BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING


Held at HGEA Conference Room, David K. Trask, Jr. 
Office Building, 2145 Kaohu Street, Wailuku, Maui, 
Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on May 14, 2001.

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

A P P E A R A N C E S

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Elmer Cravalho, Chairman
Howard Nakamura

STAFF PRESENT:
David Craddick, Director 
George Tengan, Deputy Director 
Howard Fukushima, Corporation Counsel
Fran Nago, Board Secretary
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The meeting will come to 
order of the Committee of Rules of the Department of 
Water Supply.  Ms. Nago, note the presence of the 
various people who are here.

MS. NAGO:  We have Chair Elmer Cravalho and 
Member Howard Nakamura.  We have David Craddick, the 
director; Deputy Corporation Counsel Howard Fukushima, 
Deputy Director George Tengan.  
 From the audience we have Hugh Starr, Elliott 
Krash, Craig and Deborah Smith, Charles and Andrea 
Smith, John Siele.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Shall we proceed then to 
consideration of the agenda?  Are there any parties 
here who have applications or requests for action that 
wish to testify at this time?   Or shall we reserve 
the right to testify if and when the subject matter 
comes up? 
 Any oral testimony?  None. 
Written testimony?  None.  Shall we then 
proceed --

MS. NAGO:  Excuse me, Mr. Cravalho, the 
written testimony from Mr. Mayer, Dick Mayer.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  We'll take that up when 
the matter comes up, the subject, but he isn't here. 
 Request from John and Maria Siele.  Is that 
correct, the pronunciation?  Will you please come 
forward with your request and presentation to the 
members of the committee.

MR. SIELE:  We were requesting to exchange our 
inch-and-a-half meter for multiple meters for a 
subdivision up in Kula.  This has been ongoing since 
1991.  We have run out of means, money, and time, and 
we're hoping that you can see to it that this can be 
taken care of.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Are there any questions?   
Mr. Craddick, what's the department's suggestion?

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, the suggestion is to deny 
the request because it potentially could have more 
demand -- you know, you see on Exhibit C, page 59, the 
property.  They have done I guess one family 
subdivision, right.  And they have put that line in, 
that 8" line coming into the property, 8", 6", I 
guess.

MR. SIELE:  It's a 6" line.

MR. CRADDICK:  In order to serve the other two 
lots in there.  And I'm not quite sure how this 
differs from -- what was that other one that was in 
here that John Rapacz was representing?  I can't 
remember their names.  Hoekstra.  That's the only 
other issue.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Reference is made by the 
department's recommendation about the violation -- 
potential violation of the rules of the water system, 
specific requirements for water improvements being 
made after the -- et cetera, et cetera, and will be 
required to construct any improvements to the 
department's water system in order to provide fire 
protection and domestic service. 
 The Chair raises the same question.  Are these 
violations or are these conditions of permanent rules 
and regulations that have been adopted in accordance 
with law or are these just internal rules and regs of 
the department?  Mr. Craddick. 

MR. CRADDICK:  I'm not exactly positive what 
you're referring to there.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Reference is made to 
improvements that are necessary in order to comply 
with the board's position, adequacy of source as well 
as adequacy of fire protection.  Now, are these 
positions and these conclusions reached by the board 
-- or not the board, but by the department based on 
rules and regs that have been adopted in accordance 
with the law, to wit, or through the process having an 
amendment, going to the county mayor, going to the 
council, signed back by the mayor, or are these just 
internal rules and regs similar to those internal 
rules and regs dealing with meters and the issuance of 
meters that were ruled by the court to be 
unconstitutional?  Smith versus Craddick.  What rule 
are you talking about?

MR. CRADDICK:  First of all, it's Rule 2-1 and 
I'll leave it to corp counsel whether that has been 
properly promulgated.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Was it, Mr. Fukushima?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Yes, it was.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Fine.  Yes, Mr. Siele.

MR. SIELE:  I'm surprised that Mr. Craddick 
has changed his mind in just a few months.  I have 
talked to Mr. Craddick in the hallway and I explained 
the situation and he said that if I could prove 
reliance on the water department, that it would 
probably be granted to me at this time. 
 Speaking to Mr. Chang the other day, I had 
asked him if he would include some of these 
conversations that we have had going back to 1992 and 
he said that he did not have the time to take to be 
able to write anything in my benefit, that anything 
that would be written in my benefit would be cold and 
short. 
 These meetings date all the way back to 1992, 
sitting down with Mr. Craddick and explaining what we 
were looking to do with the property at the time.  Me 
and my wife had a dream to create eight to eleven farm 
lots, trying to create horse farms up and down a 
parcel of land that we owned. 
 We proceeded to continue the option money on 
the property, received an inch-and-a-half meter.  We 
decided at that time to go with a -- we were told it 
was cheaper instead of to go with a large lot 
subdivision -- a large amount of lots at that time, to 
go with a three-lot subdivision.  We proceeded at that 
time to go with a three-lot subdivision and were told 
we would receive three inch-and-a-half meters. 
 We sat down with Mr. Craddick during the 
process of this and told to him -- explained to him 
that our situation and that our final payment of the 
property would depend on the ability to receive water 
in the future.  At that time Mr. Craddick had said I 
cannot tell you what to do financially, but I know as 
of this time there is a Haiku well coming on board and 
a reservoir, I think it's Kahapupoa reservoir, and I 
believe there will be plenty of water in the near 
future.  Mr. Craddick even offered to take me and my 
wife out to visit the site to assure us of this. 
 Since that time, we have proceeded, we have 
brought in over 3,300 lineal feet of pipe at a cost of 
$250,000 in road, water, and electric improvements.  
Since that time, we have not received any further 
water.  It has put us in extreme financial 
difficulties. 
 Since '94, when we realized that -- we were 
then told that the latest that anything would happen 
would be 1996 in case the Haiku well would have to be 
treated.  We still believed in our hearts everything 
that going to come through and I hoped to believe that 
Mr. Craddick believed it was going to be true at that 
time. 
 During many meetings after 1994 all the way up 
until this time, I would see Mr. Craddick and meet him 
at many water meetings and he continually told me at 
these meetings that I would proceed with your future 
developments, that the water would be on line. 
 To this day, nothing is happening.  We are 
still in dire needs.  And that's about as far as it 
goes and I'm really surprised that Mr. Craddick has 
changed his mind completely on the matter. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Mr. Nakamura. 

MR. NAKAMURA:  Let me ask a couple of 
questions, Mr. Chairman.  Reference was made to a 
three-lot subdivision that was done earlier.  Is that 
correct? 

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. NAKAMURA:  And this is one of the lots 
that was created by the three-lot subdivision?

MR. CRADDICK:  I think this map here involves 
all the lots, doesn't it?

MR. SIELE:  Yes, this is the way it's 
configured at this time.  What had happened is last 
year we ran out of funds, so we had to sell the house 
off to save the land to hope that sooner or later 
something would happen.  I even -- for the last few 
years, I was talking to Mr. Craddick, hoping that, you 
know, should we dig a well, and he says no, I wouldn't 
waste my time or money on digging a well, that it 
looks like any day now something is going to happen.  
And from year to year to year we just kept getting 
deeper and deeper. 
 But getting back to that, it was created from 
the last lot.

MR. NAKAMURA:  This is the third -- one of the 
three lots in that three-lot subdivision. 

MR. SIELE:  Yes.

MR. NAKAMURA:  For which you receive three 
one-and-a-half inch meters.

MR. SIELE:  No, we received one one-and-a-half 
inch meter, which we already had.  We received two 
5/8ths meters.  We were told that we would get two 
extra inch-and-a-half meters, but we only -- at the 
time of the subdivision, we were told that take the 
5/8ths and when the water came on line we would 
receive the upgrade.

MR. NAKAMURA:  So in the context of that 
family subdivision, then, the creation of this lot, 
was there not a family subdivision agreement entered 
into or --

MR. SIELE:  It was a large lot subdivision.

MR. NAKAMURA:  A large lot subdivision.  And 
the large lot subdivision has provisions that further 
resubdivision or further development is subject to 
compliance with the rules and regulations; is that 
correct?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Any further questions, 
Mr. Craddick?  

MR. CRADDICK:  First of all, I would like to 
say one thing.  Most of the things Mr. Siele says are 
correct.  One thing I've always told him, I said I 
cannot make any judgment about his financial 
condition.  And I told him this is what we're planning 
on doing, this is what we're doing, the final outcome 
of these things should result in water.  I cannot 
guarantee you anything.   I think I've maintained that 
all along.  Kahakupala is on line, Haiku is on line.    
The board was debating whether to let that additional 
water go out and we're in this situation today. 
 Now, as far as substantial reliance, Lower 
Kula line which serves this was under the Kula Rule 
and the shortage situation which was called in March 
16, 1993 preceded the Kula Rule and I believe the Jim 
Smith court case deals with the guidelines that were 
attached to the findings of shortage, not that we were 
short of water.  And I'll leave that up to corp 
counsel to --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The Chair would just like 
to interject that the Chair disagrees with you because 
I believe the Smith -- the judge in the Smith case 
went one step further.  Not only did he make reference 
to the Kula Rule, he also said that the practice of 
the department that you were involved in in granting 
meters, were illegal.  That's what the court said.  
That's what the judge said.  That the internal rules 
and regs that you have put together and used to grant 
meters did not have the force and effect of law. 

MR. CRADDICK:  And I'll agree with that.  
That's what I'm talking about, the guidelines. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Excuse me, sir.  With 
respect to the guidelines, those guidelines were 
internal.  They were not part of any existing rule and 
regulation that had the force and effect of law.  And 
the judge declared that any practice, to wit in this 
particular case the granting of meters by internal 
rule, was null and void. 
 So whether you were depending on some previous 
internal rule and regulation, it falls in the same 
[inaudible] as far as this Chair is concerned.  And 
it's not to try to go behind technicalities. 
 Were assurances given to the gentleman as to 
the potential availability by a period of time, by a 
certain date in time.  That's all. 

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, I did tell him when I 
thought water would be on line and it is on line. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  If we talk long enough, 
Mr. Craddick, you come around and agree with my 
positions, basically.  And my position has been, with 
all due respect to all parties, there is an adequate 
supply of water for the upcountry area.  The rights of 
withdrawal make that very plain.  It's a matter of 
implementation of our agreements that we have.  
Costly, true.  Very true.  Much more costly, not.  But 
that's beside the point. 
 Now, as you have indicated, Mr. Craddick, it 
appears that perhaps we're not quite certain that an 
adequate supply is there.  And if there is any way 
possible that we can uphold the veracity of the 
department, we should I think take a look at it. 
 I'm not familiar with the details and I agree 
with you, Mr. Craddick, that it's not the function of 
the board to be financially responsible or concerned 
with the finances of individuals.  However, it depends 
on the circumstances and the facts.  I think we need 
to look at that. 
 Now, Mr. Siele, if you can repeat for the 
Chair's benefit precisely and exactly in a very narrow 
manner what is your request.

MR. SIELE:  We were hoping to -- we are -- 
right now we are on the future list for five potential 
lots, not knowing if that list means anything.  We are 
trying at this time to trade in the inch-and-a-half 
meter for five 5/8ths meters.  Or whatever is 
allowable. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You may have rescued 
yourself.  You want to trade off an inch-and-a-half 
for five 5/8ths.

MR. SIELE:  Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  That's a 3-inch-plus total.

MR. SIELE:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  That's a horse of a 
different color.  Okay. 
 Mr. Nakamura, would it be against your feeling 
to defer action on this until we have a full 
committee?

MR. NAKAMURA:  I have no objection.  I would 
like to see the -- circulate a copy of the prior 
agreements that had to do with the large lot 
subdivision.  That would save time. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Sure.  Mr. Siele, the 
Chair would just like to mention this parenthetically.  
If a person or an entity comes in and agrees upon a 
certain list of requirements and/or considerations and 
upon those considerations and those agreements they 
effectuate what they originally asked for, and if 
subsequently it didn't come out precisely the way that 
individual hoped that it would, the board should not 
be held accountable for that judgment.  If the 
opposite had been true and instead of an individual 
making $200,000 net profit, and he makes a killing and 
makes a million, he doesn't bring the extra $800,000 
to the board and says here it is, I did much better 
than what I came in for.  So it's a matter of equity 
and fairness.  And if you had negotiated an agreement, 
that should have some credence.  It should have some 
bearing.  There may be mitigating circumstances in 
between.  I'm not prepared.  So Mr. Nakamura's request 
suggests that we look at the original agreement will 
be very, very pertinent. 
 Facetiously let me say the water department is 
not running -- it's not the Department of Human 
Concerns and it is not running the welfare department 
for the State of Hawaii.  Because we need to be fair 
to all parties.  You have some considerable factors 
beyond your control that came in as a direct result of 
the suggestions or opinions or advice that was given 
to you by the department.  We'll take a look at it.  
We really will.  Fair enough?  Thank you. 

MR. SIELE:  Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Shall we proceed to the 
next one. 

MR. CRADDICK:  This item here I think has been 
taken care of.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  How?

MR. CRADDICK:  Their service is not potable 
service and they're proposing to put in their own 
private service for their house and fire protection.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Is there a letter of 
recall?  Or removal from the agenda?

MR. CRADDICK:  Not from me.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Are the parties here to 
indicate that they wish to recall their request and 
they can handle it accordingly?  I have no problem 
with that. 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman.  There 
were discussions with the applicant and the department 
with respect to the requirements the department was 
placing on the applicant for this particular 
subdivision.  We discussed the matter with both the 
director and the engineer doing this project.  We -- 
our opinion with respect to the applicability of a 
past opinion from our office was discussed.  We had 
indicated to the department that that opinion, while 
it dealt with the facts correctly in the issue that it 
was trying to answer, should not be construed as an 
across-the-board opinion which would affect all 
subdivisions of that nature. 
 In this case, there was a clear distinction 
that the water meter held by the applicant was for 
nonpotable uses and that the previous opinion issued 
by our office dealt with domestic service and we 
believe that there were very great distinctions 
between the two and that the department should not 
again construe our previous opinion as dealing with 
nonpotable water in the same light as it would potable 
water. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Therefore --

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, we feel that no action is 
necessary by the board, but I'll leave it up to --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The Chair is going to be 
expressing again the matter of procedure.  Whenever 
any matter is placed on the agenda and there is a wish 
to remove it from the agenda, that communication, once 
it's placed on the agenda, is the property of the 
board and the property of the respective committee to 
which it was referred to.  And the department cannot 
withdraw because it's no longer its property; it's the 
property of the board. 
 The Chair would entertain a request that we 
consider this as moot already, the problem has been 
solved.  But then the record would so reflect it.  
Would that be satisfactory?  

MR. SMITH:  Yes, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Came off easy. 

MRS. SMITH:  We do have one question.  When 
can we expect to hear from the water department that 
this -- we don't know where we go from here.  Does 
this go to LUCA, does -- how do we proceed?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You work with 
Mr. Craddick.  It's not before our committee anymore.  
You agree of the withdrawal of your request.

MRS. SMITH:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Shall we proceed to the 
next one.  Next item, Moses and Virginia Timbal.  Are 
they here?

MS. NAGO:  Yes, he is here. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Are you Mr. Timbal?

MR. TIMBAL:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Proceed with what your 
request is before the board.

MR. TIMBAL:  Mr. Chairman, I brought 
additional written --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Could we have that made 
available to the members of this committee, please?

MS. NAGO:  There is only the one copy.

MR. TIMBAL:  I'm sorry, I just made it this 
morning.  In fact, if I might mention, some of it is 
still incomplete because I was down at the tax office 
trying to get it together and time ran out so I didn't 
get all the information I wanted.  But I did the best 
I could. 
 I would like to start off by saying that the 
past 15 years, my wife and I have been the caretakers 
of Huiki church, which is the property that I live on.  
We are the caretakers.  We take care of the church and 
the church property. 
 And two years ago, my wife and I personally 
asked Bishop Francis DeLorenzo if we could purchase a 
portion which was four acres of the church's property.  
Bishop DeLorenzo gave us his content and we've stayed 
in touch with him since.  He's given us his full 
support and this past month in April came to Hana 
again and we saw him again, we spoke to him, and he 
knows that we've been trying hard to subdivide the 
property.  And you have to excuse me, I'm real 
nervous. 
 Anyway, Bishop DeLorenzo says he knows that 
we've been trying hard to complete the task of 
subdividing for the past two years and sympathizes 
that it's taking so long and he's surprised at the 
difficulties we're having to try and get it done. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  He should be -- in the 
position he holds, he should be invoking the good Lord 
to help him.

MR. TIMBAL:  Well, jokingly, jokingly, off the 
record, he said, "You tell the county that I own the 
property and I said to sell it to" -- and that's what 
he said.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Well, inasmuch as you're 
using your appropriate representations in speaking on 
behalf of the Bishop, tell him the Chair said that 
doesn't mean a damn thing whether he owns it or not.

MR. TIMBAL:  I understand.  So we told him we 
needed to go through the procedures anyway.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You better believe it.

MR. TIMBAL:  So we told him that.  But he just 
jokingly said that.
 Our neighbor, Helen Fagan Bidwell, who lives a 
short distance away, built a house that is larger than 
ours.  And I'm happy for her, you know, she deserves 
to have it.  But by her building the house, created an 
increase of water usage.  And was she given a waiver 
not to build an 8" waterline?  That part I couldn't 
understand. 
 Another neighbor, Ms. Jenny H. Peachen, owns 
another property across Puiki church and she had a 
dwelling on it.  She just recently sold a portion of 
the property with the ohana dwelling to Thomas and 
Lorraine Broddick and they listed their address as 23 
Puiki Hill, but I know that because they did some Fed 
Ex delivery through us. 
 Mrs. Peachen and the Broddicks live just a 
short distance in the Hana direction of town and all 
of this appears in Exhibit A of the County's exhibit. 
 After the Broddicks bought the property with 
the ohana dwelling, they converted the dwelling to a 
two-story house, then added an ohana dwelling next to 
it.  The situation between Mrs. Peachen and the 
Broddicks would be somewhat identical to mine because 
Ms. Peachen I believe has subdivided the property and 
sold it to Broddick.  Were the Broddicks given a 
waiver also? 
 But looking at this situation of Mrs. Peachen, 
Thomas and Lorraine Broddick, and Mrs. Helen Bidwell, 
I feel as though I'm kind of being discriminated 
against because the staff has recommended that the 
waive be denied to us. 
 My applying for a continuance -- a continuance 
of the waiver and subdividing -- won't cause an 
increase of water because it's already existing.  But 
the construction of the other homes did.  And why 
should I have to bear the burden of running an 8" 
waterline when my neighbors didn't? 
 Also, in the water department modification of 
requirement Section 2-12 of the rules and regulations 
of the Board of Water Supply, I would like to 
emphasize the very last sentence where it says, "The 
board retains the right to modify any requirements 
provided the modification in no way jeopardize those 
already served in the area."  Again, I would like to 
say that when a comparison is made between me and my 
neighbors' new homes and my application of 
subdividing, I'm not the one that's jeopardizing those 
already served in the area. 
 And the last request is if the board approves 
our request, I would like a modification of Condition 
Number 2 that permits be allowed for additional 
storage and warehouse space to allow growth of our 
flower business.  I do, however, agree that no 
building permit be issued for construction of another 
house or dwelling and for additional water services.  
I humbly ask you for your continuance of a waiver.  
Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Are there any questions?  
Mr. Craddick, are you familiar with some of the 
allegations, the statements concerning prior 
practices?  

MR. CRADDICK:  I'm going to have to say I 
don't know, but I don't believe any of these other 
ones that he cited are subdivisions.  And I don't 
believe any of the other ones have an agreement signed 
with the -- I guess it's not necessarily with the 
board.  It was the mayor that signed the agreement the 
last time.  And the director of the water department 
and --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  What year was that, 
Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  1986.  And interestingly 
enough, signed by Mr. Timbal and his wife.

MR. TIMBAL:  Can I say something, please?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Yes, sir.

MR. TIMBAL:  This morning when I was coming 
over, I noticed -- that's why I gave this one here.  I 
gave -- I saw three more new homes built within the 
last five years.  And I didn't circle that one, but 
I've circled mine.  Lots number 18, 19, and 21, all of 
those are within what the county called the inadequate 
zone which is in the same zone as me.  So three more 
-- actually a total of five homes were put in after 
mine and none of them I guess were -- I mean, all of 
them were given waivers because I guess I don't see 
any 8" waterline.  And I don't see why I have to bear 
the burden.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Mr. Craddick. 

MR. CRADDICK:  The rules don't require fire 
improvements for the first dwelling, so that's why 
they're exempt.

MR. TIMBAL:  Okay.  What about the Broddicks' 
addition?  The Broddicks bought the house, it was a 
single dwelling, they put two stories on there.  Then 
they put an ohana dwelling.  Wait, wait.  And on this 
one, it says on mine that I be -- if granted, be 
denied.  I be denied an additional dwelling.  But yet 
my neighbor is given an additional dwelling. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Mr. Craddick. 

MR. CRADDICK:  The rule that I've said exempts 
the first dwelling actually exempts the first two 
dwellings.  So again, those are all in compliance with 
the rules.

MR. TIMBAL:  Why does my one say on this one 
here if approved, no building permit or additional 
water services will be applied.  If approved. 

MR. CRADDICK:  First of all, you've already 
signed an agreement to that effect.  You've already 
signed an agreement in 1986 to that effect.  So --

MR. TIMBAL:  I just feel like -- wait.  But 
each though I was the first one, I mean, like you 
said, the first dwelling didn't require -- I was still 
given a notice that I needed to put an 8" waterline.  
Then I was given a waiver.  But nonetheless, it says 
here that the water is inadequate.  Nonetheless, you 
folks let me build my house. 

MR. CRADDICK:  That's a good question.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The Chair has a couple of 
questions, Mr. Timbal.  Initially, way back when, the 
Catholic church and you entered into an agreement 
between the two of you and subsequently or maybe 
simultaneously entered into an agreement with the 
County of Maui as evidenced by negotiations or in 
agreement with the mayor which allowed you to move 
into the area.  This did not in any way effectuate a 
subdivision of the land.  It was an agreement that 
allowed you to move in and utilize the area without a 
subdivision being a requirement. 
 Under that agreement -- and correct me if I am 
wrong -- any subsequent action which would result in a 
subdivision would require the installation of an 8" 
line.  Am I correct thus far?

MR. TIMBAL:  I'm not an attorney, but I assume --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  No, I'm just repeating the 
facts contained in -- neither am I an attorney.  And 
those conditions were part of the agreement.  As I 
recall, the matter before this committee at this time 
is not nearly the continued utilization of the area by 
you with an additional structure for your business, 
but it also does involve the subdivision of the entire 
area.

MR. TIMBAL:  Yes, I understand.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  And that's a very, very 
different proposal and a very, very different 
requirement.  You talk about nine possible lots versus 
a single person utilizing the entire area and wanting 
to have an additional building put on. 
 The Catholic church appears to be using you as 
a very fine agent to effectuate a nine-lot 
subdivision.

MR. TIMBAL:  Who, me? 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  What else are you asking 
for?  Aren't you going to divide the entire area?

MR. TIMBAL:  Into two lots.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Only two lots?

MR. TIMBAL:  Yeah.  Yes, only two lots.  Mine 
and the church.  I mean, that's how I see it. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Would it be a restriction 
that would ride with the remainder of the land?

MR. TIMBAL:  That I couldn't subdivide it?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Wait.  Let me finish.  
Would you be agreeable to a restriction that would 
ride and be part of the land because you're looking 
for one-lot subdivision which would rent it to you or 
sold to you or what?

MR. TIMBAL:  Sold to me.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The Catholic church going 
to sell it to you.

MR. TIMBAL:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Okay.  Then as far as the 
remainder of the area, if and when the church decides 
it wishes by divine providence or otherwise to further 
subdivide the remaining lands, that ipso facto the 
church shall install an 8" line.

MR. TIMBAL:  Are you done?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  What do you think?

MR. TIMBAL:  I can't speak for the church.  
But for my part, my four acres, I will agree that I 
will not subdivide.  If that's what you're asking me.  
Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  No, that's not what I'm asking you.

MR. TIMBAL:  I don't understand what you're 
asking me then.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Then it's going to be a 
hard fast no.  Okay.  Listen to me if you can.  If you 
can.  Listen.  Not just let the words go over.  Okay. 
 If there is any justification in your case to 
subdivide the land, keep that house, have an addition, 
yeah, for your business, okay, to preserve the 
integrity of the Department of Water Supply and the 
Board of Water Supply, where we're supposed to be 
having an 8" line, so the remaining owner, the 
Catholic church, if and when you come in to subdivide, 
you put in that 8" line, that's what I'm saying.

MR. TIMBAL:  Okay. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  And that will go with the 
land.  And they give up their right of appeal at a 
subsequent board when I'm long dead and gone.

MR. TIMBAL:  I think I understand, but -- yes, 
yes, I agree, if I may --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  I'm not saying you're 
going to get it.

MR. TIMBAL:  I know.  But I want to clarify 
what you said to make sure that I know what you're 
saying.  My intention really is just subdivide it into 
two lots, the church and mine.  And I think what 
you're saying is that I can no longer or the church 
can no longer subdivide.  But if there is a 
subdivision, that I will pay for the 8" water line.  I 
agree to that, yes. 
 But sometime in the future -- I mean, who 
knows, my neighbor might subdivide theirs and they 
might have the same requirement as I might have. 

MR. CRADDICK:  Right.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  That is a hypothetical 
case that isn't before us at the present time.  What 
is before us at the present time is your request to 
subdivide the portion of the church property.  And 
therefore, if the church also desires that, that it 
does make itself accountable and responsible to 
install that 8" line.

MR. TIMBAL:  Yes, okay.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  I think that's very 
reasonable.  And I'm not saying it's going to be 
granted, okay.  Don't misunderstand me. 

MR. TIMBAL:  It's just that if I had the money 
now, I would do it.  I don't have the money.  My kids 
just graduated from college. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Mr. Timbal, I think you're 
missing the point again.  I'm trying to take it away 
from your back and put it on the back of the Catholic 
church where I think it rightfully belongs.

MR. TIMBAL:  I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Because it is the owner of 
the property.

MR. TIMBAL:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  And it over a period of 
years will be the primary beneficiary because it would 
have the opportunity to further divide -- subdivide 
its additional lands without any obligation to put in 
an 8" line.

MR. TIMBAL:  I understand.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The Catholic church is 
working with you to get your request approved; 
therefore, it is a party.  And being a party, that it 
also has an obligation not only as it relates to you 
but it has an obligation as it relates to its 
continued interest because it still maintains the 
ownership of the remainder of that lot.  And it cannot 
be there scot-free with absolutely no obligations to 
the general public and to others as well. 
 Now, what took place with respect to others in 
prior years, I have nothing to say because I don't 
know, the department can justify whatever it did do. 
But as it relates to you, assuming there is some 
merit, assuming, then you're not the only beneficiary, 
okay, the church is the beneficiary.  Unless the 
church wishes to take the remainder of the land and 
dedicate it forever and a day to public use and 
[inaudible] its preservation and what have you.  Make 
sense? 

MR. TIMBAL:  I'm not a smart person, but yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  No, I'm not asking whether 
you're smart or not.  All I'm asking you --

MR. TIMBAL:  Okay.  So far as I understand, yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  -- does it make sense.

MR. TIMBAL:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  That's all I want to know.  
And sometimes us guys who are not very smart, we use 
just a common approach that makes sense.  My uncle 
used to tell us many years ago the best thing to keep 
a good neighbor is a strong fence.  Very right. 
Any other matter, Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  On page 4 B, there is five 
items of which he objected to one and then I guess you 
added two more.  So if the board -- if the committee's 
recommendation was to approve this, we would ask that 
all of these --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Take a look at it. 

MR. CRADDICK:  And then I don't know, you 
know, again, to just outright say we're going to 
approve warehouse storage not knowing what the fire 
requirements are --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Mr. Craddick, always keep 
in mind you're not a member of the doggone board.  
When it comes to policy, rightfully or wrongfully, 
it's for the board to decide, not just this committee.  
This committee will recommend or make a suggestion, 
whatever it may be, to the board, okay, and your input 
and your insistence is greatly appreciated at the 
proper time and at the proper place.  Right now we're 
listening to Mr. Timbal and what he has to say.  Quit 
when you're ahead.  Sometimes I wonder. 
 Any other matter coming before the board?  
We're going to take everything under advisement 
because we don't have the entire committee here.  We 
don't know what we're going to do. 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman, is the 
pleasure of the chair to defer this matter?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  All deferred.  That is 
correct.  We've received the benefit of your 
presentation and we'll sit on it until next board 
meeting when we will report back to the board. 
 The Chair would appreciate, Mr. Timbal, you 
made reference to five dwellings that were put up in 
there.  Could you get that information to the Chair?

MR. TIMBAL:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Not now; later on.  What 
five dwellings were erected there, were they in 
conformity with the law.  More than likely they may 
have been.  But in fairness to all parties concerned.  
I don't want to see the department unduly criticized 
for something which was legal.  Neither do I want to 
see them treat you or us treat you in an uneven manner 
and unfair manner.  Fair enough?

MR. TIMBAL:  I just ran out of time this 
morning because I was at the tax office and they asked 
me if I wanted the names of the people which exactly 
you asked for, but I ran out of time, I had to come to 
the meeting.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Recent history, yeah, a 
man lost a U.S. presidency because he ran out of time.

MR. TIMBAL:  I did the best I could. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  That's right.  Otherwise 
you would be having a President Gore instead of a 
President Bush.  Time waits for nobody.
 Anything else?  No?  Shall we go on to the 
next item, which is consideration of the rules and 
regs for granting of meters, et cetera, written 
testimony from Mr. Mayer. 
 Has everyone had the opportunity to read the 
matter presented to us by Mr. Mayer concerning the 
rules and regs for upcountry meters?  Are there any 
members here who wish to testify on that particular 
question right now?  Will you identify yourself by 
name and position, what have you, and what your 
recommendations are.

MR. FEREA:  Yes, thank you, chairman and 
committee.  Good morning.  My name Eric Ferea.  I'm an 
attorney.  I'm not here in that capacity, however; I'm 
here in my capacity as an owner of a parcel of land, a 
parcel of land in a family subdivision in Haiku.  And 
I wanted to comment on the rule.  I've had an 
opportunity to review the proposed rule and I perceive 
certain inequities in the rule and I wanted to address 
the committee and the board with respect to that. 
 In particular, my concern, as I believe 
probably a number of individuals on the priority list 
who are asking for meters through subdivisions would 
be concerned about what I perceive as an inequity and 
that is that as I understand and read the rule, 
Section 16-106-04(d) states that water service shall 
be limited to a single 5/8" meter.  And so that seems 
to indicate that with every applicant or every line on 
that priority list, only one meter is going to be 
awarded to each of those entries. 
 And I think probably the inequities can be 
illustrated by an example and that is this.  You have 
a family subdivision.  You have a father who has a 
daughter and a son and he wants to give these two 
parcels of land, it's three parcels of land in the 
family subdivision, and he wants to give two parcels, 
one parcel to each of his children.  And he's on this 
list and he's going to get one meter and he has to 
apparently exercise the wisdom of Solomon to decide 
who amongst his children is going to get that one 
meter. 
 It's going to be a problem for families.  It's 
going to be a problem for individuals who are 
neighbors who are in subdivisions wanting to build a 
home. 
 I think I understand what the intent was and 
if I may be so bold to express this, I think that the 
concern was that there probably are subdivisions on 
the list who are asking for a large number of meters 
and the concern would be that capacity would be used 
up rather quickly if all of these subdivisions got 
everything they asked for.  But I think there is a 
distinction between these large subdivisions and 
family subdivisions, individuals who actually own the 
property, are ready and willing and able and want to 
build and they're only waiting for a water meter. 
 I'm in that position.  And I think there are a 
number of other people who are on the list that are in 
that position.  And I think it is inequitable to those 
individuals to simply allow one meter, creating this 
animosity that will necessarily occur between family 
members and individual's neighbors.  And there is 
really no logical way to decide. 
 And there is one more thing in this rule 
that's even more extreme and that is if you can't 
decide who gets that water meter, according to this 
rule you get kicked off the list and so you lose your 
priority.  So it would seem to me that the rule can be 
redrafted to address that issue and to be more 
equitable to all people on the list so that priority 
actually means what most people understand it to mean, 
that people in order of priority will get meters.  And 
if there is a distinction to be made, maybe there 
should be a distinction between large subdivisions 
where the motive is primarily profit-making as opposed 
to small subdivisions where people actually own land 
and want to build and raise a family on their land.  
And that's essentially it. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Are there any questions?   
The Chair has a couple of questions.  In prior history 
of the county, some mechanism was provided not dealing 
with water but dealing with land and the disposal of 
land, house lots, that entailed a buy-back provision 
or a modification of that buy-back provision that if 
there is a bonafide family type of a subdivision, in 
this particular case for a meter, and if the board in 
is wisdom made provisions to granting these meters but 
also throws in a caveat that if you proceed to sell 
that land or dispose of that land for the next five or 
ten or fifteen years, whatever the number may be 
decided upon by the board, that you become liable for 
an additional amount of cost of that meter which would 
be similar to that which is programmed which -- 
subdividers program when they put in subdivisions.  
And I've heard the figure of twenty and thirty and 
forty thousand dollars being used as the value of a 
meter to a lot.  Would that appear to be within 
reason?

MR. FEREA:  I'm not sure I'm understanding the 
Chair.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You want to subdivide your 
land.  You want to give it to your kids.

MR. FEREA:  Right.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Okay.  You keep your lot 
and your kids get this A and B and you pay the normal 
meter charge of three thousand, four thousand, 
whatever that might be.  But if you or your kids or 
your beneficiaries or whoever sell that or dispose of 
it other than within the narrow confines of a family 
subdivision, immediately your water meter is costing 
not three thousand you paid, but $20,000, so that you 
don't speculate.

MR. FEREA:  Right, right.  And I understand 
that position.  In fact, there is -- as I understand 
family subdivisions, there is an agreement that --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Let me finish.  Let me 
finish.  And that provision or that requirement 
becomes a lien on the property to be released by the 
county after a number of years have passed or you put 
up the money.  Fair?  It handles the problem you're 
making reference to.  The guy who really has a 
bonafide interest. 
 I have heard, again off the record, whatever, 
that some water meters upcountry, Kula, in the Haiku 
area, that people have been asked $20,000 per meter.  
And I think Mr. Craddick has heard of some meters 
maybe higher than that.  The lot going for twenty, 
thirty, forty thousand dollars more because it has a 
water meter.  Okay.  So if we meet the bonafide need 
and request for family subdivision as kids or 
whatever, and not exploit the resources of the county 
for speculation, it appears as a lien that goes with 
the land until such time as that land is sold or the 
years have passed and dollars have been brought to the 
department.

MR. FEREA:  Well, if I might comment, I think 
one of the concerns with family subdivisions was that 
essentially the way they were established is that the 
owner who wanted to subdivide in that fashion had to 
sign an agreement saying that if in fact another 
building permit on the land was requested, that they 
have to put the water system in at their own expense.  
And so that if in fact there were going to be multiple 
subdivisions of the property, that they would have to 
bear that expense.  And in fact, that's what's being 
done with my subdivision.  It's not like somebody is 
asking for a waiver, trying to get around the rules, 
trying to get around the agreements, and that's why 
I'm concerned about this because if --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  We've come to a definition 
of a water system.  Is it going to be strictly a 
private water system you're talking about with yours?

MR. FEREA:  Yes, absolutely.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  And forever and a day?  
Neither you nor your children nor their assigns, that 
restriction runs with the land.

MR. FEREA:  Oh, I understand that.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  It will stay private 
system forever.

MR. FEREA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  The Catholic church 
notwithstanding.

MR. FEREA:  That's my intent.  I mean, my 
intent is to --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  That's you.

MR. FEREA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Now, however, with respect 
to the general public, which may not have the 
wherewithal financially to put a completely private 
water system, and yet there is a bonafide request and 
a bonafide need to dispose of the properties to their 
children, a lien with a limited number of years of 10 
years or 15 years or buy-back provision or whatever, 
so that the county is protected and priority is given 
to family subdivisions.  And it isn't a case where an 
entity, a Mainland interest comes in and buys up a 
whole chunk of land and subdivides it and says hey, we 
got the dough to put in that system, therefore we're 
going to pay over $3,500 and you're going to -- and 
I'm going to use up a hundred meters and I'm going to 
sell these hundred lots to people outside of Maui or 
outside the State of Hawaii -- I'll sell them for 
$20,000 or $30,000, but all I'm giving you is $3,500.  
And in this process, we have eliminated, for all 
intents and purposes, the guy who's been waiting for a 
long time to give some land and water to his children.  
You have to put protection in there.

MR. FEREA:  I agree.  I agree.  But I think 
the rule as it is written now --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Never mind that.  
Conceptually.  Agreed?

MR. FEREA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Okay.  So people find the 
language. 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Mr. Chair, if I may.  This 
particular provision that is contained in the proposed 
rule will not in any way affect the family type 
subdivisions.  The family type subdivisions are 
already under the requirement that if they request 
additional water service or if they request building 
permits, they will have to put in all the 
improvements. 
 I cannot see a family type subdivision being 
on the priority list and just by the mere fact of 
being on the priority list they would be entitled to 
water.  It would still be required to put in the 
requirements necessary for that family type 
subdivision.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  See, here is where I have 
a difference with corp counsel's office.  If that is 
allowed to proceed, that's my own thinking, if that is 
allowed to proceed as stated, in effect you're going 
to be just where you're at now to a substantial 
degree.  A small guy with one- or with two-lot 
subdivisions requirement is not in a position to be 
able to put in a 6" line or 8" line or whatever the 
case may be.  But if we have said we have X number of 
gallons available, what was it, Mr. Craddick, 200,000 
or thereabout?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Okay.  And if we give this 
priority to this particular level of people, bonafide 
family type of a subdivision, and they connect, 
without being required, it's just strictly a family 
type of subdivision -- well, corp counsel is shaking 
your head, you don't set policy.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I don't set policy.  But --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Wait, wait, wait, wait.  
There may be a thousand reasons.  Okay?  That is to be 
discussed in the committee at the appropriate time.  
And this is not the appropriate time.  There may be 
bonafide reasons, I grant you that.  Okay.  That's why 
if we take a lot of these things under consideration.  
But conceptually what do we need to do if there is a 
problem?  And I think we need to explore all of these 
things.  I would be very disturbed if we end up with 
another situation like we have Upcountry in Haiku and 
Pukalani where to the highest bidder goes the meter 
while others stay on the side.  Bonafide family type 
of subdivisions that we can handle. 
 And if we as a matter of public policy set 
some kind of a priority, I think it behooves us.  
Parenthetically, and it's going to come and haunt this 
body -- not this committee, but this water board, 
what's going to be happening upcountry. 
 The players on this island are no longer the 
same players.  You have the Dowlings, you have the 
Maui Pine -- or you have the Time Warner/AOL 
represented by Maui Pine, to name two.  And they're 
not in there for their health.  Neither are their 
assets going to be there tied up forever.  And maybe, 
maybe some of the things I've said before going to 
come home to roost soon and I'm talking about 
[inaudible].  Okay?  And you know, Mr. Craddick, I'm 
right.  Hamalau and Pookela.  They form a basis of 
which I'm sure you're well aware of.  Okay. 
 Concern has been expressed who's going to pay 
the bill.  My thinking at the moment, private develop 
Pookela, they can exchange and give it to us for what 
they're using [inaudible].  Catch?  At no cost to the 
company to have us meet our needs.  Okay.  But we need 
to keep our eyes on the site and the target forever  
as to what we're supposed to be [inaudible] and I 
think we do all right.  Do all right. 
 Just as an aside, again, Mr. Nakamura, beg 
your indulgence a little bit, historically we have -- 
those of us who have been here a long time have paid 
tribute and respected the people like the Von Temskys 
and others who have put their life work and their 
lives into maintaining open space, keeping the cattle 
industry which today is just about zero in terms of 
financial return.  But that asset is there and we're 
telling them give it up forever and a day if we aren't 
careful.  I think that is wrong.  Okay.  We need to 
balance these things off. 
 And Mr. Craddick and other members of the 
committee and others when we entered into what you 
worked on, Memorandum of Understanding is a basic 
document that can take care of these needs along the 
line including Central Maui as we work.  I think we 
need to -- this is far afield, but it's very pertinent 
to what we're trying to get accomplished.  Make sense?  
I think so.

MR. FEREA:  So Mr. Chairman, there may be 
other people here that want to speak on the issue.  I 
would just ask this committee and the board to be 
sensitive to the issue that I've raised here because I 
really do believe that it is going to create not order 
but chaos between these individuals and small 
subdivisions. 
 And I reiterate, I'm not talking about a 
situation where people are trying to get out of the 
agreements that they have signed to put in a water 
system to connect to the county line.  I'm talking 
about a situation where these subdivisions are on the 
priority list, they have done the work, they have put 
in the infrastructure, and they simply want to have 
their positions preserved. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Any other people who wish 
to testify on the matter come before?  Ms. Krash.

MS. KRASH:  Good morning, Chairman Cravalho. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Anything you say and 
committee.  My name is Elliott Krash.  I'm president 
of the Kula Community Association and an upcountry 
resident.  And I would like to refer, first of all, to 
the testimony that Dick Mayer has submitted in 
writing.  And Dick I believe referred to the upcountry 
plan which states that the highest priorities for 
water should be agriculture and Hawaiian homelands.  
And if I was understanding what you were just saying 
correctly, you were referring to how we need to keep 
in mind the goals for the island, for upcountry, for 
the region, and agriculture and open space are one of 
those. 
 And I think what Dick is saying and what our 
association has said on the record is how do we do 
this and how can we enact into the rules in a way that 
will allocate the available water so that we recognize 
the priorities that the community has stated and asked 
for. 
 I brought with me a copy of the testimony that 
we presented when Mr. Starr's committee had the 
Operations Review Committee upcountry and this 
reiterates what I've just said. 
 And a couple of points I wanted to make.  With 
regard to the meter issuance rule that was on the 
agenda at that meeting that night, we talked about the 
importance of having limits clearly specified in the 
rules.  And it seems to me that you're proposed rule 
is doing that.  In Section 06, you're limiting meter 
issuance to -- you're tying it to the quantity of 
water available and I've heard that discussed and 
mentioned here this morning. 
 We also talked about the importance of having 
clear rules for administering the waiting list and 
that's what you're doing here.  But what I don't see 
is priorities.  We talk about a priority list, but to 
me this rule is really talking about administering a 
waiting list.  And I guess maybe I'm missing it here, 
but what are the priorities?  And I come back again to 
Dick's testimony and the community association's 
testimony and other upcountry people, the priorities 
for agriculture, open space, and Hawaiian homelands.  
Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Thank you.  The Chair 
appreciates very much Mr. Mayer's reminding us of our 
responsibility to carry out the provisions of the 
upcountry plan, the general plan with the county, and 
the responsibility and the charge that's given to the 
Board of Water Supply with respect to what its job is 
supposed to be which is to administer and execute the 
general plan of the County of Maui together with the 
community development plans. 
 I intend to ask the finance committee when it 
comes time for review of the budget, particularly with 
respect to capital improvements, to enumerate and 
explain how each item is carrying out the charge of 
the charter.  That's going to be a very, very 
interesting kind of a situation.  Very interesting.  
Very pertinent. 
 Are there any other people who wish to -- 
Ms. Raisbeck. 

MS. RAISBECK:  My name is Sally Raisbeck and I 
live in Wailuku.  I have only had the opportunity 
since I arrived -- and I apologize for being late to 
the meeting -- to read the rule in detail.  And I 
wondered if in Section 06 why -- it says, "During the 
period of this rule, additional source for the water 
system may become available that is not restricted to 
an applicant providing for additional source 
development."  Does this then imply that any not just 
previous people who have made arrangements with the 
board regarding water for their subdivisions, but in 
future, too, there will be applicants from say 
subdividers who do a similar thing that Mr. Dowling 
did where they dig a well themselves and then exchange 
with the county and they would again still come before 
the waiting list?  Is that the meaning of that?

MR. CRADDICK:  Corp counsel.  

MR. CRADDICK:  Sally, that's what Hawaiian 
Homes is doing right now. 

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  This particular section is to 
provide for if there is additional water source that 
becomes available for distribution by the department.

MS. RAISBECK:  Well, that's what I'm asking.  
If a developer comes to the board and says I will dig 
a well and then the water from that I will trade to 
the county or give to the county and then I get water 
meters in exchange for that, this exempts them from 
all the provisions of this rule; is that correct?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  It doesn't exempt them from 
all the provisions.  It's not the -- the intent is not 
to exempt them from all provisions of this rule.

MS. RAISBECK:  But doesn't it?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  No, I don't believe I read it 
in that fashion.

MS. RAISBECK:  Well, maybe it should be made 
more explicit, then, because I think it can be read 
that way.  And it also might be well in the language 
of that section, section 06, it says, "After the 
60-day period set forth," et cetera, "the director 
shall process applications for water meters based on 
the priority list up to the average day capacity of 
any additional source."  It doesn't in this -- it does 
in a previous section say it's one 5/8" meter per 
application, but it doesn't say that here and it might 
be more ironclad if it said it both places.  Rather 
than "shall process applications for water meters," 
should say "shall process applications for one 5/8" 
meter per application."  If it said it in this section 
as well as previously, it would be more ironclad. 
 And in section 07, "The regulations within the 
scope of this rule shall not apply to (a) applicants 
using source credits developed in the upcountry water 
system by agreement with the board."  Again, is 
Section 16-8-11 referred to there, is that the case of 
say Mr. Dowling and similar developers?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Uh-huh.

MS. RAISBECK:  So that specifically exempts them.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's correct.

MS. RAISBECK:  Yeah.  And it also exempts 
people retrofitting with water saving --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Prevents?  Or permits?

MS. RAISBECK:  It says the regulations do not 
apply to applicants retrofitting with low flow units.  
What does that mean, it doesn't apply to them?  What 
part of it doesn't apply to them?  All of it?   Are 
they independent?  Do they get water source credits 
and water meters?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  The intent behind that 
particular section is if the board allows that there 
is an agreement for a retrofit program, then that 
person making the retrofit retrofits that decreased 
water use will receive -- that these rules will not 
apply to them insofar as they will be able to get 
water service and it may be by way of a water meter, 
depending on their ability to retrofit and reduce 
consumption.

MS. RAISBECK:  So if somebody has a hundred 
toilets, they reduce the water they use by 
retrofitting, how does that -- or maybe David could 
tell me, how does that -- or pardon me, Mr. Chair, 
perhaps Mr. Craddick could tell us how many water 
meters sort of add up -- how many low-flow toilets 
equal one water meter.  Or is that how it works?

MR. CRADDICK:  It shows right here.

MS. RAISBECK:  Sorry, I don't have my reading 
glasses on.

MR. CRADDICK:  On page 18b it gives the 
difference between the regular fixture unit and the 
ultralow flow fixture unit.  And you have to refer to 
the uniform plumbing code to go from these fixture 
units to what a meter can handle.  Or what flow --

MS. RAISBECK:  If I had enough low-flow 
toilets, I could get another water meter?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's basically what it's 
saying, yes.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And the size would depend on 
how many low flow toilets --

MR. CRADDICK:  Providing you and all of the 
people who do that agree to not increase their fixture 
units after this is done without getting on the list.

MS. RAISBECK:  Well, I'm a little concerned 
about these exceptions because I don't know how they 
would work out in practice. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  We're not through with 
giving attention to these proposed rules.  The Chair 
is going to recommend that we defer because we're not 
ready today.  I would defer it to make sure that the 
basic intent and instruction of the board, which was 
to grant additional 5/8" meters and at the same time 
one per applicant. 
 Now, the section you just made reference to 
could conceivably be used to circumvent that one meter 
per lot and allow two, depending on what has been put 
together.  But these kinds of refinements we have to 
work on.  The basic intent is to proceed with 
additional meters. 
 Along that line, Mr. Craddick, perhaps you 
have provided Mr. Starr and his committee with the 
following information I requested of you which is a 
list of all pending applications for meters, all 800 
of them.  Secondly, all meters that have been granted 
and installed since 1 January 2000 in the upcountry 
system, in the affected areas, and the justification 
for each.  Would you have any difficulty with that, 
Mr. Craddick?  

MR. CRADDICK:  I think it's possible. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  They're supposed to have 
the list.  Just pull it out and xerox it and you have 
it.  So we should be able to have it for the members 
of the committee and the entire board so we have an 
idea what's -- only upcountry. 

MR. NAKAMURA:  Question.  David, on the 
existing list, are those all -- each one of them is an 
application, an individual application for a meter?  
Or are some of those a single application for multiple 
meters in a subdivision?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes to the second part of your 
question.  The first part of your question, the people 
are on the list to get a first meter, to up size 
meters, and to get meters for a subdivision. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Inasmuch as we're making 
reference to the upcountry area, has there been any 
exchange or transfer from one area to the upcountry 
area of meters to which people may be -- or corporate 
bodies may be entitled?  To wit, has A&B come in and 
said we believe that we're supposed to be getting 
another 500 meters in the central area, but we want to 
transfer the credit, transfer to the upcountry area.  
Haiku, Camp Maui, and other related areas in that 
jurisdiction.  In other words, they have been able to 
transfer credits from here to what is ostensibly a 
shortage area and were able to get lots sold and 
meters given. 
 You don't have to answer me now.  I think they 
were.  And don't go squirreling around one subdivision 
versus another.  I think they were.  And maybe there 
have been some rationale to it. 
 Along that line, Mr. Craddick, this CIP 
primarily, if we're looking at the treatment plant's 
capabilities, 7.5, what would be necessary to increase 
that to 8 -- well, Board of Health says okay to 8 or 
8.5. 

MR. CRADDICK:  During a drought. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  During a drought.  And to 
increase the capacity to 9, 10, what have you.  Begin 
looking at it.  Because that will have a very direct 
bearing on the amount of water that is available.  
Also, when we look at the dual water system upcountry, 
this first section is going in that is supposed to be 
providing water for the farming industry.  How much 
water will be freed up -- treated water will be freed 
up?  Where are they going to get their water from, 
Mr. Craddick?  Ms. Raisbeck.

MS. RAISBECK:  Yes, if I could add one little 
point.  As I heard the testimony from the gentleman 
who spoke previously about family subdivisions, I know 
that it's possible with one 5/8" meter to run two 
households off it because we have an ohana cottage on 
our lot with a single water meter for the two.  And so 
long as it's family, I don't think there would be an 
absolute necessity for a second water meter even if 
you're dividing property between your children.  But 
certainly for purposes of sale of the property and 
nonfamily arguments, you always would like to have two 
separate water meters.  But if the property is an 
agricultural property and gets ag rates on water, it 
wouldn't even -- they wouldn't even get into the 
expensive range of the water rates.  So I think it 
wouldn't be necessary -- I mean, the Chairman's 
suggestion about a lien on the property makes a lot of 
sense to me to ensure --

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You know, sometimes if 
we're not take careful, we allow the milk of human 
kindness to overflow and drown.  And if you aren't 
careful, this is where we're going to end up.  Okay.  
You're all looking for a particular exception that may 
fit my particular situation somewhere along the line 
and that departs from what we're trying to do which is 
make it possible for guys to go and get meters 
primarily upcountry.  It is not the massive 
subdivisions and this is the time to do it.  Otherwise 
the pressure is going to become so great that 
everybody will be jumping and yelling how high do you 
want me to jump.

MS. RAISBECK:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Any other speakers?   Mr. Starr?

HUGH STARR:  Chairman Cravalho, Mr. Nakamura, 
my name is Hugh Starr and I've had a chance to review 
the proposed rules quickly and I'm generally in 
support of your efforts.  I know it's a very difficult 
balancing act. 
 There is one area that I've had some exposure 
to that I think has somewhat fallen between the cracks 
and it may be a semantics issue, it may be an issue of 
how we've dealt with this in the past, and this is 
where you have a situation of an existing lot that may 
be part of another tax map key.  And what's happened 
in land patterns in Hawaii, as you probably know, is 
that the Hawaiian government was in the practice of 
selling land from about the 1850s to the present time 
but mostly in the late 1800s and early 1900s, they 
sold government lands and these were called grants 
oftentimes or land commission awards was another form 
of ownership. 
 And today when we look at the tax maps, one 
owner may own two or three or four of these grants 
within a single parcel.  When the state tax office, 
when they created a tax assessment mechanism and 
assigned parcel numbers to lands in the 1930s, it was 
generally the practice over a period of time where I 
believe administratively and unilaterally the tax 
office would if two or three or four or more of these 
grants were owned by the same landowner, they would 
not assign additional parcel numbers to these other 
grants because they were the same owner and why have 
four tax bills instead of one, it was all going to the 
same place. 
 But in reality, when you look at the deeds of 
these properties, they are separate parcels, they are 
separate lots, and I would be very careful about that 
distinction between a lot and a parcel.  They are 
separate lots.  And therefore they are actually 
subdivided.  They are not in -- when we talk about 
subdivisions today, we talk about taking a parcel or a 
lot and dividing it.  But the reverse almost is true 
where you have one parcel that may already have four 
grants in it. 
 And what's happened is the collective memory 
of our Maui society is forgetting this fact and is 
attaching a great deal of credence to the parcel 
number.  But in reality and, you know, the Department 
of Finance would be the first to acknowledge it, the 
purpose of that tax map parcel number is simply for 
taxation assessment purposes.  It's not -- it does not 
in and of itself create lots. 
 So there is a dilemma here and I don't know 
that this is actually the right place to bring it up 
because I'm very sensitive to what the Chair is saying 
about the milk of human kindness overflowing and there 
are limits as to what we can do here. 
 But this is an issue that I've brought up with 
the department and I think the department's position 
is that -- the water department's position is that, 
well, you know, a lot of these grants existed before 
there was a water system in place.  And that's an 
interesting argument because it's true, these grants 
predate the water systems.  But on the other hand, one 
has to ask the practical question do we then go back 
and look at the justification when we got funding to 
create systems, were they referring generically to all 
lands within a certain area that would sort of 
grandfather these lots in?  I don't know. 
 And is there a moral issue?  I mean, in the 
sense that just because the tax office decided to lump 
three or four lots into one parcel, do we now say that 
it's actually just one piece of land or one lot for 
purposes of administering our laws? 
 With respect to the ag density that was just 
adopted a couple of years ago, they have used the 
parcel as the -- they picked a time -- a date in 1998 
and said any parcel as of this date we compute our ag 
density on that.  And they turned a blind eye to this 
fact of these grants.  So what's happening is over 
time, the grants are losing their distinction, they're 
losing their autonomy, and I think it's primarily 
because people aren't aware of it. 
 So I just pose the question and I don't have a 
solution as far as how this might interface with the 
rules of this particular rule that you're struggling 
with now.  But it does beg the question what is an 
applicant, what is a lot, and how does it bear in the 
situation of a lot that's been existing for literally 
130 years and may not be entitled to a water meter. 
 So I look forward to helping you with this 
question if you need some help, I would be happy to do 
anything I can and I appreciate your deliberation on 
that issue.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Mr. Starr, question, 
nothing to do with what you said.  But you've been in 
real estate and you represent a variety of clients 
currently as well as in the past.  I believe that in 
the upcountry plan, community development plan, there 
was a proviso that water brought into the district I 
believe the district was making reference to the 
planning district.  It may not be utilized in another 
district.  Do you follow me so far?

HUGH STARR:  I'm not sure I know what the 
planning districts are.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Well, whatever it may be.  
Whether it is strictly from [inaudible] or all the way 
Ulupalakua, but whatever that district is, that 
restriction was put in. 
 The vast amount of water that's available 
upcountry comes about as a result of our withdrawal 
rights from the Wailua ditch.  In that Memorandum of 
Understanding, there are, as I recall, some 
restrictions as to what that water could be used for, 
primarily agriculture and in the area. 
 If both of these are basically correct, how 
then, if at all, water that's taken into the 
Kula/Upcountry area, that particular planning 
district, be utilized through the water system to go 
beyond the boundaries of that district, would not or 
would the same restrictions prevail.  Or couldn't the 
water then be used for -- first of all, could it go to 
that district, second district.  And if it could, 
could it be used for a purpose other than those 
purposes set up in the priority system? 
 The reason why I mention this because I think 
indirectly sooner or later it may hit you or some of 
your clients, particularly over in the Ulupalakua, 
Kanaio, Kaupo areas.  Discussions have taken place 
with respect to increasing the size of the 
transmission line.  And I'm saying this not just for 
your benefit, but staff and the director, that this 
going to rear its head.  When a proposal is for a 6" 
or 8" or 12" transmission line, is that or is that not 
a subdivision transmittal line?  Okay.  You don't have 
the population in that area today to warrant an 8" or 
12" line.  And if such is the case, wouldn't or would 
an EIS be required?  You get the drift?  You get the 
drift?  That's what's going to happen.  Just as sure 
as your name is your name, that is going to happen.  
If we haven't learned a single thing yet from the 
tie-up of East Maui for six to -- four, five, going to 
six years, and perhaps longer, if you aren't careful, 
all of us who deal with water, water meters, 
utilization of land, going to face the identical 
problem there all over again.  And if in any of your 
discussions -- I don't ask you to answer this -- if 
any of your discussions with any of your clients maybe 
may have hinged on this potential, be aware.  Be 
aware.  It is coming.  If we go that route, it is 
coming.

HUGH STARR:  Excuse me.  So for clarification, 
what you're suggesting is that if an EIS is required 
then that will work its way backwards to the MOU at 
Kamole weir?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  You better believe it.

HUGH STARR:  I wasn't aware that the 
withdrawal -- are you suggesting that the water that 
the water department is entitled to should only used 
for ag purposes?

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  I believe there are some 
restrictions in there.  And the area for which it's 
supposed to be used.

HUGH STARR:  I see.

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  Am I right, Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN CRAVALHO:  That agreement was very 
wisely put together so that it doesn't become a 
bonanza to anybody and everybody.  Water is a resource 
or an asset, I think.  It belongs to the public.  It 
needs to be kept as such.  Makes sense.  Maybe not 
financially.  Makes sense.  Think about it. 
Any other comments.  If not, we'll take all 
matters under deferment.  Any other business to come 
before this body?  Meeting is adjourned.  
(WHEREUPON, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.)

IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.