BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR MEETING


Taken at the David Trask Building, Conference Room 207, Maui,
Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on April 26, 2001 pursuant to
Notice.

REPORTED BY:  GLORIA T. TAVARES, RPR/CSR #262

ATTENDANCE - Board of Water Supply Meeting, April 26, 2001

Members present:      
Peter Rice, Chair
Clark Hashimoto
Mike Nobriga
Jonathan Starr
Adolf Helm
Howard Nakamura
Elmer Cravalho
Kent Hiranaga

Staff present:        
David Craddick, Director
Fran Nago, Board Secretary
Herb Kogasaka, Engineering
Howard Fukushima, Corporation Counsel
Mike Quinn, Fiscal

Others present:
Jim Smith
Adrian Chang
Megan Wells
Susan Kokos
Albert Sikirdji
Sally Raisbeck
Michael Clapper
Terry Holter
Kadar St. John
Jean Blum
Kelly Arber
Debra Mapel
Blaine Kobayashi

IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

                * * *

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The regular meeting of the Board
of Water Supply will come to order.  Ms. Nago, please check the
roll to see if we have a quorum.

MS. NAGO:  Board members in attendance are Chair
Elmer Cravalho, Clark Hashimoto, Michael Nobriga, Peter Rice,
Jonathan Starr, Adolf Helm, Kent Hiranaga, and Howard
Nakamura.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  There is a quorum present.  To
the matter of attendance is that we do have a sufficient number
to conduct business.  The approval of minutes is the next item
on the agenda.  What's the pleasure of the board?

MR. NOBRIGA:  I would move special meeting minutes
of March 12th and 20th be accepted and filed subject to a
30-day review.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Is there a second?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You heard the motion duly made
and seconded.  Made by Mr. Nobriga and seconded by
Mr. Hashimoto for the acceptance of the minutes to be placed on
file for the next 30 days.  If there are no amendments or
changes during that period of time, it shall be accepted and
filed.  Any questions?  All in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Contrary?
(No response.)
Carried.
 Before proceeding to the testimony of the public,
the chair would like to request the approval of the board for a
slight change in the agenda.  Under Other Business of Section
9A, discussion and possible action regarding the Central Maui
Source Joint Venture Settlement Agreement, the chair would like
to have it moved up to consideration at the present time for
this specific purpose to receive a motion to file the same.

MR. NOBRIGA:  No objection.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Is there any objection?  Hearing
none, the chair would entertain a motion to file the matter.
Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  I move that this report be filed.

MR. RICE:  Second.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You heard the motion duly made
and seconded for this to be filed.  Any discussion?  Hearing
none, ready for the question?  All in favor signify by saying
"aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Contrary?
(No response.)
Carried.  (Applause.)

MR. NAKAMURA:  I would recuse myself.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  May the record reflect Mr.
Nakamura's recusal of the matter.

MS. NAGO:  I'm sorry, folks, you need to keep quiet.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The chair appreciates the
enthusiasm of all parties who are here today, but the chair
would like to request -- this is the last meeting that the
chair will be sitting in this chair, and we'll proceed in the
continuous orderly manner where everybody can be heard if we
follow the necessary procedures.  No objection?  I'm sure we
will receive your cooperation.
 Testimony from the public of any matter that is on
the agenda or any other matter whether it's on the agenda or
not?  Ms. Nago, you have a list of people who have indicated
their desire to testify; is that correct?

MS. NAGO:  Yes, I do.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Prior to that, the chair, if the
members have no objection, the chair would like to proceed to
the election of the new chairman and vice-chairman, so I'm off
the hot seat.  The chair would receive a motion for the
election of a new chair and vice-chair.  Is there any motion?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  On the nominating committee, I guess
last week Bob Takitani -- or the last meeting Bob Takitani had
the nominating committee for Chairman Peter Rice and
Vice-chairman Howard Nakamura.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Is there a second?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second the motion.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You heard the motion duly made
and seconded for the election of Mr. Rice as chair and
Mr. Nakamura as vice-chair.  Are there any questions?  Mr.
Starr?

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, I was hoping we could have an
opportunity for a little bit of an open discourse, and I was
especially hoping that the candidates for chair and vice-chair
might just give us a couple of minutes of their ideas and how
they wish to proceed in office, if elected, so we'll know what
we have to look forward to.
 I know that both gentlemen are of the highest
respect; they certainly gained my respect.  But I would just
like to see what they have planned as far as how they would run
the board and agendas and open meetings and so on, and then
have an opportunity to ask a question or two after that.  If
that's all right with you, I would like to request it.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The request has been received by
the chair.  The chair is very anxious to vacate the seat, and
so the chair would like to suggest that your particular request
be handled at the end of this meeting.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, I don't think it's fair to
ask board members to vote without having heard what they are
voting on.  It's like buying fish without getting to smell it
first.  The public is here, I think that we should have an
opportunity to interview the candidates.  This is a free and
open election, and you certainly have experienced elections and
had your chance to provide your rhetoric before and not after.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Depends on the case.

MR. STARR:  Please, sir.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  It depends on the case.  The
chair would entertain a motion.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Yes, Mr. Nobriga.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Call for the question.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The question has been called
for.  Any questions on that?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  We have a motion for the
acceptance and the question is being called for.  There's no
need for a second, the question has been called for.  The
pending motion is for the election of the chair and the
vice-chair.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, am I clear that you are not
allowing any discussion by board members on the candidates?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The chair has indicated what the
pending motion is.  It would be tremendously helpful,
Mr. Starr, tremendously, if we would adhere to proper
parliamentary procedure and the proper mechanism and the proper
actions for this body.  The chair may disagree with procedures
as contrasted to disagreement on content.
 The request, Mr. Starr, that you have made has been
presented to this party.  It was presented not in the form of a
motion but in the form of a request, which was recognized and
not denied.  This was followed, Mr. Starr, by a request for the
calling for the question.  So that is the matter before this
body.
 If in your wisdom you wish to ask for or to make a
motion that prospective chair and the prospective vice-chair
address this body before their election, the chair will
entertain that motion.  But let us stick to what the facts are
and let us stick to what the motions are before this body so we
do not mislead anyone.
 You are at perfect liberty to make a motion if you
wish to hear from the nominated candidates, and the chair will
recognize your motion.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Yes, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I move that we hear from the nominated
candidates and have the opportunity to ask them questions.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You heard the motion made by
Mr. Starr -- wait.  I know there's a motion on the floor, but
yield to my peculiarities.  Mr. Starr has moved that he wishes
to hear from the nominee and the -- both nominees.  Is there a
second to that request?
(No response.)
 Hearing none, the request dies for lack of a second
and is supportive of the chair's statement.  The pending motion
before this body is for the adoption and the election of the
chair and the vice-chair, and that question has been asked
for.  That's the matter before this body.  Ready for the
question?  All in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Contrary?

MR. STARR:  Nay.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Carried.  May the record reflect
that Mr. Starr has cast a negative vote on the matter.
 Mr. Rice, it's all your baby now.  The chair would
like to ask the members of the body to pardon in the haste in
vacating the chair to Mr. Rice.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Is there congratulations in order?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yay.  (Applause.)

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Good morning, everyone.  I did
prepare some words, and I was -- I think at this point,
Jonathan, I would be happy to share those with you.  I want to
thank my fellow board members for their confidence in me, and I
beg your indulgence and patience as I get familiar with this
new position.  And I'm probably not the parliamentarian that
our former chair is, but I will work very hard to assure that
we'll get things on the straight and narrow.
 In the anticipation of this position, someone asked
me what my agenda was going to be and I thought it was kind of
a peculiar question because I think the answer is the one that
there is no personal agenda.
 The agenda for the Board of Water Supply is outlined
in the charter, and I would refer my fellow board members to
the goals and objectives that we approved previously and that
we're subject to public hearing and public review.  This is our
agenda.  There are no personal agendas here.  And it's my
intention to follow those goals and objectives as the
chairman.
 So with that, I won't make a lot of speeches.  You
won't find me making a lot of speeches.  That's probably the
longest one you'll hear.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on
kind of an informal note?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Sure.

MR. STARR:  I have had a problem with free and open
debate being stifled over the past year, and this has many
times occurred in the agenda process.
 At the agenda for this meeting, there were several
items that I wished to get on the agenda and I had shown them
to the acting chair and he said they would be on the agenda,
and then they were not.  And when I asked the board why not,
she said the acting chair said he decided he didn't want them
on the agenda.
 So I would just like to understand from the get-go
how the agenda is going to be handled and how members, you
know, if they want to get something placed on the agenda, can
do so.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's my feeling that the chair sets
the agenda.  I think that's pretty clear in most
organizations.  And what I would ask is that once the agenda is
circulated by the secretary, that if you have any additions to
the agenda, that you contact me personally.

MR. STARR:  I believe once it's circulated it's too late.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  No, I think we need to have a
procedure whereby the board members are aware of what's on the
agenda and they have a chance to give me some input if they
have input.

MR. STARR:  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  There being no other questions or
information, let's proceed on the agenda.  We can pass the
testimony of the public section -- is there any testimony from
the public at this time?

MS. NAGO:  I do have people who have signed up, if
you want to take it that way, or I don't know how you want to
proceed.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  We can do it either way.  Members of
the public can testify now on issues that will come up later or
you can wait and testify as the issue comes up on the agenda.
Those who want to testify now, Fran, in order of having signed
up, please.

MS. NAGO:  First one is Jim Smith.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Jim, could you tell us what issue
you are testifying on?

JIM SMITH:  Mr. Chair, yes, I will.  My name is Jim
Smith.  I'm a citizen who resides in Haiku.  In terms of
telling you --

A VOICE:  Please speak up a little louder.

JIM SMITH:  Certainly.  I will tell you the items I
intend to speak to, but two of those items have been taken up
and acted upon already, but they are listed on the agenda.  The
first one was, I guess it was item No. 5, which was the
election of the chair.  I don't know who the vice-chair is.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Nakamura.  Howard Nakamura.

JIM SMITH:  Congratulations.
 My testimony was to the effect that I have enjoyed
the civility and wit of the chair who proceeded you.  And in
light of the introduction of the memorandum regarding the joint
venture, I was hoping that you would continue as chair because
of the rancor and his experience of dealing with the rancor in
a civil way.
 And in addition, the possibility that his
intelligence may have been increased by a medical procedure and
that is something that I would like to see and in action, but I
have been denied that.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chair, may I respond to my friend
who speaks?  It is my understanding, assured from my doctors,
that the 95 percent blockage of the artery has been removed,
and therefore there is a greater and better improved blood
supply to the brain.  Hopefully this shall be resulting in a
sharper sense of observation and expression on the problems
before this particular community.
 So I can assure you I -- frankly, I'm moving forward
to returning to where I am now so I can address some of these
questions.

JIM SMITH:  Sir, you will be missed from this prospective.
 The second item I wanted to speak to, and I'm a
little confused about this, the joint venture agreement, the
taking up of a committee report which is identified as a
memorandum, and there's no identification on the agenda of a
committee report from any committee and I'm wondering where
this leads the matter.
 I, quite frankly, have considered it a committee
report and in that respect, I had some questions about the
factual content, the specificness (sic) of it, the generality
of it, and whether or not that will become a permanent part of
the record in its vagueness.
 And if that's the case, I would say that for the
record the board take the position that none of the facts or
none of the comments made in that report are, in fact, the
position of the board or hold any substance as it relates to
whatever happens.
 To me, there were some questions raised in the
minutes regarding a contested case concerning this joint
venture issue.  I believe that since it was a committee report,
that it was a legislative matter, that it was not subject to
proceedings as a contested case; but as it was, it was not
sufficient for you to make a judgment.  You filed the
documents.  So I don't know where that leaves it.
 It has not been identified as being taken up.  I
didn't see it accepted at the meeting.  That was the subject of
the joint venture.  I recall that the only things that happened
was that there was public testimony taken.  I didn't know the
board acted officially in any way, shape or form.  So I need
that clarified, if you would.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Smith, I believe that the action
by this body was to file it and that no -- which means no
action was taken on that report and --

JIM SMITH:  So you're saying it's the position of
the board that the substance of the committee report is not
taken into consideration.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  No action has been taken by this
body, other than the file.

JIM SMITH:  That satisfies me and shortens my
testimony.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you.

JIM SMITH:  You're welcome.
 The final matter that I wish to discuss is item No.
9G, which is a document, I believe, that comes to you from the
corporation counsel's office.  And it is in fact identified as
a rule of the Board of Water Supply pertaining to a water meter
issuance rule for the Upcountry water system.
 From my knowledge of this rule, it's my belief that
it's simply a formalizing of an incorrect legal analysis.  In
that case, I refer you to Section 16, 106-4, which is water
service requests.  And it makes reference in this section to
March 16th.  There was a finding that the Upcountry water
system was found to have been developed, for whatever reasons,
of insufficient capacity.
 You must realize that it's been the position of the
county that the finding was an interoffice memorandum, and in
fact, it was a declaration by the director; and in fact, it was
a finding by the director that to me was not justified based on
the facts.  These points were at issue.
 So if you are using that indirectly as a basis for
your action on this rule, I think you are making an act without
understanding or knowing the full impact in terms of your
authority of that introduction into these rules.
 It should be noted that in the response, defendant's
response, the memorandum in opposition to my -- or the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment in the case
Smith vs. Craddick, it was filed on February 2nd -- February
18, 1994.  There were comments made regarding the authorities
of the director, regarding the fact that this was not a rule,
regarding the fact that it could end at any time.
 And it would seem to me that by incorporating this
you are tagging along with it those assumptions and premises.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Maybe I can help shorten your
testimony again.  I think the chair intends to refer that
particular item on the agenda to the rules committee.  So I
would be -- unless the pleasure of this body is to do something
other than that.

JIM SMITH:  In that case, you have shortened my
testimony again.  I would like to, again for the record,
reference a provision in it that I think could help in that
analysis.  I think what you need to do is you need to start
with the purpose of the rule.
 I think what has happened is, is the word in the
original rule, which was the Kula rule, which was allowed to
expire, was that it was to regulate issuance of water meters.
And that idea of regulating is at the heart of the rule.  So
it's not arbitrary.
 It's not a director's or a collection of unknown
numbers of things.  It's very specific.  And that the arbitrary
decisions of the director or the perception of his
arbitrariness is what the Kula rule addressed.  And that's what
is at the soul and heart, I think, of the problems Upcountry,
is this perception of arbitrariness and that's where this rule
misses entirely.
 So with that in mind, I would ask you to be very
careful.  Because in addition, it says in this rule that during
the period of this rule, which then implies that it's
temporary, and that goes along with that whole concept and
there's -- it needs to affect all people equally and this rule
doesn't.
 I mean, it gives a carte blanche to some people and
not other people, and so it's very badly written, and I would
hope the rule committee would spend a lot of time working with
it.  Thank you for your patience.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Fran, who's next?

MS. NAGO:  We have Adrian Chang.

ADRIAN CHANG:  Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of
the water board.  I'm here to testify on item 9H on Other
Business, regarding fluoridation of the drinking water on
Molokai.  My name is Adrian Chang.  I'm a retired nuclear
engineer from Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard who drank fluoridated
water for over 25 years.  I thought it was a great thing for
the teeth and found out I was wrong.
 I would like to briefly discuss from an engineering
perspective about safety and effectiveness of the fluoridation
chemicals.  Hopefully, then there can be some insight on why I
was wrong.
 First of all, I would like to make it very clear
that I am not an anti-fluoride proponent.  I am a pure water
proponent, if anything.  If you were going to be putting
Tylenol in the water, I probably would be here today talking
about stopping putting Tylenol in the water for headaches; but
if you are going to put vitamin C, well, I might stay home and
watch television and be a couch potato.
 This is a very serious matter because it really
affects everybody in the state.  It's so important to
understand the basics of fluoridation and what we're getting
into.  So what I did was -- I had an overhead slide show but
unfortunately you folks don't have that facility here, so I
will have to make due very briefly with what I got.
 I gave you folks, in a handout, a benefits versus
risks sheet; so it made it very clear what are the benefits,
what are the risks.  This is what engineers do, we assess
benefits versus risks.
 The first item we talk about is reduction of
cavities; but the most recent report that came out from the
University of York from Britain that said fluoridation was
safe, in the newspaper, that was really not -- it was
embellished and exaggerated.  The actual report was clarified
y -- this is in your handout -- by the letter of a chair of
the advisory group to say that their review did not show that
water fluoridation is safe.
 In fact, they had very serious concerns about dental
fluorosis and they said you had a 15 percent benefit on
reduction and caries; but on the other hand, on the risks side,
you have 48 percent dental fluorosis.  I will pass this around;
I only have one copy, unfortunately.  I guess you folks don't
operate like Kinkos and make Xerox copies for testifiers.
 I will pass this around and you can see what dental
fluorosis really is and how bad it could be.  What is scary --
I got data from the General American Association article and I
plotted it to see water concentration versus parts per million
and parts per million versus percentage of dental fluorosis.
What is really scary is that it follows an exponential
relationship.
 In other words, it's very difficult to control
fluorosis because of the exponential relationship, and at two
parts per million, you could get a hundred percent dental
fluorosis based on -- there's different -- this is comprised of
several studies that were collected, put on the table, and I
just plotted it out, and here it is.  Exponential
relationship.  That is what really makes it scary.
 The other thing, when they say fluoridation is safe,
I have a report here from the Center for Disease Control, who
is also promoting fluoridation.  This is an unpublished
report.  You only could obtain it under the Freedom of
Information Act request.  When I asked for it they said, well,
who are you?  What do you need it for?  Blah, blah, blah.  And
I said I'm an independent engineer doing research.  And only
under the Freedom of Information Act -- they said it's an
internal report.
 But this report has shown that there's at least six
deaths that are attributed to water fluoridation from equipment
failure, operator errors, and these are things they are not
telling you about.  Over a thousand people, including young
children, got sick.  This is the liability that comes with
water fluoridation.  And this is an informal, voluntary report;
so not necessarily all overfeed problems are documented and
reported, unless people got sick.
 And we even had an overfeed problem or a back feed
problem in Kekaha, Kauai, where there were 16 people that got
exposed; 9 people had to go to the hospital and get checked
out.  But they say, oh, it's not a problem because they just
vomit it out and it's okay, they get cured.  What happens,
though, when you get a big slug of this fluoride chemical in
your stomach, it turns into hydrogen fluoride and that's the
danger.
 Moving on, there's also what they call the at risk
population, people that have weak immune systems.  And this was
brought up by the EPA in response to this congressional
investigation that's ongoing right now, where they say, okay,
Congressman Kent Calbert (phonetic) asked the EPA:  Who are the
people that would be at risk?
 The EPA replied:  We have the elderly, the
cardiovascular problems, kidney problems, people with vitamin C
deficiencies, magnesium deficiencies, calcium deficiencies.
And they're in the millions.  Not all of them will be affected,
but it depends on each individual.  Would you like to be one of
those individuals that get affected by fluoridation?
 And this list here does not even include all the
other people that have autoimmune disorders, multiple
sclerosis, arthritis, cancers, allergies, chemical
sensitivities.  I mean this is really scary because if you are
putting -- introducing a toxin into the water, people with
stress immune systems will be affected.  That's common sense.
It's not going to help them.  I would rather put vitamin C,
then it builds up the immune system.
  Then we talk about, well, does it have any
correlation with health effects like cancer?  This is a report,
a peer review report issued in the Journal of Epidemiology of a
study that was done in Okinawa, where Okinawa was under U.S.
administrative control from 1945, after the war, to 1972.  And
after that they turned it back over to Japan.
 When they turned it back over to Japan, they stopped
the fluoridation, they found that there was a significant
positive correlation of a reduction in uterine cervical cancer
when the fluoridation was stopped.  And when they use words
like "significant positive correlation" in a peer review study,
that's a very, very strong correlation.  Now, these are the
things that have to be pointed out to people to make them look
at benefits versus risks.
 So moving on, there's also information from
manufacturers called "material safety data sheet information."
Many of you who deal with OSHA requirements and stuff, you know
that, hey, the manufacturers have to come out and put down all
the health effects and chronic and acute health effects and
have to tell the truth by law.  If not, they become liable.
 So when they put all the health effects in here,
when you fluoridate with their chemicals and they tell you it
causes fluorosis, now anyone who comes up with fluorosis
problems after that, you become liable because you are the
user.  The manufacturer says, hey, I put it down here, I washed
my hands.
 But what is interesting is that here is a material
safety data sheet from this company called Chemtech (phonetic),
and they have listed down -- by the way, it is industrial
grade, it is a poison.  There's no question about it, there's
no such thing as food grade.  It's either technical grade or
pharmaceutical grade.  And this is an industrial grade
chemical.  Much higher levels of purities like arsenic, led,
and things like that.
 But what this company has listed down are the
applications of the sodium fluoride.  Listen really good to the
list and you draw your own conclusion.  Other industrial uses
are aluminum fluxes, fungicides, glass frosting, gluing
adhesive, insecticides, magnesium fluxes, pesticides, stainless
steel -- toothpaste, enamels, and wood preservatives.
 Which one sounded like it should not be in that
group?  Toothpaste.  It's the only human consumption
application of all these industrial processes.  That should
wave the flag.  We don't need any more studies; we don't need
any more discussions.  This should wave the flag.  Something is
wrong here.
 Then we go back to the standards.  This is the
standards that engineers looked at.  It's developed by people
at engineering from the American Waterworks Association.  These
standards are the ones that control the quality of the
chemical, in addition to the National Sanitation Foundation.
 These standards allow the heavy metal impurities.
And the people who are listed in these standards -- this is the
American Waterworks Association, and correct me if I'm wrong,
Mr. Craddick, they're a nonprofit organization of -- like trade
professionals, all the people interested in water.  And I think
it costs $90 to join and anyone could join.  I was asked to
join but I did not have $90 to spend.
 But the people who are listed here as the people
that reviewed and proved the standard at the time of the
approval, the chair was Mr. Thomas Reeves (phonetic), who is
from the Center of Disease Control, the national fluoridation
engineer.  The vice-chair was Mr. McKinsey (phonetic), who was
from Lousier (phonetic) Chemical Industry, who is one of the
biggest sellers of fluoridation chemicals.  Mr. Paul Mason, the
secretary, who is from Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation, another big producer of these fluoridation
chemicals.
 You draw your own conclusion that these are the
people that are controlling the quality of the fluoridation
chemicals that are going into our drinking water.  These are
all documents.  I'm just a messenger.  I am a researcher.  I
have done the research and it becomes very clear, we don't need
to hear any more about studies and things like that.  Just look
at the basic facts.  The basic chemicals.
 We talked about Maunaloa, Molokai.  Great
experiment.  That was done back in 1961 to 1973.  Everybody
jumped on the band wagon, thought it was a great thing.  Using
that as a great example.  What they have not told you, which
this is included in the handout to you people, what they have
not told you is just by chance and by luck, I was doing
research for my daughter in the library for her master's and
came across this report.  It's a preliminary report of the
Maunaloa, Molokai experiment.
 In this preliminary report, they had data for 9, 10
and 11-year-olds and they showed some reduction of cavities.
But what this report also showed at the 12-year-old level, the
caries increased by 9.9 percent.  If you look in the final
reports of all information that I obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act, that request from the state health department,
they did not provide this information.  So this is the other
thing.
 I have no axe to grind; but as a taxpayer, I expect
my elected officials and the government workers that are paid
by my tax dollars to be forthright, honest, and truthful in
presenting information in an objective manner so that we can
all make good decisions.  But you cannot make good decisions if
they don't tell you the whole story.
 Another incident in a report that came from the
research and statistics office from the health department, now
this is not really conclusive because this only talks about
birth defects and fetal deaths throughout Hawaii.
 When the manufacturers in their material safety data
sheets says, Warning:  This product contains detectable
amounts -- not trace amounts -- but detectable amounts of a
chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer,
birth defects, or other reproductive harm.  That made me go,
look, hey, let's find out what happened at Maunaloa, Molokai.
 Is there any data?  The best I could come up with is
the whole Island of Molokai, they had data from the periods of
1968 to 1982, and I'm not saying this is from fluoridation; it
could be from pesticides or a combination of both.  However, it
does raise a question:  Why was there a significant drop, when
fluoridation was stopped in 1973, significant drop of fetal
deaths and birth defects?
 We need to go back and talk to people that live in
Maunaloa, Molokai and find out what are some of the health
issues, look at their records.  Are a lot of these fetal deaths
and birth defects tied to Maunaloa, Molokai?  Then we'll see.
 Because, hey, who determined it was safe in
Maunaloa, Molokai?  It was a dentist who went there that was
promoting this project and assisting the private landowner
there.  How did he do any studies after, to determine the
health defects?  Probably went to the neighborhood doctor and
said, hey, any health problems?  No, everything seems okay.
Nothing unusual.  So we have a few birth defects here or fetal
deaths.  But if you don't see it collectively, you can't see
the big picture.
 To expedite things, we talked about water
fluoridation and it's all in the water anyway and all we're
doing is adding to raise it from here to here.  Never believe
that.  It's not true.  I got water report data from all the
islands, on Maui, Molokai, Lanai.  You folks are less than the
detectable.  In other words, essentially whatever the equipment
can detect, you folks don't have any.
 In Kauai, there was only 1 well in 47 that had
fluoride in it detectable, so it's obviously not scattered
throughout the island in natural form.
 In Honolulu, this is the really scary part because
what I did was plotted it by the different areas from the Board
of Water Supply data, and the areas that had the highest are in
the agricultural areas and the central and leeward Oahu area.
And the highest readings were in the Kunia area where Village
Park is, for those of you who are not familiar with the
location.
 And that is where they have been getting these class
action lawsuits because of high illnesses, birth defects, and
things like that.  That's going on there.  I think they hired
the Erin Brockovich firm.  And it's really sad, it makes me
feel sad that people are not looking at these things and making
the connection, especially if you have access to all the data.
The data is there.
 What is scary, you can see, though, the green
indicates less than the detectable amount; in other words, no
fluoride.  And the orange indicates where it's high above level
of 0.2 parts per million.  And that is the level which I
personally feel is where dental fluorosis starts getting bad.
 So you are going to have -- if it affects your
teeth, it will affect the inside of your body.  There's a
strong correlation.  I mean, your teeth is not separate from
your body.  We need to send people back to school if they think
the teeth is a separate entity from the body.  It's connected
as one entity.
 But you see what is scary, from the highest area it
tapers out.  I'm going to wrap it up right now.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Please, there's a lot of people here.

ADRIAN CHANG:  Yes.  But as an engineer, it's easy
to knock people down on their suggestions, but how do you fix
the problem?  And the problem to fix is there are many
alternatives, here's one alternative.  This is bottled water
from a spring; it has fluoride inside.  We could buy it at
probably wholesale, a dollar a bottle, and give it to the
people that want it.  And you have control, you have
consistency, and if there's allergic sensitivities, you can
stop.
 And the other thing is preventative education.  What
is happening now, think about all the dental hygienists that
used to go to school all the time, and they are trying to
abolish all these dental hygienists.  That's wrong.  They are
the ones that can help solve the problem.
 Instead of only going to school still, we need to
fix the problem before it starts.  We need to train the
gynecologists and the pediatricians to help the dental
hygienists educate and prevent baby bottle teeth decay.  Then
we can do it economically and cost effective without having to
hire 500 dental hygienists.
 And that is why when I think about if this is
typical in Hawaii what is throughout the country, that they
don't want to spend money on dental hygienists who go out and
count decayed, missing and few teeth and -- in schools, and you
know, they are not preventing cavities.  The dental education
before birth and right after birth, those are the critical
times and that will solve the problem.
Thank you very much for allowing me to testify.

MS. NAGO:  Megan Wells (phonetic).

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Members of the public, we don't
normally have this many people here, so in the interest of
getting everyone to testify who wants to testify, in the issue
of time, try to keep it brief.

MEGAN WELLS:  Mine is brief.  I actually wanted to
just address the liability issue for the water board and
approving fluoridation.  I have just a couple of things that
I'll read.
 The EPA finally admitted on September 5th, the year
2000, that fluoridation puts the elderly, cardiovascular,
kidney, vitamin C, magnesium and calcium, puts these citizens
at risk.  In addition, the EPA has made a requirement for
public water systems to provide their clients with health
effects information on contaminants in the water supply,
including fluoride.
 Now, the other part of this that's pertinent for you
is that this is the first time that the EPA has been willing to
admit that fluoride and water fluoridation pose serious health
risks and it may be the first indication by the EPA that local
government officials can be held liable for failure to disclose
to the public all the health effects of fluoride.
 The other part of this is that there's now Alan
Segal (phonetic), one of the attorneys involved in the now
famous Erin Brockovich case, has upped the ante as making
history again through a class action lawsuit that is sure to
change the face of dentistry in America.  Details of this class
action lawsuit will be released that will shake the foundation
of the American dental establishment.
 At issue is the patient's right to inform consent
and the right of the patient to know if a well-known toxic
substance is being put into his mouth.  Similar actions are
being aggressively pursued that will reach the manufacturers,
associations, and dental licensing boards with experts
predicting claims in the many hundreds of billions of dollars.
 I think that this investigation is going to uncover
other things about what the American Dental Association is
promoting; namely, fluoride and fluorosis -- fluoridation.  So
what I would like to ask the water board to do is to place a
moratorium on fluoridation and any related decisions until such
a time that the following conditions are met.
 The current ongoing investigation by congress is
completed and the results are published or litigated in the
U.S. Supreme Court and it is decided by the Supreme Court that
fluoridation is safe and effective; and two, that fluoride
chemicals to be used have been tested and approved by the FDA
for safety and effectiveness.
 I think this would allow the water board to not have
this continually presented every month, which is probably what
is going to happen, unless you can make some kind of decision
like this to put a moratorium on it until at least the
government -- the congress has made a decision on its safety
and to protect the liability of the water board.
Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you.

MS. NAGO:  Susan Kokos, K-O-K-O-S.

SUSAN KOKOS:  I know you have seen this before on
the water board.  This is the actual canister that fluoride is
delivered in, and you can see it has the skull and crossbones;
it's marked as a toxic substance.
 Four weeks ago I thought, like the rest of you, that
fluoride helps somehow to prevent tooth decay, and I thought I
knew as a registered nurse that there was some problem with
heart and kidneys, but I was very vague about it.  As I became
aware of imminent fluoridation of our waters, I began to study
this and these are the results that I found in my research.
 Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste from making
aluminum and commercial fertilizers.  Fluoride contains trace
amounts of aluminum, arsenic, and led.  You cannot -- for
doctors who do -- therapy to get heavy metals and poisonous
substances out of their bodies, out of your body, you can't get
fluoride out because those other poisons, arsenic, led, and
mercury have a positive ion; fluoride has a negative ion, and
you can't get it out of your body.
 You cannot filter fluoride out of your water.  At
the present time we do not have the technology to have a water
filter that can get it out; so that even if you choose to not
have it, if you know you have a health risk and you don't want
it, you can't get it out of your water.
 Fluoride has crossbones on them because it's so
poisonous.  Fluoride does not now and never has had FDA
approval.  Fluoride does damage to the young, the malnourished
and the elderly.  Fluoride crosses the placenta, as we heard,
and does genetic damage to the unborn.  Fluoride brings a 41
percent increase in hip fractures in the elderly.
 Since 1996, these 11 national organizations will not
endorse fluoridation:  The American Heart Association, the
American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, the American Cancer
Society, The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network, The
American Diabetes Association, The National Institute of
Municipal Law Officers, The American Chiropractic Association,
The American Civil Liberties Union, The National Kidney
Foundation, The American Psychiatric Association.  And it's
been proven to cause hyperactivity attention deficit
hyperactivity.  The Society of Toxicology.
 Most Western European nations, Japan and other Asian
nations, have band the use of fluoride.  And they all have two
reasons for that:  one, there's no scientific backup for this,
there's no medical reason to do this; and two, they consider it
immoral and unethical to medicate an entire population, not
knowing how much you are going to receive and what condition
you are in to receive medication.
 There have been 14 Noble prize winners in the areas
of medicine and chemistry who have strong objections for or
oppose the use of fluoride.  You get fluoride from the plants
where it's industrial waste.  The Environmental Protection
Agency has stringent rules on how it's packaged, how it can be
transported.  And those are all in effect.
 In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has
rules that if its people go into an area that is fluoridated,
that they are given unfluoridated bottled water for their use.
Poison.  Toxic.  Bad.  Good when you put it in the municipal
water for the children's sake?  What changed?  What changed?
This is the container that goes to your water supply.  Where
did it change from being a toxic waste to being good?
 It works on the enzyme level which is where we get
life from.  That's what is working in our little cells, and
then the cells work together and we're healthy and strong and
keep living.  It's not allowed to be put in the rivers because
it will destroy wildlife and plant life because it hurts the
enzymes.  Thank you.

MS. NAGO:  Albert Sikirdji.

ALBERT SIKIRDJI:  Aloha, good morning.  I never
spoke before a board before.  I'm having a drink of water;
hopefully, good, clean water.  Most of what I wanted to say
people have already said.  So I'll just say a few things.
 Mainly this fact here, I thought it was interesting
about the EPA, that they don't even want to drink the water.
They want to have -- The National Federal Union of the U.S.
Department Protection Agency composes scientists, biologists,
toxicologists, chemists, and engineers and they all voted a
hundred percent to take a stand against fluoridating drinking
water.  And they also demanded unfluoridated bottled water for
all EPA workers.
 I guess I have to ask because all this stuff is
going on here, why you are even considering putting fluoride in
our water.  And I'm assuming as a board your goal is to provide
healthy water for people.  We all need water.  Water is a fact
of life; our body is made up of about 85 percent of water.  So
why with all this evidence and all these 11 organizations that
are national, why would you want to put something toxic into
our water?  I don't understand what it's about.
 This debate has been going on since the '50s.  When
it first came out everyone thought it was going to be really,
really good.  Now all the studies and all these things are
coming out.  So I would put to the board:  What's the benefit
of this?  Why is this even happening?  Who in our public even
asked for this?  Have you asked the public?  I'm assuming you
are representatives of us, the public.
 There's a lot of people here and who asked you to do
this?  How many people in this room want it?  Anyone here for
it?  No one is even raising their hands that anyone here is for
it.  So I would say, wouldn't you have to put this out to the
whole populace first?  Wouldn't you have to ask our
permission?  Do we really want to drink it?
 Do we want to put something in our water that
there's no way we can take it out as an individual?  Like I
have a filter in my house, but I can't take it out.  Once it's
in the system, no matter where it is, it's there.  So then
we're all now forced to drink a poison that is known.
 And I think the reason there's not more people in
this room is people are not aware of what is happening.  I live
on the island; I've been here for 23 years, but I also travel,
I have been away for a few months and I just came back a month
ago.  I found out this was an issue and I'm really happy to
find out I could come and speak to you because I didn't know
what to do and I was very concerned.
 So I want to thank you for letting us come and
hearing us and I really hope and I really pray that you hear us
and you really hear our plea, because this is a plea, not just
for the people in the room, this is a plea for all of us.
 And I'm a firm believer in tradition and ancient
ways.  And in ancient ways and in ancient societies, before a
council made any decision, they asked:  How is this going to
affect seven generations?  So I would ask you that question,
gentlemen.  I would ask you to look at this, look at the
research.
 This gentleman here who was an engineer, he gave
incredible scientific facts with all these documents.  Really
look at this.  Look at what's really happening here.  Because
the decisions you make affect all of us, all of us here, and it
affects all of our children and the children to come.  So from
the bottom of my heart, I really pray for your guidance and for
you to look and for you to get the facts of what is real.
 And there was a report in the consumer report, it
says the survival of this fake controversy represents the major
triumph of quackery over science in our time.  This is from the
consumer reports.  You know consumer reports says things that
are very much quite in alignment with reality.
 I would just pray for your guidance and for you to
really look at what this choice really will do for all of us.
Really ask the people.  Thank you so much for your time.

MR. STARR:  I just want to comment on something you
said to make it clear to the public.  The matter of
fluoridation is not something that the board dreamed up or that
came from a desire on the part of the board.  We were requested
by a member of the public to consider fluoridating water on
Molokai.  This is not about Maui island.  It's about our water
system on Molokai that we control.
 So it's our duty to open it up for discussion and
listen to it, which we have done with the hearing on Molokai.
But this is not something that the board for any reason, you
know, that's come out and trying to put on to the people.

ALBERT SIKIRDJI:  It came from one person, one
person put this forward as a suggestion?

MR. STARR:  Yes.  As a letter.

ALBERT SIKIRDJI:  Maybe you can hear the amount of
people that have come up saying no, as opposed to the one
person who said yes.  Thank you so much.

MS. NAGO:  Sally Raisbeck.

SALLY RAISBECK:  Good morning, Mr. Chairman.  I want
to apologize for being so enthusiastic when you filed the
committee report on the Central Maui Source Joint Venture.  For
members of the public who might not be that familiar with how
legislative bodies operate, usually filing something is
equivalent to killing it.  And I strongly applaud you for
filing that committee report.
 Just in case it ever surfaces again, I would like to
say that that committee report was filled with untrue
statements -- well, at least several, and should be gone over
with a fine-toothed comb if you ever do decide to proceed with
it in any way.
 My real reason for testifying today is I am
concerned for the coming summer with whether water supply will
be adequate in Central and South Maui.  The water that
presently serves those areas is kept at 20 million gallons a
day for Iao aquifer and 4 million gallons a day for the part of
the North Waihe'e aquifer that you currently have wells in.  I
believe that it's going to run over 24 million; those two
combined will run over 24 million gallons a day this summer.
 Now, since they do a yearlong average, probably you
will be told that there's no problem, because the average will
go down again in the winter.  But I think you are going to have
a serious problem this summer.
 I know Mr. Craddick said at one point that the two
North Waihe'e wells were pumping 24 hours a day, which is not
very good for the wells or the machinery.  So I would ask you
to investigate whether we are facing a shortage of water in
Central and South Maui this summer if we continue to have the
kind of drought that we're having.
 I know there's on the agenda an item for a new well
at Camp Maluhia and I believe that this represents an intention
on the part of the board to develop more water up in that
direction.  And this brings an item to mind, which is, I think
the board members should be very careful about disclosing
conflicts of interest.
 I know that, presumably, Mr. Fukushima, your
attorney, in putting in the little squib when you have
executive sessions, has added a line saying see also Hui Malama
Aina O Ko'olau v. Pacarro, and that's new.  So I went and
looked up that case to see what it had to say.
 One of the things that I was struck by was that it
said that board members, and I believe this is based on state
law and not County of Oahu law, that board members must fully
give a full written disclosure of any direct or indirect
conflicts of interest when they are considering or when
subjects come up in which they might have a conflict of
interest.
 So that as you develop up toward Kahakuloa, I think
board members who have financial interests in that area should
provide the board and the public with a full written disclosure
about their interest in that area.
 Again, I want to thank you all for hopefully seeing,
based on the testimony of March 20th, that the settlement
agreement proposed by the negotiation committee was very flawed
and therefore not proceeding with that particular committee
report.
 I would repeat the question I asked at the previous
board meeting:  Does receiving the report of the negotiation
committee imply that that committee has been dissolved?  And I
believe the chairman last time said that the corp counsel could
perhaps answer that question this time with that.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chair, for me to respond to that,
I'm not corp counsel but --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Please.

MR. CRAVALHO:  The submittal of a report does not,
by and of itself, eliminate any further consideration on any
subject matter by that respective committee, unless in advance,
in the establishment of a committee, it's purpose was
restricted to one particular purpose only.  The history of this
committee, as I understand it to have been, is that it's of
many years' duration, and therefore it is just like a quasi
continuing operation of the committee.
 Now, the submittal of a report, as you know, one
follows parliamentary procedures and the requirements.  The
submittal of a report is an indication of what a committee has
decided should come to the entire board.  It in no way
indicates the approval or disapproval of the contents of that
particular committee.  And at times it seems to be
misunderstood along the way.
 In the process again of due process, consideration
has to be given at the appropriate time and at the appropriate
place for the public to participate in.
 And with respect again to the provisions of the
agenda, the former chair would like to point out that in the
particular sections that call for public's participation, if
one looks at the provisions, this is intended for participation
by the public as opposed and contrasted to participation and
remarks by members of the board.
 This is a limited opportunity, limited for
consideration of the members of the public.  Any movement away
from that consideration, as I understand the agenda, would be
out of order, in that it is not procedurally correct.  And I
think we need to keep this in mind.  And I think we do need to
understand and appreciate the continuity of the committee that
you made reference to.
 Its future will depend on the recommendations and
the proposals that will be coming from the new chair, and I
think if we keep these approaches in mind and if we keep in
mind again the procedural kinds of requirements, that will
assure the opportunity to be heard at the appropriate time at
the time of scheduling.
 It has been my, Mr. Chair, my position that these
things could best have been accomplished over a period of the
year through the committee setup.  And not denying, however,
the right of the public to be heard one more time in the open
Board of Water Supply meeting.
 The procedure which I had hoped to follow would be
providing a double opportunity for public participation rather
than a diminishing of that participation; but again in that
process, to be sure that we follow the appropriate procedures
so that the opportunity for all parties who wanted to be heard
would be heard in an ordinarily manner.  And I think this is
absolutely correct as to the processes and the procedures.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Yes, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I would like to ask the question which
had been asked at a previous meeting and for which an answer
had been promised to be forthcoming from corp counsel today,
whether there is a negotiating committee in existence and if
so, who the members are.  And at the last meeting, the public
was promised an answer to this question.
 I would like to get an answer from corp counsel or
if you wish, if the chair could answer.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Sure.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I believe it was in April of last
year that the former chairman had appointed or had designated a
chairman of the negotiating team and instructed -- or
negotiating committee and had instructed -- and other
committees at the same time, and had instructed the chairs of
those committees to select members who they wish to have on
their own committees.
 The boards own rules provide that the chair has the
authority to appoint chairs of committees.  And so there is a
negotiating committee properly formed, or the chair was
properly appointed by the chairman of the board.  And when I
say chair, the chair of the committee was properly appointed by
the chairman of this board.  So there is a negotiating
committee properly formed under the rules of this board.

MR. STARR:  But I'm led to believe that since we
have a new chair and that he will be acting on it, that as of
today there's no --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Not to get out of order on the
agenda, we're taking public testimony, and I'll talk to the
committee as soon as we finish public testimony.

SALLY RAISBECK:  My question really had nothing to
do with previous history last year, eight years ago or whenever
I considered that the kuleana of the lawsuit that is in
existence.
 I was merely asking, since I believe my
understanding of Roberts Rules is that when a special committee
presents its report to -- and that report is received, that --
in fact, I went and checked it out in the latest version of
Roberts Rules, that that essentially dissolves the committee
when they have finished their task.
 However, I stand corrected if that's not the way
this board operates.  So I take it, in that case, since
Mr. Takitani is no longer with the board, it would be Mr. Rice
and Mr. Hashimoto --

MR. STARR:  Mr. Nakamura.

SALLY RAISBECK:  -- are still in existence, the
negotiating committee; is that the way the board sees it?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  For now.

SALLY RAISBECK:  Well, thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Sally.  Next, Fran?

MS. NAGO:  Michael Clapper.

MICHAEL CLAPPER:  Good morning.  Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, for allowing me to
address you.  My name is Dr. Michael Clapper.  I'm a practicing
physician on the Island of Maui here.
 I have concerns over the issue of adding fluoride
compounds to our water supply.  And I have a great deal of
empathy for you because I too -- I grew up in the '50s and I
too was told that -- in fact, I remember seeing when the issue
of the public water fluoridation was broached, that this here
again was science coming to the rescue of public health.
 And I remember anyone who opposed water fluoridation
was marginalized (sic) and they were looked at as ignorant
hicks and they were called divergers (sic) and communists and
Luddites and against progress and they will see how modern
science comes to recognize the -- when it comes to our aid.
 You too, I'm sure, are told by the dental
association and other professionals that, one, fluoridation is
a good, safe, reasonable technology; and two, the folks that
are protesting against it are marginal, at best, in their
understanding.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Doctor, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
Everybody understands that the question before this body is not
fluoridation of the water on Maui.  It's Molokai.  It's
strictly and only Molokai.  There's not a question of
fluoridation of water on Maui.

MICHAEL CLAPPER:  No one is seriously proposing
adding fluoride to Maui water supply, period?  That's not an
issue here in any way, shape or form?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  That's not an issue for this body.
The question that was raised to this body was restricted to
Molokai.  And as such, the body considered the request and held
a public hearing on Molokai.
 If we look at the agenda item that I'm referring to,
so we can save ourselves some possible time here, it is the
reconsideration of a communication received by the board from a
Deborah Maple, of the Molokai Dental Health Coalition,
regarding fluoridation of the Molokai water system.

MICHAEL CLAPPER:  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  That matter was filed by the board
and this is just being brought up for reconsideration.  It does
not involve Maui.

MICHAEL CLAPPER:  Does not.  Okay.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  We're not considering that.

MICHAEL CLAPPER:  Thank you, I appreciate the
clarification.  I just want to point out for concerns of
infants on Molokai, when you try to give fluoride in the water
supply for dental caries in these infants, a real issue is the
amount of water that they will be drinking.  The one part per
million that's supposed to add dental protection is based on
drinking one liter of water a day.
 However, we exceed that in many ways.  One is that
we are telling people to drink two or three or four liters of
water a day to increase our water consumption.  Two, since
infants are so small proportionately and if a mother is making
up the infant formula with fluoridated tap water and giving
this child, this small, one month, two month, three month
infant a steady supply of fluoridated water in the infant
formula, this child is getting, proportionate to its weight, a
far greater dose than is safe for that child.
 And third, as you cook with this water, as the steam
rises off, the concentration of the fluoride increases in the
water.  If you have a pot of soup on the stove all day and it's
been steaming away, by the time you serve that for dinner, the
concentration of fluoride in that water is much, much higher
than was intended to produce beneficial effects.
 So I'm saying that this is a very crude technology,
to dose an entire population to create one small effect that
you can get just by taking a child to the dentist and having
the dentist apply that fluoride locally.
 To add this potentially toxic material to the public
water supply and run these tremendous dosing disparities that
may have tremendous adverse effects throughout the entire adult
population, unborn children, cancer risks, etc., I'm saying
it's a very crude technology whether it's being considered for
Molokai or any other place.
 There's far better ways to administer fluoride than
putting it in the water supply.  I would really urge people to
keep these mechanisms in mind when they consider the
possibility for Molokai or any other municipality in this
state.  Thank you very much for your consideration.

MS. NAGO:  Terry Holter.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Doctor.  How many do we have?

MS. NAGO:  Ms. Holter and after that is Mr. St. John
(phonetic).

TERRY HOLTER:  Hello.  I'm a psychiatric social
worker and today I'm here giving up my income with the kids
back in school in order to be here to talk with you about this,
because I'm very concerned about the effects of this on
children and adults.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  You are talking about fluoridation?

TERRY HOLTER:  Fluoridation, yes.  I'm in full
concurrence with everything that's been said so far.  You heard
briefly mentioned that the American Psychiatric Association is
one of the groups that has withdrawn support for fluoridation
of water as more studies have come out, as more information has
come out about the harm of fluoridation, and it lacks
benefits.
 Many health care professionals believe as a result
of studies and a result of treatment being done with children
with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder that key
factors in this condition are deficits in nutrition, and toxins
taken into the body.  Fluoride is a class 4 industrial waste
poison.
 The American Medical Association past president,
Dr. Charles Gordon Hayden (phonetic), said, quote, I am
appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for
drugs.  Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce
serious effects on a long-range basis.  Any attempt to use
water this way is deplorable.
 The American Dental Association, first of all, is
not a professional organization.  It's a trade organization for
business purposes.  And in its '95 legal brief, it reads, The
ADA, American Dental Association, owes no legal duty of care to
protect the public from allegedly dangerous products, mercury,
fluoride, etc., used by dentists.  Dissemination and
information relating to the practice of dentists does not
create a duty of care to protect the public from potential
injury.
 In their own journal, the journal of the American
Dental Association, in July of 2000, they remind all dentists
that only topical application of fluoride is going to be a
benefit for dental caries.  That's fluoride that's applied in
the dentists' office or through tablets chewed topically in
contact with the teeth.
 Fluoride added to drinking water has no benefits
whatsoever and it has considerable harm.  So I would ask that
under no circumstances would you approve of putting a poison in
our water that we cannot filter out.  And I would also support
the recommendation to establish a moratorium until such time as
there is safety proven and the various matters before the
United States governmental bodies have been resolved as to
determination of fluoride.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Let's take a five-minute recess.

(A recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Members of the public, in no way
ever do I want to be construed as saying anything that would
restrict the testimony of the public.  It's not my intention.
We have a lot of people here testifying on the fluoridation
issue, and if I could ask those who are on the list to testify,
if you have new testimony, please bring it forward.  Otherwise,
if I could ask you to keep your comments brief, we would
appreciate it.
Who's next?

MS. NAGO:  Mr. St. John.

KADAR ST. JOHN:  Aloha, Mr. Chair.  I would like to
say that this issue of --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. St. John, identify yourself, please.

KADAR ST. JOHN:  My name is Kadar St. John, and I
live in Haiku.  I am a resident of Maui for 11 years.  This
issue of fluoridation came to me once when I was looking
through a copy of the Earth Island Journal, who is -- they are
a watch dog group, and it was all about fluoridation.
 And just having a young son, I started looking at
this stuff and it said that -- fluoride was so poisonous that
it says it right on the toothpaste, that this is poison.  So I
immediately went to the bathroom and checked out the toothpaste
and sure enough it says if a young child were to swallow more
than the size of a pea of toothpaste that you should take him
to the doctor, that this is potentially poisonous.  So I
started thinking that this is not right.  Immediately I changed
my toothpaste to a nonfluoride toothpaste.
 I wanted to say that -- I just want to quote a
couple of paragraphs from the Earth Island Journal.  It says
here, In 1972 the newly formed EPA surveyed atmospheric
paludism reported the fluorides currently emitted by industry
may damage economic crops, farm animals, and construction
buildings -- and glass.  Nonetheless the report concluded that
the potential to cause fluoride effects in man is negligible.
 Another EPA report confirmed that fluoride emissions
do have an adverse effect on livestock and vegetation, but
insisted that fluoride emissions from primary aluminum plants
have no significant effect on human health.  In other words,
the stuff withers plants, cripples cows, and even eats holes in
stone, but it does not hurt people.  Nature even surprises.
 So I want to stand up here for the children of
Molokai, for the people of Molokai, being a very small island
in our county, with great concern that they may be somehow or
other pressured on a state level.  Because the American Dental
Association came into our state and says, hey, we won't come
back here without convention unless you fluoridize the water.
Plus they give the people a bunch of pills when they arrive.
 Tell them to fluoridize their own water.  Put it in
their drinking water.  Don't contaminate Hawaii nei.  Wai, the
water.  The name of our islands has this water issue right in
it and you guys are the water board, so I believe that there's
a great responsibility that you have for the people of Hawaii.
 Let us keep our waters pure.  Go swimming down at
the beach and check out how the coral reefs are dying, because
of what, because of the chemicals that have now come, flushed
into our oceans.  We have to protect our people here, our aina
here, and the jobs that are based on tourism here.  We want to
destroy the very thing which gives us our sustenance.
 Anyway, I just want to say that I'm firmly opposed
to any type of fluoridation on Molokai and any potential
proposal for being here on Maui.  Thank you.

MS. NAGO:  Jean Blum.

JEAN BLUM:  Good morning, my name is Jean Elizabeth
Spencer Blum.  I live in Haiku, I've been here for seven
years.  I was going to address all of the other points which
have already been put forward, but I think what I really have
to offer is having grown up in Bermuda.
 It's a British colony, it's very small, it's only 19
miles long.  And throughout our history since the 1600s we
always relied on rainwater for our water supply.  Each house
that was built was built of limestone and the first thing that
was done was a tank was quarried and every household was
responsible for its own water.
 In the mid '40s, part of the island was put on
public water supply.  Anything that constituted a large
building which did not have a water catchment for its roof.
And large equaled schools.
 In the late '40s onwards, all of the private and
public schools in Bermuda were subjected to fluoridated water.
We have a population of 67,000 people.  Per capita in the
world, we have the largest incidents of heart disease, kidney
disease, liver disease, Alzheimer's, ADD, infertility,
miscarriage, abnormal sperm, and AIDS.
 And I can personally speak from the results of
fluoridation, by the time I was 11 years old I had rampant
kidney disease.  And when I was sent off to England to be with
my English relatives and educated in England, the majority of
my health problems disappeared.
 From the age of 11 until 18 when I came back to the
Island of Bermuda at the age of 22, I eventually ended up on
dialysis and recovered.  But all of my friends who were born in
the '50s, I'm 49 now, all of my friends had infertility
problems, they had miscarriages, they were married to men who
had two-headed sperm or no sperm counts at all.
 I think if you add fluoride to the water of Molokai
you will be doing an enormous injustice to your children, your
future generations of Hawaiians and your elders.  You will see
large numbers of Alzheimer's cases coming into being.  And it's
not something you should do to your people, you should keep
your waters as pure as possible.  It's just a huge no-no.
Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you.

MS. NAGO:  Kelly Arber (phonetic).

KELLY ARBER:  Thank you for this opportunity to
speak with you.  I have lived on Maui for 21 years.  I have two
children who were born and raised here.  When my oldest was an
infant, she had cavities and we applied topical fluoride to her
teeth and it was very helpful.  I had some problems with tooth
decay and I use fluoride and it was very helpful.  I believe
that there are times when topical fluoride is of benefit.
 I do not believe that fluoridating the water supply
is called for.  For one thing, I believe it's highly
undemocratic.  I think the overwhelming sentiment is against
it; so for government to override the overwhelming sentiments
of people, I think you would have to have very strong
scientific evidence in support of it and I do not believe that
exists.
 People feel it's a matter of choice, and I believe
it's a matter of choice.  I can choose to use fluoridated
toothpaste.  I can ask my dentist for a prescription for a
higher dose if I need it.
 And as a previous testifier said, there are warnings
not to swallow it, and so I believe that there's good
justification for believing that taking it internally is not
appropriate.  So we can say that it is appropriate externally
or works externally with some risks, but I would not recommend
that people be involuntarily forced to consume it internally.
 The other issue I would like to bring up is the
question of money.  We have heard the aphorism that money is
the cause of all evil.  In fact, the real true quote is, The
love of money is the root of all evil.  And I really think that
we as a society need to look at that when we make decisions,
whether we're being led by a greed for the money that's being
offered.
 In this case, there's money interests that are
offered to pay the bill.  So do you accept it and say it's
free?  I don't think it's free.  I think it's a very
detrimental thing to just take something because somebody says,
oh, this is free.  Look at the positive and negative behind
it.  You are basically saying to people your health concerns
don't count.  I think that's very wrong.
 I saw the testimony on Akaku, the state legislature,
and there was some very emotional testimony.  Some of it may be
well informed; some of it may be poorly informed; but the point
is, the people are strongly opposed to it and I think that
really needs to be your first consideration.  You don't have
overriding evidence that it's in the public good.  Don't vote
for it, please.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you.
 Members of the board, would it be -- would anyone be
in opposition to taking this item on the fluoridation of
Molokai reconsideration of Ms. Mapel's request out of order?
We have so many people testifying on this issue.  Would anybody
bject to that?

MR. NOBRIGA:  No objection.

MR. CRAVALHO:  No objection.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  No objection.  What's the pleasure
of this body?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Ms. Mapel is present, I would allow
Ms. Mapel --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  There was no more testimony.

MS. NAGO:  The sign-in sheets, there were no more
signed in.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I'm sorry.  Any more testimony?

DEBRA MAPEL:  Are you going to take this item at
this time?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Yeah.

DEBRA MAPEL:  I would like to speak.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Please.

DEBRA MAPEL:  Good morning.  I didn't sign in
because I am Deborah Mapel, and I was waiting for this item to
come up and then I was going to speak at that time.
 I was aware there were going to be several people
here today to speak on this item, because I also got a copy of
the e-mail that was sent to all these people or a majority of
these people about this issue.  We did request a
reconsideration, in the letter we stated why.
 This has been a process.  This is my fifth month to
be here.  We have tried to work with the board.  I know this
was the first time the issue came before you and we have felt
our way through the procedure of how to address this.  So the
group, the coalition which I am part of and have come to
represent has tried to find a way to address what appears to be
a controversy and we have tried to reiterate that this is a
scientific fact.
 Now, I represent the coalition which is a large
segment of the medical and dental health care providers on
Molokai.  This was not something we also invented, although it
is something we wanted.  When we were offered the opportunity,
we proceeded to what we thought was the proper procedure of
coming to the board, going to the community and having the
public hearing.
 After the public hearing, we were told that there
was going to be a recommendation made to the whole board and at
that time an action would be taken.  And that was last month's
meeting.  At that meeting, I was told that not all the board
had received the testimonies, all the information that you had
prior to the meeting, so you needed to review it before an  
action could be taken.  But at that time we were filed.
 So this is a month later and we feel that the
request was appropriate to come to the board to come out of
file for action to be taken.
 It's interesting, today's testimonies.  When you
came to Molokai we were only allowed three minutes.  Everybody,
including myself.  It was publicly notified that this was a
public hearing.  And I understand you do take public testimony
on items that are on the agenda.
 It is financially and almost physically impossible
to bring everybody on Molokai to this board again.  That's why
I represent the coalition.  And you don't see the whole
coalition here, and I don't feel it was necessary for the
coalition to return and repeat what's been said already with a
public hearing.
 And I do think you realize that this is quite an
issue on Molokai.  I have been asked continually:  So what
happened?  What's happening with the issue?  And I agreed to
not make any statements or to take any action until this
request to come out of file and be heard was heard today.  So I
know you have heard a lot this morning, all of those can be
answered.
 I am again going to remind you, as you did the
audience, we're talking about Molokai.  The situation on our
island.  We strongly feel fluoridation is appropriate and
necessary and a long overdue opportunity that we finally have.
So we're requesting today that this item be brought out of file
and put on the agenda for consideration by this board.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  The item is on the agenda.  Is there
any questions you have of Ms. Mapel?

MR. HELM:  I just have a few comments with respect
to Debbie Mapel and their coalition and also to the people of
Molokai.  Unfortunately, as a representative of Molokai for the
board, I was not at the meeting when this issue was filed.  Nor
was I at a previous meeting where a decision was made also on
certain aspects of this initiative here.
 My concern is, at this point, is that if a decision
is made, we are just taking into consideration the coalition's
compliance with the request that the board made about, you
know, they needed to go out to the community, they needed to
educate the community, they need to basically do some homework
so that the board was more familiar about the issues in regards
to that.  So I think they have done that.
 But at this point, I would just like to say it's a
very hot issue; it's a very sensitive issue on Molokai right
now, and I think I would support at this time whatever the
board's decision is.  Thank you.
 
CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Cravalho and then Mr. Starr.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Taking into consideration all that
has been said, I move that we deny the request for
reconsideration, matter be placed on file and not appear back
on the agenda in the immediate future.

MR. STARR:  I second that.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Second.  Members of the board, is
there any discussion on that motion?

MR. STARR:  Yes, sir.  I was one of the participants
in the hearing at Molokai and it seemed to me there was a lot
of impassioned testimony and it seemed that the testimony was
really divided into two groups.
 There were health professionals primarily from Oahu
and from other places who flew in there to tell the members why
this should be imposed on the people of Molokai.  Then there
was the Molokai citizens and they spoke with almost one voice
against it.  So I came away from it with a feeling that this is
not something that we should unilaterally oppose on our
customer base on Molokai.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any other discussion or comments
from the members of the board?  You've heard the motion.  The
motion is that reconsideration be denied and not be placed on
the agenda in the near future, duly seconded.  All in favor
signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed say "nay."
(No response.)
Motion is carried.  Thank you.
 We'll move on to the agenda, Director's Reports
01-13.  Mr. Craddick, request approval to write-off
uncollectible accounts.

MR. CRADDICK:  This one here, if you want to refer
that to the committee.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Refer to finance committee.  Excuse
me, I meant to deal with the issue of committees, I promised
that after we finished the testimony.  I would ask that the
indulgence of the board members that the existing committees
remain until the next meeting.  After I have a chance to review
each individual committee and talk to the committee chairs.
And if anyone has no objection.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, I would like to be sure that
the committees will not hold any meetings that are not noticed
or are not in full compliance with the Sunshine Law.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Absolutely not.  Okay.  All right.
Director's Report 01-14.  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  This is for a project that was not
budgeted.  We're asking for funds for it.  We have worked out
the issues with Hawaiian Homes on this item.  If the board
wants to deal with this, we would actually -- we need to go out
to bid the whole work.  If you refer it to committee, basically
that will --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  If there's no objection, I'll refer
that to the capital improvements committee.

MR. HELM:  I have a comment, please.
 
CHAIRMAN RICE:  Adolf.
 
MR. HELM:  This is in reference to Kapaakea.  And my
concern is that this service is for Hawaiian homesteaders; am I
correct?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's correct.

MR. HELM:  Before I came to this board meeting, I
had a telephone conversation with John Dudoit, who is the
supervisor in charge of the Board of Water Supply over on
Molokai, and I had asked the questions about what are some of
the problems that he is concerned with and the situations that
he deals with on a day-to-day basis.
 And he has a very strong concern about the customers
and the people he services.  And these people have been
suffering for a long time with inadequacy and there are times
when the crew have to go in and repair pipes and do all of
this, and it puts a major strain on those people living in that
particular community.
 So my concern is that we try to expedite this.  If
it does go into committee, that hopefully we emphasize the fact
that we need to take a special interest in this and we try to
push the idea of getting it done quickly.

MR. CRADDICK:  I'll just say that if it goes to
committee, there will be no chance to get it done, because by
the time the board acts on it, it will be May, we won't be able
to get it out to bid in time and considered.  So if it's going
to go to committee, we should just put it on the budget for
next year.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Yes, Mr. Cravalho.

MR. CRAVALHO:  The point raised by Mr. Craddick may
have some merit emphasizing the word "some."  The question
before this body is following the proper procedures.  In the
light of any emergency that may be developing, the practice or
proposals that come to this body expecting immediate
consideration and immediate action is a little bit odd.
 I would like to suggest that this be referred with
the understanding that the committee that you refer to
expeditely (sic) give prior approval to your expediting it and
if it's approved, proceed.
 The question of unnecessary delay can all be very,
very dangerous and it places it in the hands of a top
administrator the opportunity to come before this body at all
times pleading an emergency, and, in effect, takes on to
himself the power of appropriation and the power of public
expenditure of public funds.  I think that's a very negative
thing to do.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Nakamura, do you think we can
have a meeting and expedite the approval process?

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to
the procedure that board member Cravalho has suggested, if the
board approves of that.
 I am concerned with the fact that we have a request
for an appropriation of $440,000 that comes to us and presented
to us on the basis that you need to approve it immediately or
the project is not going to happen this year.  I think that
puts the board in a very, very awkward position, given
Mr. Helm's identification of the need, and it bothers me that
it comes to us in this fashion.  But we certainly would be
willing to expedite it at the capital programs committee level.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  So ordered.
 Director's Report 01-15, request for fiscal year
2001 budget amendment for electricity expenses.

MR. CRADDICK:  This is a finance matter.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Refer to finance committee.  Any
objections?

MR. NOBRIGA:  None.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Director's Report 01-16, request
approval to acquire outside recruitment service to assist in
obtaining letters of intent for the Engineering Program Manager
position.  If there's no objection, I'll refer that to the
finance committee.
 Director's Report 01-17, request authorization to
provide leak insurance as a customer service to consumers.
Finance?

MR. CRADDICK:  Finance.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Request for decision on service
options for Ulupalakua line.  If there's no objection, I'll
refer that to capital improvements committee.
 Director's Report 01-19, request approval of the
Memorandum of Understanding for Lanai Forest and Watershed
Partnership and for the board to agree to join the Partnership.

MR. CRADDICK:  It's the board's pleasure there if
they want to refer it to committee or take action now.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any comments?  No objections?
Referred to finance.
 Director's Report 01-20, request approval to accept
a $50,000 pass-through grant from the state Department of
Health for a project entitled "Lanai Watershed Restoration:
Erosion and Fire Control Component for Lanaihale and
Surrounding Buffer Area."
 Anything to add, Mr. Craddick?  Refer to finance.

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know if there's a time
issue.  I see you raising your hand.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I don't think we're going to get the
money.  The memorandum, though, I just want to make sure your
understanding, the memorandum itself does not commit us to any
funds.  So I don't know if you still want to refer this to
finance.

MR. CRADDICK:  You don't think we're going to get
this money?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  No, that legislature extra money that
we might have gotten --

MS. NAGO:  You have to speak up, I can't hear you
over here at all.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  You can refer it to wherever you want
to.  That's okay.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been referred.
Director's Report 01-21.

MS. NAGO:  Referred to which committee?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Finance.
 Request approval to schedule a Water Use and
Development Plan workshop or committee meeting between now and
the May full board meeting, etc.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  This comes about because of the board
had appropriated funds because they wanted to expedite the
water use and development plan and also because the state water
commission finalized their IRP guidelines and they want us to
go to the commission with a scope of work for the commission to
approve, even though it's in progress.
 And we didn't want to go to the state water
commission without making sure that we were in concert with the
board once again with that.  Since we have to go to the state,
we should go to the board first.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you.  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  Operations committee would be able to
take that up.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay, so ordered.  Operations
committee.  That's all the Director's Reports.
 Communications 01-13.  Is there anyone here to
testify or give any comments on that?  Yes, Fran.

MS. NAGO:  Mr. Chair, I informed -- previously what
we were doing is new communications on the agenda, we would
inform the applicants that they would be referred to
committee.  I did mention to these people that they would be
referred to committee.  I think we do have some people here
under this section, though; but this one, this particular one
chose to come to the committee that it would be assigned to.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Then the chair's intent is to assign
these to committees.  It has been the practice of the chair to
assign these types of issues to either the rules or to
oversight.
 And I believe that the distinction was that those
items that came up were introduced for the first time and there
was a request for some waiver of rules would go to rules, and
those items where an item or the applicant had received an
unfavorable decision would go to oversight.  And I see no
reason to change that.
 And as we go through these, I'm not sure,
Mr. Craddick, in which cases these are new or --

MR. CRADDICK:  The nearest I can tell, except for
the 1-16 and 17 are all no.  I'm not sure whether --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Let's take it one at a time.
Communication 01-13, if there's no objection, I'll refer that
to rules; Communication 01-14, if there's no objection, I'll
refer that to finance; Communication 01-15, rules;
Communication 01-16 and 17 to oversight; and Communication
01-18 to rules.  If there are no objections or any comments by
board members or members of the public at this time --

DEBRA SMITH:  I have a question, if I may.  When
does the rules committee meet, and if we're one of these
people, how do we address the rules committee regarding the
issue?
 
CHAIRMAN RICE:  There will be a public notice of the
rules committee meeting and it will be set with the chairman of
the rules committee and you can keep in touch with Fran.
 The next item on the agenda, No. 8, is the report
from the capital programs committee.

MR. NOBRIGA:  What is the disposition of
Communication 01-18?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Rules.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Thank you very much.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, you are going so fast
I'm having trouble keeping up.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I'm sorry, I'm new at this.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman and members, the report
of the capital programs committee has been circulated on a
number of items.  First item is a request from the director who
transferred funds presently appropriated for test well Kupaa
No. 2.  The request was to transfer those funds to do
exploration further north in the North Waihe'e aquifer.
 That committee recommended approval with the
understanding that the staff would proceed to prepare a
preliminary report to the board, relative to location and the
program for test drilling before it were to be actually
implemented.  I would move that the request be approved on that
basis.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  There's a motion.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion has been made and duly
seconded to approve the request on the exploratory well, with
the understanding that the location be approved by the board
prior.  Any discussion?

MR. STARR:  Mr. Director, what is the status of the
easement and the documents to allow us to use the property and
also to get a pipeline from there to wherever it needs to go?

MR. CRADDICK:  We have the approval of the lessee,
but because it's under an active lease, it has to be approved
by the DLNR board.  So next step would be the board.

MR. STARR:  Aren't there three parties involved?

MR. CRADDICK:  You mean the fact that the Boy Scouts
have subleased to somebody else?

MR. STARR:  Yes.

MR. CRADDICK:  That's their party, I presume they
would have to negotiate with their party prior to giving the
letter to us.  So we're not dealing with that.  We just deal
with the person who has the lease, and the landowner.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  And so do we -- we have the
approval from the Boy Scouts?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  Does that run to the end of their lease
or is that for just a certain time?

MR. CRADDICK:  It gives us approval to go on there
and with that letter we can go to the land board and the land
board will determine those terms.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  And does this include --

MR. CRADDICK:  What usually happens is it's taken
out from the lease and then there's an executive order covering
it.

MR. STARR:  It will have to be surveyed and then
taken out?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, I believe the
recommendation of the committee was basically to identify the 
most desirable location for the test well.  And the question
is, assuming that it's already been done, which the committee
indicated they were not in a position to approve but wanted to
get an actual recommendation following some study by the staff,
at which point, the location would be become relevant and the
necessary easements would become relevant.

MR. STARR:  My concern is just to make sure that we
have all the documentation in order before we proceed.  If the
committee is going to be looking at that, then that's fine with
me.

MR. NAKAMURA:  The board, it will come back to the
board.

MR. STARR:  I just want to be sure it includes all
the pipelines we're working on, the easements for the pipeline.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to disclose
that I sit on the board of the Boy Scouts Association of Maui
and I do drive past Camp Maluhia to go out to my daddy's place
to have dinners at Easter and Christmas.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Mr. Nobriga.  I also sit
on the board of the Boy Scouts and I have not been to a meeting
in so long that I did not remember that I do.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I forgive you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  You know what my address is when you
send out those letters.
 There's a motion on the board and seconded.  Is
there any other discussion?  All in favor signify by saying
"aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed say "nay."
(No response.)
Motion is carried.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Second item, Mr. Chairman, is for the
request of a pipeline authorization of a waterline replacement
project on Molokai.  This is in the 2001 budget, funds are
available.  Committee felt that the request was appropriate to
replace existing inadequate lines and recommends approval.  So
I so move that this be authorized from the waterline
replacement account.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded.

MR. HELM:  You beat me to it.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded.  Any discussion,
comments, or questions?  All in favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed say "nay."
(No response.)
Motion is carried.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, Director's 01-06 is
also a waterline transmission line replacement project.  It's
included in the 2001 budget.  Replace existing substandard
8-inch transmission line with a 12-inch line.  It's part of a
project for incremental approval of the upper Kula transmission
line.  And the request is for authorization for design
services.  I would move to approve the request.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion to approve.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Seconded.  Any questions, members of
the board?  Comments or discussions?  All in favor signify by
saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed say "nay."
(No response.)
Motion is carried.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, Director's 01-07 is for
requesting approval of a construction change order for a
project in Kihei.  The request change order is somewhat less
than $16,000, which is less than 3 percent of the contractor
amount, which the committee felt was reasonable.
 The basic problem was that there was an inaccuracy
on the existing identification of the size of the existing --
existing waterline which required extension of the project for
an additional, I believe it was 40 feet, David, or something
like that?  Relatively small.

MR. CRADDICK:  Something around that order.

MR. NAKAMURA:  I would recommend approval of the
request and so move.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded.  Any comments
from anybody?  All in favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed say "nay."
(No response.)
Motion carried.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Director's 01-08 is a request for
$45,000 to be taken from the pipeline replacement account for
small in-house upgrades.  This will be done in-house.  This is
a project in Hana which is to replace an additional -- sorry,
replace an existing 4-inch polyethylene line with a 4-inch
ductile iron line, due to the fact that the polyethylene line
has been subject to break to high pressure near the pumps.
 The committee recognizes that funds were available
and felt this was an appropriate project and I would move for
it's approval.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded to approve the
project as explained.  Any comments, questions?  All in favor
signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed say "nay."
(No response.)
Motion is carried.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, the last item is the
status report on FY 2001 Capital Improvement Program Budget.
The committee briefly reviewed the status report of the FY 2001
budget, the capital programs budget.  The summary is attached.
 The committee expressed concern over the fact that
there is significant unspent balance available to date of those
funds that are appropriated and whether the department had the
ability to implement all of the projects authorized in the
budget, and we didn't have a chance to review it in great
detail.
 We recommend that further review of the carryover
projects and this issue of the -- whether or not we can
implement all the projects or how we can implement all of the
projects that are budgeted be considered as part of the FY 2002
budget review process.  So I don't think any action is
necessary on this, except that that is the recommendation of
the committee and that we feel this does need to be pursued.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any questions of Mr. Nakamura on
that issue?  Thank you, Howard.
We'll move on to No. 9.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  I see Mr. Siele is here.  He was not
here when --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Siele, your request was referred
to the rules committee.

MR. SIELE:  Clarification.  What does rules
committee mean?  How long does the process take?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  The chairman of the rules committee
is here and he will set a meeting and it will be noticed
publicly.  You'll be advised and welcome to attend and testify,
whatever manner you think is appropriate.  Once the committee
chair sets the meeting, Fran will notify you.

MR. SIELE:  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moving on to Other Business, Section
9, discussion and possible action regarding the Central Maui
Source Joint Venture Settlement Agreement.  That's been filed.
B, discussion and approval of outside counsel in Thomas Craig
vs. County of Maui.  Jim?

MR. TAKAYESU:  At the last meeting this last week,
we discussed this matter in executive session.  At that time we
informed the board that there was a scheduled court hearing for
Monday, I believe, 4/23.
 At this time I would request that this matter be
deferred based on what happened at the court proceedings.
We'll be preparing some pretrial motions on that, I believe, at
this time.  I would request that this matter either be deferred
or just withdrawn so we can resubmit it at another time.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chair, I suggest we allow corp
counsel to withdraw.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  We need a motion for that.

MR. CRAVALHO:  So moved.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded to allow corp
counsel to withdraw item B.  Any discussion?  All in favor
signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed say "nay."
(No response).
Motion carried.
 Discussion and possible action regarding Stolle vs.
Craddick.

MR. TAKAYESU:  Again, at the last meeting, we had
discussions with the board in executive session.  Following
that meeting, we did continue settlement negotiations with
Mr. Pierce on behalf of Mr. Stolle.  We have received a new
offer.  This is the type of matter that we would request to
speak with you in executive session.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  What's the pleasure of this body?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, if there's no objection,
can we defer this item to the end of the agenda?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Certainly.  So ordered.
 Discussion and possible action regarding Maui
Tomorrow, Inc. et al., vs. Board of Water Supply.  Yes,
Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  Do you have something first?

MR. TAKAYESU:  I believe we have submitted to the
various board members a draft answer at this time.  The answer
is due to be filed by the end of the month and we would like to
go ahead and just file the answer.  If you wish to discuss this
matter because it involves pending litigation, we request that
the matter be discussed in executive session.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Members of the board, I'm not in
possession of the document of the draft answer; I don't know
how it was communicated to the board.  Was it mailed?

MR. NOBRIGA:  No, I don't have it.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  It's not here.

MR. TAKAYESU:  Richard Minatoya, who had drafted the
answer, and I thought it had been transmitted.  He is on Oahu
today.  He is attending a deposition in another civil case.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  In that case, I suggest we defer any
action on this until we get something to look at.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chair.  The answer is
due on April 30th, so we will be filing the answer to comply
with the rules of civil procedure.  We have no choice, our
answer is due at the end of the month.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Yes, Mr. Cravalho.

MR. CRAVALHO:  A question to corp counsel's office.
Is this not based on the deadline which has been set which
could be extended?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If the plaintiffs are agreeable to
extending time to file an answer or otherwise plea, we can
speak to them, but otherwise the answer must be filed by the
30th.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Question of corp counsel's office.
If an answer is filed, is it an answer that is amenable?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Certainly.

MR. TAKAYESU:  Generally.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If there's --

MR. TAKAYESU:  It's more difficult.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Yes, sir, Mr. Cravalho.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Excuse me, we're merely trying to
expedite.  We don't have before this body your response.  Your
office advises us there is a deadline of the 30th.  There isn't
sufficient time in between to have the other meeting and to
review to expedite and say, well, okay, file it.
 And if the board disagrees with it, it's amenable at
a subsequent meeting.  If it's not amenable, how are you going
to get something filed and approved by this board where we
don't have a single copy of it?

MR. TAKAYESU:  Could we defer this to the end, I can
robably get copies made downstairs with the Liquor Department.

MR. CRAVALHO:  That would be helpful, Mr. Chairman,
that is on the assumption we're going to agree with what you
have drafted.

MR. TAKAYESU:  To show it to you so you can look at it.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  So it's deferred at this point until
we get to the end.  Do you want to make a comment?

MR. STARR:  I did have some other comments regarding
this matter not relating to that side of it.  We'll defer it.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  We'll take it all together if it's
okay with you.  Then No. E section, discussion and possible
action regarding Construction Development, Inc. vs. Board of
Water Supply.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a
motion that we accept a report from the mediator, if that's a
good enough motion.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of
discussion, I will second the motion and have a question.  Does
the intent of your motion include the making available the
satisfactory -- the necessary funds to carry out the provisions
of the mediator's recommendations?

MR. NOBRIGA:  I think procedurally that would be the
chairman's call, if you would wish to defer to finance, because
it does include a financial obligation.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Then the sense of your motion would
be to refer it to the finance committee for the appropriate
funding.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  I would accept that.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Are you amending that motion now?

MR. CRAVALHO:  If it's okay with him.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I understand what's being proposed
is that the settlement issue be referred to the finance
committee.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Received and referred.  Is that
appropriate, Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Certainly that's appropriate.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Okay then, let's do it.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded.  Members of the
board, any comments regarding that?  It means it will be sent
to committee and it will be taken at this meeting.  All in
favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed say "nay."

MR. KOBAYASHI:  I'm Blaine Kobayashi.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Sorry, Blaine.

MR. KOBAYASHI:  I would like a time line from the
chair and the members as far as when I can expect or hope to
get a full approval from the board for this settlement, because
it's been referred to the finance committee.
 
CHAIRMAN RICE:  The chair is also the chair of the
finance committee and I believe we can set a meeting and have
it on the agenda for the next May meeting.

MR. KOBAYASHI:  Which day would that be?

MS. NAGO:  End of May, May 24th, Thursday.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Is that going to work?

MR. KOBAYASHI:  I was hoping to get the board
approval today of the settlement to finally settle this case,
but if it's the chair's intent to --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's the will of the board.  The
motion has been made and seconded, just barely voted on it.  I
will -- at the risk of some procedural error, I think we're set
with our decision.

MR. NOBRIGA:  It will be okay.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  All in favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Oppose say "nay."
(No response.)
The motion is carried.  Referred to finance.
 F, discussion and possible action regarding draft of
proposed fiscal year 2002 operating budget.  I believe that
fiscal officer Quinn has handed out that draft and
supplementally you received a capital improvement budget.
 If there is no objection, I would refer these to
finance and capital improvement jointly and I would intend to
schedule a workshop.  And at this time, let me first refer
those to finance and capital improvement.  If there's no
objection, so ordered.
 We were talking about that the development fee issue
was referred to your committee and it may be a long day so I
need some feedback from the board members, if we had a workshop
to do both of those.

MR. CRADDICK:  East development plan?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  That's something we put our
schedules to -- we would take both of those together.

MR. STARR:  Perhaps the chair can decide how to do
them together.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  No objection.  We'll move along that line.
 Item G, discussion and possible action regarding the
draft Water Meter Issuance Rule for the Upcountry water
system.  As I indicated earlier, the chair's intent is to refer
this to the rules committee.

MR. STARR:  I have no problem with that,
Mr. Chairman.  I did want to make a comment on the rule that we
received, because it had been initiated through action of
recommendation of my operations committee and I didn't think
that the rule that came back from corporation counsel did so
just a few days ago, not giving me time to really comment on
what was submitted.
 It hadn't all that much to do with the issue that we
were trying to resolve.  It didn't specifically mention giving
water to people on the list, but seemed to deal more with
others that may or may not have a vested interest in water
Upcountry.  And I'm really concerned that if it were enacted
the way it is, it would not do anything for the people on the
list but would give a whole lot of subdivisions water instead.
 I look to the rules committee to, in their wisdom,
to find a way to straighten this out and make sure that it is
doing what we're attempting to do.  Which is to issue a
five-eighths inch meter to each person, going down the list
until the water available to us for doing that is expired and
then not take away the rights from anyone else on the list.

MR. CRAVALHO:  No objection.
 
CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you.  So ordered.  Refer to rules.
 H was already taken up.
 I, evaluation of the director of the Department of
Water Supply.  Howard?

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, I have a question.  I
was not at the meeting when this matter was presented by the
operations committee.  Has the recommendation of the operations
committee regarding the process been approved or accepted by
the board or was that matter merely deferred?

MR. STARR:  As I recall, it was approved, the basic process.

MR. CRAVALHO:  The process as opposed, Mr. Chairman,
the process as opposed to the content.  Yes.  If Mr. Chairman
and if the board members may recall, former member Takitani
expressed concern and this concern dealt primarily with the
content, and the original motion was to approve the content as
well.
 It was my suggestion, as I recall, to have it
changed; that we merely accept it for consideration by the
board without any indication as to approval of the content time
of the recommendation -- of the report.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  Go ahead, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  It was also the desire of the committee
that the question, the pool of the actual substance of it be
open for it and some of the questions were moved or changed or
added, that that was something that we would want to do before
we proceeded.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  As I understand it, the step process
that we're at here is to improve the document whereby the
director would be -- his performance would be reviewed.  Is
that correct?  And that we have a document to consider at this
point.

MR. STARR:  We have two things:  a framework, a
structure of how to do it, and then we have questions that
would be answered or graded by the board members.  So we have
two separate items.  And I do feel that the questions could
perhaps be fine-tuned by the board before some action.  But I
believe that the framework was what we had agreed upon at the
previous meeting, not the specific content of the questions.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chairman, if I recall correctly,
the concern that Mr. Takitani was addressing dealt with
content.  What we're going to be doing in the acceptance of
that time was with respect to the framework, with no limitation
as to the content.
 Mr. Takitani's consideration or concern was that the
content was pretty much one-sided or it wasn't all inclusive of
the responsibilities and the performances of the person under
consideration, and that we need to give attention to this.
 The other concern, as I recall, Mr. Chairman, was
that the filling out of a questionnaire rating the incumbent on
a variety of areas and the possible score would result in an
automatic -- would have an automatic result.
 If a certain score was presented, the incumbent
would be retained.  If it wasn't, he will lose.  Thereby
limiting the ability of the board to consider at a subsequent
time or at the evaluation time the complete area and the
complete requirements for the evaluation.
 And I think we need to keep this in mind at all
times, that we're not involved -- we shouldn't be in a highly
personalized kind of a situation.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It sounds to me that the committee
has additional work to do and should be bringing back some
additional recommendations at the next meeting.

MR. STARR:  I would be happy to have another
committee meeting and do it again, and hopefully, if it's
desired by the board members, if we're still on the board to
alter it, we'll certainly listen.

MR. HELM:  Mr. Chair, I agree with that.  I think we
should have a better look at it to see if we need to fine-tune it.

MR. STARR:  One thing.  So the committee will look
at it again.  And once again I would like to state that my
committee really invites all the board members to come and join
in and to participate.  So please, if you wish to join and be
part of a committee, I don't want to limit it to two or three
of us.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I think that's a fair comment on
behalf of board member Starr.  If you have comments about the
substance of the report, then either get those comments to him
or participate in the meeting, so we can take some action next
week.  So it's referred back to that committee.
 Update on Upcountry water situation.  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  Again, the long-term output is still
for -- dry weather reservoirs are pretty full right now and the
ditch is pretty full right now.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Starr?

MR. CRAVALHO:  You have so much water in storage
that you don't know what to do with it.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  Once again, I move we go out of the
state of emergency, which we have been in for a long time.
Reservoirs are full.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  There's a motion on the table to
come out of emergency situation.  Hearing no second, that
motion dies.  Anything else on Upcountry, board members?  Your
pleasure, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I had requested that an update on the
Upcountry well program be on the agenda.  I was denied the
ability to have that on the agenda; but since we do have this,
I would like to understand what has happened with the program
for getting an Upcountry well, which I feel is of the absolute
highest priority for this board.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chairman, to respond to that, in
my time, just a few hours ago, the question of the Upcountry
well, if I recall, was reported back to us.  There had been
some request by a certain member of this board to limit our
consideration or the consideration of this body to one
particular site.
 The decision of this board was to consider a variety
of sites in the Upcountry area, because the budget of the
capital improvements did make reference to some other locations
as well.
 As I recall, authorization was given to proceed for
the possibility of hiring consultants to examine this matter
and to find and to have a recommendation back to this body as
to the more precise recommendation for the site.  That's the
status, as I recall it, is for the proceeding to hire a
consultant to begin to implement.  The decision of the
committee that was brought forward to this body.  And that was
done recently.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's basically what we're doing.
But because of a DBCP settlement case, we have to go through
that process with the defendants, you know, in the DBCP case.
We're actually going through that now, giving them a list of
sites.  Whether they say yea or nay on it, and then go from there.

MR. CRAVALHO:  That's two different matters.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Yeah, I think we had -- excuse me.

MR. STARR:  I'm very reluctant to have Dow Chemical
making that decision on where we're going to drill our wells.
I understand that if we pick a site it may have -- that may
have DBCP, we may want to go to them.  But I want a well site
selected by a hydrologist, and I want to get a well filled.  I
don't want to play games with this thing.
 Have you proceeded with what you were asked to do by
the board or told to do by the board?

MR. CRADDICK:  If you want, you can refer the matter
to corp counsel.  But my understanding is any well site we do
right now, if we do not give them the option and it turns up
with chemicals in it, we're not covered.

MR. STARR:  What site do we give them?

MR. CRADDICK:  We have to give them that option.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with two
completely separate, different items.

MR. CRADDICK:  We are.

MR. CRAVALHO:  We should not be confusing or
attempting to combine the two.  The question of Dow Chemical
and others is based on the settlement due to the pollution of
the source and whatever the case may be.  I believe what
Mr. Starr is making reference to is an additional deep well for
the Upcountry area, separate and distinct from the question of
the Dow Chemical.
 So we talk about two different things and we
shouldn't be using the excuses or the reasons on one as an
excuse for the other.  There is no reason, in my mind,
Mr. Chairman, why we cannot proceed to move on this question of
an additional well site in the Upcountry area.
 This board in the past, in the capital improvements
program, did indicate a consideration in the Hawaiian Homes
area or towards the Ulupalakua as a possibility.  There has
been some presentation by you, Mr. Craddick, it seems that you
have an undue romance going on with Pookela.  There may be
merit to that.
 But I will bring forth to this body again the same
concern that I expressed months ago, that if you get into this
kind of a situation and you sink a well in that area which will
be touching or dealing with an underground stream which has an
impact, a potential impact on the East Maui aquifer, you are
asking and raising additional problems and questions along the
line.
 Case in point, Mr. Director, in what came out of the
Committee of the Whole in the last meeting with respect to the
agreement we made by a gentleman who has a well in the Maliko
area, it's my understanding that the contents of that agreement
does make reference -- well, does two things.
 That agreement, as I recall, indicates that the
pumping in the H'poko and related areas may have had an impact
on the water that this gentleman was able to and has been able
to recover from his well.  And in this agreement, if I'm not
mistaken, Mr. Director, it says that the county, therefore, if
such is the case, becomes liable.  That's what was agreed to.
I think I'm right on it.
 This opens up a tremendous potential problem if we
are not careful when we begin to sink a well in the Upcountry
areas which may have an impact on any stream which is
contributing to any existing well down below.  And if at any
time there is a corresponding reduction on what that individual
is able to get from his well and we have set the precedent for
this body and this county to be held legally and financially
liable.
 And I believe, Mr. Director, when I made reference
to this in the past, it wasn't given that much attention.  But
I think this body has gone on record that your department has
gone on record with this agreement.  If we had tied the two
areas together, the potential for a problem would be
tremendously increased.
 This is especially true when we begin to examine
Mr. Mink's report with respect to the EIS statements for the
East Maui area.  And in hindsight, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Director, this boat made the right decision when it did not
join the two districts together into one under this East Maui
combination.
 Because of this potential, and I believe -- my
memory may be bad, but not that bad -- at that time,
Mr. Director, you did not agree with me.  You said I did not
know what I was talking about.  And I said I know what I'm
talking about.  You didn't, in that particular case.  And I
think time is proving us to have been correct, especially in
the light of your agreement with that Maliko guy.
 I think we need to be very, very cautious so,
Mr. Starr and Mr. Chairman, the point you have been raising
with respect to an additional well is absolutely correct.  It
has nothing to do or very little, if anything, to do with Dow
Chemical.  Those are two separate questions completely.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Starr?

MR. CRAVALHO:  Two separate questions.  And in this
process, I'm saying lets be cautious that we don't get into any
kind of operation that will contribute to what this board has
agreed to on the Maliko area and the potential liability when
we -- if we happen to be tapping into an underground stream
which may have the affect on the availability of water way down
below and reduce the amount of water available for withdrawal
by people way down below, we need to be very cautious.
 And I agree we need to get this done, but exercise
great prudence in the review.  I think it's reasonable.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It sounds to me like the charge for
the director was a list of alternative sites that we need to
see.  That is our next step.

MR. STARR:  I believe the director is proceeding in
a different manner.

MR. CRAVALHO:  I agree with you.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Director, have you chosen a site for
the well and sent that to the various chemical companies for
consideration?

MR. CRADDICK:  We have not sent anything yet.

MR. STARR:  Did you not tell me that you were
sending them a package listing Kamole weir as a site for the
proposed well?

MR. CRADDICK:  Kamole weir, Pookela, Pulehu.

MR. STARR:  You told me you had chosen Kamole and
sent it to them.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, no site.  Variety of sites.

MR. STARR:  I myself believe that Pookela is
probably the most suitable site since we own the land, we own
the tank.  And I did go and ask on my own a hydrologist their
opinion about whether that would be -- if there would be any
hydrological problem in continuity of flow between the aquifer
at Pookela and streams.  I was told that that was not an
issue.
 However, I was told there was another issue, and
that is that there is an understanding that some kind of secret
deal had been made by members of this board; that Pookela tank
was going to be a well site to be utilized by Maui Land & Pine;
and that they were going to drill at Pookela; and that that
well would be used for giving water to new subdivisions that
were going to be built in the five trees area.
 And that it was hoped that they would make an
agreement with the board and it would be like the Dowling
agreement; and that for this reason there's an attempt to delay
our drilling a well at Pookela tank, our own site, so that Maui
Land & Pine can meanwhile go through the process and get there
first.  And this is something that I have great concern with.
 I would much rather cease drilling the well and
providing them to the people who have been waiting, rather than
saying Maui Land & Pine or any other commercial entity drill
the well, and then have the priority of service go to the new
subdivisions.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Cravalho.

MR. CRAVALHO:  I think Mr. Starr has improved quite
a bit in his statements, innuendos.  If Mr. Starr is aware or
if Mr. Starr or anyone else is aware of any member of this
board, meeting with any representation of Maui Land & Pine or
any other entity, finger that person openly and completely and
have a discussion.  At all times.
 In the absence of certainty and a willingness for
identification, I would suggest to hold your peace.  We have
had these innuendos made more directly in the past by you,
Mr. Starr, you have made reference in your criticism to
Mr. Nakamura on a number of cases.  And others.
 Now, if any member of this board, the present
speaker not exempted, can be identified with a certainty of
your innuendos, let's say so.  And in the absence of that
certainty, let us be very cautious with respect to Pookela.  If
anything, Mr. Starr's voice has been the loudest for that site
only.  That's the record.
 So let's keep the record straight and let's make
reference to that record in an accurate manner.  The time is
too great and the work is too important to innuendoes made or
suggestions that have absolutely no basis in fact.  Absolutely
none, as far as I know.
 And I stand ready at all times for a public
discussion and a review of the matter and we keep that question
open as to whether any discussions had been entered into by any
member of this board with any consultant or with any individual
in the community with respect to the sinking of a well in
Pookela and the potential costs thereof.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I think, Mr. Craddick, we have
action by the board and we all recognize the importance of an
Upcountry well.  I think unless there's some objection by the
board, we need the presentation, I think, at the next meeting
as to the various sites that the consultant has recommended so
that the board --

MR. CRADDICK:  There's no consultant yet.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Mr. Chair, I understand that there
may have been discussions, not necessarily by the director, but
there may have been discussions.  There's nothing wrong with
it.  Absolutely nothing wrong, and this is appropriate.  But
these discussions should be through in a variety of areas.
 And the board, if I'm not mistaken, the last meeting
said to proceed to get the consultant to look at all the sites
and come up with one site or two sites, whatever the case may
be.  If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, the director informed
this body directly or indirectly that the Hawaiian Homes was in
the process of getting a well in the area.  So what I am saying
is consistent with the facts.
 And I'm well aware that at times directly or
indirectly, intentionally or otherwise, facts are not presented
in the manner that they should be.  So let's look at the facts,
because we're going to have enough problems and not with
respect to only this, but with a situation that this body has
been very reluctant to address, and that is the water situation
in Central Maui.  And I have been on this one, Mr. Chair, for
quite a while.
 I repeat the question I had raised to Mr. Craddick
sometime ago based on approved projects to date.  Do we have
enough water supply today to meet those demands?  And your
answer was no.  So because this is coming back to haunt us --
with additional request coming before this body and the county
for the development in these various areas.
 And if we wish to, Mr. Chairman, we could talk about
some of these other things.  Proposals for increasing the size
of the upper line to go Ulupalakua to up to 12 inches.  Where
is the water going to come from to fill that waterline?  And
when you put in the 1-inch line all the way is that not a
subdivision water supply?  Nobody wants to talk about it, but
that's factual.
 So as we look at everything, let's be factual about
what we are looking at so we know what we're doing.  Work on it
can be remedied.  I look forward, as I said earlier to
Mr. Chairman, for the ability to return to this body's floor so
we begin to face some of these questions that we have been
avoiding directly or indirectly, intentionally or
unintentionally, is immature or immaterial.
 But those are facts that we got to face.  I think
you agree with me; I think I'm right.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  We look forward to your
report on that issue.

MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moving on.  Update on water issues
discussed at public meetings.

MR. CRADDICK:  We had one, the treatment of the
Upcountry system with phosphates.  And we held a meeting
Upcountry and we have decided to go with zinc or no phosphates
and we're in the process of getting that material now for
treatment beginning on or about June 1st.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Go ahead and speak.

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know what she's talking about.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  That the committee, the joint
committee on land and water use of the state legislature
requested water updates for four counties and state water
commission and we gave them like a five-minute talk there too.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any questions by the board members
or the staff on that issue?  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  What did you tell them?  Did we give
them a date for when we'll have a water use and development
plan?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Nothing like that.  Status and
priorities kind of issues.  Like they wanted to know what each
county had done.  They want every county to stay within five
minutes, and then they had specific issues they wanted to
discuss.

MR. STARR:  I'm sorry --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  That's all.  I can make a copy of the
slides for you.

MR. STARR:  Just for clarification, do we have a
water use and development plan enforced?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  The board in 19 -- I have to pull out
the date, but we passed it out before to you.  There's a day
which the board moved to accept, for the interim, the 1992
water use and development plan until such time as it was
updated and accepted by the commission.  Other than that, the
only one that's been approved by the state is the 1991.

MR. STARR:  And the 1992 one was never approved.  So
we don't have an approved one enforced since --

MS. KRAFTSOW:  No county was approved in 1992.  The
board agreed to use it in the interim as their master plan
until such time as it was amended.

MR. STARR:  Is there a mandate to have plans every
ten years?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Actually, the commission has been
discussing that.  I think the mandate is that we're supposed to
update it every five years.  And there's virtually no one that
has done it.  In fact, there's no one that has a plan published
since that '92 drought.  They didn't accept anybody's.

MR. STARR:  I understand that.  My point is that
we're out of compliance with it.  I don't think any other
county is in compliance either.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  The board approved in 1990 the 1990
water use and development plan, counsel approved it and that's
the enforced water use and development plan to this date until
it is changed.  And there's no exact time table for it to be
changed.  Because the water commission themselves had problems
with those, they tried to restart the process again in 1992.
In 1992, none of them got accepted by the water commission.
Ours didn't even get accepted by the county council.
Since that time, we have been working to try and do
these.  We have been weighing the process for some time now on
Lanai.  The water working group was formed on Molokai and there
is a document from Molokai that the water commission is doing.
 But this particular meeting that was going on at the
state legislature was for the purpose of getting money for the
state ag plan and the state water development plan, and I think
they wanted to show to the legislature that nobody was doing
anything.  I myself think we're doing quite a bit and couldn't
quite go along with that concept of thinking that we were not
doing anything.  I know very well we're near completion on
Lanai.  We're working on Lahaina.
 So as far as I'm concerned, and I believe this would
be backed up by now, that the process we're using and moving
through is one that they will accept.  But that workshop that
we talked to you about is something where we need to get the
board to agree with our process before we go on to the water
commission to tell them what we're doing.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  That's in Jonathan's --

MR. CRADDICK:  Right.  So there is an in place water
use and development plan.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Mr. Craddick.
We have got two items we deferred.  Counsel?

MR. TAKAYESU:  That's correct.  We have requested
executive session.  Within the statute you need approval to go
into executive session.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  We need to take a break for
five minutes.
(A recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Let's go, we're called to order.  We
have a quorum.  Counselor Jim?

MR. TAKAYESU:  This is on the Peter Stolle vs. David
Craddick, et al.  We are requesting that we go into executive
session to discuss proposals and counterproposals on a
settlement of this particular case.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, could I request we take the
Maui Tomorrow one first?  I have a comment to make before we go
on into executive session, if we're going to do that.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It doesn't matter to me.

MR. TAKAYESU:  It doesn't matter to us.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  We'll take Maui Tomorrow first.

MR. STARR:  I understand that this is a complicated
matter and it also involves the Sunshine Law and I believe
there's also ethics, a possible ethics violation.  I would like
to kind of get something off of my chest that has been on my
conscience for a while and sort of, I guess, being challenged
by Mr. Cravalho before and also not being able to ask a
question or two when we were talking about election time.
 I would like to discuss something that happened a
little over a year ago.  I believe it was March 17th or so.
Not this year but last year.  And this was when there was still
a previous chair; Mr. Takitani was still chair.
 The board had before it the Memorandum of
Understanding with A&B.  I know at that time Mr. Nakamura was
on the negotiating committee; I had been on the negotiating
committee too.  That was in the minutes from that time.  I was
called to meet with Mr. Takitani, the board chair, in his
office at Star Ice and Soda one afternoon, and I went up there
and I was surprised to see Mr. Nakamura was there as well.
 And when I asked the chair, Mr. Takitani, what was
up, he said there was a desire to put into the Memorandum of
Understanding with A&B that the board owed 8.9 million gallons
of water to the joint venturers.  And Mr. Nakamura was the
proponent of that and sort of representing the joint
venturers.
 And I said that I had a real problem with that; it
was something I could not go along with.  And I also didn't
like meeting like this, meeting members in private to work
about this with specialty, you know, something in a sense that
when I left the meeting.
 But I felt that since these matters are kind of
hanging over our head, this is something that I should come out
with.  And frankly, I didn't feel there was much I could do
about going into that meeting because I didn't know what was
going to go on.  Since that time, I haven't really felt good
about it afterwards.  And I felt this is something that I
should be open about.
So those are my comments, take them as you may.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Mr. Starr.  Jim?

MR. TAKAYESU:  On the two items, both the Stolle and
the Maui Tomorrow, I would be requesting that we go into
executive session on both of those matters.  I think generally
if there's more than one item, we'll make the request and they
vote on it.  And we'll go into one executive session and then
come out, and then into the open portion of the meeting again.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  At this point, what is on the agenda
is the Maui Tomorrow issue.  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  Do you want us in here?  Is this a
matter between Maui Tomorrow and the board?  I don't know if
you want staff here.  If you don't, we'll leave.

MR. CRAVALHO:  Are you going into executive session?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I have not heard a motion.

MR. CRAVALHO:  I personally don't like executive.
If it's an open meeting