BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004
Kahului Shopping Center
Kaahumanu Avenue
Kahului, Maui, Hawaii
Reported by: Katherine Eismann, RDR, CRR, CSR #439
APPEARANCES
Chairperson: KENT HIRANAGA
Board Members: KENNETH M. OKAMURA
GINNY PARSONS
STACY HELM CRIVELLO
SALLY RAISBECK
MICHELLE McLEAN
Corp Counsel: EDWARD KUSHI
Director: GEORGE TENGAN
Deputy Director: JEFFREY T. PEARSON
Board Secretary: CATHY HOWARD
Staff: ELLEN KRAFTSOW
HOLLY PERDIDO
JACKY TAKAKURA
ALVA NAKAMURA
(Thursday, April 22, 2004, 9:10 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I would like to call the
meeting to order. In attendance, we have our new member
Michelle McLean. I would like to welcome you.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: We also have Stacy Crivello,
Ginny Parsons, Kenneth Okamura, and Sally Raisbeck. I would
like to welcome Sally back as a new full-timer.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Are there any announcements?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yes, Mr. Chair. Excuse me.
I believe both of these things I mentioned maybe in my
communication about the rules, but I wanted to draw the
attention of this Board to the fact that the Water Meter
Issuance Rule for Upcountry expires as of the end of this
year. And we will have to make sure that an extension of that
rule is shepherded through the Council before that time.
And then the second announcement was that I know
the deadline date for the water use permits is July 21st of
this year, which is not that far away. And I would like to
put on the agenda, for next time, an update on where we are
with applying in the Iao Aquifer designation area and applying
for water use permits from the State.
So, those two dates, I think, are important.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Thank you. Are there
any other announcements?
(Silence.)
If not, moving on to approval of minutes. Are
there any comments or corrections regarding the March 18th,
2004, minutes?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Move to approve.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Could I -- could I -- in
accordance with our decision last time, could I move for
approval, temporary approval to be -- corrections to be
allowed for 30 days in accordance with previous practice of
this Board, and they would be posted on the web site
immediately, even though not approved.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So moved. Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any discussion?
(Silence.)
All in favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
The motion is approved.
The next agenda item is new member orientation.
One of the new members is, I believe, ill today, so it's been
suggested that we defer this and allow the two new members,
and if Sally wishes to also, to meet with the Director at his
office for an orientation.
The Chair would entertain an offer to defer this
agenda item unless there are objections. Any objections?
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: You want that -- are you
entertaining a motion for that?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: I move that we defer.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any discussion?
(Silence.)
No discussion. All in favor aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
The motion is approved.
Next agenda item is communications, letter
regarding proposal for committee to draft revised rules of the
Board and Department.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yes, Mr. Chair. Do you
wish me to discuss why I sent this letter?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. It's been a year and
a half since the Charter change. I have been on this Board a
year. One of my first desires, on this Board, was to get an
updated copy of the rules that would take into account the
Charter changes.
We have not received any drafts or any indication
that anything has happened in regard to a change in the rules.
So, I am suggesting that the Board appoint a committee of two,
three, or four members, to meet together, to go over the rules
and draft a changed set of rules that would separate -- as I
say in the letter -- separate Board rules from departmental,
administrative rules, separate policy from nonpolicy items,
and also look at -- if not reconcile, at least look at any
inconsistencies among the rules here, which date from 1977 and
have merely had added layers as each situation arose.
For example, I believe the Kaupo Rule is still in
effect, and I am sure no member of this Board -- probably no
member of this Board knows what the Kaupo Rule is, or why it
was instituted, and whether it's still -- it is still in
effect, because it's in our set of rules.
So, that's the sort of historical archeological
layer that I would like to get rid of. And then I would
propose a draft format, where every place the Board is
mentioned -- almost every place the Board is mentioned, it
would replace it with the phrase Director, Mayor, Council.
And when the rules -- the draft rules were brought back to
this Board, this Board could make suggestions as to which of
those entities was most appropriate, and, of course, the
Council would be the one who would ultimately decide on that
matter.
The goal would be a simplified, unified,
well-organized, user-friendly draft document, which would make
clear what our intention is, and then it could be put into
legal language by the Corp Counsel's office.
I think I was overoptimistic to think that such a
committee, if it met weekly, could do it in three months.
That's probably overoptimistic. But even if it took that
committee a year, we might get new rules quicker that way than
waiting for further progress in the present situation.
So, I would propose that this Board vote that a
committee be appointed. I would wish to be on such a
committee myself. I think new member Michelle McLean would be
an excellent member of committee. I think new member Ralph --
oh, dear, I am losing his last name.
MS. HOWARD: Johansen.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Ralph Johansen, who is a
retired attorney and has time, would be an excellent member.
And for the fourth member, either Member Parsons or Member
Okamura would be an excellent choice, I think. Or if it
wanted to be just three or even just two of us, if there's
only two, it totally avoids the Sunshine Law requirements.
So, that is my proposal. I put it forward as a
motion to appoint a subcommittee to examine and draft changes
to the Board of Water Supply and the Department of Water
Supply rules.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a second to the
motion?
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: May I, before we move it into
a motion, just one second. I think this is a terrific idea,
and I applaud Sally for bringing it forward.
THE REPORTER: Can you make sure your mike is on?
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Okay. But I would like to
ask Mr. Kushi and Mr. Tengan what they think of the idea. I
want to make sure that perhaps these things shouldn't be
generated from either of them or at least the Board moving
forward in this direction having their consent for those
things to come from us.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Actually, Michelle, if there
was a second to the motion, then those questions would be
addressed to the Department and Corp Counsel.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Then I will second for
discussion then.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'd
like to have comments from the Department of Corporation
Counsel regarding this agenda item.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I guess it wouldn't, you know,
be detrimental to have such a committee. In fact, I think
maybe this committee can make recommendations to the attorney
that the County Council is hiring.
As I understand, the County Council has selected
an attorney to go over the rules. I don't know what exactly
the scope is, but I would think that his committee could --
could communicate to the Council and Council staff regarding
the amendments to the rules.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Does Corporation Counsel wish
to offer any comment?
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Chair. I
agree with the Director that this may be helpful in the whole
process if the subcommittee would want to spend the time and
effort in doing it. It's going to be very tedious. Not too
many people, from the get-go, understand all of our rules,
coupled with the fact of the Charter amendments.
But again, if you want to form a subcommittee to
this, that's fine. The concern we have is that whatever
results of the subcommittee, it comes before the full Board,
and whatever results happen then is still in the -- is still
unresolved as to what happens.
Let's say you do a total revamp of the rules and
their various amendments. The question then becomes who can
amend the rules? That issue is still pending before, as my
understanding, the Council, and that's why they hired special
counsel to make that determination. But again, you know, this
is historic, this is going to be very tedious, and our office
would, of course, assist the committee.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a time line for the
special counsel to provide this product?
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: I haven't been
following this, Mr. Chair. I am not privy to the hiring, to
the contract, and the time line. I believe it was $10,000
appropriated.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other discussion?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, if I could make a
comment, it would be that it's my belief, from having followed
the discussion on the Council, that the primary focus will be
distinguishing between the powers of the Mayor and the Council
in regard to water.
I don't think the scope, at this time, has been
defined as including going over the rules, you know, with a
fine tooth comb. I think it's more, as I said, distinguishing
as to what lies within the kuleana of the Mayor, what lies
within the kuleana of the Council.
And I agree that -- with Mr. Kushi that it would
be tedious. Nevertheless, I think it would be well
worthwhile, since it's true that very few people understand
our rules in the entirety. And that's partly because they are
so difficult to understand.
So, I would think that such a subcommittee could
produce a more understandable version, weeding out outdated
material, and come up with something that, in any case, has no
force. It's simply a suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Prior to the Charter change,
or maybe about almost two years ago, the Board was reviewing
the rules with the assistance of the Department. And the
Department provided red-lined versions of each rule. And then
we had a committee that sat down, reviewed the proposed
changes, made recommendation, submitted it to the full Board
for approval or for review.
So, I'm not sure if the Department had completed
the entire review of all the rules with their red-line
suggestions. I think it was just staff reviewing the rules
and making suggested changes.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, since the
Charter change are you saying?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Well, previously, this was
under when Peter Rice was Chair. We had a subcommittee
reviewing rules, Orlando, myself, and I forgot who else was
involved.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, if I recall
correctly, understand that I was only involved since Deputy
Fukushima left, so, about a year with the full Board. You had
a rules committee, subcommittee, and I think you did
amendments, but I am not sure technically if you had the red
line.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Well, the Department would
provide a version of their suggested changes, and then we
would review them.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Correct. Correct.
For instance, I believe that committee established the
Upcountry water meter rule. But that was brand new. It also
amended the water system development fee rule, which I recall
did have red line.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I am just wondering if the
Department did more work on that or what happened to it?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, since the Charter
Amendment, no work has been done in this area.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: How about prior to that?
Maybe work has been done, but --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yeah, I know we had some. I
believe we had sent some rule amendments over. In the process
of making some rule amendments, however, because of the
Charter change and the question of jurisdiction and authority,
all of their work has been put on hold.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Personally, since I was
involved in that rules committee, it is very tedious. There
is a lot of historical reasons for how these rules were
created. Although they may seem to be a patchwork of rules,
there were decisions made by previous Boards to create these
rules as they are now.
And, you know, I have no objection to Board
Members wanting to volunteer their time reviewing the rules
and making recommendations, but I think you will find it to be
very challenging, and I'm not sure if the Council would -- you
know, how much weight they will put on those recommendations
based on the amount of time that you are going to have to
spend creating those recommendations.
Personally, I don't wish to be on the committee,
but I encourage anyone else that wishes to be on the committee
to be so.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I think, under the Sunshine
Law, it has to be an appointment by the Board for a specific
person, if there's going -- for a specific purpose, if there
are to be more than two members on it. So, for it to have
three or four members, it would have to be an official
committee appointed for a particular purpose. So, are we
ready for a vote?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: A vote to?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: To establish a committee of
whatever, or does anybody else think such a committee is a
good idea?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Or does anybody wish to be on
the committee?
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: We have a second on the
floor, so we have to go to vote.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Well, we are still in
discussion.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Yeah, but what I am saying,
there is a second on the floor to her motion.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I guess I am curious. Are
there any other members that wish to be on this committee?
Because I think it's going to take quite a tremendous effort.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Mr. Chair, I would like to
maybe look over the rules myself, and I may be willing to
serve on the committee.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: I would be willing to serve
on the committee. I would be concerned with the amount of
time needed. Meeting more often than weekly, for example,
would be difficult in my schedule. Trying to keep the
committee down to two people is appealing, in order to have
flexibility with meetings and so forth, not having to comply
with Sunshine Law requirements.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I am sorry. I can't quite
hear you.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Sorry. It seems appealing to
me to see if it could be kept to two people to allow more
flexibility with posting requirements and so forth. But it
probably, in general, is a better idea to have more than two
people on it.
Maybe it might be better to continue the
discussion when the other new member is here, since you
indicated he might be interested and valuable on the
committee, to get input from other Board Members.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: If I -- I think that's a
good idea to defer it until next time. Give people a chance
to think about it. And, so, I would withdraw my motion,
and --
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Withdraw the second.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: -- and instead move to
defer this subject to the next meeting.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: I second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any discussion?
(Silence.)
Seeing none, all in favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Opposed.
(Silence.)
The motion is carried.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: The next agenda item would be
update on the Water Use & Development Plan.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I would like to
suggest that we defer this item until the staff member
presenting this report arrives, and that we go on to the next
item, Director's Report 04-06.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear
that, George.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: So this thing be deferred,
04-05, until the staff member arrives.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is that -- who is doing the
presentation?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Ellen is doing the presentation.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Do you want to take a break
for a minute?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: She's probably waiting for
something.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Well, we will defer that
agenda item until later in the agenda if there's no objection.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Point of order. I don't
believe we asked if there was any testimony from the public.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Sorry. At this time,
is there any public testimony for any of the agenda items?
(Silence.)
Seeing none, thank you. Next agenda item, fiscal
year 2004 write-offs.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, before we get into
this item, I'd like to introduce Mr. Curtis Tom. He
recently -- he's with Bank of Hawaii. He recently transferred
from Kauai. Mr. Tom was a Board Member of the Kauai
Department of Water. Mr. Tom.
MR. TOM: I am familiar with a number of you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, we have staff
report on page 142. We are requesting that the Board concur
with the proposed write-offs for $9,782.86 of uncollected
accounts.
These are accounts, I believe, that we previously
sent to the collectors, and although we would be writing these
accounts off, collection efforts would still continue.
In comparison with the previous years, in 2002,
the write-off was $9,817.56, and in 2003, the amount was
$16,285.50. Excuse me. The write-off for this year
represents about .033 percent of the approximate total
billings for the fiscal year. Of this amount, the write-off
of $213.82 represents customers who have declared bankruptcy.
So, that $200 is the amount that would be, I would think,
totally uncollectible.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Move to approve the
write-offs as specified by the Director with congratulations
for reducing it from 16,000 to 9,000.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any discussion?
(Silence.)
All in favor of the motion?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I wanted to ask the
Director, with a nice job of collections, but how do you deal
with like hardship cases, you know, people that cannot pay,
maybe a poor family that cannot pay? How do you deal with
that?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: When customers demonstrate that
they have difficulty in paying their water wills, we try to
arrange a payment plan for the customers. Basically, the
payment plan consists of payment for the current amount plus a
portion of the past due amount. So, we do work with the
customer, and we do offer them an option to catch up on their
past due bills.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any further discussion? If
not, all in favor of the motion say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Opposed.
(Silence.)
The motion is carried.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, may we have a short
recess so Ellen can set up?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. We will be in recess
and reconvene at 9:45.
(Recess, 9:36 a.m. Resumed, 9:49 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I would like to call the
meeting back to order. The next agenda item is an update on
the Water Use & Development Plan.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, Ellen will be making
the presentation.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Okay. If I can remember the words,
this takes about 26 minutes. This is a presentation that we
gave to the State Water Commission in February. The handouts
you have in your packet are much more extensive than the short
presentation, but this was a summary of those.
So, we are going to cover a bit about the
requirements and guidelines of the Water Development Plan, a
little bit of the history and where we are now, our proposed
update process, and some of the supporting work we have done
to prepare, and then we will get a little bit in to some of
the policy questions that we anticipate will arise. These are
all actually required elements of the presentation to the
Council.
Brief introduction to Maui County water systems.
We have five main systems. Our largest is the Central system,
the second largest is Upcountry, and third is West Maui,
followed by Molokai and then East Maui.
We don't have a system on Lanai, but that is part
of the Water Use & Development Plan, so it's one of the six
planning districts.
Now, there are various requirements that lead to
the Water Use & Development Plan, all the way from the
constitution, to statutory, administrative, Charter and County
Code. Among these requirements, they are summarized in four
pages in your handouts. I am just going to go through them in
a few slides here.
It needs to be consistent with the other plans,
the State Agricultural Protection Plan, the General Plan of
the County, the Community Plans, and several other plans.
There's a list coming up. It needs to delineate existing and
future sources in anticipated demands. There should be
multiple forecasts, so that you prepare for a range of
scenarios.
It needs to delineate both public and private
capital needs. This is one of the challenges we see, because
we can talk about our own capital program, but to get the
capital programs of some of the private systems is more
complex from what we have been doing so far we know. And
supposed to allocate water to land uses, discuss the resource
impacts of all the source decisions. It should be drafted
with a credible public involvement process. This makes it, by
definition, a slow process. There is supposed to be a high
degree and very well-documented public involvement.
It should be drafted in coordination with the
Commission, and it needs to have clearly defined objectives
and criteria that are discussed within the plan and worked out
with the public. And finally, it should be implementable.
There should be an implementation matrix.
In terms of process, with the public group that
you work with, you need to define your objectives and criteria
explicitly, evaluate your resources, form your forecasts, and
then come up with a broad list of options to meet them. As
Carl would say, this could be anything from towing glaciers,
to squeezing moss, as well drilling wells.
Then you screen those, and you form strategy
options which combine various options together to meet your
objectives and criteria. You test these options against the
criteria, including a review of uncertainties, uncertainties
in demand, contingencies, things like that, climate. You
select your composite strategies, and that's how you come up
with the plan.
Now, the status of the water plans that we are
supposed to be consistent with, the Water Resources Protection
Plan was last updated in 1990. An update is needed, but it's
not yet funded. Same for the State Water Quality Plan. The
State Water Projects Plan was published in the year 2000. The
Agriculture Water Use Development Plan is in progress. That's
the state level plans we are supposed to be consistent with.
As far as the community plans, the General Plan
update is in progress, but the last published General Plan was
1990, and the 1990 community plan process finished in 2002.
Some of these we are still waiting for, the GIS and computer
layers that delineate designations. Historically, the 1990
Water Use & Development Plan was fully approved through the
County Council and the State Water Commission.
In this process, a consultant and a drafter
gathered data and developed a plan, and they just held public
meetings for input. That would no longer be acceptable under
the published statewide framework. Private systems were
considered separately.
The major issues that arose were the anticipated
doubling of the demand in Central, Upcountry, and Lahaina,
high unaccounted for water, especially Upcountry, the need for
treatment and storage Upcountry to the tune of something like
73 million without funds to finance it, multiple large users
that were not in County control, especially on Molokai, at the
time, was an issue, and the shift from agriculture to tourism,
especially on Lanai.
That plan recommended wells in the Waihee and
Haiku aquifers for Central Maui, in the Honokahua and Honolua
aquifers for West Maui, to expand Upcountry treatment and
storage, and to drill a new well out by the Kualapuu aquifer,
and to develop a cooperative planning entity for contingency
planning and cooperative planning in general on Molokai. It
also, for Lanai, recommended very slow incremental development
and examination of nonpotable water and aquifer protection for
Lanai.
The 1992 draft plan was actually approved by the
Board to go to Council. It was never acted on. They worked
with a community group or task force for each island, improved
the databases on consumption and unit demand.
Major issues were agricultural demands were
changing. Ag preservation was a high priority in all the
community plans at that time. There were reliability and
water quality issues, the need for treatment and backup, the
urbanization of the Central Maui. There were large state
projects that were out of County control on the west side,
high buildout estimates versus the actual demand trends, and
the aquifer and changing economy on Lanai.
Recommendations included conservation, examination
of alternate sources, including recharge for Central Maui,
groundwater backup and dual systems for Upcountry, use of the
Honolua aquifer and Honokohau Ditch in Lahaina, and the need
for a financial plan to cover the costs of doing all this for
the systems, because it was recognized that the Department did
not have the funding to do what really needed to be done.
They also recommended that community venues be established for
Lanai-Molokai participation.
In 1995, the Molokai Water Working Group did an
interim plan pending the time that the next update would be
undertaken. This was a balanced interest group from Lanai --
Molokai. Sorry. And the major issues there were designation.
Although the sustainable yield was considerably higher than
Lanai, they considered it low. High proposed use, especially
the buildout was way higher than the estimated demand trend.
Source water protection and restoration became important, and
Hawaiian rights and the HHL rights to water were very, very
important here, because they had some large projects here.
The recommendation was for more water resource
studies, protection and restoration, to set aside undisturbed
watersheds, conservative use of the aquifers and streams
pending more studies, to require that uses over 10,000 gallons
per day be reported monthly.
At this time, they only have to be reported
annually at that level, that low. To reserve water for
Hawaiian Homelands first, and to limit withdrawal to
33 percent of the developable yield in the southeast sector,
and to reforest Maunaloa. The established developable yields
for each aquifers, in some cases, were smaller than the actual
sustainable yields that they all agreed to.
In 1997, the Lanai Water Working Group came out
with its report. That was also a balanced interest group.
The major issues were the question of designation, the low
sustainable yield, the sense that in the consumption analysis,
the consumption data wasn't adequate. Also the need for
systems analysis and conflict. There were a lot of conflicts
between the company and the community at that time.
Recommendations were to put in additional storage
for Koele, to establish watershed management and well
operating guidelines, dual systems, including desalination,
landscape conservation, and several other conservation points,
and ongoing forum for community involvement.
So, around that time, we issued a modified IRP
contract. We knew that the State was working on a framework
for its IRP guidelines, and it had not yet been completed, but
they asked us -- and the community plans were also still in
progress. So, they asked us to start anyway, particularly in
Lanai.
So, we negotiated -- or we didn't negotiate. We
discussed with the staff what a contract should have, and we
started with a small contract that would cover the regulatory
framework, system descriptions, range of demand forecasts and
analysis, capital and operational considerations, supply side,
demand side, and alternate development options, resource
issues, contingency plans, policy considerations, and
externalities, and then, of course, summary and conclusions.
There also was established, in that time, a time
for resolution of issues between districts, because we already
knew that some of the community plans for different districts
disagreed with each other in terms of their implications.
We established a minimum number of meetings. We
were going to do three meetings in Lanai, six in West Maui.
East Maui was five, and the others were all six. Well, this
is what we learned about the public process, about the
resources in staffing that we had to accomplish all these
things, and the data. It just wasn't enough.
But we did start working with Lanai, and the
critical issues that have arisen to the fore with Lanai is
forest management, continued community involvement, water
allocation, operational guidelines, conservation, monitoring
and accountability, especially of water use, where it comes
from and where it goes to. The low sustainable yield
continues to be an issue, and the changing conditions both in
terms of the condition of the watershed, project district
changes, et cetera.
This slide shows you why watershed protection was
a top priority for Lanai. The top left is relatively intact
Lanai watershed. It's not as wet as Maui watershed, but it's
sort of mesic. And as you go down to the bottom right, you
see invasive plants coming in, loss of ground cover, and
eventually lunar-like landscapes with massive erosion. And
that's what has happened in Lanai, not only because of the
gulch, but also because of the changing planned communities.
And, so, one of the things that the group did was
it called a big peer review of scientists from around the
state, established the need for watershed protection, and the
priority for fencing the watershed, and that is ongoing now.
The Watershed Partnership was formed in 2001. The Water
Advisory Committee was established as an ongoing permanent
committee in 1999 with procedures that aimed for consensus.
If there is a vote, both sides of an issue are brought
forward.
These are the allocations which were agreed upon
in the 1997 Working Group Report and since then as amended by
various meetings and meetings minutes. There are also
operational guidelines that were set for each well and some
further analysis of water use.
So, demand trends and systems, we have looked at
pumpage, chlorides, and water levels for each system and
treatment plant totals. They are putting together a revised
capital program, and we have also had the wellhead protection
areas modeled. And we are expecting to be doing this month
and next month an inventory of potential contaminant sources
that will go into the source water protection section and
develop some conservation, conservation both in English and in
Tagalog, which was a point of recommendation under the
community plan.
So, the benefits of this process have been
improved metering and monitoring of the system, improved data
on consumption and use, improved mapping, operational
guidelines, wellhead protection work, watershed management
chapter work, an updated regulatory calendar, an
implementation matrix, capital program, and established water
committee ongoing.
I will say that despite all this progress -- there
is good progress that I think has helped the community -- the
Lanai community, that community is very distressed that their
document is not done, and we have made a commitment to get
that done by the end of this fiscal year.
West Maui, we held six meetings, then the
framework was published, and we stopped and redid our whole
process. We had an introduction and issue scoping meeting.
We had a preliminary look at every water system's project
plans and prioritizing issues. We discussed source water
protection a bit. Some discussion of capital and operational
considerations including demand and supply side options.
Some projections for water requirements, and then
a discussion on the relationship between land and water
planning issues and the implications of the Waiahole Ditch
case, at which point, we stopped and postponed everything so
that we could revise our process.
Among the big issues in Lahaina, of course, were
the end of some of the agricultural growing and the large
proposed projects. So now, what we are proposing to do is
recommence, and because of the issues with the Iao and et
cetera, we are going to be commencing with Central Maui and
Upcountry, although Western Maui will be soon to follow. It
has big issues, too, coming up.
These are the IRP processes as defined by the
Commission. Introduction and overview, you go through your
demand forecasts, your water quality and resource options,
form your potential resource sequences, screen them and narrow
them until you get your resource strategies, and your final
recommendations.
We propose to do this in five planning districts
instead of six. We want to group Central Maui and Upcountry,
because several of the Upcountry, Haiku, Paia plans say don't
take water out of the area, while the Central Maui
specifically says that they will go east, and also that their
demand will require us to go east, if we were to give them
that much water, almost require.
We have a very strong public participation
component which consists of Water Advisory Committees from
each district. Probably we will do that differently in each
area, using the working groups from Lanai and Molokai. Also,
advertising for participants. We have one ad. We are going
to run some more and also going to all the community groups
and soliciting referrals. And we also will be able to have
subcommittees for different items like the wellhead protection
subcommittee.
In terms of our meetings we anticipate, we have
doubled the amount of meetings we expect to have in each
group. An introduction/overview, demand forecast discussion
meeting, water quality and resource protection meeting,
resource options and alternatives, and a few meetings on
narrowing down the strategies and the policy issues, your
final candidates, drafting of chapters and review of those,
and then review of any outstanding issues, and then a whole
separate set of meetings in each district.
And then at the end of the process, to resolve any
remaining inter-district issues, so we don't come up with
inconsistent plans. Then some approval process meetings,
which could go beyond the committees themselves but into the
Board and the Council.
In terms of how we will get to the objectives and
criteria, we will both do a direct poll of the water advisory
committee members. There are exercises we do for the meetings
like, congratulations, you have just been appointed King of
water on Maui, and you have this much water left, and how will
you use it? Those kind of things help you get to people's
priorities.
Discussions both in-house and with the committees
and with other agencies, and then in subcommittee, such as the
wellhead protection subcommittee or any others we form.
Public presentations that will be broader than just to the
committees, and surveys or other tools as needed.
We will be doing forecasts for five, 10, 15, 20
years, low, high, and base cases, and we will use several
types of forecasts, including just simple time trends,
econometric forecasts that include factors like occupancy, and
visitor rates, and employment, and things like that, and
project buildout, which is like all the projects that are on
line, how much would they use if they were actually built.
We will look at those by customer class and
district, and we will also look at any impacts that
conservation programs might have and look at possible
conservation programs, and we will be able to break that down
both by systems and community plan areas.
We are required to come back to the Commission
with various briefings. We will request that they approve one
district at a time, and so we will be requesting that the
Board and Council approve one district at a time as well.
So, we would probably do -- the first briefing is
this process proposal, and then we will do the -- probably the
Lanai Chapter, hopefully -- if we get it done in June,
hopefully, we will be ready to present it with the committee's
approval by July or August.
The midpoint will be the Central Maui and
Upcountry. The midpoint of the Central Maui and Upcountry
process just because it's felt that's one of the first plans,
and we can make sure we are moving in the right direction.
And then at the completion of that and at the completion of
each of the other committees, a final resolution and
compilation. So, we are proposing a total of eight briefings
of which this is the first.
The proposed schedule of the Water Advisory
Committees goes until about 2008 for all approvals, but each
district gets approved along the way. Hoping to do Central
Maui and Upcountry by 2005.
We request some assistance from the State Water
Commission. We need to get more regular pumpage updates and
also more regular updates on surface water use than we are
getting. Sometimes in the reports we get, they don't add up,
and, so, we need some assistance resolving what appear to be
discrepancies and assistance in updating the status of
nonreporting sources.
There are -- you know, in Lanai, we were able to
take every single existing well and plots its pumpage history
and water levels and chlorides. We can't do that. There are
thousands and thousands of wells on Maui, and we don't even
know the status of many of them. So, we have asked for some
assistance with that. EPA has also expressed some interest in
giving us some funding for that. And then assistance in
characterizing private systems, because it can be difficult to
get that information.
We have pulled together a very good consulting
team, with extensive background, from various perspectives,
including engineering, forecasting, public process, and
economic analysis.
The main contract is with Haiku Design & Analysis.
That would be Carl Freedman. He's here if you have any
questions for him, and he will be handling the integrated
resource planning analysis, the estimates of costs, the
characterization of options, and, basically, the main work
items for the plan.
We also have some additional advice. We retained
our original consultant from the smaller contract. He's very
busy now, but he will continue to be involved and give us help
with hydraulic analysis, and policy analysis, and engineering
feasibility analysis, and some other items.
We also, in a separate contract, have a
forecasting model under development which will enable us, in
the future, once this plan is done, internally to continue an
upgraded quality of forecasting. And that also is with Haiku
Design & Analysis.
And finally we have a facilitation contract that
doesn't cover facilitation of every single meeting, but it is
enough to cover major meetings where we feel that there is a
need for expert assistance. And that was with Peter Adler and
the Accord. And, so, that would either be Peter Adler
personally or probably Kim Lowry or one of the other members
of the Accord Group. And they will also helped us document
the public participation process.
In preparing for this work, we did an annotated
bibliography of availability policies around the country,
because availability is one of the big policy issues that will
be coming up. We have a Capital Improvement Program list,
which is about a 20-year list, which is a huge database. We
have been putting together GIS system layers of our
facilities, the hydraulic model. Inventory is part of that
same work.
The replacement planning and asset evaluation
model you are familiar with. We need to get that tied into
some kind of geographic database, which we don't have yet.
The demand forecast model I have just described. And the
source water and wellhead protection work, we have already got
a -- we have been working with a committee on Maui and have a
draft program in ordinance formality. We are working on one
for Lanai now, and other public input forums that we have had.
A little bit about the source water protection
work we have been doing, and we will try to improve upon. We
have some conservation programs, some operational management
guidelines with our wells, security surface water protection,
groundwater protection, watershed protection. We would try to
include something about all of these, to the extent that we
can, in the plan. Obviously, because of 9/11, we can't do all
of that, but those are all elements of source water
protection.
Some of our forecasts, looking at both the
County's SSM forecasts that they use for their community plans
and econometric forecasts, buildout analysis of projects,
which we have in each district. Every quarter we update
what's coming through at a discretionary level. And then just
community plan analysis.
Looking at the costs of operating the system, this
is just a sample schematic showing the costs at different
points in the system, in part of Central Maui, just an
example. The inventory and hydraulic model close.
And then finally, we expect some policy questions
to arise. And among those, resource availability we think is
a big one. Some people say we give out water too fast. Some
people say we don't give it out fast enough.
What is the pace at which you want to use the
resource? What are the proper ties between land use and
water? At what stage should water commitments be granted?
Right now, we don't grant them until a meter is purchased, but
some people feel they should go with land approvals, and so
that should be an issue of discussion.
How to implement community plans that don't always
agree within themselves or between plans, either within
themselves, between the policies and the maps. In the same
community plan, you find conflicts.
Contingent evaluation, we have a lot of people say
they don't want water with DBCP even if it's been treated.
Well, okay. Let's say we take that request quite seriously
and look at what it costs to go give them water that's never
had to be treated. How much will that cost, and are they
willing to pay it, and can we finance that? Those kinds of
things.
Same thing with reliability, 100 percent drought
reliability or 50 percent? That's a contingent evaluation
question. And finally, fire protection, there are a lot of
issues about who is responsible for fire protection.
We hope, through this process, to come up finally
with proper land use and water planning use, so that we know
our role more clearly, to develop robust source protection
programs, carefully considered availability policies,
preparation for multiple demand scenarios and multiple
scenarios contingency-wise as well, to consider all the costs
including not only those to the utility but to the customer,
community and environment as well, and to commit to have an
ongoing friendly dialog with the community and other agencies.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you, Ellen. Any
questions for staff?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yes, Mr. Chair. I do have
questions. I'd like to pass out a hand-drawn schedule for
questioning about.
Yeah, thank you, Ellen. I do have some questions
about scheduling, and if -- Cathy, if you could pass that out
for George, and Jeff, and Holly. I drew up this graph based
on the figures on page 19, in the handout, because I always
find it easier to look at schedules if I have time lines
graphically.
And I see that you have the different plans set up
going up through 2008. And I wanted to know what other major
commitments you and your small staff have, within these time
lines, that might conflict with the progress you anticipate.
For example, I know that the budget process, this
year, has -- I have seen how much you are involved in that,
and it's going to recur every year. The budget has to be
ready for the Mayor, I presume, again by January, and then he
gets it to the Council by March, and the Council has many,
many questions from March through the end of May. So, that's
a time commitment, I think, on the part of your -- you and
your staff.
The water use permits that I spoke of earlier, is
your section responsible for water use permit, for applying
for those?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. So, that will be
something that has to be done before July 21. We also have
the Stakeholders Committee that's working on new rates, and I
believe your staff is providing the major support to those
consultants.
And I just wondered if these are realistic time
frames on the schedule that you have put for staff in what's
obviously an extremely complex process and not made easier.
And I wanted to ask also, it said on page 19 that the Water
Advisory Committee for Central and Upcountry would hold their
first meeting on the 15th of April. Did that meeting take
place?
MS. KRAFTSOW: No, it didn't. We were aiming for
that, but we do expect to be holding a meeting soon. We are
still advertising right now. But --
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: How was that -- how are
those members chosen?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Well, we have been putting together
a list. You know, there are the major organizations, major
environmental organizations, Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow, et
cetera, and then major hotel association, contractors'
association, et cetera, large landowners.
And we have also put into this -- what we were
proposing to do, actually, with Central and Upcountry, what we
did already with Lahaina, so it's not as crazy as it sounds.
Actually, we send out the agenda and the list to 80 people.
And it's pretty self-selected who attends, and we ask them if
you are going to attend, you need to be prepared to attend
every month.
In Lahaina, we were doing it every other month.
But, it self-selects, and we ended up with between 20 and 30
people. Fairly balanced. Not everybody was 100 percent
attending, but there was a core group, and it was very
cordial. And, so, we were going to try a similar process for
Central Maui and Upcountry, so that we would get adequate
coverage of all interests. So, whoever has -- right now, we
ran our first ad. We have some other ads that are going to
come out to invite --
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: What day did that run?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I'm not sure when it's running. It
made the Haleakala Times' deadline for their next issue, and
we have a couple more that are going to come out in the Maui
News and the Maui Weekly.
And I'm not sure if we have one set up for the
Maui Bulletin or not. We didn't do Maui Family Magazine,
because it's more of a kid -- you know, goes to the schools
and stuff. Besides that, there was a radio ad. I haven't
scheduled it yet.
But, basically, we sort of know -- over the years,
working in the Water Department, you get to know who is
interested, and who you need to contact, and so we get
referrals from them and so on. But we put it out there in
case there's anyone we have missed.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. I understand why the
Lahaina meetings -- although I am sure they educated people,
they did not actually produce any kind of draft, because you
broke it off in the middle because of the decision to go with
Central/Upcountry first, which is obviously very important.
But, why didn't the Lanai draft, that was done in 1997 -- why
did that never actually proceed to finalization?
MS. KRAFTSOW: The Lanai draft, I was sort of
annoyed that they even actually called it a draft. It was the
Water Working Group Report, is what it was. It was the final
report of the Water Working Group, and it was accepted by the
Board and, I guess, unofficially, by the Commission.
They said they would refer to it in the event of a
conflict. They would go with the last report as the interim
Water Use & Development Plan. And it is the policy core and
will be attached and incorporated, in its entirety, into the
Water Resource & Development Plan.
But in and of itself, it does not meet the
requirements under the framework. And, so, we continued to
work -- even now, we are still just getting to the point where
we can get some decent consumption breakdown analysis to do
any kind of real demand forecast where we have any idea of any
commitment on capital.
You know, one of the things it didn't say was
where is the next well going to be, even though the water
model said that there is no guarantee that they continue to
pump that. It just didn't meet -- it just didn't have the
stuff it needed. It was a good policy core. That's what it
was.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Am I hearing that change is
needed to that draft report before it becomes acceptable to
the Water Commission? And I believe now it would have to be
not accepted by the Board but accepted by the Council.
MS. KRAFTSOW: By the Department and then the
Council and State Water Commission, all three. And it
would -- we would certainly bring it to the Board. And, yes,
I have about eight pages. Basically, the supplemental report.
It's not even a supplemental report. It is a
Water Use & Development Plan of which the policy core will be
the '97 draft, but there are many, many other elements being
added.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: My comment would be that my
experience with self-selected community groups are you have a
lot of eager, intelligent people, who need tremendous amounts
of education as to what the issues are and what the facts are,
and that uses up a very great deal of staff time.
And the other people on the Board, who actually
have background in water -- I mean, on the committee, who
actually have background, come from groups with such opposing
standpoints. I mean, you get the Contractors' Association and
the Sierra Club on the same committee. That's almost a
guarantee of deadlocks that also extend the time.
So, I don't see that this schedule has any reality
to it. Given the way you say you are required to approach
this and given the results so far, I don't see this as a
realistic schedule. And other demands on your time, I think,
are very, very major.
MS. KRAFTSOW: It is an ambitious schedule. One
thing we have now, that we did not have in the beginning, is
major consultant assistance. We also have a budget proposal
that would double our existing staff, if we are, in fact, able
to find them. It's like pulling teeth to try and find a
planner.
I mean, the list came down with one name, and then
it came down with three names, one of which was the first
name, and one of the other two is already hired. I mean, you
know, it's very difficult to find planners who will work for a
planner's salary. So, I don't know if we will be able to do
this staffing. That's one of the reasons I am asking for
more.
It's not as hard to find clerical-level staff and
field staff, asking for those people that have been trained
up. But we will be having more openings, hopefully more
staffing. If I drag out a little bit, I think we can show
real progress against this schedule in a way that maybe we
weren't able to before.
Also, remember, with Lanai, we had it set, the
same schedule or goal. And, you know, with Lanai, I can only
say it's been pushed back and pushed back, and that's -- you
know, I will say that's my fault for not focusing enough on
it. But there has been extensive community involvement. All
the elements that are going into the plan that were not in the
Water Working Group Report are elements that were drafted and
provided to the committee and reviewed with the committee.
So --
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. Another question I
have is looking at the schedule as I drew it out, you know,
sort of graphically, does starting the West Maui plan, for
example -- does that -- is that contingent at all with what
stage you have reached on the Central and Upcountry plan? If
Central and Upcountry plan keeps stretching into 2006, will
you still be simultaneously working on West Maui?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I think if that were to happen, it
would depend on the results of staffing that we acquire. I
want to say I would hope that we would still start West Maui
on schedule, because I feel that West Maui needs to go soon.
There are large issues looming there.
You know, this is the schedule we have put up. It
is ambitious. We will do our best to meet it. That's really
all that I can say. We are doing -- taking measures to help
ourselves be able to meet it by doubling -- trying to double
our staff, by -- to cover other things besides this plan, by
bringing in the consultant assistance, by a lot of background
work that had not been done prior in the other efforts, having
been done now. So, you know, I can't -- I'm not a God. I
can't put it absolutely, but I am going to try my best, and we
all are.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I just noticed, in this
morning's newspaper, that Riki Hokama, the Budget Chair, is
quoted as saying that we need to cut spending, and he doesn't
feel that the 80 additional positions the Mayor is asking for
are necessary. So, I wouldn't count on doubling your staff.
I did testify and ask, you know, the planning --
water planning be given more resources, but it looks like they
are in a mood to cut not to give more resources.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
clarify that I think the schedule is probably not going to be
met. I think it's too ambitious.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other questions for Ellen?
MR. OKAMURA: Mr. Chair, I had a question. Ellen,
can you give an estimate on how much this is going to cost in
terms of consultants and department time?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah, we have contracts that were
approved by the Board that will total about a third of a
million dollars.
MR. OKAMURA: How much?
MS. KRAFTSOW: About a third of a million, which
is actually about a third of what the other counties estimate
it would cost.
MR. OKAMURA: So, if you include staff time and
other time, what is your estimate of the cost to the
Department over the four years?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Staff time. You know, that's an
interesting question. Some of the Water Use & Development
Plan work is stuff that's assigned to people. You know, once
you have a Planning Division, Planning shouldn't be just to
get one document out. That's been my philosophy.
So, a lot of what people do that's the preparatory
work will continue to be ongoing as part of their regular
function anyway, and they would have to do it to do their
regular function anyway, as in maintaining lists of
discretionary projects and how much water those -- that
represents, and updating that quarterly and all of that.
That goes into Water Use & Development Plans,
right? So, it's just there in a notebook waiting for me. It
didn't use to be. Now that I have staff covering those
districts, it is. So, you have to cut some of that out. I
would say it would need probably two -- one to two full-time
staff over the period of drafting. It would need that
ideally.
MR. OKAMURA: Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Michelle.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: I have a question. I am not
sure if it's for you or for Carl, just a general question on
forecasting. And I understand the different components
involved in forecasting. But when you look at projects coming
on line, for example, do you also look at existing land use
designations where development hasn't yet been proposed for
them?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah, that would be in the
community plan buildout analysis.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: And population forecasts as
well?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Those go into the econometric
forecasts that Carl is talking -- he has taken a hard look and
talked to the consultant who does the SMS forecast, too.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Okay. And looking
historically like from the 1990 figures, have you changed the
forecasting model to make it better, or were those forecasts
pretty good back then and you are using a similar model now?
MS. KRAFTSOW: The old plans were done pretty much
just with time trend analysis. And even from the way time
trend analysis was done, we have changed -- internally changed
things a little. I don't know about for the purposes of the
document.
One of the contracts out is to populate the IWR
main forecasting model, which is a utility-based forecasting
model specifically for how these things affect water trends.
And Carl could tell you more about that, but that would be,
hopefully, the model that we would aim to use in the future.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any further questions?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Oh, yeah. I just wanted to
know what the meaning of IWR was. IWR main, what does the IWR
stand for?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I think it would be integrated
water resources planning model. It's just -- that's what they
called it. No, that's IRP. That's different. IWR main is --
there is a company that -- I don't remember the name now, what
company.
MR. FREED: The name of the company keeps
changing. It's a proprietary model --
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay.
MR. FREED: -- for forecasting.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: No further questions for
Ellen?
Thank you. Next agenda item, other business,
update of the water rate study.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I would like to turn
this item over to Holly to --
MS. PERDIDO: Good morning. We had our first
Stakeholders Committee meeting on Tuesday. We had about, I
think, a dozen people who attended. Mike Victorino turned it
over to Sally as one of the Board members who attended. He
was ill.
What we did, is we went over the communication
flow chart that was in the packet. They decided to elect a
facilitator and vice-facilitator instead of a chair and
vice-chair. And the facilitator is going to be Mike Quinn,
and the vice is Elliott Krash. They also discussed the voting
and nonvoting members and decided the two Board members, who
are on the committee, would not be voting.
And basically, they went over a little bit of
housekeeping on the rules and procedures and the schedule.
And right now, it's scheduled for next month again.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Holly, who are the two Board
members?
MS. PERDIDO: The two Board members were Mike
Victorino -- no, not even Mike, huh. It was Clark and Mike
Nobriga. And then I guess -- oh, Cathy, maybe she can answer
that.
MS. HOWARD: Mr. Chair, it was originally Mike
Victorino and Clark Hashimoto. And Mike Victorino had talked
to Mike Nobriga about taking his spot, so that no current
Board members were on the committee. It was the committee's
understanding that two current Board members would sit on the
committee, and those would be the nonvoting members.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: But currently, there are no
Board members on the committee?
MS. PERDIDO: Correct.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, I believe that's
incorrect. I believe that Mike Victorino is considered a
nonvoting member of the committee, but he is the only current
Board member on the committee. But he's nonvoting.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, Mike Victorino is still on
the committee?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: And Mike Nobriga is not on the
committee?
MS. HOWARD: He did not come. He was supposed to
come to take Mike Victorino's place, and he did not come.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Thank you. Any other
questions for Holly?
MR. OKAMURA: I had a question. Holly, I was
looking at the April 20th. I am not going to -- I don't know
who did this, but, you know, the committee talks about
agricultural rate subsidies. I wanted to bring up a couple
points in regards to that.
I don't think that -- I don't think that, you
know, we should look at it in terms of the agricultural rate
subsidies. There is a difference between domestic water and
agricultural water. I think that increasing demand for
domestic water is the major factor driving up the cost for the
Water Department to deliver water.
And the reasons are domestic water users are small
users, so the Department must lay more distribution hardware
and service more customers to sell the same amount of water.
In the Upcountry area, more lower water must be pumped from
lower elevations to higher elevations as the demand increases
by and large for domestic use.
And number three, increasing domestic use
increases the need for costly water treatment facilities that
it services. More water must be treated for increasing
domestic use. Ag users do not need treated water.
I would like to propose that an ag user is being
sold domestic water for agricultural use and is being made to
pay for the rising costs of the Department for delivering
domestic water. In addition, over the decades, many capital
improvements to the water system, adding millions of dollars
to the County, both directly and indirectly, have been made in
the name of agriculture and funded by sources outside the
Department.
For example, currently, the Kula line, it's about
a 9 million-dollar project. Half of it is being funded by the
Federal Government and half by the State.
Using the term agricultural rate -- in addition, I
think the Kahakapa Reservoir was built with Federal and State
funds. Using the term agricultural rate subsidy is unfair for
the agriculture community, because it presents a very narrow
and biassed perspective on the issue. And I propose that it
not be used in the discussion of water rates. Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: What do you do -- question.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Ginny.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: What do you do then about
the residential usage? That's your major developments,
subdivisions coming in that are agricultural?
MR. OKAMURA: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: You shouldn't pose the
questions to the Board members. Don't pose it to the Board
member. Pose the question --
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Holly, what then would we do
about subdivisions? Or George, or somebody. What would we do
about the subdivisions if we weren't going to consider it?
MR. OKAMURA: As a point of clarification, I
didn't mean that we didn't consider agriculture, but -- I
think we should look at agriculture. There is different types
of water. Agriculture water is one type of water and domestic
water is another type of water.
It's costing the Department a lot of money to
deliver water, which agriculture don't use it. I am just
saying, in the water rate study, we should not be using the
term agricultural rate subsidy. Do you guys understand what I
am trying to say? Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, on the general
subject of the water rate study -- on the general subject of
the water rate study, I realized, from attending budget
hearing meetings, that the Department funded phase one of this
study out of the current fiscal year, the currently running
fiscal year, for $60,000 for phase one.
They have requested a supplemental appropriation
for 181,000, for phase two, and I wanted to ask the Director
why it doesn't -- that supplemental appropriation cover -- why
don't you also include phase three and four in that request
for a supplemental appropriation? If it's intended to have
that project finish within the fiscal year, why only request
funds for phase two?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, phase two encompasses
all the remaining work of the proposed scope submitted by the
consultants. So, I believe the amount is 180,000, Holly?
That should cover all of the work that the consultant has
proposed.
Towards the end of the list of the proposed work,
most would -- I believe about four or five items are optional,
and that if we decide to engage the consultant to do -- to
further his work, then we will use part of that $180,000 to
fund that work. So, phase two references and encompasses the
total contract, in addition to the $60,000 that has been
currently funded.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I am not sure I understand.
Are you saying that phase three and phase four as proposed --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I am saying it encompassed the
entire scope of work that was submitted by the consultant.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: They had a phase three and
phase four. Phase four included presentations to the public.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I understand. However, we are
using phase two to include all of those other stages that the
consultant has submitted as part of the scope of work. In
other words, your phase two is equivalent to phase two and on
to the end of the defined scope of work as submitted by the
consultant.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you. I would also
like to say, at this time, that I did take a look, since the
consultants, in their resume, had said that they had been
consultants to Kauai, to the Big Island, and to Honolulu, for
their rates. I took a look at the rates on the web for those
counties.
And my impression is that those rates reward large
users at the expense of household-type users, five-eighth-inch
meters and so on. And while I certainly -- this is merely an
impression at this point. I would want the opportunity to ask
questions about any proposals, especially proposals that
structure the rates in terms of meter size rather than in
terms of customer classes.
Honolulu publishes their rates in terms of
customer classes, but the other two publish their rates only
in terms of meter size. And I think the block structure they
use is very unfair to small users. And all counties do
recognize that agriculture, I believe, is in a special
category as far as water rates are concerned. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any further questions for
Holly?
Thank you, Holly. Next agenda item is an update
on the April 7th, 2004, Paia Community Meeting regarding the
H'poko wells as a water source.
MS. HOWARD: Mr. Chair, there is a handout.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, Jacky will be taking
up this.
MS. TAKAKURA: Okay. This is an update on the
April 7th, 2004, Paia Community Meeting regarding using
Hamakuapoko wells as the source of water for that area.
Approximately 75 people attended the meeting at
Paia Community Center, including Board of Water Supply members
Kenneth Okamura and Sally Raisbeck. We gave a brief overview
of the wells, and I basically followed that handout that I
passed out. And just in summary, let me just go over some of
the points.
These two wells were drilled in 1992 and 1993 as
part of the East Maui Water Development Plan. They were in
the first phase of that plan. They weren't used until 1999.
That was when they were first used for Upcountry drought
emergencies.
At that time, GAC, granular activated carbon,
filters were installed there. DBCP, EDB and TCP -- and I have
the actual names of each chemical on that handout -- those
three and nitrates are present in the water. The granular
activated carbon filters remove the EDB, DBCP, and TCP to
levels at or below the state maximum contaminant levels, MCL.
However, the GAC does not remove the nitrate.
The nitrate levels range from a high of
seven milligrams per liter to the most recent reading, which
was last October, at about four milligrams per liter. The
maximum contaminate level for nitrates is 10 milligrams per
liter.
The Department of Water Supply does not have a
treatment facility to remove the nitrates. And at this time,
we don't know how much that would cost either. I have heard
that the nitrate removal facility that the Honolulu Board of
Water Supply is building is going to cost them $4 million, but
I don't know what size that is. That could be for a much
larger facility.
Nitrate removal facilities have become necessary
in Honolulu and throughout California after continuous GAC
operation. And the nitrate levels there are at about half the
MCL. A sampling for these contaminants, the pesticides and
the nitrates, will be done monthly, and we will be submitting
them to the State Department of Health Safe Drinking Water
Branch.
As far as the plan goes to connect the wells to
the Paia system, the earliest that connection would be made
would be in a year, so maybe March 2005, and that's if
everything goes perfectly.
And prior to the connection, the granular
activated carbon will be replaced with new carbon before
connecting it to the Central system. The attendees at the
meeting were very concerned about the contaminants. Even
though it does meet the State and Federal standards, studies
on long-term health risk are still inconclusive.
Looking at the MCL, the maximum contaminant level
for DBCP, it's set at a higher risk level, for example, one
cancer per 10,000 people, than most other MCLs, which are more
likely to be set at one cancer in a billion people.
The Department of Water Supply is looking at
instead of making a direct connection from the Hamakuapoko
wells straight to the Paia tank, we would instead consider
pumping the water from the wells up to the Kamole Water
Treatment facility, in Haliimaile, prior to sending it to
Paia.
This would have two advantages. The first thing
is the water would be blended with another source at an
average of three-to-one ratio, three being the Kamole surface
water and one being the Hamakuapoko well water, which may ease
peoples' concerns about the levels of contaminants; and, two,
excess water produced by the wells that Paia cannot use can be
used Upcountry.
We are going to look at this further. We are
going to review and discuss it with staff, and we will look at
all options available and meet with the community again to
discuss the proposed action. But at this time, the next
community meeting date has not been set. So, any questions?
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Ginny.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Jacky, do we test -- do we
test at our own facility or the DWS facilities for these
chemicals, because I have got a couple questions here?
MS. TAKAKURA: What do you mean at our own
facility?
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Do we do it at the baseyard?
MS. TAKAKURA: Oh, I see. Where is the testing
done? We do some tests at our own lab, but for those things,
the DBCP, pesticides and nitrates, we send those off to a lab
on the mainland.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Can you give me a verbal
description of the area that we are talking about? I know
it's H'poko wells, but what area might this encompass that
could be affected? And the reason I am asking this is I
learned out in the field this week that there are several
private well systems that we have going in, in and around this
area, and there are several that already exist.
MS. TAKAKURA: Do you mean pesticides in the
water? You mean finding them?
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Yeah.
MS. TAKAKURA: I think Ellen might be able to
answer that better, but what you have to look at is if the
well is at a lower elevation of an agricultural area.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: There is a lot of
development that is going in, in that area, and there are
private systems that are being drawn on it. But could you
kind of give me maybe a verbal of, it goes from this road to
this road, and this road to this road, or possible areas?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, a general response to
that question would be any location downstream of any area
that was previously cultivated for pineapple or sugar cane.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: So, could that affect West
Maui as well? Do we have the same problems there, too?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes, it could.
MS. TAKAKURA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: And then one more question
is would -- how do we -- how do we make the public safe? I
mean, can they bring water in for testing? Is that a
possibility? Even if they are on a private well system, could
they bring it to us, or can we tell them where to send it to
to check it out?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I would think that if they are
on the private system, that they would have to pay for their
own analysis.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: But --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That's not something that we
would provide.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: But could we tell them where
to send it? I mean, most of these people are going to be
like -- they haven't a clue.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Well, we have been sending our
water for analysis to Montgomery Labs in California.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Maybe we could make that
information available if they want it. Do you think we
should? This is a question in-house here. Should we? I know
we don't have anything to do with the private well systems,
but what if -- what if these people -- I mean, they don't
necessarily know that this is going on.
What if they are being affected, and some of these
are on, you know, small -- they kind of go underneath that
radar, the Health Department. So, how do we -- how can we at
least alert them or help them out to check this out?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I suppose through some public
education program we could do that. And I am pretty sure the
entire community or most of the community Upcountry are aware
of the issues. You know, whether it's within the Kapalua,
DBCP concern has been in the news. It's been in community
discussions. I'm sure people are aware of the issues.
But, you know, it wouldn't hurt, at an appropriate
time, for us to spread the word that, you know, if you are on
a private system, that maybe you should have your water
analyzed by a certified lab.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: I am also thinking there are
people coming from the mainland buying these properties. The
one we discussed earlier has eight lots on it and he wants to
put two wells. Maybe one of our recommendations should be
full disclosure of the issues in the area, and that -- you
know, that attaches to everything else, that he has to provide
this, you know, to the people that are buying his lots,
just -- just to safeguard. I mean, not everybody has been
here, you know, that bought property. Sometimes they come for
vacation, and they buy, and then they move back.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I think that would be a concern
of the Department of Health Drinking Water Branch. They also
have jurisdiction over private well systems.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I would concur that if the
users of -- these parties are not users of the County water
system, then it would be under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Health to inform people of possible water risks.
I think if they are users of the County system, then it's the
Department's responsibility to inform users of the potential
risk of the water that the County is providing.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I know that there are
requirements on real estate agents to disclose certain things
when they sell a property. And I think what I heard Ginny
almost suggesting was that that disclosure, if there's a
possibility that a private well might, or a private system
might be drawing water from underneath old pineapple land,
that that should be made a part of disclosure.
Who requires disclosure by real estate agents of
various -- various things? I am not quite sure what they are,
but I know somebody requires it.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I believe it is under the
Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs has requirements for
disclosure. And if the seller fails to disclose latent
information, that is a civil matter between the buyer and the
seller.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Mr. Chair, if I can make a
comment.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Michelle.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: I think Ginny's concern is
mostly very small, private water systems, because I believe
the number is either 15 or 25 service connections on a private
system is -- I am speaking from experience -- rigorously
regulated by the Department of Health in terms of monitoring
and testing protocols. The entire system has to be designed
and constructed under their guidelines, which, as you can see
here, that the maximum contaminant levels are even more
stringent than Federal standards are.
But it's the small users that the Department of
Health still oversees it, but I don't know what their
requirements are for testing and monitoring. So, that might
be a simple question for the Department of Health. For the
smaller systems, what requirements do they impose on their
systems in terms of monitoring and testing. I would imagine
that there are some. I just don't know how rigorous they are
as compared to the larger private systems.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: So, maybe what the
recommendation might be is that this discussion be before the
Department of Health, so that they can, if they want to, which
they probably should, make this a part of whatever wells that
they determine that they are going to allow to be drilled, but
this information, make sure that it's provided to them, and
they are kept up to date with it. Because stuff does slide
under the radar.
And also, I think probably the Planning Commission
should be aware of the territory that this affects and where
we are finding this right now, so that when they are looking
at these subdivisions coming before them, they can -- you
know, they can wear that other hat and say -- because there
are folks coming in and talking about doing private well
systems, and they can wear that other hat and say, well, okay,
well then, this is -- maybe they make a full disclosure as
part of their caveat.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you, Ginny. Any other
questions for Jacky?
MR. OKAMURA: I have a couple questions. What is
the health risk of nitrate?
MS. TAKAKURA: I believe it can get into your
bloodstream and take the place of oxygen. It can cause blue
baby syndrome. It's especially dangerous to infants and
pregnant women. It is not dangerous on the skin. It's only
dangerous when it's ingested.
MR. OKAMURA: But at this level, at
4.3 million gallons per liter, what is that? It's pretty
safe?
MS. TAKAKURA: I can't answer that. I mean, what
the EPA and State Department of Health considers safe is 10,
so that's --
MR. OKAMURA: As far as the DBCP is concerned, if
the testing machines now are really good, so when you have a
nondetectable level, it's not like it's nonexistent in the
water, right?
MS. TAKAKURA: With the technology today, we can't
really check to zero. When we say nondetectable, in the case
of DBCP, that could mean 0.01 micrograms per liter or less.
You see that the State maximum contaminant level is
0.04 micrograms per liter.
MR. OKAMURA: Why do they -- like usually it's
stated in terms of parts per million and parts per billion.
MS. TAKAKURA: Right. These are parts per
billion.
MR. OKAMURA: Parts per billion.
MS. TAKAKURA: Yes. The only one in parts per
million is the nitrates, 10 milligrams per liter. The others
are all in micrograms per liter or parts per billion.
MR. OKAMURA: Oh, the DBCP is .2 parts per
billion.
MS. TAKAKURA: Correct.
MR. OKAMURA: The last question I had is H'poko
well has so much supply of water, and I was wondering what
percentage were you going to allocate to this particular
project, and was there going to be any kind of extra that you
were going to save for like drought periods for Upcountry, or
are you looking at some kind of allocations?
MS. TAKAKURA: Average consumption in the Paia
service area is about a half-million gallons per day. When
the two wells are running at full capacity, their production
is about one-and-a-half million gallons per day. So, there is
still an excess.
And ideally, you would want to be running the
wells regularly. You don't want to be shutting them on and
off all the time, because that causes operational problems.
So, where the excess goes, I can turn that over to George for
answers to that one.
MR. OKAMURA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Jacky, what is a synthetic
organic chemical?
MS. TAKAKURA: That means it's a manmade chemical
out of organic things. I am not real sure.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Seems like an oxymoron.
MS. TAKAKURA: It's a category that the Department
of Health puts all these things in that are manmade pesticides
versus organic things or versus like nitrates which can be
naturally found.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Why did you note that the GAC
charcoal will be replaced prior to the connection to the
Central System?
MS. TAKAKURA: We decided to do that because that,
we think, might help -- well, first of all, it's -- some of it
might appease some of the public's concerns. And also, over
time, see, the carbon adsorb -- A-D-S-O-R-B -- adsorb gets the
DBC to cling to it, and it stays there. And then over time,
the carbon fills up. It becomes spent with the DBCP.
And you have four sampling points at each filter.
There's two filters. The water flows through both filters,
and there's sampling points at the 75 percent point,
50 percent, 25, and then the effluent.
And you monitor those, and you can see how the
filters are becoming spent or how they are filling up with
DBCP. And as they fill up, you can kind of plan ahead to know
when you are going to need to change it. We are going to
change it anyway and start with a brand new carbon when we
connect -- make the connection to the Central system. It's
about time anyway. We should be doing it anyway.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Why do you say prior to
connection to Central System, because isn't the Department
proposing to disconnect Paia, Kuau, and Spreckelsville from
the Central System?
MS. TAKAKURA: No, that won't be disconnected,
because if ever Hamakuapoko would go down, we would need that
backup source.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: But the water will not be
entering the Central Maui water system?
MS. TAKAKURA: That's right. The farthest it
would go, at this point, would be Baldwin Park.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, Central system here
is used in reference to the connection to the Paia system.
Paia is part of the Central System. So, it's not as though we
are going to connect Paia, and then connect to the, you know,
remaining part of the Central System before we change the
carbon filters. Prior to us putting the well on line to
service the Paia area, we will then be replacing all of the
carbon.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, Sprecklesville is not
going to be connected to the Paia system? Spreckelsville will
not be serviced with water from H'poko wells?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Initially, I would say that the
end point would be the pump station located at the Maui
Country Club. The water cannot get back any further into
Central Maui without further pipelines.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Kenneth.
MR. OKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the
Director a question. In our last meeting, we discussed the
H'poko wells, and you said that there was a well near Hog Back
Road in Haiku that had potential to produce water, in the
statement you said for -- you know, as an additional source.
Would it take like -- what would it take? Would
it take like a motion, by this Board, to request that you look
into it, or is there anything that the Board could do to try
to request that we try to move forward with this or at least
look into it more deeply?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, Mr. Okamura is
referring to the well to use in the Central area. That's not
an option at this point because of the settlement agreement.
At this point in time, we don't need any more groundwater
sources for the Haiku area, because Haiku, when Kapakalua well
is running, the Kapakalua well would be serving most of the
Haiku area in addition to the Haiku well. And we have some
excess capacity now at the Kapakalua well.
So, you know, to make the Hog Back Road well into
a production well would be somewhat, I would say, not to our
benefit at this time, because we couldn't use it anyway.
MR. OKAMURA: I see, because the pump is not in,
and it's not geared to be used?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No, because of the settlement
agreement, we cannot use that well to bring water into Central
Maui even if we had a pipeline connection from Haiku into the
Central Maui system.
MR. OKAMURA: Would it be a potential source,
like, for Upcountry area to replace some of the water used at
Kapakalua?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That's possible, but we haven't
taken any steps to do that yet, because of our capacities at
Kapakalua.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, that well -- I have
just been learning with the stuff about Pookela. That well
was drilled as an exploratory well, and it's now capped, or
what's the diameter of the casing? Is there a pump in it or
not?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I am really not
prepared to discuss all the details of Hog Back Road. You
know, we are talking about Hamakuapoko wells right now.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: You can make it an agenda item
for next week, because this is really about H'poko wells.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I would like next time -- I
will jump the gun a little bit and say not just about the Hog
Back Road well, but also Maluhia well. I would like to know
what the status is of the Maluhia well north of Makamakaole.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other questions regarding
the Paia community meeting regarding H'poko wells?
MS. TAKAKURA: May I just mention that we have
another community meeting planned for Upcountry on May 18th,
and that's regarding Upcountry proper. And EPA Region 9 staff
will be here. Once I have the location set, I will let the
Board know.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Thank you, Jacky.
Next agenda item.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, the court
reporter has been going over an hour.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Call for a 10-minute recess.
We will reconvene at 11:20.
(Recess, 11:08 a.m. Resumed 11:19 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I would like to call the
meeting back to order. Mr. Kushi, you wish to make a request?
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Chair. On
behalf of the Director, I was requested to make this request
to the Board.
Under other business, it's not listed on your
agenda; however, the Director would wish -- the Director
wishes to have the Board amend the agenda to place on
consideration before the Board the issue of the Board's
appointment of committee members to the rate study group.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Steering.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Stakeholders
Committee. According to HRS, all boards and commissions can
or may amend their published and posted agendas, provided that
the matter's not of utmost importance. And also, you need
two-thirds majority vote. So, in this case, your Board is
nine. You need all six of you to concur that you would amend
the agenda to put this item on. So, that's the request, and
if not, then I guess we can schedule it for the next time.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Are you going to identify the
requested agenda amendment, so they can consider it, or we
just have to vote whether we are going to amend the agenda
without knowing what the request is?
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: The request is to put
the item of the Board's appointment to the Stakeholders
Committee.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: Can it fall under what we
talked about?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Do you want to explain in more
detail what -- who this person might be and why?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chairman, when we were
forming the Stakeholders Committee and asking for volunteers,
we had difficulty in getting someone from Molokai. And the
reason is because it's more or less an ad hoc group. The
expenses of travel wouldn't be covered by the Department.
As of today, we still don't have anybody from the
Molokai community sitting in on the committee, and it's a
concern of one of the Council members. And, so, I felt that
it might be justifiable to have a Board member appointed to
the committee representing Molokai to sit in on the
Stakeholders Committee, where it would be justifiable for the
Department to clear the travel expenses of the Board member.
And that's the reason for the request.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Do I have a motion to amend
the agenda to consider this matter?
MR. OKAMURA: So moved.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Discussion.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, yeah. I would
oppose this motion for the following reason. I think it would
be a great idea to have Stacy on that rate setting committee.
But, the last -- when I attended the first meeting -- I am not
on that committee.
When I attended the first meeting of that
committee, I was told I had to leave because there were two
Board members on that committee, and I would make a third
Board member. And the Director, and by phone call, Mr. Kim,
in the Corp Counsel's office, said that I could not stay to
observe, to sit in the audience quietly, without participating
and observe, because that would break the Sunshine Law.
I disputed that, but George told me that if I
persisted in staying, he would have to cancel the meeting.
So, I left, of course. And I did listen to that meeting on
tape the following day, which would be my right if Stacy was
on the Board. But I want to be able to sit in the audience
and see those meetings. I think they are important.
So, I will not agree to amending the agenda today.
I believe we should defer this to next time when it can be on
the agenda officially. I did consult a lawyer, because I was
very angry at being ejected. I did consult a local lawyer as
to whether that was a correct interpretation of the Sunshine
Law. And he told me that the first question should be should
that Board be operating through the Sunshine Law. And I
decided not to pursue it because of the fact I know it would
be very hard for that Board to do its work if they have to
follow Mr. Kushi's rulings about the Sunshine Law. So, I did
not persist.
But I do not wish to be excluded from observing
those meetings. So, unless the Department changes its mind,
that if two members are sitting on the Board, and I am sitting
in the audience, that is an illegal meeting of the Board of
Water Supply, I will not be supporting having two members --
two sitting members on that committee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: It's my understanding that
Mike Victorino will be relinquishing his seat to Mike Nobriga,
and Mr. Hashimoto is no longer a Board member. So, if that
was to occur, we would have only one Board member on the
stakeholders meeting, which would be Stacy, which I don't --
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Excuse me just a minute.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I am speaking. Thank you.
Which would not precluding any of us from attending.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I am not sure, under the
rules of that committee, that Mike Nobriga has the right to
relinquish his seat to Mike Nobriga (sic).
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I believe he's relinquishing
his seat. The decision was to replace him.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: The decision by whom?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: The Director.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I don't see that the
Director has the right to do that.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: He does.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: He does.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Mr. Corporation Counsel.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: I apologize. I don't
know the setup of this rate study group. All I know is it's
not a subcommittee of the Board, and it's not a Commission or
Board as subject to the Sunshine Law. Therefore, I don't know
who appoints the members. I don't know who controls the
meetings.
I do know that the consultant, which is hired by
the Department, has initiated this rate group for public
input. That being the case, I can't comment, because it's not
a Board or Commission as I know it.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, as I recollect, it
was intended to have two Board members sit in on the
committee. Although the composition is somewhat flexible, if
the Board is -- you know, desires to have only one sitting
Board member, I guess the Board can make that determination.
At the other day's meeting, Mike Victorino was
going to relinquish his sitting in on the committee to Mike
Nobriga, but Mike Nobriga never showed up. So, I don't know
what's going on on that part.
But, the issue right now is to have somebody
sitting in -- somebody from the Molokai community to sit in on
the committee and provide feedback from the users on Molokai,
so that we can have better representation on the committee.
And if a Board members desire -- you know, if a Board member
wants to hold up that intent, then so be it.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: May I?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Stacy.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: I can appreciate Sally's
concern and her need or want to participate in the
stakeholders meeting. Whether it's myself or if a volunteer
can afford to fly from Molokai to participate, if this
benefits Molokai, an opportunity to be one of the
stakeholders, I would appreciate some consideration.
We are isolated. We are separated by waters. And
we are not even accessible right the next day to listen to the
tapes of the meetings as you are. So, just -- I can
understand your concerns and your -- you know, for that. But
on behalf of the island -- we call ourselves sometimes the
stepchild of Maui. So, we would like to be included.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah. Stacy, I agree with
you totally that Molokai needs representation on that Board.
I still don't wish to consider it today when it was not on the
agenda. I would sooner have it put off till next month,
because then all nine members will be here.
And I would also like to see what Mike Victorino
says about relinquishing his seat before I would -- I think
it's wonderful to have representation for Molokai, and I do
want to see that, but I don't want to have it decided today.
I am sorry.
MR. OKAMURA: Although even if we decide not to
take it up today, that wouldn't preclude Stacy from attending
the meeting if Mike is there. Only if Mike is there.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: We would have three Board
members are present, but she would have to pay for her own
travel expenses. I have no objection to deferring this matter
to the next meeting, so that the subject can have more
preparation, if the individual who made the motion and the
second wishes to withdraw the motion.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Withdraw the second.
MR. OKAMURA: Okay. Withdraw.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Next agenda item,
discuss possible action regarding election of Board Chair and
Vice-Chair.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Move to defer. Move to
defer this item until next month when, hopefully, all nine
members can be present. Or not nine, eight. Dorothy Pyle,
for the benefit of our new member, is on sabbatical, and she
will be in Europe, but she does expect to be back in time for
the June meeting.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: You are saying defer this to
the May meeting not the June meeting?
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: We don't have a June
meeting.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yes, yes. I was just
explaining that Dorothy wouldn't be there in May, but
everybody else should be.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, you are making a motion to
defer?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yes, motion.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a second?
(Silence.)
No second. The motion died. Did we amend the
rules of -- I don't know if the rules apply or not. Did we
amend -- or maybe the staff can brief us on what the rules are
regarding election of Chair or Vice-Chair.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Chair. The
Rules of Practice and Procedure, L-16-102-7, just says members
of the Board shall elect a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
from its members. The term shall be for one year and may
continue until such time as successors are duly elected.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I can't recall when I was
elected to the Chair.
MS. HOWARD: Mr. Chair, that was June 26th.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, my term would effectively
be until June 25th?
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: It says your term
shall be for one year or may continue until the successor.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, there was a
motion passed early in -- I don't know which meeting it was,
but there was a motion passed that election of the Chair
should be held, I believe, in May.
We did -- because there was no date specified in
that rule, there was a motion passed by the Board. I would
have to consult the minutes, but I think it could be in May.
I think it could be now and/or it could be in June.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I guess if you had the
election, it would be effective July 1.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I don't believe it says
that.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Well, it says the Chair shall
serve for one year. So, if you make it effective in April,
it's less than a year. We need to have the election but make
it effective at the end of the one-year term.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I would have to see what
the motion actually said that we passed that changed the
rules.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Well, I guess what I
would like to see is us decide the process, because in the
past, we have had -- in some years, we have had committees,
nominating committees. Some years we just nominated from the
floor.
So, maybe we can have a discussion on what
direction this Board wants, whether they want to have a
nominating committee or nominate from the floor. Any
thoughts?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Since the Board doesn't
wish to defer it, I think we should have an election right now
then. And I would nominate Mike Victorino as Chair and Ken
Okamura as Vice-Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there anyone else that
wishes to be considered for Chair or Vice-Chair?
(Silence.)
So, are we voting? Can you vote just for the
Chair and not for the Vice-Chair, or for the Vice-Chair and
not for the Chair, or is there -- is it a combined ticket?
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: It should be one at a
time. It's separate offices, the ticket.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: You don't have a second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I was just asking a question
of Corp Counsel.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I will revise my motion,
and I will nominate Mike Victorino as Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a second? No second.
MR. OKAMURA: I will second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Second by Kenneth.
Discussion.
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Do we know if he wants to
serve as Chair?
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: That's a good point.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I do not, no.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: He spoke to me yesterday
and said that he would be running for Chair. Tuesday,
Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Does anyone else wish to
nominate another Board member for the position?
(Silence.)
Seeing none.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I move the nominations be
closed.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Motion to close the nomination
for Chairman. Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Call for the vote. All in
favor of Mike Victorino as the new Chairman please so indicate
by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Opposed.
(Silence.)
Mike Victorino will be the Chairman elect.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, I would like to
nominate Ken Okamura as Vice-Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Discussion.
Do you wish to be Vice-Chair?
MR. OKAMURA: I would, you know, whatever the
pleasure of the Board. I think it's not a heavy job. I can
handle that.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, that's a yes?
MR. OKAMURA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Does anyone else wish to be
considered for Vice-Chair?
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: I would like to nominate
Dorothy Pyle. I think she brings a lot of balance to the
Board, a lot of information.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: There is a motion to nominate
Dorothy Pyle for Vice-Chair. Is there a second?
(Silence.)
No second, so the motion dies.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Move the nominations be
closed.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: There is a motion to close the
nominations. Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER McLEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Second by Michelle.
Nominations are closed. Those in favor of the motion to elect
Ken Okamura as Vice-Chair, please so indicate by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Okay. Ken, you are the Vice-Chair then.
Moving on to the next agenda item, receipt of
Board members' request for agenda items to be placed on future
agendas. Note Sally's request regarding the Hog Back Road and
Maluhia wells. And also request for the addition of a Board
member to the stakeholders meeting. Yes, Ginny.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: I believe there was some
requests from Planning -- from the Planning Commission to have
the workshop. That came across this week -- this last month
to have this on the agenda, and it didn't make it to the
agenda. So, they would like for us, I believe -- and Cathy
Howard would probably have more information -- to set dates,
possible dates, so we can get together to do a workshop with
Planning and Water. Put it on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Did we receive any written
notification of their intent from the Planning Commission?
MS. HOWARD: Mr. Chair, we received a letter from
one of -- we received a copy of a letter to the Director of
Planning from one of their committee members or commission
members requesting that. We have not received anything else,
and it was a copy of an unsigned letter sent from one
commission member to the Director of Planning. I have not
seen anything but that.
BOARDMEMBER PARSONS: My understanding, we had a
phone call. The scheduler made phone calls to the Department.
That is what they said. They were expecting it to be on the
agenda today.
MS. HOWARD: We are looking into that. The
Director's secretary has been in contact with one of the
Planning Department employees. We are trying to get an answer
on whether or not this has been formalized.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I would also like to have,
on the agenda next time, a response as to what is the status
of the applications for water use permits in the Iao Aquifer.
And I would remind us that we have deferred the new member
orientation, the presentation on the Department overview, and
we also deferred the proposal for a committee to draft revised
rules of the Board.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other requested agenda
items? Moving on to --
MS. HOWARD: Mr. Chair, just to clarify, was the
item new member orientation going to be put on the Board's
agenda, or were the two new members going to meet in the
Director's office for the orientation? If there's only two
new members, and Sally does not want to attend, it does not
need to be an agenda item.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I want to attend.
MS. HOWARD: The same information, so I put it on
the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: The other Board member may not
be available.
MS. HOWARD: That's true.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: We will figure it out.
MS. HOWARD: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Next agenda item is division
reports.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, the division reports
are included in the packe