BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE
MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004
Held at the Planning Department Conference Room,
First Floor, Kalana Pakui Building, 250 South High Street,
Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
October 12, 2004, pursuant to Notice.
REPORTED BY: JEANNETTE W. IWADO, RPR/CSR #135
A P P E A R A N C E S
BOARD MEMBERS BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY:
KENNETH M. OKAMURA, Vice-Chair
GINNY PARSONS
SALLY RAISBECK
RALPH JOHANSON
MICHELE McLEAN
BOARD MEMBERS MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION:
RANDY PILTZ, Chair
DIANE SHEPHERD
SUSAN MOIKEHA
SUZANNE FREITAS
NICK CASUMPANG
WILLIAM IACONNETTI
JOHANNA AMORIN
ALSO PRESENT:
MICHAEL FOLEY, Maui Planning Director
JAMES GIROUX, Deputy Corporation Counsel
EDWARD KUSHI, Deputy Corporation Counsel
ANN CUA, Staff
JEFFREY PEARSON, Deputy Director
ALVIN NAKAMURA, Engineering Program Director
STEVEN PARABICOLI, Wastewater Use Coordinator
ELLEN KRAFTSOW, Water Resource Manager
MILTON ARAKAWA, Deputy Public Works &
Environmental Management
* * *
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY, COUNTY OF MAUI
JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE
MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Planning Commission is back in
session for our workshop with the water department. At this
time we'd like to have Ken Okamura. Would you introduce the
members of your committee, commission?
MR. OKAMURA: Thank you. Will this meeting of the
Board of Water Supply please come to order. I'd like to
introduce our members that include Sally Raisbeck, Ralph
Johansen sitting there, Michele McLean here, Ginny Parsons.
And is that all that we have? There are just five of us.
My name is Kenneth Okamura, I'm the Vice-Chair, and our
Chair is not here with us today.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: All right.
MR. OKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if you
could introduce the County resource people that are here.
We have the Deputy Water Director Jeff Pearson, and Ellen
Kraftsow from the water department, we have the division
chief for the Wastewater Reclamation Division, Tracy
Takamine with the Department of Public Works and
Environmental Management. And we have several
representatives from the Maui Fire Department here, Scott
English, and they can serve as our resource people.
I thought if maybe we could start off with the
Wastewater Reclamation Division and Tracy Takamine on the
issue of reclaimed water.
MS. RAISBECK: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Would
you mind introducing the members of the Planning Commission
so that we know their names?
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Okay. We have Diane Shepherd, we
have Susan Moikeha, we have Susan Freitas, Nick Casumpang.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: You got it right this
time.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: William Iaconnetti, Johanna
Amorin, and I'm Randy Piltz.
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you.
MR. OKAMURA: Excuse me. I forgot to introduce Ed
Kushi, who is from the Corporation Counsel, and he helps --
serves with the Water Board or is the Corporation Counsel
representative to the Board of Water Supply, right in the
back. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Okay. Are you going to moderate
this portion of it?
MR. TAKAMINE: My name is Tracy Takamine, I am the
division chief of the Wastewater Reclamation Division. I
want to, first of all, thank you for inviting us here. We
were originally asked by Clayton to be just a resource staff
for questions. However, we felt that in order for us to do
that maybe you need to be given an informational briefing on
what the Wastewater Reclamation Division does in terms of
recycled water, where we started from, what we are doing
now, and what we are going to do in the future.
What we plan to do is have Steve Parabicoli, who
is our wastewater use coordinator for the division, he's an
expert in his field and he's given numerous presentations
nationwide. In fact, he just came back from a national
conference in Phoenix, Arizona.
So I'll turn it over to Steve right now and he
will give you a 10 or 15 minute briefing, at which time he
can answer your questions.
MR. PARABICOLI: Thank you, Tracy. Thank you very
much. Thanks for your interest in recycled water. I think
it's somewhat unappreciated yet underutilized resource, but
we are actually doing a fairly good job of recycling and
reusing wastewater here on Maui.
We will have a short Power Point presentation to
tell you about our program, what we're doing, and where
we're going to go. Perhaps we could dim the lights here so
the audience can see the slides.
(Brief pause in proceedings)
Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay, I think
recycled water and water reuse in general should be viewed
as a very key component of sustainable water resource
management. Just to define a few terms, water reclamation
is the treatment of wastewater to make it usable; recycled
water is the end product of water reclamation; and water
reuse is the beneficial use of recycled water.
Okay, water reuse provides many benefits. It can
extend potable water resources. We have already displaced a
fair amount of potable water in Maui County that was
previously used for landscape irrigation, and we displaced
it with recycled water. It's a drought-proof water supply.
You know, we don't have to have rainfall to generate
wastewater, we produce wastewater every day and we have to
treat it. And the recycled water either can be reused or it
must be disposed of. So it is definitely drought-proof.
It stimulated economic development, and that's
sustainable economic development here in Maui County. Just
the availability of recycled water, particularly in South
Maui, has attracted businesses to Maui. They have
established thriving industries, they've hired employees,
they've hired contractors. So this recycled water system
that we've developed has brought in a lot of good things, a
lot of money into Maui County.
It provides environmental benefits. There are
some nutrients present in recycled water. It's not
nutrient-rich, but there are some nutrients, and these
nutrients can be utilized by the vegetation that we
irrigate, thus reducing the need for synthetic chemical
fertilizers. So it's a good way to recycle the nutrients
present in recycled water.
Finally, it's a very environmentally sensitive
effluent disposal option. Instead of discharging effluent
into the ocean, through outfalls, or into injection wells,
which a lot of people feel is not a good thing, we can, you
know, dispose of our effluent through water reuse, whether
it be landscape irritation or other types of reuse. And
there really are all types of ways to use recycled water,
not just landscape irrigation.
The Department of Health established water reuse
guidelines in 1993, and updated the guidelines in 2002. And
they recognized three recycled water classes: R1 is
tertiary treated recycled water that can be used without
restrictions. This is the highest level of recycled water
that the health department recognizes, and this is primarily
what we produce here on Maui. Most of our facilities are
R1.
Some of the approved uses for R1 water include
landscape irrigation. You don't have to have any buffer
zones, you can irrigate any time of day or night. You can
also use it for direct spray application of edible food
crops. And we follow the lead of such states as California
and Florida that have been reusing tertiary water on lettuce
and broccoli and crops like that. And in fact, most of the
vegetables that we import into Hawaii are grown with
recycled tertiary treated water. So that's a pretty --
quite a statement as to the safety of the R1 water.
Some other uses, we sell it to Haleakala Ranch.
Their cattle have been drinking this water for many years.
It can be used as a source of water for commercial
laundries. And of course we use it for other uses as well,
industrial and things like that.
R2 is disinfected secondary treated recycled
water, and this is the most common type of recycled water
used in Hawaii today. It's traditionally been used on golf
courses, either spray or irrigation. The Pukalani Country
Club upcountry has been irrigating its fairways and greens
with R2 water since the late seventies.
Now, with R2 water there are some restrictions.
You must have 500 foot buffer zones between the project
that's using the water and the neighboring homes. And you
only can irrigate at night. Now, there are some grandfather
projects out there that have been using recycled water for
many years before the health department issued its
guidelines, but they're grandfathered from some of these
restrictions. But primarily R2 water does have some
limitations on its use.
R3 is un-disinfected recycled water with very
severe restrictions on uses and applications. And currently
there are only two projects in the whole state that use R3
water, and those are primarily like pasture irrigation in
remote areas where people do not frequent.
Just to give you an idea of what's going on
statewide with the use of recycled water, there currently
are around 67 projects in the state that use recycled water
of various grades. As you can see, Maui County is doing
quite well. We have about 28 of those projects right here
in our own county. Most of those projects are supplied the
recycled water by the County's wastewater facilities.
In fact, Maui is considered the leader in Hawaii
when it comes to reusing recycled water. Our program has a
very strong foundation, and we are considered pioneers in
the field.
Statewide, Hawaii treats about 150 million gallons
per day of wastewater, and of that amount 24 million gallons
a day is being reused. And Maui County's percentage is
around 26 percent. So we're about a quarter of our
wastewater. We treat a little bit under 16 million gallons
a day, and we're using a little bit under 4 million gallons
a day at this time.
The majority of recycled water has been used, as I
said earlier, for irrigation of golf courses, and also
agriculture. But we're seeing more and more of the R1 water
that's being produced being used in the urban environment.
Now we're irrigating parks, school yards, you know,
condominiums, multi-family housing, shopping center
landscaping, places where people frequent. And the R1 water
allows us to do that without, you know, any concerns for
health or welfare.
This is just, as you know, a map of Maui County
showing the locations of our wastewater systems. Of course,
in Maui our largest systems, starting in Central Maui, we
have our Wailuku-Kahului facility. It's an R2 facility, but
actually the water from this facility meets R1 standards,
but it's not considered R1 because we don't have the
equipment recognized by the Department of Health in place at
this facility to classify the water as R1. We treat about 5
million gallons a day. We only we have one small reuse
project in this area.
We've held off on developing reuse in Central
Maui. As you may be aware, there's a study on going right
now to determine the feasibility of actually shutting this
plant down and building another plant further inland away
from the tsunami zone and salt air corrosion. Until that
decision is made, it probably would not be best to develop a
reuse system at this location.
Kihei is, you know, an R1 facility. It's been
really a hot spot for reuse in Hawaii. We treat a little
under 5 million gallons a day. We're using close to half of
that water right now. Several projects, and I will show you
a map later on of all the projects that use the recycled
water.
Lahaina is also an R1 facility, but we're limited
to 3 million gallons per day of R1 capability, because we
only have one ultraviolet disinfection channel at this time.
The remainder of the 5 million gallons which is treated is
R2 quality.
On Molokai we have our Kaunakakai facility, it's
an R2 facility. We do use a little bit of water for the
Department of Transportation to irrigate a portion of the
Mauna Loa highway going into Kaunakakai.
On Lanai we have an R3 facility, but we send the
entire plant flow, about a little under 300,000 gallons per
day, to the Lanai Company and they upgrade the quality to R1
at their own treatment plant, and use all that water on the
golf course at the Experience at Koele.
Our program has been developed over the last 10 or
12 years, and as I said earlier, it has a very strong
foundation. In the early '90's we conducted feasibility
studies to determine which areas of Maui County would fit,
or Maui, the island of Maui, would best support water reuse.
Those studies indicate that, you know, South Maui, Kihei and
West Maui, Lahaina, due to very dry climates and also not a
whole lot of water resources available in those areas.
Those areas really best would support water reuse.
In 1993 the position for which I occupy, the water
recycling program coordinator, a position was created. And
this is important because you really have a person whose
primary focus is to promote the use of recycled water in the
community, to educate the community. I probably conduct
close to a hundred presentations per year about water reuse
and wastewater treatment and water conservation to schools,
community groups, et cetera, and generally this has been a
good thing for Maui County. The City and County of Honolulu
has followed our lead, and they've also hired a number of
people to coordinate their reuse program.
In 1995 and 1996, based on our feasibility studies
we upgraded the Lahaina and Kihei facilities to R1
capability. In 1995 Maui became the only county thus far in
Hawaii to establish an ordinance which requires R1 recycled
water to be used at commercial properties if the water is
available.
If you are a commercial property and you are
within 100 feet of an R1 distribution line you must hook up
to the system within one year and use the recycled water for
landscape irrigation.
In 1996 we passed our rules for recycled water
service, and again, we are the only county thus far to do
that. In 1997 we established a community-based committee to
come up with a rate structure which was pretty innovative,
because we recognized at this time especially the use of
recycled water addressed two key issues here on Maui.
One was the fact that recycled water does
supplement water supplies, but it also addresses concerns
about effluent disposal. As you may be aware, we have a lot
of seaweed blooms, algae blooms in West Maui's waters, and
also South Maui's coastal waters. And because of that
disposal issue we were really kind of pushed into reusing
this recycled water instead of throwing it away into
injection wells.
As a result, our rate structure was very fair. We
recovered monies for our program from both recycled water
users and the sewer users. So we kind of share the burden
of this expensive program over a wide base, and that's
enabled us to set our rates at fairly low levels. And I
will show you a slide later on about our recycled water
rates.
Here is the map that I mentioned earlier. This is
our West Maui system. This is the treatment plant. It's
right across from the Embassy Suites in Honokowai. When the
plant was built in the mid-seventies we had like a 20-inch
pipeline that ran up the hill 700 feet in elevation above
the treatment plant. Back then we pumped R2 water to
Pioneer Mill, and it was used for sugar cane irrigation.
In the early eighties sugar was discontinued in
the area and this pipeline was essentially abandoned.
Recently, in the last couple of years the Maui Pineapple
Company has been using a small volume of R1 water for
irrigation of pineapple off of this system.
In the mid-nineties, mid to late nineties we
constructed a pipeline that runs down to Kaanapali Resort
and golf courses, and this is in fact our largest customer.
They use up to 1.2 million gallons per day for irrigation.
One problem we're having out here is the fact that
we don't have any off-site storage that we own. If we can
pump up the hill to elevated storage we would be able to
pressurize this pipeline 24 hours a day, which would enable
a multitude of other commercial properties to hook up to
this system and use the R1 water for landscape irrigation.
Now this is very expensive. We just had a West
Maui recycled water master plan completed that identified
four phases of expansion that we need to do of improvements
both at the treatment plant and off-site to develop more
pipelines and other storage facilities. The price tag is
estimated to be about $46 million for these improvements.
So it's not cheap.
The South Maui system has storage. In the old
days -- we still use this old pipeline that goes down to
Kalama Park and the library and the fire station -- but in
the late nineties, mid to late nineties we developed our
core distribution system.
Here is the Kihei facility. We put in a 16-inch
line that runs up the hill to a 1 million gallon covered
storage tank. This tank is about 200 feet in elevation
above our treatment plant. And we had such a good deal
during the construction of this that we ended up building a
12-inch line that runs all the way down currently to the
Piilani commercial center where Safeway is.
This elevated storage allows us to pressurize this
system 24 hours a day, and as a result we can see all the
projects that are using the recycled water now and also some
future projects, near future projects that will hook up to
the system in the very near future.
Of course the oldest project is Elleair Golf
Course. This course was built just with the idea of using
recycled water. We also have other projects. Goodfellow
Brothers has been a major user of recycled water for dust
control over the years. Haleakala Ranch has intermittently
used the recycled water, and they've got some plans to use
it for pasture irrigation and possibly other uses, Bioreal,
Maui Earth Composting.
This 12-inch line right here is basically a lot of
small projects that use between 20 and 30 thousand gallons
per day. But all these projects either used to use potable
water for landscape irrigation or could have used potable
water if recycled water was not available.
You can see a lot of these future uses, the Kihei
Regional Park, Wailoa Village, which is kind of a test
case. We were hoping to use this water for single-family
lot irrigation, which is not currently being allowed by the
health department. Hope Chapel is under construction right
now. Haleakala Greens subdivision, and on and on and on. So
you can see, pressurized systems really makes this water
usable.
Okay, expansions. We put this pipeline in the
ground last year down Waipuilani Street, and this year we
are going to be connecting the two segments of line right
here (indicating). Possible expansion would be we were
actually going to do this; we had a design all set up. It
was to put a pipeline in South Kihei Road during that road
widening project. But the project was cancelled so we had
to kind of shelf these plans.
But I guess one option would be to go across South
Kihei Road and go through that Waipuilani Park with that
pipeline, and then we would be able to provide recycled R1
water to a number of the condominiums.
Another expansion that we're currently looking at,
we are having a study done right now which is being funded
by the Department of Water Supply, is to extend our system
to North Kihei to the beginning of Monsanto's -- the
beginning of Kihei where Monsanto grows corn. You can see
the corn fields as you enter Kihei. That entire farm and a
couple of other farms in the area, they all use potable
water for landscape irrigation. I think it's about 300,000
gallons per day, on average, and sometimes up to a million
gallons per day of potable water.
Now Monsanto established this farm here, and
they're using the R1 water, and it's working out very well
for them. If we were to build this pipeline, Haleakala
Ranch and Ulupalakua Ranch, and who knows who else could
hook up to the system and use this recycled water for
irrigation.
I just want to show you a couple of slides of some
of the projects that are currently using the system off of
our Piilani system. This is that 12-inch line that runs
down to Safeway, Kihei and Lokelani Schools. These are the
first two schools in Hawaii to use recycled water for
landscape irrigation. Prior to recycled water being
available they used to use potable water. And I guess they
didn't have very good pressure because when one school
irrigated its campus the other school couldn't flush its
toilets.
So now -- in fact, these fields were nothing but
dust bowls, and the kids would go out and play and come back
all dirty. But now you can see they're nice and green and
lush and it's working out very well for them. Of course we
did some extensive public education before we started using
recycled wastewater at this location.
Piilani Villages, this is a single-family
subdivision in Kihei. And again, I mentioned the Department
of Health has not yet allowed the use of R1 water for
landscape irrigation at single-family lots, but they do
allow it in the common areas, such as park areas along the
roadways and sidewalks, yet they do allow it for
multi-family irrigation.
This is the Piilani Gardens, and you can see we're
irrigating right up to the edge of the lanais and buildings,
and this irrigation system is under the control of a single
landscape entity, like a maintenance person or a landscape
contractor. So, you know, that's some of the allowable
uses.
There's quite a debate right now going on with
single-family versus multi-family. Piilani Village is a
good example of the integrated use of recycled water, all
the way from groundbreaking to landscape irrigation. Not
only did they irrigate, but they used over 91 million
gallons of R1 water during the construction phase of the
shopping center and the surrounding areas. They used it in
dust control, street cleaning. They even used it to mix the
mortar to build the buildings. Why not?
And the reason I'm pointing these uses out is just
to have you think out of the box. We don't just irrigate
with this water, we can use it for all kinds of things. Of
course, the end result is landscape irrigation. You can see
we irrigate all over, right next to where the car is parked,
and it's been very successful at this location.
Bioreal is a subsidiary of Fuji Chemical. They
were attracted to South Maui because of the abundant
sunshine and the availability of the recycled water for
cooling. They basically grow this algae, this micro-algae
in these domes from which they produce this antioxidant
called Acidathum (phonetic), which is a super product that's
used in the health food industry. It's like 40 times
stronger than vitamin E.
Anyway, they sell all of this material in Japan,
but they use the recycled water for cooling. They use about
20 or 30 thousand gallons a day. But again, this water has
attracted sustainable economic development to Maui County.
Maui Earth Compost is an established greenways
composting company in Central Maui. They desired a location
in South Maui. They leased some land from the ranch,
Haleakala Ranch, right next to the treatment plant, and
they're just starting up their greenway composting
operation. They also practice permaculture, where they
compost white paper, wastepaper which used to be thrown away
in the landfill, and is now delivered to them by Maui
Recycling Service. And they use these little red wiggle
worms that basically decompose the paper and produce just a
wonderful soil amendment. We are not only creating a
renewable resource from previously disposable materials, but
we're also freeing up some landfill space.
Monsanto seed corn, as you know, they have several
farms both here on Maui and on Molokai. They established
this 200-acre farm above our treatment plant just because
the recycled water was available, and they leased land from
Haleakala Ranch, and they use about 220,000 gallons of R1
water a day. And, you know, they utilized genetic
engineering to produce various forms of seed corn. This is
not edible corn, it's corn that's used for cattle feed.
They also utilize R1 water for landscape
irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing, and fire control at
their bagging facility and office building, and will be
expanding the use of recycled water for these purposes at a
new building that they will be constructing in the near
future.
This is probably what you asked us to come here
for. This is kind of a chart of what's going on right now
with wastewater treatment and water reuse in Maui County.
If you look at the facilities, the design flow of each
facility, the average current flow, how much R1 water is
being produced, the current use of the water, and what's
left over.
By the way, I do have handouts for you folks, so
I'm sorry, I should have -- you don't have to take notes, I
should have handed them out earlier. I'm sorry about that.
Anyway, in Kihei, all R1, we have a design flow of
8 million gallons a day. We are currently treating about
4.6. All of it is R1. We are currently using about 1.7,
sometimes it goes as high as 2 million gallons per day. And
we have close to 3 million gallons per day left over at this
time, although this number will be going down in the near
future as some of those projects hook up that I showed you
earlier.
In Lahaina we have a design flow of 9 million
gallons a day, currently treating about 5 million, only 3
million gallons of R1, which is limited by the ultraviolet
disinfection capability. We are currently using about 1.5
million, and about 1.5 left over. Wailuku/Kahului design
flow 7.9, average flow 4.9. Again, it's all R2. A small
amount of this water is being used to irrigate the Kanaha
Cultural Park, which is right next door to the treatment
plant.
And then on Molokai we have an R2 facility, and
very small amounts being used, et cetera, et cetera. Here
is Lanai. You can see we basically treat about 300,000 a
day, and it all goes to the auxiliary plant and is being
used on the golf course.
So we basically treat about 15 million gallons a
day; we're using a little bit under 4. And so we still have
quite a bit of water left. We are about 25 percent, 26
percent reuse.
As far as our rate structure, we have three
classes, major ag, ag -- which includes golf courses -- and
all others. And what we did was we developed this rate
structure, we looked at what these user classes were
currently paying for their water. Major ag was paying about
12 cents per thousand, and some were paying less and some
were paying more, so we set ours at 10 to provide an
incentive.
For agriculture we looked at how much golf courses
typically pay to pump brackish water from the ground. Back
then in 1996 they were paying about 24 cents per thousand,
so we made ours, we set ours at 20. All others we set at 55
because we looked at the cheapest potable water rate, and
that was the ag rate back then. At that time it was 62
cents per thousand gallons. We are looking at actually
increasing our rates this coming year, and we are probably
going to look at this particular class, the increase,
because most of the users in this class typically use
potable water from the County of Maui or private water
purveyors, and they're paying anywhere from $1.50 to $4.00
per thousand for potable water used for landscape
irrigation.
So I think if we were to increase our rate to
about a dollar per thousand that would still provide a
significant savings for these customers, and help us recover
some money for our program.
What we did was we also increased sewer user fees
slightly to help share the burden. We have connection fees
and avoided cost clause. The avoided cost clause,
basically if a golf course, for example, comes in -- this if
for the Kaanapali Golf Course. They said, "Well, why should
we pay 20 cents per thousand? We're only paying 16 cents
for brackish water." Our avoided costs clause allows us to
match that rate, so it's kind of a -- I think it's a very
fair approach.
Connection fees were also established for South
Maui and West Maui. This is basically to help recover
capital infrastructure costs. And finally, meter fees.
Whatever it costs us to install a meter we basically back
charge the user. That's about it. Any questions?
MR. FOLEY: Steve, I have one. The Planning
Commission recently reviewed a couple of very large projects
in North Beach in Kaanapali. And during our hearing
recently we heard one of the developers say that they would
be glad to hook up to recycled water, but there was a
pressure problem. And I think what I heard them say is that
they need to have a storage tank placed higher on the hill
to create the storage.
MR. PARABICOLI: Right.
MR. FOLEY: Can you tell us approximately how much
it would cost to have the storage tank and the line that
would be required before we could require them to hook up?
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, the first two phases of
that West Maui recycled water master plan that I referred to
earlier, that identified both in-plant storage that we need
at the plant, and also additional ultraviolet disinfection
capability.
In addition, I identified the pipelines we needed
to lay and the storage tank. And I believe those first two
phases came out to about $26 or $27 million. I know there
was actually a developer did call me, and I don't want to
mention any names, but they were even considering putting
their own storage tanks on site, so that when we pump water
to the golf course they could fill up their tanks at that
time. I don't know how aesthetically pleasing that would
look at a hotel.
MR. FOLEY: How big do the tanks have to be?
Would it be feasible to put tanks on the roofs of these
buildings?
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, it depends on how much
water they need. If they were only using 20 or 30 thousand
gallons a day, that could be a possibility, or some other
place. These landscape irrigation projects, you know, they
have a lot of hotels and condos, they have a lot of asphalt,
so their use is not as much as you would think. Most of our
projects seem to be in the 20, 30. There are a few that are
maybe 40 or 50, but most of them are about 20 to 30 thousand
gallons a day.
MR. FOLEY: Can the tertiary treated water be used
for swimming pools?
MR. PARABICOLI: I believe in California they
allow that, but the Department of Health here in Hawaii does
not allow that.
MR. FOLEY: Because one of the resort -- one of
the time-share projects the commission just reviewed had a
vast amount of water in water features. They weren't all
accessible for swimming. So maybe they could be used in
water features that weren't for swimming.
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, actually we do have one
project, the Haggae Institute in South Maui, they use the
water for landscape irrigation, but they also use it for
their fish ponds and also water features like waterfalls and
things like that. It's allowable for those types of uses. .
Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Iaconnetti.
COMMISSIONER IACONNETTI: Does the recycled water
remove the pesticides and herbicides?
MR. PARABICOLI: The recycled water? Well, we
typically test our recycled water fairly frequently. We
send it out to a certified lab. We normally don't see those
types of residuals in there. Every now and then you might
see a little trace amount, but generally we don't see the
pesticides or herbicides.
We have the aeration process at the treatment
plant where you pump a lot of air into the system, and that
tends to volatize a fair amount of these organics and
pesticides and things like that. Every now and then we do
see very, very small amounts. But, you know, when you
consider that a lot of the fruits and vegetables that we
purchase in the store are laden with that type of stuff, I
wouldn't be overly concerned about that.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Moikeha?
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: What about for fire
protection?
MR. PARABICOLI: Yes, we have a number of projects
that use the recycled R1 water for fire protection,
including Monsanto, Bioreal. We also have a number of fire
hydrants, purple fire hydrants on the old Welakahao Road
that have been in fact used by the fire department for
putting out brush fires in the area.
For recycled water to be used for fire control it
must be of R1 quality, though, because of the generation of
mists and things like that. So we have a lot of that
available.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Shepherd?
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD: We have started requesting
that developers have dual water systems set up, and our
frustration is that when it will be available, when they
will hook up. So our problem is getting the lines to them.
MR. PARABICOLI: Right.
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD: So do you have any idea of
a time frame? It seems to me you mentioned raising the
sewer rates, and that does seem to be a more fair way to go
about this because you can spread it out further. But for
instance, the Monsanto line. When is the study going to be
done, and then we need to build the line. And Monsanto I
would think would be wanting to make a contribution to this
line, or should.
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, they haven't actually
volunteered. The study should be done probably I would say
I think they have about 180 days to complete the study. It
hasn't quite gotten started, but it should be very shortly.
We are just waiting for the contract to be finalized. And
then we have to determine whether it's something we can
afford to do. I guess we really can't afford not to do it,
right.
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD: That's it, we can't afford
not to do it, but on the other hand we can't afford to do it
yet.
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, we have it in our CIP, we
just have to get that approved by the Council and the Mayor.
That's the same thing for West Maui. These -- we have got
projects in CIP for the next two or three years down the
road.
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD: So where do you see the
funds coming from?
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, I think the best approach
would be to kind of integrate a number of sources.
Connection fees. We need to perhaps get some -- typically
we have used state revolving fund loans, low interest loans.
There's -- I wish there were more grants out there. A lot
of the grant money is not -- is not accessible, but there's
still hope.
I have been researching a number of grants,
including Title 16 of the Bureau of Reclamation. They have
finally recognized that Hawaii is a state in the United
States of America and have decided to send money this way
(Laughter).
There's also some other federal funding sources
that we might be able to get. I believe if we were to
offset potable water then the Department of Water Supply
should help contribute to our system. And possibly from
private developers, if they really want the water then they
should help us build the system.
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD: Well, I asked for a
voluntary contribution from a developer to the recycling
line, but didn't get it.
MR. PARABICOLI: Yeah, well, I mean I think it's
-- we all have to come to a consensus that, you know, we
live on an island and water is, you know, we are not really
running out, but it's just getting it from point A to point
B, which is the issue, it appears to me. But if we have got
this water, this recycled water available, why throw it
away? Let's use it.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Casumpang?
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Yes, in line with
Commissioner Shepherd's question, you know, from Wailea to
down to the Kihei school every square foot is open space are
coming here for development. And we always have been asking
that to have a dual, I mean some water uses for the claim,
but since the funding is not normally available. And I was
wondering if we can include that in assessment fees for a
developer.
MR. PARABICOLI: Yeah, I guess we could do that.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Is that by ordinance or
just an SMA condition?
MR. PARABICOLI: I really couldn't answer that
question. I know that we have our connection fees set up.
So if you basically want to use recycled water, when you pay
a connection fee you are helping somewhat to pay for the
infrastructure that we have built.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: First of all we need to
address if it's legal to assess the developer for impact
fees.
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, you know, I think they are
paying impact fees for sewer development. So it's something
that the County would have to look into as far as assessing
impact fees for recycled water system development.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: That's the only way we
can get the funding unless -- I don't think the County has
got millions of dollars in excess.
MR. PARABICOLI: No.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Freitas?
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: I still want to know is
that through ordinance or we can do it in an SMA?
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: No, Nick, before we can impose
anything it has to be by ordinance, and then that can be an
imposition. But right now legally we are not allowed to do
that. But, you know, it doesn't mean that we can't start
bending some ears in the Council and getting our legal
department ready. And they have to actually do some kind of
survey with your department so that they can come up with
costs, and that's probably part of the costs or imposition
of the impact fees that we have on track is that the studies
are not complete.
So, you know, what comes first, we need it first
and then we say let's get the money. But since they do have
a connection fee, it doesn't stop this commission by saying
you have to pay for that fee, connection fee. We are just
saying you have to be readily available. But I would say
that if we now say in the SMA you have to pay for the
connection fee for reuse of water, now I think they'd be
more apt to move forward in getting reused water, because
they're already paying for something they can't use until
it's connected.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: That's what I am leading
into, because some provision of the SMA, I believe it's a
state law, and some provision of the SMA is the authority of
the Council.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Well, you're right. Since they
do have a fee schedule for the water meter for reused water,
that can't be an imposition by us. But we'd have to go
through our legal counsel to make sure that we're not
stepping on anybody's toes.
Yes, go ahead.
MR. OKAMURA: I had a quick question. About how
close or, you know, your revenues, about how much of your
expenses does your revenues cover?
MR. PARABICOLI: Not a whole lot. Actually,
that's why we had to bump up our user fees a little bit.
But I think we just did an analysis on how much it's costing
us to produce and deliver recycled water, and it came out to
about a dollar per thousand gallons. And as you can see, if
we only charge 10, 20 and 55 then we have a shortfall there.
And that's where the theory was the sewer user fees would
help offset that difference.
The thing is our rate study initially called for
an increase in -- a slight increase, just pennies per month,
not very much at all. But it's supposed to be increased
three years in a row, and they were only increased the first
year. I guess that was an election year or something
(laughter).
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Freitas?
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: Turning the R2 into R1, is
it the ultraviolet system, is that part of it?
MR. PARABICOLI: That's part of it, yeah. When
you have to turn R2 to R1 you have to have filtration. It
could be sand filtration or media filtration, or some type
of filtration. You also have coagulation capability, which
means that if the turbidity of the R2 water, the water
coming off our secondary clarifiers is fairly turbid, we
have to have the capability of injecting palimer or some
type of a flocculent into the water to help capture the
particles that are causing turbidity.
And we have that capability in all of our plants,
but we don't normally use it. But you have to have that
capability. And then disinfection. It can either be UV,
ultraviolet, or chlorine disinfection. But chlorine has to
be excessive amounts, really high residuals for extended
periods. We chose not to go that route because of safety
and environmental concerns. That's why the ultraviolet
really is the way to go. It's a lot better for the
environment, and you don't have that big concern of storing
large amounts of liquid and gaseous chlorine on site, and
then leaks.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: So again, it's just a
matter of money to get the ultraviolet in the purifying
systems to the R2 lines?
MR. PARABICOLI: And at the Lahaina plant. We
only have one ultraviolet channel that has 3 million gallons
per day of capability. If we want to really increase reuse
in West Maui we would definitely need to add definitely
another two channels, one to help produce water to meet
demand, and another as a backup.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: And do you have any idea of
what the cost of something like that would be?
MR. PARABICOLI: Off the top of my head, I think
they were about, boy, $6 or $7 million. I don't remember
exactly what it was. But we have to pour concrete and buy
the system. And the bulbs and things are rather expensive,
the UV bulbs. They're about -- we have several hundred that
we use per channel, and I think they're about $40 each. So
there's a lot of equipment that you have to put in. If you
want, we can look that up in our rate study, in our master
plan.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: Well, you know, I was on a
golf course, I was at a house that was on a golf course in
Pukalani, and there were all these biting flies all over the
place, all over the grass. And the realtor said that it was
because of the water that they were watering the grass with,
and that it was this, you know, I guess R2, yeah.
MR. PARABICOLI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: So what's that all about?
I mean --
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, that's a perception thing,
you know. People have their opinions. That is an R2 water
that again it's a project that was grandfathered.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: That's why there is, there
isn't that buffer because it's grandfathered.
MR. PARABICOLI: Most of the golf courses on
Kauai, the Big Island, having using this type of water since
the late seventies, early seventies, you know. No one is
getting sick. The biting flies thing probably has nothing
to do with the water being used. It's probably, you know,
did you think the recycled water makes them more aggressive?
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: I don't know, I guess they
like it, I don't know.
MR. PARABICOLI: I don't really know how to
respond to that.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Yes, go ahead.
MS. PARSONS: Increase usage caught did you tell
down done the cost of that dollar per thousand. So it would
always remain that.
MR. PARABICOLI: It would probably go up, because
we'd have to pump more water. We'd have to build more
pipelines. Yeah, it would go up.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Wouldn't there be a point of
diminishing return? If you use X amount, after you get to a
certain point then it becomes economically feasible.
MR. PARABICOLI: Oh, sure, that's down the road.
Once we've got our distribution systems all built and all
that kind of stuff, yeah. But initially it is very
expensive but, you know, again it's a decision that the
community has to make, whether we want to take on this
economic challenge. But, you know, we are going to reap
some long-term benefits.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Freitas?
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: The new plant, the plant
that's over there in Kahului.
MR. PARABICOLI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: You said that you are not
going to improve it now because it may be moved or
relocated. Is that the one that they're talking about on
Mokulele Highway, that area there?
MR. PARABICOLI: Yes, that's it.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: Do you know anything about
a timeline on that?
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, I guess the study is going
to be done within a year or so, and then at that time a
determination will be made. It's going to be -- that's
going to be a pretty expensive proper something, to shut
down the existing facility. And we'd have to relocate the
pipelines and sewer lines and then also distribute, put in
recycled water distribution lines, in addition to building
the facility.
(Addressing Mr. Takamine) So do you want to
address that?
MR. TAKAMINE: I'm Tracy Takamine again. I can
answer that. Actually, the study is, I guess, planned to be
completed sometime next year, just before Council budget
cycle. The study will just give us an idea of what we want
to do, it's not going to tell us whether we are actually
going to move the plant. We're getting the community
involved. We want input from the community to develop
different scenarios. It might be to move the plant, it
might be not move the plant. And also if it is move the
plant, where should it be put?
You mentioned Puunene. That was back in the early
nineties when we were looking to doing that. Since then
technology has changed, things have gotten more condensed
and smaller, so it's basically an open ballgame and we're
looking at everything. And based on this study we will come
up with a set of maybe six or seven different options that
we might look at and then present that to the County Council
and to the Mayor and the administration.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: So then while you're
studying to improve that plant, we just wait until all this?
I mean there's no pressure to get that plant improved?
MR. TAKAMINE: At the current time, no. No, we
don't. In fact, we just recently completed this year or
early last year $12 million in upgrades in terms of
liability to that plant to keep it going for another 10 or
15 years. But everything we design and we do to that
facility, we take into account a 20-foot tsunami. So it's
all designed to supposedly withstand a 20-foot tsunami, to
be in operation after that, or with minimum work to get it
back into operation.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Thanks, Tracy. Commissioner
Nick?
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Mr. --
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Takamine.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: -- Takamine.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Another question for you.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Yeah. What happened to
that plan to move to the old airport?
MR. TAKAMINE: The Puunene airport?
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Yeah.
MR. TAKAMINE: That's the one I mentioned. Back
then, there was a study done back in the early 1990's by
Austin Tsusumi and Kam, Dresser and McGee. But back then
the plan was to move the facility from the current location
to a site near the old Puunene airport.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: The same plan.
MR. TAKAMINE: Yes. And in that plan it was to
divert some of the flow from Kahului and North Kihei and
combine it and treat it at that location, and develop a
recycled distribution system from there.
But since then, you know, things have changed,
like I said. Technology has changed, a different
administration, different thoughts. So all that has been
basically scrapped, and we're starting over again.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: At the CAC the department
presented and we agreed to swap land from the state, because
the old Puunene is state land, to make this plan a reality,
and you just scrapped it like that? I don't understand.
MR. TAKAMINE: I am not familiar with that.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: They came to the CAC for
zoning approval just to get that plant built over there.
MR. TAKAMINE: I'm sorry, I don't know anything
about that.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Let me ask a question. I mean
just say, for instance, that site was chosen. My
understanding though, if sewage is always downhill, sewer
goes downhill, but then that's uphill. Because I know we
did a project for Maui Land and Pine, and they had to pump.
Just up to the mill was about a 25 foot uphill. So you
would have to have pumps pumping all the way out there.
So it's a matter of economics. If you have got to
pump everything out there it's pretty expensive, especially
if it's all flowing downhill, and now we have got to turn
around and pump it up there. So hopefully they will find a
someplace at a lower elevation.
MR. TAKAMINE: That's correct. If we do anything,
at that point what we'll do is we will get into a more
in-depth engineering study that would take into account how
many pump stations would have to be built, you know, what's
the distance of pipeline, the distribution system, the
collection system. All that will come into play.
We will have rough numbers. In fact, the study
will come out with rough numbers. We'll have -- there are
figures tied to these options, in their orders of magnitude,
but you will see what the costs will be. And again, that
will be a deciding factor, whether we go that route or leave
the plant where it's at now, or take into consideration when
and if a tsunami is going to hit, can it withstand it.
What's it going to cost to bring it back online. Is it
worth moving the plant. All that is going to be taken into
consideration.
But the Kihei plant, actually what Steve showed
you, that's an elevation of 100 feet. Everything in Kihei
flows from north and south to a central pump station, Pump
Station 6 at Kalama Park, and we pump that 100 feet up. Not
necessarily -- we don't locate the treatment plant at the
lowest point.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Casumpang?
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: In the study you just
mentioned, how much did that cost?
MR. TAKAMINE: The study, what the cost is? We
are paying $500,000.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Any other questions for
Mr. Takamine? Thank you. Any questions for this gentleman?
Go ahead, Johanna.
COMMISSIONER AMORIN: I just wanted to ask the
ultimate question. Because of all these studies and
improvements with recycled water, is there down the road for
human consumption?
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, it's actually already being
done on the mainland. What you have to do is you take this
quality of water that we produce and then you would put it
through reverse osmosis and, you know, some nutrient removal
type processes to take out nitrates and things like that.
And typically what's done then with that water,
it's blended in with raw water that's put through a
treatment facility. It was actually -- San Diego actually
looked at doing that, and the advocates -- not advocates,
the folks who were against the project labeled it the Toilet
To Tap project, and they ended up drumming up enough
opposition to shelf that idea.
But it's being done elsewhere. It's being done I
think in Virginia and some other states as well, small
applications. But in fact, even the water we're putting out
now actually, believe it or not, meets many drinking water
standards as it is. It's not approved for human
consumption, but there have been some cases of cross
connections on the mainland. And people typically don't get
sick right away. But you can see the cattle, you know,
cattle are allowed to drink it, farm animals are allowed to
drink it, and that's an approved use here in Hawaii. So they
seem to be doing okay.
COMMISSIONER AMORIN: And we are eating that
cattle, right?
MR. PARABICOLI: Well, we're eating the cattle and
we're also eating lots of vegetables which are direct spray
irrigated with this tertiary water.
COMMISSIONER AMORIN: Right. (Inaudible)
MR. PARABICOLI: Yeah. Actually, there was a big
study done in California years ago that was called the
Monterey Wastewater Study for Agriculture, and they looked
at tertiary treated wastewater, secondary treated
wastewater, and also just standard surface water sources
that were used. And they actually found that the surface
water had much higher levels of contaminates than the
recycled wastewater. And, you know, they did a long-term
study, and based on that study the California Health
Department allowed recycled water to be used for spray
irrigation on crops.
And when our guidelines here in Hawaii were issued
in 1993, we didn't allow that. But then based on the
success of what's going on in California and Florida we
amended our guidelines, health department guidelines in
2002, and now we do allow that use.
COMMISSIONER AMORIN: Thank you for that
information. A lot of people probably will benefit from
this, thank you.
MR. PARABICOLI: You're welcome. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Okay, Commissioners, let me draw
your attention back to item E, topics to be discussed. Item
number one, relationship between the Maui Water Use and
Development Plan, the Maui County General Plan, and the
Community Plans.
So we have asked many questions, as we have agenda
items coming up, and we'd like to clarify some of these
items, now that we have the Board of Water Supply here and
the Commission. So if we move forward into asking you what
kind of questions we'd like to ask the members of their
commission.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: I have got one.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Okay, go ahead, Commissioner
Casumpang.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Almost every meeting we
had with regards to approving any development we always
question about development as being good for without even
clarifying if they will have a water meter in the future
after the development is being completed. So is that, can
that be addressed today, as to why the meters is later on?
Accepting, and then later on we will give you the meter?
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: I think we have some people from
the Board of Water Supply that can attempt an answer to
that.
MR. PEARSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners from
the Planning Commission, and Board of Water Supply members.
My name is Jeff Pearson, I'm Deputy Director for the
Department of Water Supply. I can give a brief two minutes
here, and then I'll introduce Ellen Kraftsow. She is the
water resource and planning division program manager.
So she'll -- what I'd like is if Ellen could do a
brief description of the items one through six. We don't
have a power point presentation. Working, you know, earlier
we thought we'd not have a high tech preparation here, but
we are going to be brief. And then after that point, maybe
that would be a good time for you to direct your questions.
Also here is Alvin Nakamura, the engineering
program manager. He's here to answer any questions, mostly
maybe near the end portion where you discuss issues of fire
flow and fire protection.
I want to comment on a couple of things Steve
said. I agree that reclaimed water is a source. We look at
it as a source. Steve said, you know, we're helping with
this study for the water line that leads towards the
Monsanto plant. We are fully committed to working with
wastewater to help with the funding. I know he's looking at
other funding, but we will definitely be a source of that
funding. Because, again, that's just another source.
And if it takes a million and a half ormillion
to drill a well, and you get a million gallons a day out of
that well, and you can do the same or better for reclaimed
water, of course you are accomplishing the same task.
Let's see here. I've just got notes. I'm happy
that we're getting this workshop together. I know it took a
little time and a little effort to get all of us
coordinated, but I think it's a good step in the right
direction. There's always the problem of communication
working together, so in my mind communication is the magic
word. So if we can communicate better and work together,
it's only going to help everybody else.
So again, Ellen, Ellen Kraftsow is going to come
up here and briefly discuss these items. And if you give
her just a few minutes, and then from then on we can answer
any questions you may have.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Is this good enough? Greetings
Commissioners and Board Members. It's off? No, it's on.
Can you hear me? It's green. Okay, too high tech for me,
sorry.
I have a list of questions, if we could just be
prepared to answer them briefly. So I apologize that we
don't have a presentation. But in terms of the Water Use
and Development Plan, using a 20 year time frame, basically
the plan is meant to look at existing resources and uses,
not only of potable water systems, and not only of public
water systems, but of all water uses to inventory those and
look at anticipated demands for water throughout the County,
and then come up with a plan for how these needs will be
met.
This plan needs to be consistent with the general
plan and the community plans, as well as various state
plans, the State Water Projects Plan, the State Agricultural
Plan, the State Water Quality Plan, the State Water
Resources Protection Plan. There's a whole list of plans
and policies that the Water Use and Development Plan is
required to be consistent with, and that much is in the
State Water Code, Chapter 174-C.
In addition, now there's the framework for
establishing the Hawaii Water Plan, and that requires a very
extensive and robust public process in developing these
plans. It is a time-consuming process. It has to be
credible and documented, and basically it's an IRP planning
process. And we are about to embark on the public process.
We have been doing some preparation, and we are about to
embark on the public process for Central Maui and Upcountry.
We're actually a month or two behind on that, on doing that
facilitation contract issue.
The next question I was asked is what's the
current potable use. The water department uses about 35
million gallons a day. Last time I checked Kaanapali and
Kapalua, I didn't do any extensive preparation for this, but
combined they use about 5 potable and Launiupoko and Baldwin
and others combined, probably about 2. That's in the public
water systems. That may be a little bit off, but the order
of magnitude is about right. So you are looking at about 40
or 45 potable for islandwide.
Available water in Iao and Waihee. I am assuming
you mean on the central system. Just yesterday we started
the use of an additional filter. We added a filter. We had
two filters at our Iao treatment plant, one of which had to
always be on standby, so we were only allowed to use half of
the capacity. Adding a filter enables us to use both of the
filters we have, and so we have more capacity, and that
started up successfully yesterday with all its approvals.
So the available water, if we stick to the 4
million gallons out of Waihee until we get Kupaa, we have
about 748,000 gallons available on the central system. If
we were able to use our full installed capacity. I don't
mean full installed capacity, by standards I mean within the
limits of the aquifer, full installed capacity, we'd have
more like 3 million gallons available right now. There are
different assumptions that can go into that, but that's
where the system is standing right now.
CIP projects to improve capacity in Central Maui.
As I just mentioned, we added a third filter to our Iao
treatment plant. We anticipate the Kupaa well to be on line
at the end of 2005. That will be probably close to about --
I'm ballparking this. It's about a million gallon a day
well. But as you recall, we already had 6.6 million gallons
of capacity in the Waihee aquifer, and 90 percent of the
sustainable yield will be 7.2, the sustainable yield of that
aquifer.
So because all of our existing capacity is in the
southern half of that aquifer, the state has asked us to
keep it down to 4 until we get to the northern half. Except
Kupaa is close enough that they said that at that point we
can go to 4.5. So versus what we're taking now, it would
add another half million gallons, even though the capacity
will be about a million.
We have some other wells that will enable us to --
our capacity will equal or exceed the sustainable yield, but
really the effect that they will have would be more to
distribute withdrawals within the Waihee aquifer, but that's
important because that will allow us to take up to 7.2. And
those are the Camp Maluhia well, which we expect around
2008. That will be another million gallon a day well. But
again, it will just distribute. Waialae well and Waiolena
well and those are around 2010 and 2013, roughly, or 2009
and 2013, depending how fast they go.
And so those are additional wells that will bring
our use of the Waihee aquifer up to the 7.2, or 90 percent
of that aquifer. Right now we are not assuming that we can
get any more than 90 percent. We'll try to stay within that
90 percent limit.
As far as elsewhere, we have a Waiale treatment
plant that is actually not in Waiale, it's above Hoopoi
Chute (phonetic). We expect that capacity to be around 5 or
6 million gallons a day. That's being developed and
dedicated by a developer for a project, however we would pay
the difference in size and increase the size to also meet
our needs. And we expect that --
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Where is this, I'm sorry? Where
is this?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Above Hoopoi Chute. It's sort of
above where Waiale is, up there, and it's 5 or 6 million
gallons a day. We expect it around 2007 or 2008.
And then of course there are the Hamakuapoko
wells. We expect them to come on line with about 700,000.
They are able to come -- they already can serve drought
Upcountry, and is serving drought Upcountry. We expect them
to also be able to serve the Central Maui system, so that
will add flexibility to the system, and those will be added
in 2005.
Other options, of course, include conservation,
desalt, East Maui. And then further down the line another
treatment plant in Waihee that we're looking at. Also in
terms of distribution and withdrawals in Iao around 2007 the
Waikapu Mauka and Iao tank set wells are due.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Do you have a question for one of
the Commissioners?
MS. PARSONS: Could you -- somehow if we could go
back over this several times -- could you explain us to us
treatment of what? Are we looking at treatment of
groundwater, treatment of surface water?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Oh, surface water.
MS. PARSONS: This is all surface water that you
were talking about?
MS. KRAFTSOW: The Waiale and Waihee treatment
plants that I referred to, yes, those are treatment.
MR. FOLEY: Ellen, did you address West Maui?
MS. KRAFTSOW: No. Actually, this list of
questions just talks about Central Maui, I'm sorry. But I
mean I can give you roughly.
MR. FOLEY: Could we take a minute to just address
Central Maui? I mean maybe if you could just briefly
address West Maui because, you know, we also have a lot of
development applications in West Maui.
MS. KRAFTSOW: We do, okay. West Maui is
problematic because actually the build-out estimates of the
projects that you guys have approved -- well, you guys,
sorry, have approved -- I guess you're all over the place,
is between 10 and 11 million gallons a day. That would be
the build-out of the discretionary projects that are
pending.
However, the natural demand trend would indicate
that we actually have enough source for several years. But
we're already at a point where we're considering whether we
need to stop giving out reservations of water because the
requested demands are so high. Even requests for
reservations. So it's a weird thing, it's growing much
faster than the demand curves indicate that it would be
growing.
We have a couple things going over there. One is
a possible increase in size to one or both of the plants.
That's not showing in the capitol plan yet, it's still under
negotiation. Another, and part of it, one of them, one of
the plants was designed for this increase, and it was
designed and sited and sized to accommodate this increase,
and it would just be a matter of actually taking the water.
Another, we have a Lahaina source and site
optimization study that's in this current fiscal year that
we expect to issue. I think the engineer that I'm working
with said he would probably start with the contract in
November, and so it will probably be ready to issue in early
next year or mid next year. I don't know what his other
project load is. And that's to look at not only the
possibility of wells and surface water, but also some of the
references that came up.
Even though we haven't completed the public
process for West Maui, we had started when the new
guidelines came out. And so we stopped the process and we
won't be going back to West Maui until Upcountry and Central
Maui are finished with the Water Use and Development Plan.
But we know that we are going to need source sooner than the
demand curves indicated.
And so some of the requests that people had were
like if they could have water that had never had to be
treated for the DBCP and so forth. Obviously this would be
a lot more expensive. We'd have to go a lot further out to
get it. But this study should look at some scenarios like
that too and just see what it would cost so that we have
costs to present to people.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: That particular water that you
are talking about is from which area? Are you talking about
coming out from Waihee, or is it surface water from West
Maui mountains?
MS. KRAFTSOW: No, actually, in West Maui we have
two treatment plants, one is on Kanaha Street above
Lahainaluna school, and the other is in Mahinahina. And
the first candidate for enlargements would probably be
Mahinahina, because it was built with an agreement.
And as far as wells go, like I said, we have a
source citing an optimization study, so this fiscal year
hopefully we want to take a better look at that. A better
look at why the demand for project requests are so off
kilter. And this is the first time we have come across
that, actually, and do some more studies. But according to
the demand trend, we have time to do this.
There's something else I wanted to say on West
Maui. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: You had a question, Nick?
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Yeah, going back to my
question, you stated that there's a so high of the demand.
The reason why we are approving project after project is
because we don't get a clear words from the department, from
the water department that we don't have water. All we are
getting is develop, it's only a risk. We cannot guarantee a
meter for you. That's not what we -- we don't know if we
have water or not, because we have no clear words from your
department to say that.
That's why now you are telling us that oh, we
approve too much development and then we don't have water.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Right. In theory, all of our
current responses say how much this project we anticipate it
will use, and maybe we're not consistent enough about how
much is already in use so that you can watch it grow.
But also I think you raise a good point. There
was a time when the first -- it wasn't actually the first
time the designation question was raised in Iao, but it was
in the early nineties, or early or mid nineties, where we
actually did recommend denial of some projects to avoid
building demand. And were told, "Your job isn't to do land
use planning, your job is just to do water planning."
So we backed off and decided, okay, we're just
going to tell them how much we're using and let them decide.
And for a while that made the Commissioners, different
Commissioners several commissions ago step back and pay
attention.
The department policy has been for decades and
decades that we make no guarantee or commitment of water
until such time as a meter is issued, and that's the point
at which we review. If we were to be reserving water for
projects there would be additional administrative and
resource and staffing costs to support something like that.
And one of the issues, one of the things that the
Water Use and Development Plan is supposed to accomplish is
to review several policy issues that have -- that arise in
the community a lot. One of them would be the pacing of the
use of water. Another would be at what time should water be
guaranteed. Another would be who is responsible for fire
protection.
Those kinds of issues are to be dealt with through
the public process of the Water Use and Development Plan.
But absent such a process we wouldn't really undertake rule
making to change the way things are going at this time.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: We need to see the red
flag to let us know that there's no more, so we can at least
slow down development or practically stop it if we have to.
We have to alert the people for water.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Right.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Just a minute. Go ahead. You
have a question?
MS. PARSONS: Going back just to the same thing
that Nick was talking about, going back to that. You went
through it really quickly, but the 780 thousand gallons per
day available that you think we have for central valley, is
that correct?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Roughly, yeah.
MS. PARSONS: Does that take into a -- I want a
rundown of where that comes from, because I think we had
less some time back.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes, we did.
MS. PARSONS: And you said there were other
scenarios that that could be lessoned with. And also, does
that -- is that a sustainable amount needed for drought?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Okay. I have, there's like a whole
list I have more answers to whenever you're ready to move
on. But okay, that comes from -- our Iao pumpage is -- this
is a moving annual, so it will account for one summarize you
will be familiar with Ginny. Even a moving annual doesn't
go up and down a bit. But Iao pumpage is about 16.97,
Waihee pumpage is about --
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Wait. Is that per day, per year,
per --
MS. KRAFTSOW: Oh, sorry, millions of gallons per
day.
MS. PARSONS: Well, we designated because we were
running into a much higher number. That was the reason for
designation. So was that in a period of a drought and we
designated because we had a drought situation? And would we
be a whole lot higher at say the 18, 19 mark? Honestly,
Answer honestly.
MR. PEARSON: Ginny mentioned that we designated
because there was a higher use. I wasn't around for all the
commission meetings, but I understand and know that the
reason for -- there was a bunch of triggers for designation.
One of them was the chloride levels that arise. Maybe Ellen
can talk in more detail, but I'll try to be brief.
But one of the triggers, as Ginny was talking
about, was pumping out of the yearly average, the 12 month
moving average. If it exceeded 18 million gallons a day at
any one month, the full month moving average, once it
exceeded 18 million gallons a day that was the trigger for
designation. No ifs, ands or buts, bam, you were
designated.
So that happened in June, I think, of '03, is that
right? So in June of '03 the Commission didn't have to make
a decision, the decision was made earlier based on other
Commission meetings on the triggers to designate. So that's
been designated to take place.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: So 20 million gallons per day
until there was an intervention to lower that down to 18.
MR. PEARSON: Correct. The sustainable yield,
well, in the eighties I think the sustainable yield was in
the 30 million gallons per day. From studies and whatever,
the sustainable yield was lowered to 20 million gallons per
day. And then the trigger was based on 90 percent of the 20
million gallons per day, which is 18 million gallons a day.
So that's where the number came from.
MS. PARSONS: So my question was, was this at a
drought period where we were in where we were using 18 to
20?
MR. PEARSON: Well, again, it's a 12 month moving
average. And so actually if you look months before that we
were using over 20 million gallons a day for certain months.
But then, you know, in the winter months and depending on
rains and so forth we were using -- and usage is lower, we
are using 16 or 15 million gallons a day. That's why they
figured a 12 month moving average was a fair representation
as opposed to a monthly average.
MS. PARSONS: So maybe what we ought to take is
the last four or five years and average those out per month
as something, rather than the last 12 months. Because it
would seem to me like it would be more of a legitimate
figure if we take in the last five years and average out the
last five years and say, okay, we are at 17 or 18 million
gallons, and that's one of the reasons why we designated.
And that would bring this 780 thousand gallons per day down,
correct?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Ginny, yes, 2002 and 2003 were
extremely dry years. But in addition to that, there's some
data review going on with our consultant which is just not
at the point yet where it's ready for public discussion,
that seems to indicate -- and I'm just going to say seems to
indicate at this point that our production numbers for a
specific period of time may have been overestimated.
And I don't want to go into that any further right
now, because it just sounds, you know, without giving you
the full explanation. But there's a combination. Those
were some very dry years and there may have been some
historical recording errors.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: The dilemma that comes to us in
the planning is that when we have a project that comes
before us and it says that they're only going to use X
amount of gallons and we see a number that's 800 thousand
gallons available, we don't know how many other projects or
how many other things that have been reserved to take care
of that. So it might not be 800 thousand.
If you take all the projects that have come before
us and you total all of those things up, and those that were
in retrospect, such as the project that's going on over here
in Wailuku that's 180 houses, which is 15 years old, and
their commitments were way back when, does the new usage
comply or did they have reservations for those? We know
that that project was there back 15 years ago, but they're
just building it now.
So what we really need to know is what's on
reservation or what had been committed way back when. And I
think we need our Planning Department to find out from you
what really is, and not you know take it when it comes.
When your project comes up we will tell you if you have got
it or not. That leaves us in the cold.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I think that you're raising a
really important issue, and the issue is at what point do
you guarantee water. But in terms of tracking the water, if
you look at the community plan buildout, depending upon the
assumptions you used from as little as 32 to well over 16
million gallons a day that were built out. If you look at
the discretionary permits that have come through planning or
are pending, 10, 11 million gallons a day.
But if you just look at what's reserved, right now
we have 618,210 gallons -- not millions of gallons per day
-- estimated in reserve meters. Plus another 63,900 that
Hawaiian Homes is asking for Waiehu for their phase four,
which they didn't reserve. That's what is outstanding in
reservations.
And the available water amount that we gave you,
that 800, that was beyond those reserved amounts. And what
happened was when we got close, we were continually
reevaluating that, and as we got closer, you know, the
numbers were -- the pumpage numbers were going down and the
treatment plant was about to be put on. So rather than call
the entire economy to a screeching halt, they felt that we
could get by a little bit longer than the originally
anticipated 800 thousand.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Moikeha?
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Isn't that why it's so
imperative that you have a development plan? And has the
County ever had a water development plan?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes. In fact, the community plan
that was finished in 2002 was the update of the 1980
community plan. During the 1990'S's two complete Water Use
and Development Plans were written based on that community
plan, at which point the director at the time said there's
no point in continuing to write Water Use and Development
Plans based on community plans that haven't changed.
Community plans and general plans that haven't changed.
So now we are in the process of updating the Water
Use and Development Plan. We do have and have long had, you
know, capitol plans and area plans and regional plans. But
the Water Use and Development Plan is a specific long-range
plan that's much like the general plan and the community
plans, it has to be built with a great deal of public
involvement and public participation. So we wouldn't call
any of our -- we wouldn't call any of our plans the Water
Use and Development Plan that hadn't been through that
process.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: So until we get new plans,
based on the community plan review, we don't use what we
have?
MS. KRAFTSOW: No, we are using what we have.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Have you ever seen the
South Maui carrying capacity that was done by Long Range?
And for Central Maui water demand in 2005 it will require
23.34 gallons, million gallons per day. Have you seen that
chart?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I have seen that chart. Actually,
we had a forecast expert do something that was a little bit
more tailored to water, so our South Maui projection is more
like -- which year were you looking at, 2005?
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: I'm looking at 2005 at
23.34.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah, yours is a little bit higher
than ours, than our base case, but it's pretty close.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Well, these numbers are
based -- first of all, the historical population is based on
the census, and these particular numbers apply to those
designated lands in the community plan of South Maui. So
that's the relationship with those numbers to this chart.
So you're saying this is a little high?
MS. KRAFTSOW: It's close, it's close for planning
purposes. Our forecast expert did use both the census data
and the SMS data that was used for developing the
infrastructure assessment and the general plan process. He
made some adjustments based on -- one of the things I think,
one of the assumptions that was inherent was that growth
would continue to divide by the same proportions that the
communities are broken down now, whereas he instead assumed
that growth would continue to divide according to the trends
that they're dividing now, if that makes any sense. A few
minor adjustments, but it's the same kind of forecast,
basically.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: So if this is our forecast,
are we going to meet that forecast?
MS. KRAFTSOW: For 2005, yes.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: We are going to have enough
source of water by the year 2005, what's needed?
MS. KRAFTSOW: You know, it is not simply a matter
of planning, it's also a matter of implementing. So as long
as these projects get built, yes.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Well, planning is the
foundation, the first part of it, and implementing that plan
is the next part.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Right.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: But what I always see in
this County is we do a lot of studying and nothing seems to
get implemented or we, you know, just set aside and someone
else down the road wants to do another study. Where do we
ever get anywhere is what I don't understand.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Let me ask you, when she referred
to being built, we are talking were the projects that we're
looking at. But are you talking about projects that the
water department is looking at to build so that you have
more capacity, is that what you are talking about?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: So the question is how far along
in your projects are you so that we can know that the
capacity that we're going to let loose to developments for
our people, that you are going to be able to coincide with
us? That's really, you know, do you have enough funds that
you can do that or is it on line? Do you have contracts out
to build?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Well, the fact of the matter is
there are plans in the water department that are older than
I am that are still good plans that have never been built
for lack of funds and lack of staff. And there are wells
that have been planned for close to a decade that have not
-- that have been budgeted repeatedly that have not been
built for lack of funds or lack of staff. So that is a
problem, and the water department is moving to address that
problem.
I think that, you know, and I am not speaking
department policy, it's just hard for me to refrain from
saying this. This county has no resource policy. And with
the existing financial structure and staffing structure that
we have, it is in fact extremely difficult for the water
department to keep up right now.
That doesn't mean that we couldn't make it
possible, it means that with the current financial structure
and staffing structure that we have, it is very difficult to
keep up with the pace of approvals right now.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: That's an aged problem, because
when the water department was on a semiautonomous program
they produced more in water development than we have since
it's been given to the county again. So we're back to
square one where they only did $2 million a year, which was
actually only repairing the pipes and that kind of thing.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I think with all respect I think
you guys need to ask yourself another question, which is,
even say we could develop all the water that we have, you
all probably are very familiar with the amounts of water,
about 470, plus a million gallons a day groundwater, and
half a million in run-off, which would translate there to
less than that in available surface water.
And you know, even if you could, that sounds like
a tremendous amount of water. But depending upon the pace
at which you increase how much you are using it, it could be
used up much more quickly than you would expect.
Honolulu has similar quantities of water and
expects to run out of new sources of fresh water by the year
2020, and has expected this for a long time. So the
question I would ask you to keep in mind is okay, there's X
amount of water. One is the issue of how can we pace
infrastructure. Another is how fast do you want to use it?
It's not -- you know, how fast do you want to use it? And
that's one of the questions that will be asked in terms of
the long-term process.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Raisbeck?
MS. RAISBECK: Ellen, the Water Stakeholder's
Committee is developing a proposal for new rates, and they
have been given a great deal of data about use, about water
use. And I understand that there are certain percentage --
that are for their purposes they have been given a
percentage increase in number of meters and a percentage
increase in amount of water use to use in their planning.
Now, I looked at those figures and figured out
that really they're talking about increases countywide of
something like less than 600 meters a year. And I thought
to myself, you know, with the projects that are planned, how
can they be planning less than 600 meters a year increase
for the purposes of this Water Stakeholder's Committee,
which is not Board of Water Supply, it was appointed by the
department.
But they have been doing you might call it
financial planning for the water department in order to come
up with new rates, and I don't see how those figures match
the kind of information that you've been giving.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I am not sure if I understand if
you're saying we are not growing as fast or --
MS. RAISBECK: No, I mean you are projecting --
for the purposes of that committee, you are projecting say
over the next five years there's going to be a certain
growth for the purposes of that committee. There will be a
certain growth in the number of meters, and a certain growth
in water use. And the number of meters does not compute
with what the Planning Commission works with, and it seems
to me that they could use some of that information
themselves.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Well, but then what we have too
is that you have one meter and one project that comes in
with 200 units, or like the one we had this morning which is
156 units. It's only one meter. So, you know, out of 600
if you had an average of 100 users or 100 units per 600 you
would have 60 thousand units coming on line possibly.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I don't -- also I didn't do that
projection, Sally, but I think that it was based on
historical trend, and they used some sort of estimated
percent growth based on historical trends.
MR. PEARSON: I think the percentage growth was
2.5 percent, based on the last four or five years of growth,
meters. Not just the five-eighths inch meters, but the
larger meters also.
MS. RAISBECK: I think they're using figures that
are less than that.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Go ahead, Commissioner Shepherd.
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD: I had a question for Mr.
Kushi. We have on several occasions asked developers, "How
do you feel about this clause that says you can go ahead and
you can go through all of this, but there's no guarantee
there's going to be water." And they always say, "Well,
I'll take the risk."
Now, nobody is going to take that type of risk
unless they feel very sure that the water will be available.
So my question to you is, legally what's the status of
somebody who has gone through all these steps and gets to a
certain point and says, "Well, yeah, but I wouldn't have
gone this far unless I thought there was water." I mean
can they turn around and say, "Hey, I went through all this,
you need to give me water"?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman also. I
don't know the answer, but I'm sure we'll find out shortly,
because it's coming to that point, it will come to that
point. But as the department has said and Ellen has
confirmed, that all your projects you get a letter from the
water department, and I believe you make that part of your
record if you approve a project.
And there are a lot of projects out here closer
than you think that are ready to hook up, and they don't
have reservations. And once that 700,000-plus gallons is
gone, it's gone. But I will find out.
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add one
thing with respect to what Ed just said, and that is that
the Planning Commission approves projects, other projects
are approved by the Council, and the staff approves a lot of
projects. We process thousands of applications a year.
What we don't know is when the projects are going to be
developed.
We have projects such as the one someone referred
to over here below Wailuku Heights which was approved 15
years ago, and then this year they decided to build. And so
there are a lot of projects on the books, but it's
impossible for us to tell exactly when they're going to be
built.
And that's the problem that gets us into the
procedure we have now, where the water department says, you
know, "We don't know whether you're going to have water or
not until you come in to build," because they don't know and
we don't know who is going to come in first.
And what Ed just said is there are a lot of large
projects out there, and if the large ones come in instead of
the small ones, we have a problem not only in Central Maui
but we have a problem in West Maui.
So, you know, I just wanted to point out that we
don't control when projects start, and we have some projects
that have been on the books for 10, 15 years that may or may
not proceed, but we -- usually financing is the reason
they're delayed. But quite often the projects disappear and
we never know why, they just don't come back. So there is
an unknown with respect to this timing.
MS. KRAFTSOW: So, you know, if it is determined
that the will of the public throughout the community in
general is to make it such that project approvals come with
water commitments, then obviously water commitments and
approvals of projects would have to be subject to some
different standards. And so that would be maybe a bigger
step than people realize.
Now, it's not like you can say, "Okay, approve it
and we will commit the water now." We would need to know up
front when will you build. Approvals, if they weren't
built on time, would need to lapse. There would need to be
some funds and staffing for tracking both on the planning
department and the water department side to keep it -- you
know, it would solve certain changes.
It may -- in fact, because we don't get any tax
money, it may also affect rate or fee structures. So it's a
bigger question than it may seem like, although it's still
worth discussing.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Okay. At this time I'd like to
take a ten minute break and give our stenographer a chance
to take a break, and for the rest of us. Let's recess for
five minutes.
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken)
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Okay, the Planning Commission is
back in session. At this time -- I have been neglecting one
of our Commissioners, and she has really something very
important to ask, so let's have it.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
believe this goes to Milton, although I am not sure. You
may redirect it. Milton, that one-liner that comes in for
us all the time that says, you know, the remarks from water,
you know, when they apply for a building permit, okay. To
change that, does it actually go to water first and they
really do see if there's water available, or have a comment
on it, how do we change that? Instead of it coming like
that and then going back for a building permit. Because on
it it has water usage. They know what's going on.
MR. ARAKAWA: Well, I think that question the
Commission needs to wrestle with, or the County as a whole
has to wrestle with, is at what point are you going to
guarantee the water. And that's the question Ellen brought
up earlier. If you guarantee it too early, say at a change
in zoning, it may be years before any development happens.
So you could do it in an SMA level, but that's
also not a guarantee that a development will start, you
know, construction shortly. There are some that for which
SMA Permits have been granted and it's been years before it
actually starts. In fact, you have seen a number of time
extensions before you on that. So that's the basic issue.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: But Milton, if in fact it
goes to water and they say okay, you are allowed this much
and we have it and everything and there's a time on it,
can't they determine but if you don't call for your water
within a certain amount of time, or something, you go to the
back of the list?
I mean I just can't believe that something could
not have more control, and I believe it's at that end. If
they have a problem with staffing or whatever, different
issue. But for us to receive it like this the only thing
that I can see happening here is that we are going to have
to start refusing these projects. And if we start doing
that, then these developers are going to have to go to water
and let them beat them up.
No, the other thing too is I have to say all this
about, oh, we don't know what will happen if a developer
does put his system in and calls for water and water isn't
available. I was there, Milton, you know, and when we were
ready for water on our subdivision and water wasn't
available and it was a drought, we had our infrastructure
in. And I walked into the Director and said, "Give us our
water, we put all this money in, or we're going to sue you.
And we got our water." That's what these guys are going to
do.
Now, let me just be clear. If in fact they are
planning to add surface water to Iao to supply all these
things that we are approving, and they do it the same way
that they do in the Upcountry water, we have another problem
going on. And I can't see approving anything knowing that
that's what they're going to do. And they're going to
pollute it like they polluted us up there. I can't do that
to Central Valley. So again, we are back to not approving
projects.
MILTON: Let me throw out something to you. I
think we discussed it on the Commission level awhile back,
and this goes back to I think a broader question as to I
mean what is it we want to see. I mean how do we envision
Maui to look like in the future?
This has come up in the general plan. The general
plan was updated in the early '90's. The theme too, I
brought it here today, theme two says, "Prepare our directed
and managed growth plan."
Let me read this short paragraph to you. It says,
"Amendments to the general plan would preserve the desired
quality of life where area and urban settlement must be
managed and directed within a framework that consistently
and concurrently balances both demands against human service
needs and physical human infrastructures apply."
This plan was never done basically, so we have
been basically going like a rudderless ship for the past
decade, and the results have been pretty crippled.
So I think what needs to be done is try to get an
overall plan which balances what resources we have available
to provide infrastructure. And that plan needs to tell us
the rate, where development would be desirable, and things
of that nature. And I think that is what hasn't been done
so far, and that's what needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER FREITAS: Now, this gentleman from
the State Health Department was up at my house and tested my
water. And I was talking to him about the projects that
we're approving in South Maui and he told me that, you know,
just like the gentleman that was here earlier that said that
the treatment plant, do we put money into it and improve it,
or do we move it.
Okay, on the same level as that, this gentleman
told me that if we force by what we are approving in these
developments, if we force that surface water to be added to
Iao now, that we are going to create another problem. That
what we need to do is not all, not all this development, but
improve that whole system. And if we add the surface water,
make sure that it's done properly and not a lot of Bandaids,
like adding a filter, wonderful, but really give the people
good water, that we are not going to do it that way.
That we are forcing, by approving these projects,
that to happen. And that's a scary thing, that we would do
something like that.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I can comment on that, if I can.
Actually, if you look at the build-out scenario in the
community plans and, well, it's interesting the community
plans, a couple of them say don't take water from East Maui,
and then the one from South Maui says take the water from
East Maui. So right away it's hard to be consistent with
plans that aren't consistent.
But if you are talking about that kind of
build-out, we take all of Iao, all of Waihee and all of
Haiku aquifer, you still don't meet build-out.
So yes, that is a fact. Unless you are talking
about going way east, which is where the bulk of available
water on Maui is, you are basically forcing the surface
water issue by approving those quantities, that's true.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Don't we have an agreement that
we no longer will develop East Maui for the next ten years?
MS. KRAFTSOW: We -- the agreement is actually
posted on the web. I believe that it says we have put aside
the East Maui development plan, and will not touch it again
with the exception of Hamakuapoko, except in the course of
the Water Use and Development Plan process that will be an
option like all our options, and then it will be reviewed
with new environmental work.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: But they put a ten year timeline
on that, correct?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I don't recall. I'll have to
check.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Okay. Let's go here to Ginny and
then you.
MS. PARSONS: I think, Milton, one of my biggest
concerns, and maybe you can help address this, is when you
get a subdivision that comes in and it gets all the way
through almost all of its approvals and then comes down to
water and it has that little line on there, once they have
gotten to a certain point, whether it's sitting there for
ten years or five years or two years, they're able to go out
to the public and they can sell lots to the public.
And what concerns me are residents unknowingly
giving them thousands of dollars in a deposit for a piece of
property that we don't have infrastructure on, and we might
not have for several years. And that bothers me more than
anything else.
In my personal opinion I think we should hit the
water department first, and if we have the water available
and they can put a deposit down for the meters, that they do
that first and then they go forward. Because otherwise
their whole scenario is, I can develop, I'll put in all my
infrastructure, and I sell it to 184 families. And now it's
not just me knocking on the water department's door, it's
184 other folks with me and their families and saying, "Hey,
we have to have water."
So I think, you know, it's a Catch-22. But we are
putting the cart before the horse letting them expend all
this money on big subdivisions and then expecting the
Department of Water to come up with it, and we're real close
to the line right now.
Putting on surface water, for example, and I am
not sure that what our whole picture is in the longrun, but
putting on surface water is a real chemical mix. And we
don't really have a development right now that's developed
to handle it. We're short of people, we're short four
engineers, we're short people in the chemistry department,
we're short people in the biology department. I mean we
have to look at this. How do we protect the consumer, the
resident?
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Diane Shepherd.
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD: I have a question for both
water and planning staff. Is the worst possible scenario
that I am going to go out some morning for my first drink of
Iao Aquifer water and it's going to taste a little bit salty
and the next day it's a little more salty? Are there checks
where we are not going to overallocate, overtap that aquifer
to that point?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I think that that is a worst case
scenario, but hopefully -- we do monitor the chlorides. And
the State Water Commission would tell us to back off on
bumping, or we ourselves would back off on pumping before we
reach that point. If development proceeds to a point where,
you know, that's why I'm saying I think that yes, you know,
our planning could be improved upon. Yes, we have plans
sitting on the shelves, but we don't have a fully public
process, recent Water Use and Development Plan. We are not
process now.
But in addition, it is my personal opinion -- this
is not policy of anyone -- that the County needs a little
bit more discipline about the pace with which it grows. And
even if it doesn't want to slow down, then it needs to do
something to make it possible to go at that pace with
consistency, infrastructure consistency. Either that or
slow down, but it has to do one or the other, because it's
not working the way it's going now.
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD: Well, we have got a gold
rush right now.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Suzanne? Sorry, Susan?
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Ellen, I have a report here
that we always get every time an agency reviews, or your
department reviews for a project, and as of June 16 we had
-- your department had issued 529 gallons per day, meters at
that capacity. So would this project if we approved it,
which we saw today and we deferred it, it would require
another 154 gallons per day. That's over 680,000 we are
talking about. We don't have much room left. What happens
when we get to the 800 number, what do you folks do?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Actually, we have already passed
the 800 number.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: We have?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes. The 800 number was based on --
and I can run those calculations for you on the board again
if you want -- but it was based on at the time an estimate
of what was currently being pumped both from Iao and Waihee,
what was being used from the tunnel, what was being used
from the treatment plant, reservations on Hawaiian Homes,
and meters issued since designation. And subtracting all
that from available source we estimated at that time that we
had 800,000 available.
Based on the addition of the Iao treatment plant
filter, which doubled the capacity of the plant even though
it was just one filter, because there were only two and you
have to leave one out. Also some valving in the system,
which enabled us to make more use of, we didn't actually
change the flows of the Iao tunnel, but we were able to take
more of it into the system. And based on some research
which I think will be made public very soon.
We reviewed the availability analysis looking at
the current status, and I can give you what the current
status is and how we came up with that. We still have
748,000. But we have given out, since designation, about
1.2 million actually in meters. That's why I don't know how
far along, how far behind the Commission reviews are from
our letters, but it's been several months now.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: This is June 16th. We saw
the project today. This is October.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Of '03 or '04?
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: '04.
MS. KRAFTSOW: So we -- pretty soon you will start
seeing projects without that statement any more.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Without what statement, how
many we have?
MS. KRAFTSOW: About the 800,000 gallons, because
basically at that time when we reached that it was do we
make a statement that we are going to stop issuing meters
and do a moratorium, or do we reanalyze the situation.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Are you going to keep
going?
MS. KRAFTSOW: No, we have to continually analyze
how is the pumpage comparing to our source. If we are
getting new sources on line, obviously that changes the
calculations. We just have to keep reviewing it. At this
point the magic number would be the 748,000. And then, you
know, once we get Kupaa on, that magic number changes again.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: So now we really have
748,000 available?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Actually, yeah, actually we have
more than that if we did not stay within the Commission's
request to stay under 4 million gallons. But within that 4
million gallons we have some 48,000 -- 748,000.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Do you have to report these
numbers to the State Commission, State Water Commission?
are they aware that at one time you said you only had 800,
and we used 529 up to June 16th. And now today we find out
that we're way over that number, we used 1.2 million, and
now the new number is 748.
MS. KRAFTSOW: We don't formally make a report of
that because that's internal county policy to them. But I
do discuss that with Commission staff and go over, "These
are my calculations, what do you think of them," you know,
that kind of stuff.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: So don't you feel that this
is information we should know? I mean if you're giving us
inaccurate information, you are painting a perceived picture
that we're almost to the end here and you guys have been
going along all around recalculating things, and now you
have got new numbers. So how do we ever really know what
the real numbers are?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Well, with the changes that we made
to the system it's appropriate at that point to recalculate
the numbers.
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: Is there a possibility that
you could inform the Department of Planning, and therefore
they could inform us while we're reviewing these projects?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah, I think actually back --
COMMISSIONER MOIKEHA: I mean your director got up
and talked about communication earlier and how important
that was. I totally agree. We're operating under false
information here, and you wonder why people are a little
concerned or they're leery of the numbers that are coming
out of the department, or even the County. It's because
when do you tell us these things?
I never knew this was publicized, and we're
dealing with approving projects all the time, and now all of
a sudden it's a whole different picture. It's pretty
amazing.
MR. FOLEY: Ellen, you said at the beginning that
the Water Use and Development Plan has to be consistent with
the general plan. And you know that we're in the process of
starting to update the general plan. I'm wondering when you
expect the Water Use and Development Plan to be completed.
Do you have a schedule?
MS. KRAFTSOW: We have a schedule. The entire
schedule, it's roughly a little bit under, but roughly four
years from the day that we start the public process, which
we were supposed to have started in September. And as soon
as we get this facilitation conflict issue resolved,
hopefully we will be ready to go.
And so it will be about that time frame. And we
will be working hopefully with your staff. And typically
when we are running these meetings Planning Department staff
participate.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Okay. Before the break Michelle,
you had a question. Have you asked the question or do you
need to go ahead?
MS. McLEAN: Thank you. I'm sort of half wearing
a developer's hat and half wearing a board member's hat.
Just a suggestion for the department. When the Commission
gets agency comments from Public Works, from the Wastewater
Reclamation Division, it's very clear as to the Wastewater
Reclamation Facility that that particular project will be
utilizing what the design capacity is, what the current
usage is, and therefore what the availability is. And they
also say very clearly that capacity won't be guaranteed
until the time of building permit issuance.
So maybe information like that from the water
department would be more clear for the Commission in
projects, like the information you are talking about, even
though that's a few months old now. But to be more clear
with how much available water they see on that system when
they're doing an agency review for a project, so that you
guys have a better picture as to what you are looking at.
And from the developer perspective a little bit,
like you were talking about, there's a lot of risk involved
in development, it's not just water. But I was speaking to
Ellen a little bit during the break that it's water or roads
right now seem to be driving planning more than planning
itself is. Looking at stopping or denying projects or
deferring projects because water is not available, or
because traffic is -- the roads serving the project are
already over capacity.
But it's because our island is growing we need
more homes and we need more water and we need a better
roadway network to serve them. So one doesn't have to be a
victim of the other, I don't think.
And if you are approving projects that are good
projects and should go forward, we need to support the water
department in the budget process for them to be able to
implement the projects that Ellen described to serve the
developments that are being approved.
And the same with roads. Even though some are
state responsibilities, it's okay, we're approving these
projects because we need them and we like them and they're
good, but let's make sure that we're also doing what we can
for the infrastructure to be developed to serve them.
So that's -- I mentioned to Ellen as a board
member, that's what our responsibility is, is to support the
water department during the budget process with the things
that they need to keep up with the growth that we are
approving.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Thank you, Michelle.
Commissioners, I am going to move to the next subject here.
We have some resource people that have been waiting to make
some comments, and there's one of the items on our list, and
it's item number 8, fire flow and fire protection.
Now, you have questions, you have had questions
about fire flow and fire protection. We have the resource
personnel here. In specific, I'll entertain questions on
those. Anyone?
If not, they're not prepared to give any
presentation other than answering questions, okay. Go
ahead.
MS. PARSONS: We come up with quite frequently a
lot of fire flow issues in front of the board with folks
that want to build an ohana onto their property, and/or
family subdivisions, you know, smaller kind builds.
And we sometimes see where they've been given fire
flow infrastructure to the tune of oh, maybe half a million,
maybe more dollars to build an $80,000 cottage on the
property.
Is there a way, I mean I understand that the fire
trucks now from a pressure standpoint are pretty much
contained, pressurized, is that true? Do you have your own
pressure as long as you can get water?
LIEUTENANT ENGLISH: Correct. The trucks are
capable of pumping 1500 gallons a minute. Then we use
sources such as fire hydrants or standpipes refill, supply
them.
MS. PARSONS: Well, a lot of our -- and I know we
have got infrastructure problems within, you know, like even
a three mile radius of the fire department. I think we have
got something like $65 million worth of infrastructure that
needs to be cured. But rather than put this on the
homeowner, do you see any way that we can turn this over to
you to tell us whether it's sufficient for fire flow
purposes, planning?
I mean instead of the department telling us that
they have to put a big tank in the back yard, that now we're
finding out that tanks might house bacteria quicker, or
having to develop or find $500,000 to put new pipes in the
roadways. Is there something you can do when you start to
review these and tell us whether there's sufficient fire
protection?
LIEUTENANT ENGLISH: Okay, basically when the
subdivision comes to the fire department for review the fire
flow is pretty much based on the zoning. So like for
residential right now agriculture is 250 gallons a minute
fire flow. All the fire flows are based on a two hour
duration, so that's going to be like the size of the tank,
the holding capacity. Regular residential is a thousand
gallons a minute and, again, on a two hour duration.
We adopted an ordinance back in 2002 requiring
that all homes or new buildings be within 500 feet travel
distance of a fire hydrant or standpipe.
And that's where, like I said, if some people have
been living in some houses for 40 years, and like I said,
they're maybe a thousand feet from the road frontage,when
they come in for a building permit to build an ohana then
they're way beyond the 500 feet. So now they have to either
-- our code requires them to bring in a water source, put a
storage tank, or put fire sprinklers in the house to meet
our code.
On the other hand, when people are not on the
county water system and they come in for like a third
structure, the water department comes in and they -- that's
their requirement and their codes to try and provide the
required fire code for that new structure. And that's the
water development's code, not ours.
MS. PARSONS: That's the one I'm talking about.
Couldn't you from the fire department side be able to look
at these as well? I mean I have had people with a fire
hydrant across the street and they've been asked to put in,
you know, several lines, several thousand feet of pipe. I
mean because they want 6-inch pipe rather than 8-inch pipe.
LIEUTENANT ENGLISH: Yeah. What's happening on
most of these older subdivisions is the infrastructure
that's put in doesn't meet our code right now. I mean like
a 4-inch water line under there. So when it comes to the
third structure, the third structure fire flow can't be met
with the size of pipe that's in the front, that's serving
the property.
So like the water department is requiring them to
bring in a 6-inch water line from the nearest source to
provide the fire flow for that third structure. Our code
provides for sprinklers for the building, our fire flow is
taken care of, but right now the building permit will not
come to me for review, it will go to the water department
and the water department will sign off.
MS. PARSONS: But a sprinkler system might be able
to overcome this as far as the fire department is concerned?
LIEUTENANT ENGLISH: Yes, our code does have that
if the house is protected with a fire system, a fire flow.
We are taken care of.
MS. PARSONS: So how do we enact that, then, get
this taken out of the water department's bailiwick and put
it back into yours and be able to say there's going to be a
sprinkler system? Because I know homeowners right now that
would definitely put a sprinkler system in right now, no
problem, but they're being told no, they've got to put in
massive amounts of infrastructure funds.
LIEUTENANT ENGLISH: I am not really sure how. I
don't mind taking on the project with a little help, but I
think we have got to go back to the departments and get this
thing -- maybe Public Works or Corporation Counsel to get
this thing resolved.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I just would like to clarify. A
lot of times when we're requiring that a larger line be put
in, the line is substandard, or if they're pumping the line,
or if there's a risk of leaks that make the system not able
to protect. And what happens, a sprinkler is preventative.
They say it will do a better job of saving the house than a
system, because which the time the fire department gets
there, et cetera, et cetera.
On the other hand, if the fire were to spread,
There needs to be a system that can also provide fire
control. And I think that the issue is in some of these
areas originally when the fire department was approving
things that we weren't, they just assumed that the systems
met standards.
So I am not sure whether -- you guys have your own
standards too, yeah, that's got to be able to deliver. So
if they can't deliver that many gallons they wouldn't be
approving it either, I don't think, is that correct?
LIEUTENANT ENGLISH: Okay, right now our
standards, we need to update our standards in order to pass
the fire code, and our standards to be in compliance with
water. Because right now for example our zoning, ours still
have at 250 million gallons a minute for a two hour duration
required fire flow.
Water, the new standard requires pump it up to 500
gallons a minute. You know, our '97 fire code is still in
the process of being adopted, so I'm still enforcing 250
gallons a minute.
As far as if the infrastructure cannot meet the
fire flow when they want to build the third structure, our
ordinance code that was adopted does have that if they put
the sprinklers in the house they can go ahead and build the
house.
MS. PARSONS: So Mr. Kushi, my question to you.
How do we get this out of the department's purview and put
it back to the fire department and help some of these folks
out?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chairman, if I may try to answer
that. There are two possible ways. Our requirements are
found in our rules, the departmental rules, and you can
change the requirements by amending the rules. The question
is who would amend these rules? So we go back to the
circular argument.
But also, if we did have -- somebody could change
the rules, I believe the department would have to coordinate
with the fire department and get some -- and the billing
department to get some consensus as to who will do what and
what will pass. Because of the standards, although the
water department states they have adopted new standards,
there are still the old standards in the rules. That's a
question by itself.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Commissioner Raisbeck?
MS. RAISBECK: Yes, I don't know if the Planning
Commission knows this, but the water department is not
allowed to use what you pay on your monthly bill, that kind
of money, to extend the system. And they have to extend the
system, they have a water development fee that covers source
transmission and storage, but it has nothing in it for
distribution at all.
So that any changes to distribution lines, which
are the ones that connect the transmission line to the home,
those basically, if those are going to be upgraded the way
they get it upgraded is by loading it onto -- this is the
way it happens upcountry, okay -- that the first person to
come in to request something that triggers the need to meet
standards has to upfront pay the cost, and that's what Ginny
is talking about, half a million dollars. They pay the
cost.
If there are other people who can -- and
sometimes it's, you know, 8,000 feet of 8-inch pipe and a
big storage tank and so on for somebody who wants to develop
their property upcountry. We've been struggling with this
on the board for the year-and-a-half I have been on the
board, because it leads to such vast inequities. But that's
the way the department pays for distribution lines
basically, is put it on the people who want it developed.
Because they're not allowed to use rates, you
know, your regular water rates to cover it, it has to come
out of a fee. But there's nothing in the source
development, in the fee that they pay at the time they get a
water meter that covers distribution lines.
So part of the problem is that I think that the
way they pay for distribution lines has to change so that
the first homeowner to come in with a change doesn't, you
know, doesn't get stuck with it all. They can get some
reimbursement later if other people use it. But still, it's
a major, major investment for an ordinary homeowner.
The other thing is I wanted to pick up on what
Commissioner Freitas said. I think we have reached a point
where formerly water was considered as limitless and it was
economic issues that drove development. And, you know, a
changed Maui and a lot of people have been very happy to
have the change in Maui that came with this development.
But we have reached the point where now it has to
be water first and then development, if the water allows it.
And partly we're behind, but partly we are an island and we
are going to have limited water. So the change has to be
that what you suggested, that first it comes to water. If
there's water available, now they get a permit. And then
it's what somebody else over here suggested, that permit is
for a limited time so that it doesn't wait 15 years before
it gets developed. And that way you are going to have
development in pace with the water that's available at the
time. You will have infrastructure concurrency, which is in
all our community plans.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: But I disagree with you, because
we have seen in the last several months three subdivisions
that have come through here that have developed their own
water and their own system because they can't wait for your
system. So we are going to see more of that happening. As
long as there's water in the ground that's available and the
state is going to allow them to drill those wells, we are
going to have the development.
So if the County can't develop the water, it's
going to happen. So you might want to put some restrictions
on saying you can't do any more, but there's other ways of
getting water and you don't have to wait for the County of
Maui.
MS. RAISBECK: You also have to worry about the
amount of water that's in the ground, because in Waihee
they're doing exactly what you say.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: But we don't control that, the
state does. And when they allow drilling to happen and
that's their purview, you know, here we are. We're saying
well, we don't really need to see more, and that's what's
happening.
MS. RAISBECK: The county could support
designating Waihee. The Mayor has come out for designating
Waihee.
CHAIRMAN PILTZ: Then you are just stopping what's
happening in Central Maui. It doesn't help Central Maui. It
doesn't. So, you know, we are in a fix. We are trying to
say what's coming now. Let's work together to let us know
what's really available, and don't say, "Well, you know, if
you develop it's up to you, and take your, you know, shoot
crap at it." It's bull. I don't think it's right.
Commissioner Casumpang?
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Yes, thank you. Does the
Department of Water doesn't collect impact fees?
MS. KRAFTSOW: We have a water service fee with
every new meter.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Only the meters?
MS. KRAFTSOW: That covers source, storage and
transmission. And actually, the problem with that fee is
that at the time that we established it, politically we
didn't think we could get a fee that would really represent
the true cost of developing a system, but we figured some
fee was better than nothing.
So the fee actually wasn't a buy-in to the
existing system at the expenses that were already in. And
so it doesn't even begin to cover the real cost of serving
new water, and that's the problem with the fee.
Also, the County has an exemption for first and
second homes from fire protection. Most municipalities, or
at least many municipalities throughout the country don't
have that exemption, and so you are not allowed to add
anything to the system if the system is not meeting
standards.
That right now would be enormously expensive for
the little guy to deal with. But had it been going on for
years and years then the little guy would just have to
connect to the next meter over, right, and in the end it
would have been cheaper for them.
But to bring that up to standard now, there would
almost have to be county agreed upon improvement districts,
where you bring an area up to standards and from then on
they have to do fire protection.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: To protect the little
guy, impact is based on units the development produces, so
if the little guy only built an ohana then they're only
tagged with the ohana fee.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Right. No, I'm talking --
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: And if the guy develop a
700 unit hotel, then he has to pay the 700 unit hotel fee.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Well, the size of the meter does
affect -- the impact fee is based on the meter size.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: That's the reason I asked
that, is because we gave a lot of other agencies the
preference to make their own figure. I'm talking about the
other amount. And on the SMA we could do that also, but we
respect the other agency. Whatever they want, that's what
they get. That's why I'm asking it's legal for us to
collect impact fees for the water improvement system
infrastructure or not?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Oh, yes, the water department does
have an impact fee. And the thing I was saying about
protecting the little guy was exempting first and second
homes was done initially to protect the little guy and
enable him to build a home on his lot. But it's gotten to
the point where there's such vast areas of the system that
are substandard that it's almost having the reverse effect
in a way.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Sometime last week maybe
there's -- I read some article that the Councilors
introduced some ordinance that building would improve the
water system. How was the department or the board receptive
to this? Because they're asking for more public input for
this. How receptive is the department and the Water Board
to this?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I think that there are a couple of
bills you might be referring to. The one I think you're
referring to, and you can correct me if I am wrong,
basically states that the water department will have to
coordinate with the Planning Department in developing its
Water Use and Development Plan, and of course we would
support that. We hopefully will be doing that.
COMMISSIONER CASUMPANG: Is that the Council Chair
proposal?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes, he made that proposal. I am
not real familiar with the details of that proposal. I
thought that the, you know, that the fundamental idea of
having water planning and general planning integrated and
coordinated certainly is always