of reading the
history of water development and being involved in Hawaii, that
the best lesson is the experience of the developing water.
 Certainly, that's the way the Honolulu system developed and
that's one of the best systems in the country.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions? Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: John, the pump test that was done,
there had been some comments that it somehow didn't provide
information, or I think USGS said it's not related to long-term
pumping, but then later on they said you need to do pump
testing to calibrate the model. Can you say what information
you got out of that test?

JOHN MINK: Out of the shutting down the well, the
curve of recovery is very beautiful. If you carry out that
curve to its -- whatever extent, you would get back to the
correlation of the water table elevation with what the
transitions are. That would occur in about three months.
So it's a question of whether you are going to use
the water table as your central variable, or whether you are
going to use the depth of the lens. This all relates to a
pressure relationship, which I have done analysis, which I
didn't plan to give to you, but the true hydrologic head, which
is the driving head, is measured at the interface between the
salt and the fresh water, not at the top of the water table.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions for John? We
can move along. Thank you very much. You have to catch a
plane?

JOHN MINK: Yes.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Bill, you want to go next?
Commission is the last guys. You guys don't mind, do you?

GLEN SHEPHERD: Mr. Chairman, before John leaves,
can we attack him?

CHAIRMAN RICE: No. Absolutely not.

JOHN MINK: You have five minutes to attack.

GLEN SHEPHERD: They attack one another, they seek
the truth.

CHAIRMAN RICE: One thing I want to avoid, we won't
attack anybody in this meeting. I know you are laughing.

GLEN SHEPHERD: You have to know what attack means.

CHAIRMAN RICE: I don't understand it, I'm not an
earth scientist. I don't want the whole group here to start
commenting at each presentation. You want to go outside with
him?

GLEN SHEPHERD: I want to understand Jaffna. That's
a permeability barrier, the limestones.

JOHN MINK: It's limestone. But the point I was
making, and I have encountered this elsewhere, is that you can
draw a basal lens below sea level and still get fresh water.
 Now, if you were depending upon the water table as your
criterion, you would be pumping salt water. Now, that's
something they learned over 3,000 years of growing chilies and
things like that. I learned --

GLEN SHEPHERD: The other thing I want to attack him
about is the use of these boundaries for the particular
aquifers. Boy, they are fuzzy and they are significant in that
you flash a map up here that showed the boundary between the
Iao aquifer and central aquifer, that's as phony as can be.
 Because listen to this now, we have three wells out
there in Keopuo-Lingle park that's sucking the hell out of the
groundwater. It's against the line between the two aquifers,
so it's affecting the Iao aquifer.

JOHN MINK: No, Iao aquifer is much deeper than
that.

GLEN SHEPHERD: I know, it's an antiquler (sic)
thing; right?

JOHN MINK: It's separated, as you should know, it's
separated from a bunch of sediments and what have you.

GLEN SHEPHERD: There's no structural or
stratigraphic interruptions between those wells and the Iao
aquifer?

JOHN MINK: Depends on which formation the wells are
in. Are they in the East Maui volcanics or the West Maui
volcanics?

GLEN SHEPHERD: I don't know.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Nobody knows what you two guys are
talking about and you are not going to agree, so go outside.

GLEN SHEPHERD: Can I attack him on one other
point?

CHAIRMAN RICE: No, you cannot, sir.

GLEN SHEPHERD: Can I attack the USGS?

CHAIRMAN RICE: No, we have two more presenters.

GLEN SHEPHERD: I didn't know that.

CHAIRMAN RICE: We're not done.

GLEN SHEPHERD: You ought to give us a score card.

CHAIRMAN RICE: We'll take five minutes for the
court reporter. You guys can go outside together.

(A recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: We'll call the rules committee of
the Board of Water Supply to order. At this time the rules
committee will be recessed to Thursday, room 207 at 11 a.m.
The meeting is recessed.

A VOICE: Until when?

MS. NAGO: Thursday, 11 a.m.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Immediately following our regular
board meeting.

A VOICE: That's the rules committee?

CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes. The Committee of the Whole is
back to order. We'll call the meeting back to order. The
Committee of the Whole. For those of you who wondered what
happened, we had a rules committee meeting scheduled at three
and we have to be out of this room at 4:30. That meeting was
considered opened and recessed until Thursday. So those of you
who are interested, Thursday at --

MR. NOBRIGA: 11 a.m. Immediately following your
meeting.

CHAIRMAN RICE: What meeting?

MR. CRADDICK: Board meeting.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Bill Meyer. Let's go, Bill. You've
got the floor. Thank you, Bill, for coming.

BILL MEYER: It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you
for asking me. I think I would like to start my discussion
this way. I think that Mr. Mink hit the heart of the matter
that at least I believe this -- brought this meeting together,
from what I have been told, and that's whether or not one wants
to use the head determined by looking at the mid point of the
transition zone or the actual elevation of the water table in
the aquifer, which determines the health of the aquifer. It's
very important that that issue be discussed, I think.
 Now, every textbook in hydrology that deals with the
subject of the freshwater and saltwater interface states that,
given the guide in the Hertzberg (phonetic) principal
assumptions that if you have -- for every foot that the
elevation of the water table is above sea level, the
freshwater, saltwater interface is 40 feet below sea level. I
think that's a number we have all heard and are familiar with.
 It relates -- the Gyben Hertzberg relates the depth
of the interface to the elevation of the water table, not to
the elevation -- not to the mid point of the transition zone
that you might measure at some point in time.
 Now, the basic assumption of the Gyben Hertzberg
principle, 40 to 1 principle, is that the system is in a steady
state, meaning equilibrium. Nothing is changing with time.
That says if you have a 10 foot water level, the water level
stays at 10 feet, doesn't change with time, then the
freshwater, saltwater interface would be 40 times 10, 400 feet
below sea level.
 The Gyben Hertzberg principle also says if you
change the fresh water that -- the water table by 1 foot -- say
you reduce it by 1 foot by pumping, the freshwater, saltwater
interface will come up 40 feet. Now, why doesn't that work
here? It's very simple and I think it's been made very
complex.
 If you drop the water table 1 foot, that happens
very fast. On the other hand, at a very deep depth in the
aquifer, the midpoint of the transition zone, the entire
transition zone has to move up 40 feet. That process takes
time. It doesn't happen as quick as they change in water
level. You are replacing drop by drop fresh water with salt
water and that's a slow process. That process can take years.
 So the movement of the transition zone lags behind
the movement of the water table, whether the water table goes
up or down. And if you want to know what the depth of the
freshwater, saltwater interface is, you need to look at your
water level in terms of its elevation above sea level and only
calculate the depth of the interface only when the water has
stabilized.
 Or you can make an assumption that if my water level
is at this point, say, now the water levels here are 7, 8, 10
feet above sea level, generally declining. You can say, well,
what if they just stay at 7, 8 or 10 feet, where would the
interface ultimately be? You multiply the 7 to 8, 10 feet by
40 and that's where it will ultimately be. It doesn't mean
it's there now.
 So, in my mind, what is really going on, when you
look at the midpoint of the transition zone, calculate the
water level based on that, when you say that water level is
higher than the actual water level, no surprise. It should be,
given the way the system works.
 Let me go to the water resources protection plan.
This is the state document that -- it's a document published by
the state that sets the sustainable yields for all the aquifers
in the state, and what I don't think most people know is that
when it sets the sustainable yield of the aquifers in the
state, it also sets an item called the minimum allowable head.
 It also goes on to say that head is the elevation of
the unconfined water table above sea level. So for every
sustainable yield value in this book, there is a minimum
allowable elevation of the water table above sea level. Iao
aquifer has such value. That value is 14 to 15 feet. 14 to
15. The water table should not go, according to this document,
14 to 15 feet above sea level.
 Let me read this. Sustainable yield refers to the
force withdrawal rate of groundwater that could be sustained
indefinitely without affecting either the quality of the pump
water or the volume rate of pumping period. It depends upon
the head selected as the minimum allowable during continuous
pumping, you must be pumping when you measure this head. You
don't turn the wells off.
 I have never known anybody that wanted to see if a
well was going to be intruded with salt water that turned the
well off. Turned the well off. There is not a unique value
for sustainable yield. The value depends on the head that will
preserve the integrity of the groundwater resource at the level
decided by the manager.
 The manager in this case is the state, and the state
has selected this head and this head is 14, 15 feet for the Iao
aquifer. You can determine that head from this document. It
doesn't state it directly.
 Now, with that as background, and it's my position
on this discussion, I think that -- I looked at this report on
the recovery of the Iao aquifer system recovery test that was
provided by Mr. Mink.
 By the way, I would point out that this document was
prepared for the State Water Commission, the water resources
protection plan was prepared for the Commission of Water
Resources Management by Yuen & Associates, which is John Mink
and George Yuen. So when I quoted it, I was quoting what I
believed to be John Mink's writing.
 Let me go further. When I read the conclusions of
the Iao aquifer system recovery test, I think these conclusions
are stated in this sentence. The importance of the recovery
test has been to demonstrate that the ambient water level is a
function of pumping rather than a head and balance with
underlying seawater.
 I don't think you have to run this test to figure
that out, data already tells you that. The reason for that is
the lag time between the movement of the transition zone, it
lags behind the movement of the water table. So if that's the
conclusion of this test, then I don't disagree with it.
 If, on the other hand, the conclusion of this test
is -- the sustainable yield of Iao aquifer is 20 million MGD,
then I think you asked the wrong question, you ran the wrong
test. If you look at the water level in the Iao aquifer today,
and what they have been for the last several years; in fact,
what they have been since 1996. If you look at them today,
then it's clear that the following things will happen.
 If you assume those water levels remain steady over
time and that ultimately the transition zone gets equilibrium
with the water table, which it will do, the following things
will happen. Shaft 33 will be fully intruded by the transition
zone; Mokuhau well will be fully intruded by the transition
zone, it will be fully salted; Waiehu Heights, the deepest well
at Waiehu Heights will be fully intruded; at Waihe'e well, the
deepest well will be potentially intruded. That's because you
don't know the thickness of the transition zone.
 Then the North Waihe'e, the interface is just
potentially just below the bottom of the well. So if you
continue with existing water levels, that's my conclusion as to
what would happen to you.
Now, you can say and you can say correctly that
current water levels are not only affected by pumpage, they are
also affected by the drought. So the question becomes, how
much current water levels are affected by the drought? My
answer to you is, not enough to totally correct this problem.
 When I look at the water level history over time,
it's clear, as Dr. Gingrich put up here, that you have periods
when recharge is above, precipitation is above normal,
precipitation is below normal. When you look at and you see
the precipitation is above normal, you'll see what happens to
the water level. They don't rise enough to offset the problem
you have.
 So I think it's clear, I think it's clear that the
existing pumpage that I looked -- was your average pumping from
January through June, so six months. About 17.4 MGD from the
aquifer, as I recall. And your current water levels are
indicating that you cannot sustain this much pumpage. But
again, I will admit expected by drought. And some improvement
would be expected, the question is how much.
 So I would like to just briefly talk a little bit of
history on this point, starting from about 1980. Groundwater
withdrawals from the aquifer during the 1980s ranged from about
9.7 to 15.3 million gallons per day. Water levels were not a
problem. The rate of groundwater withdrawal increased in 1990
to 17.3 million gallons a day and water levels began to fall.
This was during the period of high rainfall.
 The rate of withdrawal generally continued to
increase during the early 1990s and peaked in 1995 and 1996 at
20.5 and 20.3 million gallons a day. Those years were a good
test of whether or not you can sustain 20 million gallons a
day. Rainfall was generally not followed in the early 1990s.
Groundwater levels during that period fell abruptly, and by
1996 had fallen to the point that saltwater intrusion into all
wells -- was ultimately possible.
 Water levels had fallen to elevations that range
from 8.9 to 10.2 feet above sea level and the well fields were
continuing to decline with pumpage at 20, 20.5, 20.3 million
gallons a day. Conditions were only getting worse because
water levels were continuing to decline.
 The Commission of Water Resources Management held
hearings on the status of the Iao aquifer and required the
Department of Water Supply to -- withdrawal the value below 20
million gallons a day or they said, as I recall, that if you
reach 20 million gallons a day, they would come back and
institute the procedure to have this area declared a
groundwater management area.
 Now, given this, the annual rate of groundwater
withdrawal was decreased in 1997 to -- and the last 6 months,
the 12 month -- the last six months moving average to June 2000
was 17.4 million gallons a day.
 Now, data you have just seen the USGS did on water
levels, the transition zone between fresh water and salt water
and the Waiehu monitor well, chloride concentrations of the
Waiehu well indicate that water levels have declined since
1996, and have not increased despite lower rates of groundwater
withdrawal. The interface continues to rise, chloride
concentrations -- have risen above 1996 levels at Waihe'e,
Waiehu Heights, Mokuhau well fields, and shaft 33.
 Several of those wells, it's apparent that, as
Dr. Gingrich showed on the slides, you are already experiencing
saltwater intrusion. It's getting close to being the point
where you don't want to get it any higher.
 I would stop that point for now and I would like to
go to the subject of recharge. The sustainable yield value
that's given in the water resources protection plan, that value
of 20 million gallons a day is based on a value that was
provided by Mr. Mink to the Water Resources Commission in
1995. That value recharge is 31.6 million gallons a day and
based on that again, the sustainable yield is 20 MGD.
 In this Iao recovery system test, I was startled to
find that John had said that the Iao aquifer is recharged at a
rate of approximately 20 to 23 million gallons per day. So in
1995, John felt it was 30, 31.56, and in 2001, September 2001,
he writes that it's 20 to 23 million gallons a day.
If you use the equation and the methodology provided
in the water resource protection plan, you calculate the
sustainable yield for the Iao aquifer of somewhere between 13
to 14 million gallons a day. That can't be ignored, because if
the equation used to calculate sustainable yield is accurate
and if this new value is better than the previous value, then
the same person who put this plan in place is now saying that
the sustainable yield of the Iao aquifer is less by a
substantial amount.
 Staying with the subject of recharge, I would like
to point out that, as John did earlier, that there had been
other estimates of sustainable yield, and when you use the
equation to allocate sustainable yield, that's given again in
the water resources protection plan.
 I'll go through them. 1968 groundwater recharge
estimates varied from 1.6 million gallons a day to -- by one
author, and not to belittle that person, they were using
techniques in comparing results, I think. The sustainable
yield value for Iao aquifer ranged from 1 to 20.7. The
Department of Land and Natural Resources in 1970 estimated
groundwater recharge as 60 MGD, which would result in a
sustainable yield of 38.4.
 USGS in 1970 estimated groundwater recharge at 35,
which would give a sustainable yield of 22.4. John Mink in
1977 estimated groundwater recharge between 20 and 30 MGD, and
if you use his methodology, that would result in a sustainable
yield between 12.8 to 19.2 MGD, based on the 1977 work. Yuen &
Associates, which is this document, actually estimated
groundwater recharge for the Iao aquifer 15 MGD. That gives
you a sustainable yield of 9.6. Although in here it says 20.
When the Commission on Water Resource Management
asked for clarification, that was the 1995 letter that
increased groundwater recharge of 15 to 31.6. In 1995, that's
when Mink came up with 31.6. In 1997, USGS calculated
groundwater recharge of 29 MGD, which gives a sustainable yield
of 18.6. In 2001, Mink has given another number for
sustainable yield that ranges from 20 to 23, which gives you
sustainable yield values of 12.8 to 14.7.
 My purpose in going through that is I think all of
this is reputable work; it's not meant to belittle anybody.
But the point should be clear that you really don't know what
the sustainable yield of the Iao aquifer is. I think -- will
clearly tell you that's not going to be. History tells you
that since 1996. Slightly before that, current water levels
tell you that it may not be 17.4.
 I can't sit here and tell you what it is. I can
only tell you that I think anybody that sits here and tells you
what it is, I would view that number with some caution. So I
think you need to be aware of the fact that the number has
changed through time. When you use this equation and you use
different recharge rates, the number has changed through time
with the same entities. USGS, for instance. John Mink. And
again, that's not to criticize; it's just to point out the
uncertainty in this type of work.
 I guess, finally, I would like to address several
things and I'll try to be brief. I think that in this document
on Iao recovery test, the point is made that the technique of
analysis did not follow fundamental equations of hydrology or
groundwater hydraulics, but using empirical analysis. I think
the reasons why the -- why you could not follow the fundamental
equations is explainable, but you'll have time.
 I would only say that if you are going to not follow
the fundamental rules of science to reach a conclusion in that
science, you ought to view that conclusion with some caution,
at the very least. And I certainly do. So that's, I guess, my
complete set of comments on that issue.
 I have heard a question raised as to whether or not
the water from the Iao tunnel should be considered part of the
Iao aquifer. My opinion in terms of that is similar to
Mr. Mink's. The water that comes out of the tunnels comes out
of the dike system above, based in part of an aquifer -- it
came out naturally before the tunnels were there.
 The tunnels only made it easier, if you will, for
the water to be collected at that spot all the time, but that
water came out naturally before anybody pumped anything. It's
naturally discharging water. Given that, it should not be
counted as part of a sustainable yield, whatever that value is
for the Iao aquifer. That's my opinion on that. With that,
thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Questions? Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: Yes, first of all, thank you for coming
over here, I really appreciate hearing what you had to say. I
would like to know if you have any knowledge about the Waihe'e
aquifer.

BILL MEYER: The only real knowledge I have about it
in terms of factual is, you know, I continue to get the
quarterly data workup that the USGS provides to the board and
to the water commission, and I look at that, and so I'm aware
of the water level declines in the North Waihe'e well field
that occurred with pumpage and that's really the extent of my
part in factual knowledge.

MR. STARR: I know we have been going -- the actual
basis for this meeting was the certification by the director of
water availability for the Central Maui water system. I don't
know, have you seen this?

BILL MEYER: Yes, I have.

MR. STARR: I know that uses a number for 8 million
gallons for Waihe'e aquifer. And I was wondering if you might
have any comments, especially considering our development plans
only include the southern portion of it where we have drilled a
number of wells in the southern part of that North Waihe'e
aquifer. We don't have any plans to drill in the northern part
by Kahakuloa.

BILL MEYER: I do have some comments I could make.
Number one is, I have looked at -- I have looked at information
on water levels from pumpage particularly from the North
Waihe'e well field and the water levels in Iao aquifer to see
if I could determine whether or not pumping the North Waihe'e
well field affected water levels of the Iao aquifer.
 It was quite clear to me that they did. So in my
mind, there's absolute connection between the two. You can say
it's diminished, you can say it's this or that. The fact is,
if you pump water from the North Waihe'e we'll field, you are
affecting water levels in the Iao aquifer. So there's a
hydrologic connection there.
 The other thing I looked at is that -- I have to see
if I can find it. I know that when the water levels -- when
pumpage at North Waihe'e -- in the calendar year 1999 and early
into calendar year 2000, water levels in the North Waihe'e well
field declined to the lowest level. That corresponded to --
that level would not have been sustainable. The well field
would have been intruded at those water levels.
The pumpage was slightly above 3 million gallons a
day. So it's clear to me that it's -- I would say it's
unlikely that you would be able to sustain a development of
something like 3 MGD out of the North Waihe'e well field, given
that set of information.
 The pumpage rate that I see is back up there and if
what I'm saying is accurate, then water levels should back down
again. If not, something else is going on. It's a short
window to look at something for a year and a half, check it
out, that's not the best thing to do but that's at least an
observation.

MR. STARR: What do you think about the
transmissivity of Iao into the Central Maui aquifer, is that a
possibility that perhaps some of the reason why Iao is
performing as badly as it is, is because some of the water may
be travelling into this Central Maui aquifer and being pumped
up through the numerous wells over there?

BILL MEYER: The first question with regard to the
transmissivity, or what I would say, the hydrologic connection
between the Iao and the area south of it, I think there's a
connection. I think that's obvious. Given that statement,
pumpage south of the Iao would definitely affect Iao to some
extent.
 Now, I think that some of what Mr. Mink said is
probably accurate, that the pumpage has gone on for a hundred
years. By his knowledge, not mine, the pumpage has remained
relatively stable, which suggests that whatever affect that
that pumpage is having on Iao aquifer, that pumpage was long
ago established and is there. I mean, it's not changing now as
long as the pumpage itself does not change. Which is what
Mr. Mink said, I believe, and I would agree with that.

MR. STARR: How about sugar cane recharge with drip
has gone way down?

BILL MEYER: That would definitely change things.
If that goes down, then definitely water levels in the central
part should go down, and that means the water levels in Iao
starts to go down also. How much, I don't know.

MR. STARR: One other question. You mentioned that,
I believe, 15 to 17 feet was the minimum water level for Iao as
per the state water resource plan. Where is it now?

BILL MEYER: It's -- depends on where you look. Let
me try to find my notes here. It's test hole E. It looks like
it's about below 10, between 9 and 10; at test hole B it looks
like it's about 8; at the Waihe'e deep monitor well, it looks
like it's between 8 and 9; test hole A1 looks like it's between
10 and 11.

MR. STARR: Theoretically, that should -- that would
be grounds for designation and management if that document were
being followed?

BILL MEYER: I think the commission already has
grounds to designate, if they chose. There are eight set of
criteria. Before I came over here I looked at how, in my
estimation, the Iao aquifer fits within that criteria. At
least three of the eight you meet already. So the commission,
in my estimation, could decide to Iao groundwater management if
they chose.

MR. STARR: I promise this is my last question.
What would you suggest as a course of action that we could take
so that a year from now we would be a lot more knowledgeable
about the true state of our resources?

BILL MEYER: A year from now?

MR. STARR: Five years from now? Six months from
now?

BILL MEYER: I guess what I'm telling you, and it's
just my opinion, I don't have people to bounce it off of
anymore. I don't think you have surplus water in Iao to give
out. So I think one action would be to think about that. I
think another action in terms of science, I would look for ways
to start collecting more data on the Iao aquifer and the
surrounding area.
 Given the position that I formally held, I would
suggest that the board would turn to the U.S. Water Commission,
turn to the U.S. Geological Survey and try to see if there are
funds available to enter some kind of a mutually cooperative
program to collect that data, and I think I would let that
grass grow under my feet to try to get that done.

MR. STARR: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Orlando?

MR. TAGORDA: You talk about recharge. I have with
me a different information on the long-term average groundwater
recharge on -- from 1996 to the present, which is very --
sometimes I like to believe your number, but the number that I
have was pretty high. It says 51 MGD from 1926. Are you
saying land use -- data and up to present is 37 -- 35 million
of recharge --

BILL MEYER: This is Iao?

MR. TAGORDA: No, your numbers are low. But the one
I have are kind of high on recharge rate. And it says right
here, the recharge rate for natural condition is 34 million
gallons per day. Don't you think that's too high with the
drought condition that we have for the past three years?

BILL MEYER: Well, I don't know what the recharge
is. I really don't. I have tried to illustrate to you how
different authors who have put some time and effort into that
have come up with a whole set of different numbers. The range
in that numbers is pretty severe, 1.6 being the low and 60
being the high. I personally have not made a study.

MR. TAGORDA: I know it's declining, but to look at
it from the past way back in 1926 to the present, it was 51,
come down to 41 and 37, 35, now it was 34. And I still kind of
believe that it probably is too high, but I don't know. You
tell me whether that number is too high as a recharge rate or
not.

BILL MEYER: I guess I don't know, again. I would
tell you that I think the recharge rate -- what is happening in
your aquifer -- and what is happening in your aquifer is not
good and in that case it doesn't matter what the recharge rate
is. It's just not good.

MR. TAGORDA: I'm just kind of thinking, if there is
a recharge rate of 34 MGD, where does the water go when we only
draw 19 or 18?

BILL MEYER: Before you start pumping, all water in
the area is discharging into the ocean or to the streams. When
you start pumping, every drop of water you take out of the
ground is water that doesn't get to the ocean or doesn't get to
the streams. So if there's 34 MGD and if you are pumping 19,
then the remainder from 34 is still going out to the ocean and
is still going into the streams.

MR. TAGORDA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions?
Thank you, Bill.
Last but not least, Eric Hirano and Roy Hardy.

ROY HARDY: I'm not sure what to present, we came
under the impression we would be here to answer questions
today. But just to offer one observation that I'm sure you all
probed and challenged. One thing that has gone on from the
perspective of the water resource management over the past ten
years, really, has been the very issues that you are
entertaining today.
 There had been a number of reports that have been
quoted, numbers thrown around, water resource protection plan
by the commission done in 1992, study done in 1997 on new
recharge. A later one for -- versus a numerical model. One
report, which has not been mentioned today, has been the
commission's findings of facts which has tried already to
incorporate all of these things. Albeit there had been some
reports that have come out later.
 This findings of facts was the culmination of
designation proceedings which was instituted, again, back in
the 1990 period. The commission has entertained many of the
things that you are discussing today. But if I were to reduce
everything which has been discussed today, something simple,
sustainable yield, shaky number; water levels, which one do you
use; data, is there enough.
 So from the audience, Mr. Shepherd I think rightly
points out there are too few points for you to come up with an
accurate number that you can have 100 percent confidence in.
 If we reduce all of this down into one thing, it's
the action the commission took back in 1996 which was
basically -- I'll say two things, draw a line in the sand
saying 20 million gallons, which has been past or exceeded in
the past, that's the limit. Really what comes out of that line
in the sand, if I can call it that, is the time has come to
look outside of Iao aquifer or alternative sources to relieve
pressure on that aquifer system.
 Another piece of hydrologic jargon to throw in is
optimization. You need to optimize your pumpage. It's
basically too concentrated in one spot. I know there's been a
lot of analogies handed out today, but looking at it from a
flip side, I like to use this quite often, you cannot pump all
of your sustainable yield.
 Or look at it this way, you can just as much pump
all of your sustainable yield, in this case, 20 million gallons
a day out of one well as it is possible for all the rain in
that area to fall on that same well. It's just absurd. It's
absurd. So what you have to do is spread out your pumpage, and
that's what the attempt with these maps and aquifer systems
attempts to do. There is some geophysical reason to it.
 But this question that comes up today about this one
aquifer, independent or dependent aquifers, that's a bridge
that I think that you crossed a long time ago. Water resource
protection plan. It's stated, these aquifers interact with one
another. USGS, I think, concurs with that. So that's
something that really we're kind of puzzled as far as why is
that being debated here today.
 Again, I think the question, and what I think board
member Starr was saying, where do we go from here? I submit to
you that it's somewhere outside of Iao aquifer. You should not
be looking at Iao aquifer for your future needs. You've
already gotten there. Of course, the commission back in 1996,
and as Mr. Meyer pointed out, had plenty grounds for
designating the aquifer as a management area, which basically
the state comes in and you start regulating how much water you
can pull from your wells.
 The commission at that time decided not to do that,
even though the staff recommended designation was in order. So
instead, the fact that the commission in their wisdom -- again,
there's a line in the sand, you need to look outside of the
aquifer. So that's just, I think, a starting point as far as
any comments from our ten years of experience of what you guys
are going through right now.

MR. STARR: The findings of facts, was that what was
summed up in the staff report document in '96 or '97?

ROY HARDY: There's a submittal that went to the
commission that referred to the findings of facts report.

MR. STARR: I remember that document and I have been
searching for it. Could I request that the board members get
copies of it?

ERIC HIRANO: I'll leave a copy with Director
Craddick today.

MR. STARR: Can you leave it with the board
secretary?

ERIC HIRANO: Sure. There's been many reports, and
I brought a copy of the findings of facts report and I'll be
happy to leave it for the board.
 For the record, my name is Eric Hirano. I think
there's a few policy questions. You know, Roy and I, of
course, we don't speak to the commission themselves; but as a
policy, as Roy was pointing out, the commission has adopted a
sustainable yield for the Iao aquifer system of 20.
 And back in 1996, of course, the commission did take
action saying that they didn't want to see the board or an
aggregate pumpage from Iao system to go over 20 or else the
commission would come back and it definitely would have to go
for designation of the Iao aquifer system.
 Within the findings of facts report, on page 8,
you'll also find the commission's policy which they accepted
the findings of facts before, that they do not count the
approximately 1.6 or 2 MGD that's coming from the Iao tunnel.
We don't count it towards the 20 MGD or sustainable yield from
the Iao aquifer system.
 The other commission policy is, at this time, is
that the Waihe'e aquifer system be set at 8 MGD. Both in Iao
and Waihe'e. And as John Mink pointed out, the sustainable
yield numbers are based upon, hopefully, optimal development.
You need to spread out the pumpage, you need to drill the wells
at a proper depth.
 In other words, as Roy was also saying, you can't
just pull it out of one spot or else you induce the outgoing
thing. The sustainable yields that were derived are to be
optimally developed. So if you are not going to optimally
develop that aquifer, you may not get the type of numbers that
we have stated in the plan.
 Of course, within the plan based upon the best
available information, the board has to realize that it is an
estimate. The commission realizes that. And we want to thank
the board and the Department of Water Supply for your foresight
in helping us to monitor the situation. I mean, we don't have
the funds to do it all by ourselves; so we appreciate your
support in that effort, because it is very important not only
to the commission but it's important to the entire community of
Maui.
 I want to also say, where do we go from here?
Within the governor's $1 billion CIP proposal, which I don't
think is going to fly right now after reading this morning's
paper, but we did put in for 12 more deep monitor well
projects. Our number one priority was the Iao aquifer. It
went in last legislative session; unfortunately it did not make
it. We put it back in for this $1 billion CIP proposal right
now.
 We also -- we did those 12 wells maybe -- I think it
must have been in our priority four. We were asking for a deep
monitor well in the North Waihe'e aquifer system. We think
that's important. If we are going to put -- if we do get the
CIP funds for a deep monitor well project within Iao; of
course, our number one priority.
 We have already talked with Director Craddick and he
has offered to use your Wailuku Heights booster pump station, I
think, Dave? That's kind of in between shaft 33 and the
Waikapu wells, which would make it an excellent area.
So we have a deep monitor well in the northern part
of that aquifer and we have one in the south, and away from the
pumping centers. So those are some of the things that we're
looking at and which, unfortunately -- hopefully we'll get the
funds. And we'll be looking for the board's support in helping
us find various locations for those wells.
 The board also helped us with our last CIP project
which was putting in a deep monitor well in Lahaina. Besides
finding a land area, they also offered about $100,000 in
funding. So that we did put that deep monitor well in the
Mahinahina area and we thank the board for that and the
department.
 The commission, you know, we're -- unfortunately,
we're not like the Honolulu Board of Water Supply or the Maui
County Department of Water Supply that has -- I would say at
least they have a revenue stream that let's these types of
projects go forward. Way back in 1990 when the Maui County
came out with their water use and development plan, they
targeted the East Maui area and they also looked at the Lahaina
area.
 That's one of the reasons why with our limited funds
we actually did a cooperative with the U.S. Geological Survey
and the Maui County Board of Water Supply, and the State Water
Commission. We put in approximately 120,000 to 150,000 to do
the East Maui water study. I don't know if the board may
remember. The board also put in the same amount of money and
the USGS matched our funds and that study went ahead.
We met maybe three or four years ago -- about three
or four years ago with the USGS on an Iao aquifer groundwater
model development proposal. Unfortunately, the commission
didn't have the funds to go ahead with that proposal and we
chose the route to basically go over there and collect more
data in the area so that when we are -- or when we do have the
funds and hopefully in conjunction with the board, we would be
able to fund a type of endeavor such as that.
 That proposal was, if I may recall correctly, was
for about three years it would have cost 600,000; 300,000 in
matching funds from the U.S. Geological Survey; 100,000 per
year from the water commission; 100,000 per year from the Maui
County Board of Water Supply. We had comments -- we never did
finalize the proposal, but we had comments with the U.S.
Geological Survey and because we told them our funding fell
short, they didn't even bother to revise the proposal. Those
type of talks were in the hopper four or five years ago.
 But the key thing right now is getting the data that
would help us to improve or develop a groundwater model. Also,
as the U.S. Geological Survey mentioned, there are things that
are missing, one of the key things missing is a recharge
analysis. Fog drip is a very important component within that
input factor. We're missing that very important component.
 You think, and it isn't directly commission policy,
but on a staff level we have talked amongst ourselves and with
the U.S. Geological Survey and we would like to develop
recharge analysis on a statewide basis.
 In other words, develop it for the entire island,
whoever wants to come in and model an island. At least they
will start off with the same base. You know, we're not going
to -- not everybody is going to be grumbling about that input
factor. Everybody uses the same common base. Unfortunately,
we don't have the funds to do that, but that's our next major
endeavor that we would like to proceed with the U.S. Geological
Survey.
 Interconnected between the aquifers. As Roy pointed
out, yes, that is definitely within the research protection
plan. We say the aquifers are connected. I might want to make
an example, in Honolulu, for instance, these boundaries are
established as management boundaries for us to keep track of
where the pumpage is occurring and how to try to limit certain
pumpage within certain areas also.
 For example, in Oahu, in the Schofield area, in the
very middle of the island, we call it the high level Schofield
aquifer. We call it the central aquifer, actually. Within
that high level area, we could probably pump over a hundred
million gallons per day.
 Unfortunately, we have limited the sustainable yield
to that aquifer to only 23 million gallons per day, and why?
Because of the interconnectedness of the aquifers. Within that
high level of aquifers, water spills over and goes to Wailua,
Haleiwa side of the island, to the north side, and it also
flows down into our major aquifer, Pearl Harbor aquifer.
 If we let unlimited pumping go on in the Schofield
area, we affect the sustainable yields on both sides of the
island. So yes, there is interconnectedness, we need to keep
that in mind where we are.
 But the important thing is that we need to monitor
the situation, because in many areas of the state, we do not
know exactly -- we don't have a camera that goes underground
and takes a look and says yeah, I have 20 million gallons of
water here. Unfortunately, we're not at that point in our
technology or in our science to -- if you ask me, you know, for
a 100 percent guarantee, I'm sorry, we can't do that.
 The other situations on Oahu, for instance, we did
set sustainable yields for Nuuanu, Palolo, Moanalua, all along
the Honolulu area. So far the sustainable yields have held
pretty well. Although we know they are all interconnected.
But in eac