BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
OPERATIONAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION COMMITTEE


Meeting held at HGEA Conference Room, David K. Trask, 
Jr. Office Building, 2145 Kaohu Street, Wailuku, Maui, 
Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on December 7, 2000.

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

 A P P E A R A N C E S

BOARD MEMBERS:
Jonathan Starr, Chairman
Orlando Tagorda
Howard Nakamura

STAFF PRESENT:
David Craddick, Director 
Mike Quinn
Howard Fukushima, Corporation Counsel
Ellen Kraftsow
Fran Nago, Board Secretary

MR. STARR:  I call to order the meeting of the 
operational review and evaluation committee of the 
Maui County Board of Water Supply.

Would you introduce everyone who's present 
here?

MS. NAGO:  Committee Chair Jonathan Starr, 
committee member Orlando Tagorda, we have Director 
David Craddick, Attorney Howard Fukushima, Mike Quinn 
from our fiscal department, Ellen Kraftsow from 
planning. 

We have Debbie Anthony, Madelyn D'Enbeau, 
Elliott Krash, Gary Zakian, Pete Stolle, and Ron 
Richmond.  And that's it.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  Thank you.  We'll first 
call for public testimony and I'll allow testimony 
either before the meeting starts in toto or before 
each individual item, so you have your choice of  
whether you testify before the meeting or before the 
individual item. 

I would like to call first for testimony 
before the meeting.  Madelyn D'Enbeau, come on up. 

MS. D'ENBEAU:  Good morning.  My name is 
Madelyn D'Enbeau and I'm speaking this morning as a 
member of a new organization which is -- upcountry 
community associations, we've banded together.  And 
I'm the chair of the Makawao Main Street Association.  
And as such, I sit on this organization called MAUCA, 
which is the Maui Association of Upcountry Community 
Associations.  And we've submitted written testimony.  
Dick Mayer, who chairs that -- coordinates that 
organization, has submitted written testimony which we 
as the Makawao Main Street Association very much 
support. 

What we're addressing specifically -- and you 
can see this in our written testimony -- is the 
request that your items "meter issuance policies" and 
"priority list for meters at Upcountry Maui" not be 
decided today, but that there be an upcountry public 
meeting with some notification so people realize 
what's happening. 

As you're probably aware, the situation with 
upcountry water and upcountry water meters is one of 
the most important issues to upcountry residents.  And 
I think for that reason it's really important that you 
have an opportunity to hear from upcountry residents 
what their concerns are.

MR. STARR:  Recognize Mike Nobriga.

MS. D'ENBEAU:  Let me just reiterate; I just 
barely started.  But anyway, I'm Madelyn D'Enbeau, I'm 
speaking as the chair of the Makawao Main Street 
Association and also as a member of this new upcountry 
association that's a group of the upcountry 
associations that we call it MAUCA, the Maui 
Association of Upcountry Community Associations.  And 
you've got before you written testimony from Dick 
Mayer, who's the coordinator of that organization. 

Basically what we're asking is that before any 
action be taken on meter issuance policies or the 
priority list for meters in upcountry Maui, that there 
be a meeting held, a public meeting upcountry to hear 
from the upcountry residents.  Because I can -- I 
really can't think of any issue that's as important to 
upcountry residents as these water meters.  And I'm 
sure you're aware of that, but from the public 
meetings that we have -- and this applies certainly to 
the Makawao Main Street Association -- this is an 
issue where people really, really want to have input.  
They're very concerned, there is a lot of questions, 
and I think it would really be appropriate. 

Now, Dick mentions here in the written memo 
the fact that the community plans talk about having 
your meetings at places that are convenient for the 
upcountry residents somewhere in the upcountry region 
and at times that are convenient for the public as 
well.  Without getting into whether or not this 
upcountry provision might apply to the Board of Water 
Supply, just bringing this forward to urge you as an 
accommodation to the public and to make a better 
decision, to hear from the members of the public.  So 
you each have a copy of that written memo in front of 
you.

MR. STARR:  Members, any questions for 
Ms. D'Enbeau? 

I have one.  If the committee was desirous of 
holding a meeting in those warmer upcountry climes in 
an evening, would MAUCA help Fran and the board's 
staff to find a time and place suitable for the 
community?

MS. D'ENBEAU:  Oh, certainly, certainly.  We 
would be very happy to do that.  And we do have some 
good facilities upcountry now, too. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Ms. D'Enbeau, in terms of meter 
issuance, in what subject matter you want the board 
and the department to really deal with?  Are you going 
-- if the board and the department findings is that 
there is enough, in contrast to your statement here 
that the supply infrastructure was deficient, if the 
board and the department finds out that there is 
sufficient water that we can issue some meters, in 
what area of meter issuance policy you want the board 
to hear from the community?

MS. D'ENBEAU:  Well, I think in the past there 
has been confusion and questions because of course 
there have been meters issued upcountry.  We're all 
aware of that because we see the buildings going up 
and the homes going up.  And no one I don't think is 
very clear on -- I mean, I personally am aware that in 
the past the director has had a policy that, for 
example, when they retrofitted the toilets at Seabury 
Hall, that that was considered new source and based on 
that he issued new meters.  But I doubt that the 
public in general has any concept. 

So I think if there is an upcountry meeting, I 
think a lot of it would be presenting information to 
the public about the policy and then asking for input 
so that the public could give their concerns as well. 

And I can just briefly state I know that there 
have been a lot of concerns expressed about families 
who may own sufficient property to, say, put up a 
guest cottage for their children, their grown 
children's families, or whatever, but can't do so 
because they can't get the sufficient meters, let 
alone to subdivide for these family subdivisions.  And 
no one quite understands how come some people get to 
build and these subdivision goes up and others don't 
get to build.  And I guess I would imagine that the 
Haiku well would have some impact on something in the 
Haiku area, I don't know.  But again, I guess, you 
know, since you all are so knowledgeable about all 
these issues, it's hard to imagine how much darkness 
there is out there in the community.  But people 
really don't understand what's going on and they feel 
kind of left out and they don't know how come this guy 
gets a meter and I don't get a meter and what's the 
rule here and so forth. 

So I think it's really, really important for 
the good of the whole community that there be a lot of 
light shed on those issues.  Thank you very much for 
the question.

MR. STARR:  Just to comment on that, there has 
also been some confusion among board members about 
what exactly our issuance policy is and has been and 
that's part of why these meetings are being called to 
once and for all clearly define it and to make sure 
that we end up with a definition that suits the needs 
of the communities and is in accordance with community 
plans and the wishes of the board.  So that is a 
direction and hopefully we'll be taking that with the 
community.

MS. D'ENBEAU:  If I could just add one thing, 
if I might.  You know, I read in I guess it was 
yesterday's paper, talking about -- it sounds totally 
unrelated, but in my mind it isn't -- big problems 
with creating the drainage situation in Lahaina.  And 
they talk about they had the money, they had 
everything ready to go, and then the Puamana  
residents didn't like it and then everything went back 
to ground zero.  But the lesson there -- and I think 
everybody is learning that county-wide -- is we've got 
to consult with the communities first and get that all 
aired and everybody up to speed before we go ahead 
with our policies, instead of having to deal 
afterwards with people coming in and saying no, no, 
no, I don't want you to do it that way. 

So I hope that this will be a part of that new 
trend to go to the communities and really get the 
input.  And you hear things that you may not be aware 
of.  I mean, the people that live upcountry might 
know, but people in other areas might not be aware.

MR. STARR:  Thank you.  Those comments were 
well taken. 

Elliott Krash. 

MS. KRASH:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 
members of the board.  I'm Elliot Krash.  And I'm 
echoing everything that Bennie has just stated from 
MAUCA as a member of the MAUCA group, and also we 
would like to make a few comments on behalf of the 
Kula Community Association. 

You have before you and I've given to you on 
previous occasions a copy of our policy and position 
statements.  And I want to speak this morning to the 
items V(B) meter issuance policies, and V(C), the 
priority list for meters. 

And as has just been reflected in the 
discussions, there is a lot of confusion and questions 
out there.  Every community meeting, something comes 
up about water no matter what the subject is.  Water 
is the issue and questions and concerns.  And what I 
assumed from the agenda item -- these two agenda items 
today is that your intent is to begin a dialogue and 
to begin a discussion on these important issues.  And 
my purpose is to request on behalf of the community 
association that you hold upcountry meetings, 
hearings, discussions on this for the purposes you've 
just reflected, to educate the public and to also hear 
from them as to their thoughts, to begin to understand 
what are the most important concerns in their mind. 

I think some of those issues that will come 
out of those meetings and some of the issues that you 
need to address, Mr. Tagorda, are reflected in our 
items.  And some of those highlights are that any 
policy that's adopted, or guidelines, I'm not sure 
what we're working on here, whether we're headed 
towards rules or whether we're headed towards 
operational guidelines or what, but whatever it is 
that comes out of the discussion, that we must ensure 
that the priorities of the upcountry plan are 
addressed.  Because right now this waiting list is 
simply a waiting list.  It doesn't address the fact 
that Hawaii -- or at least I can't see how it 
addresses the fact that Hawaiian Homelands and 
agriculture are priorities.  So we have to ensure that 
those priorities from the upcountry plan are 
addressed. 

Another concern of our association is that all 
of the guidelines, the rules, the policies, whatever 
they are, that they are compiled, that they are 
specific, that they are clear, that they are out there 
for everyone to understand, to refer to, to use, and 
to understand how the actions that flow from them are 
happening. 

Another point would be -- that our group feels 
strongly about is that if there is a need for 
exceptions to these policies, that that also be stated 
clearly.  What are the rules for making exceptions?  
What are the conditions under which we must make 
exceptions?  I guess, for example, this summer we had 
a moratorium because of drought conditions, so we put 
a stop on issuing any meters. 

Another point that's already come up several 
times is that these policies, rules, guidelines, the 
list, list of meters that are issued according to the 
list, that all that be published, all that be 
available to people to refer to.  And I'm not sure 
what the mechanics of that would be.  One of the 
suggestions that's come from our board is that things 
be available on the website, for example.  And by the 
way, just a plug for your website, it's excellent and 
it's very helpful to have that information.  Thank you.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  The Chair would like to 
recognize Howard Nakamura, board member. 

Any questions, members?  Okay.  Thank you.  

Any other testimony before we begin the agenda items? 

We would like to begin with Director's report 
00-39, which is request approval of East Maui 
Watershed Protection Agreement with the Nature 
Conservancy.

Looks like we have testimony from Debbie 
Anthony.  Welcome. 

MS. ANTHONY:  Good morning.  Once again, I'm 
Debbie Anthony, I'm with the Nature Conservancy.  We 
are here today asking for the board's assistance with 
protecting the upcountry watershed, East Maui 
watershed, from the Upper Kula drainage area, Waikamoi 
Preserve, and the overall East Maui watershed today. 

Some of our biggest threats to the watershed 
is our feral ungulates And that has been our primary 
target for protection at this point.  Some of the 
other things that we are looking at doing is 
controlling invasive nonnative weeds in the area and 
resource monitoring to detect any changes in the area 
and so on. 

One of the other things that we are doing is 
that we educate the community, those who come and 
visit us on our trips into the preserve, into what we 
are doing, how important it is to protect the 
watershed, and what we are doing to protect it.  So we 
are also trying to educate everyone that we do come in 
contact with. 

So pretty much that's what we are working with 
and what we're trying to continue doing and with the 
board's assistance, we would be able to secure the 
matching funds through the state which is $2 for every 
dollar that we are able to fund raise.  Thank you.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  Members, any questions?  

MR. NOBRIGA:  I have a question.  It refers to 
I guess Mr. Craddick's report, but I notice you had 
identified Kahili ginger as an invasive weed.  I 
wanted to get some information as on how come that's 
listed. 

MS. ANTHONY:  Kahili ginger has been one of 
our invasive weeds.  Basically just their root 
structure and how they are and how they take over the 
area.  We have been trying to remove them from the 
preserve.  And my last trip into the preserve doing 
weed work there, we could see the difference, I could 
see the difference of areas that had not been cleared 
versus seeing the other areas that were, how the 
vegetation has come back and it's not just exposed, 
you know.  That's what I saw there. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  I always thought Kahili ginger 
helped to absorb the water, that's why, in the ground.

MR. CRADDICK:  It does.  That's the problem.  
Doesn't soak down. 

MS. ANTHONY:  But it also does leave the soil 
exposed because with the roots being right on the 
surface area, the other plants don't grow because they 
just can't grow.  And that's what I saw when I had 
gone up there.

MR. STARR:  How about viavi.

MS. ANTHONY:  I apologize, I don't know much 
about that.

MR. STARR:  I'm surprised it's not on the 
list, but it may not be in that area so much.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Viavi is strawberry guava.

MS. ANTHONY:  Right.  I think we have that at 
Kapuna Kai and I can check and get back with you on 
that.  I'm not sure if we actually have it in the 
areas that we are working with directly right now.  
But if you would like to, I can by all means find --

MR. STARR:  I know Kipahulu side, which is the 
area I'm most familiar with, it's the largest problem 
because it drops so much acidic fruit that nothing 
else can survive, it turns the Ph of the soil and soil 
becomes acidic.  And no soft stuff underneath.  I was 
curious why viavi was not listed.

MS. ANTHONY:  By all means, I would be more 
than happy to get back with you if you like.  We may 
not have it in the areas that we are protecting 
ourself.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Also, Jonathan, it just says 
"such as."  Because if you were to list every single 
weed, the list would take up half a page.

MR. STARR:  Mike.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I do have a problem with use of 
snaring as the primary way of controlling pig 
population.  I do know that there was a program some 
years ago where the hunting clubs had access to hunt 
pigs that they could use for feed their homes and 
there was -- they also had a program in place where 
they would report the types of pathogens that was 
inherent in the pigs that they were catching. 

I know snaring has come under some very 
interesting public awareness programs and we would 
really like to see a program developed for watershed 
protection that does not have snaring as a primary 
source of eradication. 

I also do have -- well, I have a little bit of 
a problem with item 4, although we should map -- rare 
bird species, if we are trying to protect the 
watershed, I don't know how the small mammals relate 
to watershed protection.

MR. STARR:  Comments? 

MR. NOBRIGA:  It wasn't a question, it was 
just a statement.

MS. ANTHONY:  As far as the snaring part of 
it, I can touch on that.  Ellen, I need a little help 
with the bird part.  I'm not sure what item number 4 
is and I apologize. 

Snaring is one of the methods that we use to 
control the numbers of ungulates that we do have in 
the preserve.  Our primary method of ungulate control 
has been fences.  Basically if you keep out the 
ungulates from getting into the areas you're 
protecting, that is our primary goal.  For the ones 
that are in the preserve, our next step is we try and 
use public hunters as well as we do contract hunting 
to remove those pigs that are already in those 
enclosed areas. 

Snaring is only being done in areas that are 
not accessible by foot.  So for us to go to those 
areas to protect them, we are required to fly in by 
helicopter, so it's areas that the hunters do not go 
into and those are the areas that we are snaring at 
this time.

MR. STARR:  I know from what I've heard, the 
snares were only used very, very high up where they 
have to helicopter in to get to.  And if that's the 
case, I don't have a problem with it.  But I do agree 
with Mr. Nobriga where if it's possible for people to 
hunt, it's much better than to snare.  And I think 
that that's -- is that consistent with your policy?

MS. ANTHONY:  Correct, that is.  We do have 
Unit 1-A which is right above in the Olinda area into 
the lower part of Waikamoi Preserve, that area there 
is open to public hunting.  All the hunters need to do 
is let us know that they would like to go in and they 
sign a waiver.  As long as we don't have other 
management activities going on in the area, we allow 
them in and we provide them the keys and access to the 
area. 

We also have portions of Waikamoi Preserve and 
the other areas which is towards Hosmer's Grove by the 
national park and that area we do have hunters going 
into that area also.  And those are the areas pretty 
much that are accessible on foot.  It's the other 
areas that are remote and not accessible that we are 
using snares in those areas as the third means of 
trying to control the animals. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  I would like to ask the chairman 
of the committee, if he could, since I'm not a hunter, 
if he could have maybe a meeting with some reputable 
representatives from that group to also study this 
plan that we can make sure that we're spending our 
money wisely in the best direction.  Thank you.

MR. STARR:  Well, if you want, we could -- 
that would mean to actually defer action and since we 
will most likely be having a meeting upcountry, 
perhaps it might make sense to have -- if it doesn't 
do any harm, to defer this until that meeting to allow 
comment upcountry which would probably be an easy 
place for the hunting community to comment and say 
their part.  But if we did that, what I would suggest 
is if we could get an idea of the areas where snares 
are contemplated or have been used in the past, can 
clarify whether they're being used in places that are 
actually going to affect the hunters or not. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  It's like the testimony we had 
earlier from Ms. D'Enbeau, going back to the community 
and find out.  But we need to also make sure that the 
project doesn't lag behind so many years that the 
community actually changes in midstream and that's 
what we're facing right now.  The community agrees, 
but by the time the project gets on the books and gets 
going, I mean the community changes, so that's why we 
have such problems.  Also, a better relief map so we 
can make sure when we're looking at fencing, we're 
fencing the right places.  And people from that area 
can give us way more knowledge and information.  I so 
move to defer.  Is that okay? 

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Did you want your answer about 
the birds and rats?

MR. NOBRIGA:  No.  It was just a statement.

MS. ANTHONY:  Can I provide some additional 
information on the hunters?  Our director -- who 
apologizes for not being here today, he had other 
commitments scheduled and is out of state -- he 
participates with the Koolau Volunteer Hunters Group 
and he goes to their meetings monthly when they do 
have them.  So he is there to provide them the 
information that they want.  We have had a president 
of the hunt club come out with us into our areas and 
we've also had additional members of the hunt club 
come out.  And I'm not sure if that helps you, knowing 
that we have consulted with them.  They have been 
aware for years of what we are doing and at this point 
we have kept them abreast of what our plans are.

MR. STARR:  I think testimony from the hunters 
club would definitely go a long way towards assuaging 
any concerns or fears.  I think we will defer, but I 
do have a couple of questions that I would like to ask 
before we put it aside.  And I'll ask the director to 
comment. 

MR. CRADDICK:  I just wanted to say that the 
group that she's talking about, the partnership by all 
means with that group, I attend those meetings also 
and it was out of the partnership that opened up a lot 
of EMI areas to hunters that previously were not open 
to hunting.  And that's the purpose of the meeting is 
to manage those other areas that got opened up because 
of the partnership.  So we work very closely with the 
groups and I think we could get them there at that 
meeting.

MR. STARR:  What's the time line on this?  
Would we be doing any harm if we put it off for, say, 
a one-month period?

MS. ANTHONY:  Potentially it could.  The 
Nature Conservancy basically is in need of raising our 
first one dollar before the state will match us on our 
other two dollars for our funding.  And if we're not 
able to raise enough funds during the fiscal year, we 
may not be able to secure the state funding at this 
point to receive their match.

MR. STARR:  Well, certainly I mean the fiscal 
year is not at issue.

MS. ANTHONY:  No, not necessarily the fiscal 
year, but overall to secure the funding that they have 
pledged for our projects.

MR. STARR:  But I mean a few more weeks won't 
 -- shouldn't harm the project.

MS. ANTHONY:  Not in the next few weeks, I 
don't think so.

MR. STARR:  We'll try to deal with it as 
rapidly as possible.  My question is, is this 
consistent with what the past years, what we were 
asked for and what we've contributed or how has it 
changed? 

MS. ANTHONY:  Correct.  In the past years, our 
primary objective has always been ungulate control.  
We're focusing also on miconia control.  We also have 
the Maui Invasive Species Committee who we are working 
with directly and because of that, it allows us to 
shift some of our resources into looking at not only 
miconia, but some of the other invasive weeds that we 
are targeting at this point. 

Our axis deer program, which we have had the 
board assist us with and to help with, has ended as 
far as the research portion and the control portion of 
the axis deer now is now included in ungulate control. 

One of the things we would like to expand on 
is we have been doing public outreach and educating 
the community and we are looking at expanding on that 
part and more so about monitoring what our resources 
are to know the changes that are coming about in the 
area to see where are we succeeding or not.  And if 
there are changes, we will see them based on our 
monitoring.

MR. STARR:  How much did we fund last year?

MR. QUINN:  $60,000.

MR. STARR:  Mike?

MR. QUINN:  Just a question on the funding.  
This agreement calls for three equal installments, 
first installment on the signing of the control 
contract and the second installment in December of 
this year.  So I assume you'll revise that language to 
whatever -- otherwise I guess this -- the way this 
reads now, we would have to give you two-thirds of the 
funding immediately.  Is that what you would need or 
  --

MS. ANTHONY:  No, not at this point.  I would 
be more than happy to amend that line.  Depending on 
when this goes through, we can revise the dates.  At 
the time we had written this, it was several months 
back and we were not sure how soon we would be able to 
present this.  And I would be more than happy to 
adjust that.  If it's easier to do two equal payments, 
we can do that, or three works fine.  We could ask for 
the initial payment of a half and the other half at 
the end of the contract once the goals have been 
fulfilled.

MR. QUINN:  I just ask because I'm not sure 
what your requirements are either.

MR. STARR:  Is this in the budget?

MR. QUINN:  Yeah, we've appropriated $60,000 
for it.

MR. STARR:  What are the other groups that are 
involved in the -- you're not the only one doing the 
miconia program.

MS. ANTHONY:  No, the Maui Invasive Species 
Committee was put together and is part of -- they work 
with us directly and it's part of the East Maui 
Watershed Partnership that came together and realized 
what they wanted to work on.  And they are their own 
group, they're a University of Hawaii research 
corporation of the University of Hawaii group, and the 
Nature Conservancy has provided funding for them 
through the UH, as well as we provide logistical staff 
time, vehicle use, and so on to help with their 
project when they're in need also.

MR. STARR:  And you have a miconia project, 
though, that's separate from theirs.

MS. ANTHONY:  We do in our areas.  We do our 
own work.

MR. STARR:  You're just from Nahiku in, and 
theirs is kind of from Nahiku out?

MS. ANTHONY:  No, they are taking care of the 
majority of the areas.  There are some that our Pat 
[inaudible], our invasive plant specialist, is working 
on.  But as a whole he is working with them more so to 
build their capacity to take over the bigger areas.


MR. STARR:  Okay.  Well, we're going to defer 
this and hopefully take it up and finish with it at 
our next meeting.  So I ask you to bear with us and 
thank you for your patience and input.

MS. ANTHONY:  By all means.  Can I make 
another statement?  If you would all be interested, 
you know, we would be able to take you into an area 
that's accessible to see what the areas that we are 
working with are and to give you a tour of the area.  
So if that's something to consider, I would be more 
than happy to offer that and see when it's a good time 
to schedule it if you would be interested.

MR. STARR:  I know I would be happy to go on a 
tour up there sometime, but I know my own sympathy 
lies in helping this program and I know that most of 
the other board members also feel very strongly about 
the program.  So I don't want you to waste your 
resources in taking us around rather than in getting 
the job done.  But if there is an opportunity to go up 
there when it's convenient sometime, I would be happy 
to take it up.  Maybe some of the other members might 
as well.

MS. ANTHONY:  Once again, let me know and we 
would be more than happy to take you up.  We do have 
regularly scheduled visits to the preserves and the 
areas and if we can accommodate you on that; if not, 
we can always have our other staff who are working in 
the area take you in during their regular work in that 
area.

MR. STARR:  Thank you.

MS. ANTHONY:  Thank you.

MR. STARR:  We will be deferring that.  I did 
miss one item here.  We have meeting minutes from our 
previous meeting, so if we have a desire to accept 
them, a motion to that would be in order. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  Move that we receive the minutes 
and if there is no corrections or additions in 30 
days, minutes will be filed. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  Minutes will be held and 
filed.  All those in favor?  Okay.  It will be 
accepted. 

Now we're going to move on to item B, which is 
meter issuance policies.  And it is the desire of the 
chair to try to understand what the policies have 
been, what they currently are, to try to understand 
what the community would like them to be, and then to 
try to create a policy that most people would be happy 
with and to make sure that that is followed.  So 
that's going to be our process and I'm not sure if 
that's something we can accomplish today, but maybe we 
can start.  Do we have any further testimony on this 
item?  Okay.  Members, do you want to start it off 
with any questions?  How would you like to proceed?

MR. TAGORDA:  Let me ask some questions, 
Mr. Chair.  On this page, item B, meter issuance 
policies, and it says page 17.  If you go back to page 
17, it seems to me there are at least upcountry that 
meter was installed, so I don't know what are we 
trying to get here, is it the policy of meter issuance 
or the meter installation?  That's the only facts I 
have with me is page 17, there is a letter from 
Mr. Craddick that says the following is a list of 
upcountry meter installations since September 28, 
2000. 

I knew there is a big difference between meter 
installation and meter issuance.  So my question is, 
Mr. Chair, was these meters installed since September 
28, 2000 were issued before the shortage declaration 
of March 1993?

MR. STARR:  Well, that's what I'm trying to 
get at in part because I'm confused, too, frankly.  
I'm confused why there are some people who cannot get 
meters and there is some people who get meters and 
I've never really been clear on what the staff is 
using to decide.  And especially I know at one point 
this year it had been stated that meters were not 
going to be issued until at least the first of the 
year and I see a lot of meters have been issued.  So I 
for one am trying to understand that myself and I 
think that's why we're here. 

And I would like to ask an explanation from 
the director on which meters these meters that he has 
installed, these 64 meters, what was the basis of 
installing those meters, were those meters and when 
were those meters basically applied for and why didn't 
they go into the list. 

MR. CRADDICK:  I'm not quite sure what you 
mean, Orlando, "issued before." 

MR. TAGORDA:  There are things I really 
misunderstood here.  If you look at your agenda item, 
B, meter issuance policies, and then you give us a 
letter listing a lot of meters that have been 
installed.  So I really don't know if this is in 
relation to --

MR. CRADDICK:  That's something the chair of 
the committee asked for.

MR. STARR:  I had asked for a list of what 
meters had been issued.

MR. TAGORDA:  And my question is are these 
meters that have been installed, were meters issued 
before the shortage of March '93, or they were issued 
  --

MR. CRADDICK:  I'll give you a list here of 
since 1965 all the meters that have been issued 
upcountry individually year by year and cumulatively.

MR. TAGORDA:  That's just my concern.  I'm 
really confused about -- because it doesn't -- you 
didn't discuss anything about the policy, the issuance 
of meters, but you gave us a list of installed meters.

MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.  My understanding of the 
rules that cover meter issuance, I have to go back and 
start in 1977 when the Kula Rule was first passed.  
Because prior to then, meters were handled on I guess 
a day-to-day basis and issued on a first come, first 
served basis.  There were no restrictions on -- in 
1977, the Kula Rule passed which basically restricted 
meter issuances for the Upper Kula line and the Lower 
Kula line, did not affect Haiku, Pukalani, and Makawao 
area, and it further restricted I guess meters on the 
upper line, 5/8-inch meters. 

During that period of time, private 
arrangements were made with private groups, namely 
Maui Land & Pine, that they could get larger meters 
provided they took them out during drought times.  And 
how they justified those things, I don't know, but it 
was done.  I don't know if the board approved it or 
the mayor approved it, but it was done. 

Anyway, that went along and I think the 
previous mayor recognized that this was a problem and 
board members that were selected recognized that was a 
problem because it restricted farming upcountry 
because obviously you can't farm with a 5/8-inch 
meter.  So the board said we're not -- and 
furthermore, the upper and lower line was not the 
source of water during a drought; it was the Wailoa 
ditch.  So what the board said was, well, probably not 
going to extend the Kula Rule any longer and the 
latter part of 1992 we were informed by the health 
department that we had to cut the capacity of our 
Kamole Weir treatment plant from I believe it's 7 down 
to 5.8 or something like that.  And with that, we did 
not have an adequate supply of water to supply 
everybody.  I so informed the board, they discussed it 
for a few months and basically said, well, if we're 
short of water, we're not going to issue meters.  So 
that started March 16, 1993.  The Kula Rule expired 
March 21 or something like that, or 23, 1993. 
But under the Kula Rule, even though it said 
you can't get meters, they had something called a 
family subdivision thing in there where people could 
subdivide and if they made the improvements, they 
could do a family subdivision and get two additional 
meters.  There are many, many agreements like that in 
the water department file. 

Plus, there were subdivisions that were 
approved by the water department, like say Pukalani, 
for instance, that not all the lots had meters in 
them.  And there were lots approved for subdivision 
prior to the county having any rules for subdivisions. 

And after we informed the board that we were 
short of water, we met with corp counsel and went over 
a number of issues and one of them was all these 
people sitting up there with these, oh, how would I 
describe it, some kind of reliance on being able to 
get a meter.  And what we said was that if people had 
not done anything in reliance on being able to get a 
meter, we weren't going to honor those agreements.  
And we tacked on a bunch of guidelines on to a 
shortage thing that we informed a board of. 

Somebody challenged that in court.  Two years 
later, that was knocked down and we had to continue 
giving meters to people in those situations where a 
line was otherwise adequate.  And we did that.

Now, just about the end of the ruling in that 
Jim Smith court case, I believe we already knew from 
previous meetings with the court that we were going to 
lose in that respect, that we couldn't restrict those 
meters.  And corp counsel told us we need to have a 
better process whereby the people who aren't able to 
get meters are dealt with later on. 

So we put an ad in the newspaper and said 
whoever has had meters refused or whatever upcountry, 
send the information in to us, we're going to compile 
a list and when the shortage is over, we'll go through 
that list in an orderly manner. 

And when we started the list, we put people on 
there who wanted larger meters, wanted new 
subdivisions, some empty lots that didn't have meters.  
All those people were kind of put in on the list.  
Ones who weren't put on the list is ones that we were 
clearly still giving meters to, which were basically 
places like Pukalani and the existing lots that were 
subdivided that were near -- or people who go to the 
point of adequacy to get a meter. 

And to this day, that's basically still what 
we're following.  On the priority list that you have 
in a package there, there are a number of people on 
that list that are the empty lots.  And in particular, 
I know number 2 and 3 on that list, one of those lots 
is in Kula 200 and one is in Pukalani Terrace.  And 
the list was started the couple of months before the 
Jim Smith court case, so there is probably some on 
there that shouldn't have been on there. 

And some people, even though they could get 
the meter, wanted to be put on the list even though 
they could get the meter, which is the concern in 
number one.  And then during -- sometime during the 
shortage, the board got an agreement with Alexander & 
Baldwin to get some additional water after the 
treatment plant was in place, and we did -- some of 
those people on that list got water through that 
agreement. 

Hawaiian Homes was on this list at one time 
but when the board made an agreement with them, I 
believe they were removed off of the list because 
they're getting the water now.  And I know at one time 
Sport Shinko was on this list, they may still be on 
there, but as you know, the board made an agreement 
with the Kulamalu Associates where they were going to 
go develop some water for that project of theirs and 
they have subsequently done that.  So those two 
groups, Hawaiian Homes and Sport Shinko, would be able 
to get water in any case and that is the priority for 
issuing meters that I know of, it's just people with 
some kind of substantial reliance on being able to get 
a meter is who we have been giving them to.  And we've 
taken money, you know, basically money as some 
criteria that there was some substantial reliance. 

MR. TAGORDA:  So David, you mentioned about 
the list upcountry, so this current -- this is not an 
updated list then.

MR. CRADDICK:  There are the number of people 
on this list that you have that have gotten meters 
because of the reasons that I stated.  If we took all 
the people off of this list -- let me look here, what 
the date of this list is.  October 24.  It should be 
800.  Yes, 803.  There is 323 that could be removed 
off of the list.  Three hundred and twenty-three that 
could be removed off of the list.

MR. STARR:  Why could they be removed off of 
the list?

MR. CRADDICK:  For those reasons that I stated.

MR. STARR:  You mean they have already gotten meters?

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, some of them, like under 
the A&B one, they were offered the meter and didn't 
want it, but they're sitting there basically 
logjamming the top of the list for other people to get 
meters. 

Some of them were like those empty lots like I 
was telling you that at first we were restricting and 
when the Jim Smith court case, when we lost that, we 
start going through issuing meters to those people.  
Again, provided they were at the point of adequacy or 
adjacent to an adequate lot. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chair, can I request the 
department to update this list and segregate meters 
that should go to Lower Kula, Upper Kula, and Kamaole 
Weir in this list so at least we know.  Because I 
think, if I ask you a question, to the best of your 
knowledge this is not true and correct, this list that 
you are presenting to us now.  There are so many 
changes.  Like you said 323 might be off this list.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, Orlando, to me to -- the 
reason we left them on there is so people -- just so 
there is no confusion.  You know, if somebody wants to 
go look at that and why they got a meter, it's there, 
they can do that.  If we take it off and it's not 
there, then, you know, it makes it look like 
somebody's trying to hide something.

MR. TAGORDA:  Because what I really want to 
see, too, is whether based on this upcountry list 
application we have enough water to allocate from 
these requests.

MR. CRADDICK:  What requests are you talking about?

MR. TAGORDA:   Water service, water meter.

MR. CRADDICK:  You mean to go through this list?

MR. TAGORDA:   Yeah, to go through all this list.

MR. CRADDICK:  I'm not sure I follow your 
question there.  You're trying to determine if there 
is adequate water to go through this list?

MR. TAGORDA:   I'm trying to determine how 
many gallons we need to satisfy all these applicants.

MR. CRADDICK:  Everybody including all the 
ones who have already got meters, it's 480,000 gallons 
a day, average day.

MR. STARR:  I have some questions, but I want 
to defer to Mike. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  I was running a little late this 
morning and I really forgot all my substantiating 
data, so I need -- I'd like to ask corporation counsel 
to give us the summary or overview of current rules in 
place that currently govern meter issuance.  I hate to 
put you on the spot.


MR. FUKUSHIMA:  The primary rule governing 
issuance of water meters is 2-1 which states if you're 
adjacent to a main line and the premises to be served 
is in the service area and the new service will not be 
detrimental to users, to other users in the vicinity, 
then you get a meter.  And essentially that's the rule 
which governs the issuance of water meters. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  You're referring now to policy. 
What are we actually referring to when we say policy?  
It goes back to that rule or are we talking about the 
department's --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, if I may, one of the 
things this board may wish to do, and this is a 
suggestion and, you know, take it for what it's worth.  
What this committee may wish to do is to get a -- 
quite frankly, I don't think this list is that 
valuable, although we know what's going out there or 
we know what meters have been installed.  But I think 
it's more important to know under the circumstances in 
which these meters were granted.  Were they part of a 
family subdivision, were they granted a meter because 
of this reliance, if there has been some reliance on 
the part of the subdivider or the applicant, you know, 
so we know under what circumstances these meters are 
being granted. 

When you have that information, then the board 
-- this committee can recommend to the board whether 
it believes the department is acting in a fashion that 
it wishes it to act.  If it believes that there are 
other items to consider when issuing meters, you can 
formulate rules to implement whatever policy you wish 
to adopt.

MR. STARR:  I know I for one have a very 
difficult time understanding on what basis meters are 
being issued and on with what basis they're being not 
issued.  And I'm trying to gain -- before I comment on 
whether I like the basis that it's being done or 
whether I think it's fair, I'm trying to understand 
what that is.  And so far I haven't had much 
enlightenment on that and I would like to go back to 
the director and ask him, you know, let's just start 
-- let's just start with this list here, okay, this 
list which apparently has -- we're not sure of the 
merit of this list, but why aren't meters being issued 
to these people on this list who apparently have made 
requests and not been issued meters.  What's the basis 
that these people have not been served?

MR. CRADDICK:  Because the board tabled 
discussion on my information to the board that the 
shortage was not necessary any more back in February.  

That's the only reason.

MR. STARR:  Well, how come before February the 
 meters -- they weren't issued?

MR. CRADDICK:  Before February we -- well, 
actually arguably when the Hamakuapoko wells were on 
line September of 1999, we probably could have done it 
right then.  But between September and December, I 
believe, we were in a drought situation so whether I 
informed the board that we had water at that point or 
not, we were in a drought situation.

MR. STARR:  You mean you wanted to issue the 
meters against the Hamakuapoko wells.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, we cannot.  By court we're 
restricted to do that.

MR. STARR:  That's what you just said.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, I did not.  I said when 
that well came on line, we can use that during the 
drought situation.  So for peak demand, obviously that 
well is available for us to use.  We're not issuing 
meters on it because of its ability to supply peak 
water.

MR. STARR:  Well, in other words, the only 
reason you're not issuing these meters is because you 
said the board didn't -- the board tabled your what, 
your findings?

MR. CRADDICK:  My information to the board 
that we had an adequate supply of water.  Which was 
given to the board in February of this year, I believe.

MR. STARR:  And how about before that?

MR. CRADDICK:  Like I said, before that, the 
immediate months before that prior to the Hamakuapoko 
well, we were in a drought situation.  I believe that 
got cancelled -- I don't know if it was January or 
December, but I may have actually given it to the 
board in January, but what happened was the day before 
I gave it to the board, I had a meeting with the 
Farmers Association and they had said that even though 
they were not required to cut back that drought there 
at the end of the year last year, they said they still 
cut back.  So I had to go back and look at the numbers 
again and see if we added something in extra for their 
consumption that would have occurred had they 
continued on using water, whether we could still have 
an adequate water supply.  And did that and it 
appeared that it would still be adequate.  But at that 
time the board had already tabled the issue, I just 
told them my findings and they said well, this matter 
is still tabled.  So I said okay.

MR. STARR:  So you think there is plenty of 
water to issue all --

MR. CRADDICK:  I'm not saying plenty.  I've 
said in there that it was reasonable to be able to 
give out a couple of hundred thousand gallons.

MR. STARR:  But you haven't been issuing 
meters because you didn't -- the board didn't -- are 
you not issuing meters because of the board's decision 
or because of your own belief or because of something 
that happened years ago?  I'm trying to understand.

MR. CRADDICK:  Only because of the board's 
decision to table that.  That's the only reason why.  
I don't think it's appropriate to do that, but you're 
the board, so.

MR. STARR:  So how come you're issuing these 
other meters? 

MR. CRADDICK:  Those are ones that were never 
affected by the shortage in the first place.  They're 
all substantial reliance issues where money was spent, 
we had agreements with them, and if they did what was 
in the agreement -- all the family subdivisions -- 
subdivisions that were approved prior to 1993 are not 
on this list. 

Now, do we still need to issue a meter to an 
empty lot in Pukalani if they don't have a meter?  I 
ask you to direct that to corp counsel, not to me.

MR. STARR:  Are you issuing meters to empty lots?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  I have no idea why.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well --

MR. STARR:  So in other words, if someone has 
an empty lot and comes to you today, they will get a 
meter?

MR. CRADDICK:  If they're adjacent to an 
adequate line, yes.

MR. STARR:  And at what --

MR. CRADDICK:  I take that back, Jonathan.  
Since October 4th last year, Howard, in I believe it 
was a meeting, Mike Nobriga's meeting when he was head 
of the rules committee that was going back then, this 
issue was being discussed.  And the matter came up, 
Howard said that it was probably appropriate not to 
issue meters to these lots.  But that opinion has yet 
to be written and given to us.  We have honored it up 
until the board said that issue with Daniels because 
Daniels is another case of the empty lot without the 
meter.  And the board said to move the meter for them.  
So since that time, Daniels does have a meter and we 
are going through the list of others that had been 
restricted since October 4th and trying to take care 
of those ones.

MR. STARR:  If someone came to you having an 
empty lot in Pukalani, would you issue them a meter 
today?

MR. CRADDICK:  If it's an already approved 
subdivision.  Pukalani is a pretty big area, but I'm 
assuming you're talking about in the Pukalani 
subdivision area that was approved by the board, that 
didn't have a meter, yes.  If they wanted to upsize 
their meter or get a second meter, no. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  Correct me if I'm wrong, Howard, 
but I don't believe there is anything in Rule 3-1 that 
discriminates a lot that's empty versus a lot that 
there is structures upon. 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And I agree.  And I don't 
think the fact that someone doesn't wish to build at 
the present time would prevent them to get a meter.  
I'm a little surprised that Dave attributes a 
statement to me that says that an empty lot shouldn't 
get a meter.  What I had indicated at that time was 
there was statements from the department that if you 
had a lot which preexisted 1993, you would get the 
water meter.  I thought -- and you automatically get a 
water meter.  I thought that was improper, it was not 
according to the rules.  You have to apply 3-1 in 
determining whether someone should get a meter or not.  
That's the first thing you've got to do.  And that's 
where I informed -- that's what I informed the 
department and that was what I believe my statement 
was to the committee when we were meeting down at your 
offices. 

Again, I find it, you know -- and I agree with 
the member that the fact that you don't have any 
present intention shouldn't prevent you from getting 
the meter if you pay your fees and you meet all the 
other requirements, you should get a meter.  Unless 
the board develops a rule --

MR. STARR:  Could you read 3-1 for us, please? 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  3-1(a), which would probably 
be the most operative language in the rule:  Any 
prospective consumer whose premises are within service 
limits established by the department and adjacent to a 
distributing main, where pressure conditions permit, 
may obtain water service provided that the department 
has sufficient water supply developed for domestic use 
and for fire protection to take on new or additional 
service without detriment to those already served and 
the consumer agrees to abide by the provisions of 
these rules and regulations.

MR. NOBRIGA:  So in other words, the system 
has to be adequate.

MR. STARR:  Certainly. 

MR. STARR:  And it has to be able to be 
without detriment to those already served.  So there 
are those minor items as part of --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, you may think they're 
minor, but.

MR. STARR:  No, I don't think they're minor at 
all.  In fact, I'm trying to understand why we issue 
64 meters or any meters at all when this system itself 
is considered inadequate and I believe that the system 
being inadequate is the reason that we haven't been 
issuing meters and --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:   Well, Mr. Chairman, that 
statement may not be entirely correct in that there 
are subdivisions where developers are putting in 
improvements, going to the source of matters, going -- 
and where the system is adequate and those are the 
ones that are --

MR. STARR:  But we're also being told that 
empty lots are getting meters.  That's what I don't 
understand. 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  But that does not speak to the 
system itself.

MR. STARR:  Huh? 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  It just says they're getting 
meters.  And presumably they're complying with 3-1.

MR. STARR:  I would like to, before our next 
meeting, get the list of these meters that have been 
installed and, you know, under what agreement they 
have been issued.

MR. CRADDICK:  We can do that.

MR. STARR:  And I would also like to know what 
empty lot meters have been issued.

MR. CRADDICK:  We can do that.

MR. STARR:  I still do not understand this 
empty lot business at all and I really thought that 
the board had put a stop to that. 

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, again, Jonathan, we tried 
to do that back in 1993.  The court said you can't do 
it without rule making.  So I leave it at that.  If 
you want to do it.

MR. STARR:  If the system is inadequate, 
that's in our rule.

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, if the board has made 
previous agreements with people that they can get a 
meter and they do what the board told them to do and 
they didn't put in there that you've got to provide 
your own source, whose fault is that?  Certainly not 
the people that made the agreement with us.  Should 
have been the board telling us, hey, if you take too 
long to implement this, we're not going to guarantee 
you any longer than one year that you're going to be 
able to do this.  That should have been in the 
agreement for all those family subdivisions. 

And perhaps, you know, maybe under the Kula 
Rule, I don't know why they said that the empty lots 
could get a 5/8ths-inches meter.  My understanding is 
that the corp counsel at the time had done some 
analysis of substantial reliance and they determined 
that these empty lots in the county, I guess because 
people are paying taxes or whatever, have some kind of 
reliance. 

All I can say is that the water department has 
been doing that since it was formed and I don't -- and 
I don't like the idea of doing it, Jonathan, I believe 
it should be able to be stopped, but --

MR. STARR:  Let me get a clarification.  
You're telling me that the court said that any empty 
lot can get a 5/8ths meter whether the system is 
adequate or not.

MR. CRADDICK:  No.  No.  What they said was 
that if we were going do it, you had to do rule 
making.  We tried to use the statute of limitations as 
the reason --

MR. STARR:  If we're going to do what?

MR. CRADDICK:  Restrict meters just generally.  
Restricting meters.  We had to have something more 
than guidelines that I made up and published in the 
newspaper that was not rule making, that the community 
did not have a chance to participate in or anything 
like that.

MR. STARR:  Howard, what did the court say in 
relation to issuing meters if there is no adequate 
supply?  

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, it's 
been a long time since I've reviewed that file and 
offhand I cannot remember if the court addressed this 
-- specifically this empty lot.

MR. STARR:  I would ask you to look that up 
because I think that this will be relevant as to 
whether we're forced to issue meters if there is no 
adequacy.  And I don't believe that --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I don't think that's what he 
said.

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, no, Jonathan, I'll 
read you exactly what the court said.  And this is the 
transcript of the proceedings, Honorable Judge 
McConnell presiding, Jim Smith, Pro se; James Rapacz, 
attorney for the county. 

"THE COURT:  There is no question about the 
authenticity of this finding and what it says.  There 
is no genuine issue of fact about that.  There is no 
issue of fact about the fact that it's simply adopted 
by the director and there were no formal rule making 
procedures.  These are the only facts the Court finds 
relevant at this time." 

Now, his actual ruling just said that he found 
that the guidelines that were attached to the shortage 
were rule making.  And all those guidelines were doing 
just exactly what you want to do:  Restrict meters to 
all those lots and we were using the statute of 
limitations and I can go to the part in here where 
they discussed statute of limitations.  The judge said 
he didn't think that was an adequate enough area to 
restrict it without the board going to rule making.  
And I know John Rapacz tried to get us to make rules, 
but he was always focusing on the priority list.  And 
I think it was only when we had the discussion in 
Mike's committee that, hey, you know, what about these 
empty lots, you know.  And so I actually made a 
proposal to the group how we could make rules for 
those empty lots.  And no, we're not going to do that.  
So, okay, fine, the board didn't want to deal with it, 
didn't have to deal with it. 

But again, you know, I'll leave it up to you 
guys.  If you want to say that you can somehow 
restrict meters to those people who have historically 
been able to get them without any public hearing or 
rule making or whatever, you know, have at it.  I'm 
sure that's what a lot of these people are sitting 
here for, waiting for you to make that decision.

MR. STARR:  First of all, this committee is 
advisory, so we're not going to make a decision here. 
But I really think that this empty lot business is a 
smoke screen.

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, I don't like it 
myself.  But what we tried, using the statute of 
limitations where nobody had ever done anything in 
reliance on that, you know, if you've had a lot out 
there since 1980 or '30-something and you've never 
done anything in reliance on getting the meter, should 
you be able to get one.  Well, if there was any 
implied contract with them, certainly I think the 
state statute of limitations is six years.  Certainly 
up to six years, if they never did anything in 
reliance, I think it's reasonable that we could say 
sorry, folks, your time is up, you know, the system 
doesn't stay adequate forever.  And since we made a 
finding that we're short of water, you're not going to 
get any water.  But like I say, the judge said that 
stuff was rule making and had to go through the rule 
making process.

MR. STARR:  Frankly, my own desire is to make 
the system adequate and be able to issue the meters, 
but do it in such a way that it doesn't create a 
deeper type of drought in future years.  So that's the 
direction we want to head.  But I want to understand 
really where we're at now and what the community wants 
before we go in that or any other direction. 

Anyway, members, any other --

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, could I get some 
clarification?  You want a person by person list of 
this person, you know, like say, for instance, Glenn 
Jackson who got his meter -- I think the board knows 
when he got a meter.  But he's one of the people of 
that 64 there.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.

MR. CRADDICK:  Like that.  This person got 
this meter.

MR. STARR:  Yeah, someone got it because of 
Kulamalu or someone got it for some other source 
development agreement or whatever reason there is.

MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.

MR. STARR:  I do want a clarification, though, 
if any other person comes to you tomorrow with a meter 
application, what happens to them.  What do you do 
with their application and what are the boundaries of 
the area that -- if someone comes to you anywhere 
upcountry and applies for a water meter, what will you 
do with their application?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, we can do that.

MR. STARR:  No, I'm asking the question.

MS. NAGO:  He wants to know what you're going 
to do if somebody comes with an application.

MR. CRADDICK:  We're going to see if it's a 
subdivision that existed prior to the finding of the 
shortage, subdivided lot that existed before then, or 
they had done something in reliance on being able to 
get a meter and prior to March 16, 1993.  And that 
they're next to an adequate line.

MR. STARR:  And say they're part of the 
subdivision that existed before 1993.

MR. CRADDICK:  Then we would issue a meter, 
lacking any rules on how to deal with those.  And 
further, you know, if -- I, myself, I feel really 
uncomfortable having my information to the board being 
tabled and no discussion on it for almost a year now 
when we know very well we should be going through this 
list of names.  I mean, it's very, very uncomfortable 
to me.  But again, you know, I told you before when we 
went into that shortage situation, the board supported 
me, so I'm not going to go out and take some action 
and just leave the board off on the side.  I want no  
 --

MR. STARR:  Frankly, subsequent to your 
feeling that we should be issuing -- that we were 
adequate and should be issuing meters, we went into a 
very severe drought and it was only through 
declaration of an emergency and borrowing water from 
another system that basically does not belong to the 
upcountry system were we able to keep the system 
adequate.  So I don't really think that the drought 
problems are over.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, if the board wants to say 
that the Hamakuapoko wells, even though we can use 
them during a drought situation, are not usable, 
that's certainly your prerogative and that's kind of 
what I'm waiting for.

MR. STARR:  The Hamakuapoko wells are not part 
of any EIS for upcountry.

MR. CRADDICK:  They are.  That was the exact 
reason for the EA that was done was for the sole 
purpose of addressing the drought situation upcountry.  
That's the sole purpose that EA was done.


MR. STARR:  They're not part of any EIS that 
has been approved.

MR. CRADDICK:  Oh, yes.  Oh, yes.

MR. STARR:  Only in emergency, David.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, yeah, the board does have 
to declare a drought.

MR. STARR:  Minor details.  Okay.  What's the 
pleasure of the committee?  To defer this item and 
hopefully defer it to a public meeting upcountry?  

MR. NOBRIGA:  I was hoping that the Chair was 
going to suggest something, some conclusion to this 
matter.  There is so much issues concerning this 
matter that I have to apologize that I, for one, am 
not fully prepared to act on this right now, although 
I am very well aware of the historical information 
provided.

MR. STARR:  I know I would like to take it to 
the community and I think that's best done by 
deferring and calling another meeting with --

MR. NOBRIGA:  The full board needs to be 
involved in this process.  That's my last comment.

MR. STARR:  Well, ultimately the full board 
will have to be, since we are not a decision-making 
body here; we're in a position only to recommend.  But 
by having been given the matter, I think that it's in 
our purview to try to find the community's wishes and 
then come back with a recommendation to the board 
which then can act.  So you know, I do feel that at 
this point deferral is our best option.

MR. CRADDICK:  I have no objection. 

MR. TAGORDA:  So moved.

MR. STARR:  This item will be deferred and 
we're going to take a very short recess and be back at 
10:30 sharp. 

(Brief recess.)

MR. STARR:  We're back to order.  Item V(c)  
regarding that priority list, I know we've somewhat 
covered this, but I'm wondering if there is any 
testimony regarding.  Okay.

MS. D'ENBEAU:  Madelyn D'Enbeau and I'm 
speaking as an individual property home owner in 
Haiku.  You'll be hearing, I'm sure, a lot more of 
this when you go upcountry, but let me just briefly 
let you know what it's like to live in Haiku and be 
hooked up to the county water system. 

As you know, I think out of the last six years 
probably five of them have been drought restrictions, 
drought being more water use than there is supply, not 
really particularly related to rainfall.  Of course, 
it does rain less in the summer, we all know that. 

During that time, Haiku Makai has been 
developed, Haiku Mauka has been developed, these are 
large A&B subdivisions.  And then there has also been 
a number of houses in my immediate neighborhood that 
have gotten meters, which is fine except that what 
happens in Haiku -- like we use 385 gallons a day.  
And the reason we use so little even though it's a big 
family is we don't irrigate in the winter because it 
rains so all of our fruit trees and our plants and 
everything are fine.  And then comes the drought and 
they say okay, you've got to cut back 10 percent, 
which means no showers, take a bath, take the buckets 
and take the bath water out and try to keep your fruit 
trees alive.  And meanwhile other houses are going up 
who are going to be drawing on this same supply.  So 
that's why the people -- I mean, it's really, really 
difficult to live there during these restriction 
times.  It's really difficult.  You can't flush your 
toilets, you can't -- because we don't have any 
leeway.  Because people -- maybe in Kula they have to 
let their plants die and that's terrible, but at least 
they might enough use for the house because the way 
the water department does it is they just say it's 10 
percent, or whatever the percentage is.  We don't care 
how much you used in the past.  But you can come and 
ask David and he might give you a dispensation and not 
take your water meter away.  But it's a very difficult 
situation. 

So it's hard for us to see new houses coming 
in.  Not that we mind the new houses being there, but 
just wondering how is the water supply going to take 
care of it.  And then they opened the Haiku well, 
which is I believe supplying my property because I get 
those notices that it's polluted with pesticides, so I 
think it must be in my property.  And so we're not 
quite sure why we still get the restrictions if we 
have this well water because I guess maybe there isn't 
enough of the well water or maybe these new meters are 
being issued because of the well water or maybe 
they're not.  We just don't know.  And that's why we 
really need some clarity and I really support the idea 
of having Mr. Craddick explain how each meter was 
issued. 

I do know that the A&B subdivisions, I've read 
the water agreements with A&B and as I understand it, 
A&B promises to put more water into the system in 
exchange for the meters for all of these big ag 
subdivisions.  But of course, none of that applies 
during times of drought because there isn't more water 
to put into the system.  So I don't know where those 
people are actually physically getting their actual 
water.  It's all kind of the -- it's like a parallel 
reality or something, you know, where there is 
something going on but we can't figure out what it is.  
So before the meeting, I hope there will be some kind 
of presentation that will help people to understand 
those questions.  And I'm sure the board and the 
people that have -- everybody probably has family 
living up in that area or whatever, realizes how 
extremely difficult it is during these drought 
restrictions and how scary because you've got to cut 
back and they're threatening to take your meter away 
and you can't -- it's really, really hard and that's 
why we're so concerned to understand what this process 
is and how -- and I just heard Mr. Craddick say that 
there isn't any inadequacy upcountry.  I mean, I guess 
he's thinking because during declared droughts you can 
then use the Hamakuapoko wells, but then you get back 
to does that mean that every summer we're going to 
have this declared drought because we don't have -- 
there is only so much rainfall and there's only so 
much storage.  So if we're going to have a declared 
emergency drought every summer because we don't have 
enough storage for all these new meters, then what's 
that going to mean in terms of can we plant gardens, 
can we not plant gardens, I mean, what exactly is 
going on?  Thank you very much.

MR. STARR:  Before you go, I wanted to -- 
what's the status of the Haiku well, David?

MR. CRADDICK:  We're getting it repaired.

MR. STARR:  The pump hasn't coming back yet, though.

MR. CRADDICK:  What do you mean?

MR. STARR:  The pump has not come back?  In 
other words, it's still out of service.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.  Right.

MR. STARR:  So where is the water coming from?

MR. CRADDICK:  It comes from -- to tell you 
the truth, it may be coming from Kulamalu well right 
now.  It may be.  But, you know, I -- I'm not exactly 
positive how much of that water is actually used 
because it's been since Wednesday last week, I guess 
that it's been on 24 hours a day.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  But we were up there and it 
was running about one-third duty cycle.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.  But that was all the 
demand that there was at that time.

MR. STARR:  Yeah, it was raining.  It was 
quite wet.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.

MR. STARR:  So it's coming from Kulamalu well, 
which is running at about one third of its pump 
capacity. 

Any questions for Madelyn? 

MS. D'ENBEAU:  I guess if I could just make 
one more system.  Whatever happens, I would implore 
the committee and the board to say that all of this 
isn't going to be dependent on these kind of drought 
declarations that aren't really -- it's not really a 
drought because it's raining really hard, but we want 
to keep the Hamakuapoko wells in effect and the state 
won't let us do it unless we declare a drought, and so 
therefore there is going to be this sense of 
restrictions and we're not quite sure as homeowners 
what we're supposed to do.  That seems to be what 
happened because I know the drought went on way past 
the summer this year.  It was almost all year, wasn't 
it?

MR. STARR:  It's my belief that long term the 
Hamakuapoko wells are being dedicated to the central 
system, that they're part of the EIS that's being 
created for that and that once they're added on to the 
central system, I don't know at that point whether 
even with the declaration of emergency we can take 
them from the central system and put them into the 
upcountry system, which is, you know, to my mind what 
we've been doing is borrowing.  We're borrowing water 
from Hamakuapoko -- and I'm glad we were able to do 
that.  And frankly, we're borrowing water from the 
Dowling well because all of that water is all 
dedicated to his projects.  So we're fat now because 
we're borrowing and ultimately I'm not sure if that's 
helpful because there may -- we may end up with a more 
inadequate or the less adequate system when we're not 
be able to borrow any longer.

MS. D'ENBEAU:  So you mean the new meters that 
are being issued are being issued against borrowed 
water somehow?

MR. STARR:  Well, I don't know why the new 
meters -- if they're being issued, say, Kulamalu, then 
they're being issued against the Dowling well, there 
is no problem there.  If they're just being issued 
because they're an empty lot or something, then 
they're not being issued against a source, no. 

MS. D'ENBEAU:  Thank you. 

MS. KRASH:  Elliott Krash, Kula Community 
Association.  And I just want to say thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, and members, for having this meeting and 
the ones that you're planning.  This, as painful and 
difficult as this discussion is, you can tell the 
interest in it and I'm sure you'll see that when you 
come upcountry. 

And we really need to hammer this out and make 
progress on these issues.  So please, if there is 
anything that our association and the MAUCA 
association can do to help, we're here.

MR. STARR:  Thank you.  Questions? 

Bennie had mentioned possibly some 
presentation might be in order or explanation of where 
 -- as I understand it, that would be how this basic 
system works, where the water comes from for different 
parts of upcountry, was that what you were getting at?  

MS. D'ENBEAU:  And also why meters are being 
issued and not being issued so that people -- before 
they start to testify, have some understanding of 
what --

MS. KRASH:  What these various rules are that 
we're operating under and maybe the historical 
perspective.  The problem in doing that is it's a 
confusing, complex issue with a lot of political and 
technical ramifications that are difficult to zero in 
on the key aspects.  But I'm sure that you all can do 
that.

MR. STARR:  We'll try to do it, although there 
does seem to be some difference of opinion especially 
regarding issuing meters if it's an existing 
subdivision or whatever. 

MS. KRASH:  But I think that the conditions 
under which those have been issued have been laid out 
by Mr. Craddick and you all today.  And if there are 
graphics or handouts or a combination of that, it 
would be helpful.

MR. STARR:  I'm sure staff will do what they 
can to make the good presentation.

MS. KRASH:  You've got a good communicator 
with --

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, I'm a little bit 
confused.  You say meter issuance policies and some 
discussion, but are we talking about meter issuance 
policies for the priority list or what are we talking 
about?

MR. STARR:  Well, right now the item under 
discussion is regarding the priority list.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, I know.  But if you have 
a meeting upcountry -- I mean, I don't know if you're 
not going to discuss the meter issuance policies.  But 
it seems like they're asking more what are these 
policies there and I'm saying are these the policies 
for how we go through the priority list.  That's my 
question.

MR. STARR:  Well, I believe that where there 
are several matters, and I believe we'll be taking 
both agenda items upcountry and, you know, it will be, 
if we do go through the priority list, what our 
policies will be then.  I think the community wants to 
understand what our policies have been in the past and 
what they are at present.  So I guess we have three 
things:  What the past policies were, what the current 
policy is, and what the future policy may be. 

MS. KRASH:  I think you had laid that out 
earlier.  My response to that would be I think 
upcountry citizens understand there is a list and we 
follow that, but they also are aware that meters are 
being issued for people who may not be on the list or 
may be further down the list for other reasons that 
Mr. Craddick has explained.  So what are those other 
reasons by which people -- other conditions under 
which people can get the meter that we need to 
understand that have been explained here today.  So 
everything, not just the priority list, but the other 
rules that are in effect or the other guidelines or 
the other practices.

MR. STARR:  That is information we've already 
asked for today which has been basically to understand 
who has gotten meters and why.  And, you know, I'm 
sure that most of them are in accordance with policy, 
but we'll take a look at it.

MS. KRASH:  Anyway, my main message is thank you.

MR. STARR:  Any additional testimony on this 
matter?  No additional testimony.  Members?  

MR. NOBRIGA:  I would like to defer this to 
the meeting upcountry and work on some kind of a plan, 
or hot tip. 

MR. STARR:  I agree.  But let David say his peace here.

MR. CRADDICK:  The MOU is another factor in 
this equation.  And I would have to say all of the 
things that are in that MOU are -- I mean the board 
voted on it and approved it and I know that there is 
some expectations of how those things would work, but 
I believe there should be possibly some kind of 
presentation on that and I'm not certain that I would 
be the best one to give that presentation because I 
think we ourself are not quite certain what some 
people have in mind for some of the provisions in that 
MOU.  I know the one in there where we are not limited 
anymore when we hit the 55 million gallons in the 
Wailoa ditch that we actually can go down to very low 
numbers.  All we have to do now when we hit the 55 
million is make sure all available groundwater that 
can be used is being used.  And that one's very 
understandable, very good policy.  But the policy of 
keeping reservoirs full all the time I think needs to 
be explained to the people because we spent a lot of 
money this year keeping those reservoirs full and in 
my mind the purpose of the reservoir is to supply 
water during drought times and we're going to the 
state to ask for $2 million to put another reservoir 
in and if we can go through these droughts and keep 
our reservoirs full all the time, I mean, there is not 
a whole lot of argument that you need more reservoirs. 

So I think those kind of things need to be 
explained in greater detail to the community also.  
And I'm not certain we're the ones that can do that 
explanation if there is anybody that can do those 
explanations.

MR. STARR:  I understand you have a difference 
of opinion with the board where the board feels that 
whatever we need to do to keep the existing customer 
base supplied without forcing them to cut back, we'll 
do.  And that may disagree with your own belief that 
maybe it's better to save a few pennies and let the 
people suffer.  But anyway, that's -- this isn't the 
venue for that discussion.

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, it's statements like 
that that are not only confusing to the staff, they're 
confusing to the public.  Because when the public sees 
the full reservoir up there, are we really in a 
drought situation if the reservoir is full?  I have to 
question that myself.  Are we in a drought situation 
when the reservoirs are full?  And I think that is 
part of the confusion up there.

MR. STARR:  Well, it may be confusing for you.  
I don't think it's been confusing because we've been 
following the policy as far as staff goes and we may 
be adrift at sea, but at least we have a life jacket 
on if we have a full reservoir.  That's how I see it.  
If it's not raining and if it's really, really dry and 
if we're maxed out pumping to try to keep the system 
in operation, then having 80 percent of the reservoir 
means that we have an emergency buffer and we're not 
 -- our consumers are not about to suffer.  But this is 
not the venue for that. 

Anyway, we had the motion and a second to 
defer this matter to an upcountry meeting and I think 
by consensus that will be our action today.

MR. CRADDICK:  So Jonathan, let me get this 
straight again.  You're saying at this explanation 
there is not going to be any discussion about the MOU.  
At this explanation -- explanation to the community 
upcountry, if it's approved, there is not going to be 
any discussion of the MOU.

MR. STARR:  Anyone can discuss anything they 
want to discuss.  If you want to discuss it, you're 
certainly welcome to.

MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.

MR. STARR:  Moving right along.  We are moving 
to V(D) which is evaluation of director and staff.

MR. TAGORDA:  Don't we need to vote?

MR. STARR:  By consensus we voted.  There is 
three of us and everyone seems happy with it, so it's 
by consensus. 

Evaluation of director and staff.  And I 
believe that's one of the duties of the waterboard to 
periodically evaluate the director.  Howard, do you 
happen to have the charter?  Has anyone got a copy of 
the --

Among the powers of the board or the Board of 
Water Supply shall appoint, evaluate, and remove the 
director of the Department of Water Supply. 

So actually, our relationship with staff is 
through the director, who we do have to appoint and 
from time to time evaluate.  So we're going to begin 
the process today.  And I don't really have 
expectations of going through a full evaluation today, 
but I did think that the best place to start any 
journey is at the beginning and we can speak  -- I 
would like to gather from the committee members some 
of the data on which we want to base the evaluation 
process that we can bring forward and then ultimately 
take to the board.  Mike?  

MR. NOBRIGA:  One really useful document would 
be a job description.  And I don't know if there is 
such a thing, but before you actually have a job 
description, it's kind of difficult to evaluate how 
effective someone is in the performance of those 
duties. 

The other key information that we would like 
to see has to do with the other charge of the 
department and even ourselves as one of the directors 
in administering water supply to meet community 
development plans.  So it's going to be a lot of 
reading on our part because I haven't even touched 
upon the current community development plans and I 
know next year that we're going to go through another 
round of updating.  But it would be interesting to see 
how the department and the board -- the department has 
fared in meeting the objectives set forth in the 
current approved community development plans

MR. STARR:  I don't think it's just the 
community plans, Mike, because it's also the water use 
and development plan and the state water use plan and 
all of those as well.  But I think you're right, that 
should be part of the process is where do we stand in 
relation to, you know, those plans that we're 
basically chartered to follow.  As far as the job 
description --

MR. CRADDICK:  It's in the charter there.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Job description?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Duties are set forth in the charter.

MR. STARR:  Director of Water Supply.  
Director of the department shall be appointed and 
evaluated by the board and may be removed by the 
board.  The director shall have a minimum three years 
experience. 

Administrative capacity.  The director or 
deputy shall be an engineer. 

Powers, duties, and functions.  The director 
shall recommend rules and regulations for adoption by 
the board, administer the affairs of the department 
including the rules and regulations adopted by the 
board and be responsible for day-to-day management and 
control of all water systems of the county.  Prepare 
and implement long-range capital improvement plans 
which have been adopted by the board.  Appoint the 
deputy director.  Prepare an annual operating capital 
budget for the board's review and adoption.  
Coordinate the affairs of the department with the 
mayor and County Council and submit an annual report 
concerning the department to the mayor and council.  
And perform such other duties and functions as shall 
be prescribed by law. 

The annual report concerning the department 
that's submitted to the mayor and the council, what --

MR. CRADDICK:  I believe this was passed out 
in September to the board.  I'm not positive.  But we 
were waiting for a few things.  Usually we -- it's not 
complete because we didn't have the financial audit in 
there.  And that was just completed here about a week 
or so ago and the board will have it at this month's 
meeting.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  We will have it coming up.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  But that was what was 
submitted to the mayor for last year.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  This was -- I don't 
understand.  This was last year's?  Or is this the 
current year?

MR. CRADDICK:  The fiscal year that ended June 
2000.  This year is not finished yet.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  We're halfway through.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.

MR. STARR:  Okay.

MR. CRADDICK:  So there is no report to the 
mayor for this year at this time.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  So I guess this document 
will be part of the process. 

I would like to go back and look at QualServe.  
I know I have a copy of it somewhere, but I would like 
to get committee members issued new copies of that.  
Were there several of those or was that just one -- 
was there just one QualServe?  I think there were two, 
weren't there?

MR. CRADDICK:  You're talking about 
operational audits?

MR. STARR:  Yeah.

MR. CRADDICK:  There was the Peat Marwick one 
back in 1991.

MR. STARR:  Wasn't there one -- wasn't a 
QualServe done around '97 or something?

MR. CRADDICK:  No.  Just latter part of 1999.

MR. STARR:  What?

MR. CRADDICK:  Latter part of -- well, not 
'99.  '98.

MR. STARR:  Yeah, '98.  Okay.  So yeah, copies 
of the QualServe.  And I would also like to get copies 
of the last three years of evaluation -- director's 
evaluation as was done.

MR. CRADDICK:  Didn't do any last year.

MR. STARR:  Yeah, I know.  None was done last 
year.  But the previous three. 

And I would also like to dig out the minutes 
from the meetings where the evaluations were held the 
last three years.  Could you try to do that, Fran?

MS. NAGO:  Uh-huh.

MR. CRADDICK:  So you're talking about '96, 
'97, and '98.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  Can members suggest some 
other items that we can utilize? 

MR. TAGORDA:  I think I can head out 
something, Mr. Chair.  For projects completed on our 
transmission lines, whether they have been replaced 
and things like that.

MS. NAGO:  Orlando, I'm sorry, I can't hear so 
you need to speak up. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Transmission lines.  And I want 
to see some of the conservation program that we 
supposedly implemented, if those were really 
implemented.  And I would like to also know about your 
storage plan upcountry, whether that's been changed or 
not, whether you are -- whether the plan at Kamole has 
been changed or altered to go to other places.  I 
would like to see to it that some of those agreements 
that we have all over the place are being reviewed and 
followed, MOU -- I've never been involved with those 
agreements, but like I said -- and what else I want to 
see.  Your customer service.  Some of those calls, how 
do you implement them, how do you want to approach and 
better your image to the community by changing 
customer service.  I think that's all for now.

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know when it was done 
--  here it is, 6/15/99 adopted by the board.  The 
board had goals and objectives for 1999-2000 which 
would correspond with that annual report there.  And 
there are six items in there.  And in '96 -- I don't 
know about '96, but I know '97 and '98 the board did 
set goals and objectives and that's basically what 
they used to evaluate and -- I don't know if the board 
plans to do anything with these goals and objectives 
that they outlined for this year, but that may be 
something you want to consider.

MR. STARR:  We can make a copy of that part of 
the packet.  The strategic plan is really taking us in 
that direction very competently.  Mike?  What kind of 
other stuff? 

MR. NOBRIGA:  That's all the stuff really.

MR. STARR:  I would like to see the director 
write a short maybe like a one-page essay on what his 
intended directions for the next couple of years are, 
keep it somewhat general, but I would like to see 
something that states what his goals for himself and 
the department are. 

Howard, you've probably been through this 
process more than the rest of us.  Can you suggest 
anything? 

MR. NAKAMURA:  No, I'm not, not as it relates 
to this board.  I'm doing my best to try to sit here 
and be quiet, Mr. Chairman.  I don't have any other 
suggestions.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  Let's start putting that 
package together and before the next meeting we can 
think of what else we can include.

MR. NOBRIGA:  When you say the next meeting, 
does that refer to the one in upcountry or will you be 
setting a meeting other than that to review this item?

MR. STARR:  My feeling was I did not really  
want to deal with this subject in depth upcountry.  
And in fact, we have to offer, I believe, some -- I 
believe some parts of the discussion are we have to 
offer the director executive session if he wants it.  
But I didn't intend to really go into any real 
discussion in depth up there, though. 

What I was thinking was we might -- if we're 
going to be up there, we might allow public testimony 
on the item up there that we could take back with us 
when we meet in the more regularized meeting down here 
to discuss it. 

So I would think it would be an item -- an 
agenda item for public testimony and leave it -- and 
kind of leave it at that.  What is your feeling?  

MR. NOBRIGA:  Don't really have any feeling.  
It's just -- may want to reserve one meeting time 
period solely to that item.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  A point well taken.  Can 
either of you think of any framework for going about 
this that would make it a -- you know, help save time 
and energy in doing it?  Just take it as it comes, 
yeah?  

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  I guess we should -- the 
Chair would be happy to defer this item also and we'll 
schedule a committee meeting specifically for this 
item down here in Wailuku, but we'll take testimony on 
it upcountry.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Move to adjourn.

MR. STARR:  We have consensus on adjournment. 

(WHEREUPON, the meeting was concluded.)