BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING


Taken at the David Trask Building, Conference Room 207,
Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on
September 20, 2001 pursuant to Notice.

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

A P P E A R A N C E S
Members present:      
Michael Nobriga, Chairman
Clark Hashimoto
Jonathan Starr
Howard Nakamura
Kent Hiranaga

Staff present:        
David Craddick, Director
George Tengan, Deputy Director
Herb Kogasaka, Engineering
Herb Chang, Engineering
Mike Quinn, Fiscal
Fran Nago, Board Secretary
Larry Winters        

Others present:
Dorothy Williams
James Williamson
John and Maria Siele
Neil Strumingher
        
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

                                        * * *

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Meeting of the rules committee of
the Board of Water Supply will come to order.  It's a
reconvened meeting of September 11th.  In attendance we have
board member and committee member Jonathan Starr, board member
and committee member Kent Hiranaga, esteemed counsel Howard
Fukunaga.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Fukushima.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Excuse me.  Please pardon me.
Board secretary Fran Nago, director David Craddick, deputy
director George Tengan, court reporter Gloria baby.  We have
Mr. and Mrs. Siele, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Williamson.
 If there's no objections from the members, we'll be
taking agenda items slightly out of order.  I would like to
note the presence of a guest from the east side of Paia, Hugh
Starr.  We have a conference call expected in at 9:05 for
agenda item No. B, Communications 01-26, request from Neil
Strumingher for a water meter at TMK 2-4-13:40, 1050 Piiholo
Road, Makawao.
Good morning, Mr. Strumingher.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  Good morning.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We have just called a meeting
back to order.  I am the chairman, Mike Nobriga.  With me in
the audience is board members Kent Hiranaga and Jonathan Starr,
members of the committee, various other children, ladies and
gentlemen.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  Thank you very much for giving me
the time this morning.  Obviously, you can understand the
travel has been a little bit difficult so I appreciate you
doing this over the phone.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  No problem.  Why don't you go
ahead and give us your best efforts.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  Sure.  The reason that I'm on the
phone today is because I purchased a property in Olinda, Maui
in November of last year, and the property needs access to the
public water system.  And I'm very hopeful that you will see
fit to grant a water meter to it.  I was told at the time that
I -- both before I purchased the property and after I purchased
the property, by folks at the water department, that it does
have access to a water meter.
 And I found out since I purchased it, that because
of a subdivision type of arrangement with Mr. Glenn Coryell,
who owns the adjacent property, that there is a water meter
that's on the property but was never, I guess, accounted for in
the subdivision.  And Mr. Coryell and his tenants on his
property have been using it since 1978 and have been
responsible for the water bill since then.
 And the house that I purchased on that property has
not had access to that water meter; although, apparently, it
has legal rights to it.  It seems to me it would be simplest to
grant a water meter to my lot so that I can have access to the
public water system.
 I am told, having looked at the tax records, that in
the past, that these were two separate properties prior to the
first moratorium on water meters dating back to the period from
1935 to 1960, and so I'm hopeful that that means that this
piece is entitled to a water meter.  And I'm wondering what I
can do to expedite the process in getting water to the house.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you, Mr. Strumingher.
 Members, are there any questions for
Mr. Strumingher?  Hearing none, can I ask corp counsel --

MR. STARR:  I have a question for him, which is,
would he be able to make the improvements that were required by
the department?

MR. STRUMINGHER:  Yes.  If I heard your question
correctly about improvements required by the department, I did
make an effort to get some estimates from a contractor,
actually from two different contractors, both licensed, as to
what the cost associated with those improvements might be.
 And the lower of those two estimates was $221,000,
which I cannot afford to spend, and to me seems like a number
that doesn't resemble anything that I could possibly be
required to pay to get access to the -- my property fronts
Piiholo Road, it's a public road.
 The existing water meter that apparently has equal
legal access from both Mr. Coryell's and my own is on the road,
and all I'm asking for is a meter, you know, also on the
road -- on the existing pipe.  I'm happy to spend some money
towards doing that if that's what it takes.  Whether that be 5-
or $10,000, so be it.  But $221,000 to lay that kind of
equipment and pipe just is something that I cannot afford to
do.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Chairman, I don't seem to have a
copy of the staff report.  I just have this one letter.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Okay.  Yes, Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  Neil made a comment that they
appeared to have equal legal access.  I wouldn't say that's a
fair representation.  One property -- the other has legal
access and the other property has no meter.  As far as we can
tell, it's Neil's property that has legal right to the meter.
Now, just the fact that this Coryell has been paying for it for
multiple years doesn't give them rights to the meter.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  Who is that that's speaking?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Craddick.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  Well, I appreciate your helping me
to sort that out.  I have been in a little bit of a quagmire in
terms of my own efforts to try to figure out whether or not I'm
legally entitled to the existing meter, as you might imagine.
And if you are correct that my piece is in fact entitled to it,
how do I go about getting access to it, or how do you suggest I
try to resolve this?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's something we wouldn't take up
here at the board time.  That's something you would just have
to come to the staff and get that straightened out.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  I see.  I will point out, I'm sure
you are all aware, but I will point out that the notice dated
September 5th that pertains to this matter, that I think you
have in front of you, says that the subdivision of this
property was processed under Section 18.04.020 of the Maui
County Code and as such was not reviewed or approved by the
water department.
 And that the owner of the second parcel, Mr. Glenn
Coryell, has maintained that the existing meter has always
served his dwellings, and he has been responsible for the water
bill since 1978.  There was no formal assignment of the
existing meter by the owners of the subdivision.

MR. CRADDICK:  Again, the combination and
resubdivision means there was two lots there before and there's
two lots now.  Only one of the two lots can have the meter, not
both.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  Right.  Apparently when the
subdivision took place, the rights to the water meter were not
designated.  At least that's the best of my knowledge.  And
that, obviously, the subdivision took place before I purchased
the property, so I was not involved at that time.

MR. CRADDICK:  So what you are saying is that there
may be more things that have to be sorted out first, before you
maybe can be determined to be the legal owner of the meter.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  I see.  So I guess in light of
that, is there a possibility that the Department of Water
Supply will grant me a new meter or an additional meter so we
can both have access to public water?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's the subject of the discussion
here today.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  I see, okay.

MR. CRADDICK:  If you are just saying you are going
to let the meter go to the other guy and you are putting the
whole requirement for an adequate system on yourself, then as
long as the system was adequate you would be able to get a
meter.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  I see.  Well, obviously, I would
like -- my primary goal is to have access to water, and I'm
happy to do something toward making that -- something
financially to making that happen.
 As I said before, it appears to me that the
requirements spelled out in this document require an expense of
upwards of a couple hundred thousand dollars, which I simply
cannot do.  If there's another way for me to get access to
water, I think that an additional water meter can be placed on
the road that's on the property that I own, that would not
require the expense that's laid out here in this document.
 If it's possible to do that, I would like to do
that.  If not, I guess I don't have much recourse.  I need to
have water, and currently I don't.  Mr. Coryell has been using
that water meter and there are several families there.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you.
 Is there any other questions, members?  Yes,
Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I'm not exactly sure what is being asked
of us here.

MR. CRADDICK:  He is asking you to -- I guess he is
saying I'll give the meter to the other guy and I want a meter
for my own lot, but I don't want to have to make the
improvements that are required by subdivision, is my
understanding.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  Yeah, I guess that's fair.  That's
accurate.

MR. STARR:  Is a motion in order, Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  I move to deny.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Is there a second?
Brother Kent?

MR. HIRANAGA:  I'm still reading the staff report.

MS. NAGO:  The staff reports were faxed to everyone.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  There's a leech in the system.
You need time to review the staff report?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Um, a few minutes, please.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  I'm sorry, I can't hear what is
being said.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Craddick, you had something
else to add?

MR. CRADDICK:  I'll talk with you first before I say
anything.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Okay.  We'll call a recess, then.
(A recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  So the subdivision has been --
after the 19 -- what year was it?  1993 --

MR. CRADDICK:  No, no, the two lots were always
there.  The combination and the resubdivision --

MS. NAGO:  I'm sorry, the room is really small, we
need everyone to keep quiet.  She can't get it on the record.
Okay?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Sorry.

MR. CRADDICK:  So it didn't create more lots than
were already there.  But how you interpret that, if you want to
say, hey, it was a new subdivision, get on the list.  That's
another option too.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Apparently, he already said he is
part of the waiting list for meters.

MR. STARR:  Are we back in session?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We have a motion on the floor,
and if Mr. Hiranaga is able to support the motion, then yeah.
If not, then --

MR. HIRANAGA:  I would like to let the motion die
temporarily, because I have a couple more questions for the
staff.  What is the department's position on new water meters
for Piiholo Road?

MR. CRADDICK:  Again, this was a lot that existed
prior to 1993.  Under the guidelines that we have right now, if
the system was adequate out in front, we would say they could
have a meter.  There's another twist in this in that they did a
subdivision or combination and resubdivision of a lot and so
you could strictly say, sorry, it was a new subdivision, we're
not going to allow a meter for it.  And that might be
appropriate.
 That's probably more a legal issue with corp counsel
and how the county responds to that county ordinance of the
combination and resubdivision of existing lots.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I see that there are two issues
involved.  The first issue is whether there is adequacy and
we're issuing meters in that area or not.  And if there's not
adequacy there, then he should be on the waiting list, which I
believe he is.
 The second issue is that the transmission line is
insufficient and that if additional meters were issued, put
onto that existing transmission line, it would threaten the
existing users because it would lower the fire protection along
that road.  So it would put other people in danger by issuing a
meter without upgrading it.
 I mean, theoretically, the board could spend
$200,000 to upgrade that particular line, but I don't think
it's in our CIP.  So the second issue is the fact that the
local transmission lines are not sufficient to issue more
meters, in which case we ask an applicant to bring them up to
standard before we issue meters.  It's our general policy.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I would like to note the arrival
of board member and committee Clark Hashimoto.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  I got mixed up with the time.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Sorry, yeah.  Back to director
Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  Let me see here.  The comment that
it's not on the CIP, it is in our CIP, just not in the
five-year funding range.

MR. STARR:  Eventually, it will get upgraded.

MR. CRADDICK:  But it's pretty far out there.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Is there a follow-up question,
Mr. Hiranaga?
MR. HIRANAGA:  Basically, the transmission system
fronting the property is inadequate?

MR. CRADDICK:  It's a 2-inch Drisco line.

MR. HIRANAGA:  If it was up to standard, he would be
granted a water meter based on the department's current
position?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. HIRANAGA:  No further questions.

MR. STARR:  I would like to remake my motion if
that's okay.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I move to deny the request.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I'll second the motion.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Moved and seconded.  Any further
discussion?  The nature, again, of the denial is based on the
transmission lines and accommodating the subdivision request.

MR. CRADDICK:  Transmission line or distribution line?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Distribution lines.  Excuse me, I
stand corrected.  All those in favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed "nay."

MR. HASHIMOTO:  I have to say nay because I wasn't
in the discussion.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you, Clark.  Motion
carries.  Recommendation to the board shall be denial based on
the condition of the distribution lines.  Thank you,
Mr. Strumingher, for calling.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  I could not really hear what was
said.  Can you help me understand exactly what my next step is,
or how I go about trying to get water on this property?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Our recommendation to the full
board is the denial of your request for a water meter.  But we
would like to encourage you to continue working with the
department and the engineering department to see if there is
another way that they can accommodate your request.

MR. STRUMINGHER:  If I make the upgrades to the
distribution lines, can I then have a water meter?

MR. CRADDICK:  It's probably better not to ask that
question to the board, Neil, because they may make a decision
on it.  That's not the one before the board right now

MR. STRUMINGHER:  I see.  Well, thank you for your time.

MR. CRADDICK:  If you ask for that, you may get an
answer.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Back to item A.  Request from
John and Maria Siele to exchange their 1-1/2 inch meter for
multiple meters.

MS. NAGO:  207 is available.  If you want to recess
and go into 207, it's up to you.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We're comfy, huh?

MS. NAGO:  It's up to you folks.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Subsequent to the last meeting,
we did ask the department for some calculations on the average
and maximum use in the proposed area of a 1-1/2 inch meter
versus a 5/8 inch meter.  As far as -- well, other than this
information, is there any rules that we follow or procedures
that we have followed in relation to exchange, a request such
as this?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  And they are?

MR. CRADDICK:  If you have usage on a meter for five
years that is in excess of what the meters requested would use,
we have granted the request.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Okay.

MR. CRADDICK:  I'll remind you there's no rule for
that, but that's in keeping with the -- I think the idea if you
don't affect the system, then you can get a meter.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Based on the information provided
and some simple mathematics, at the maximum, maximum total
possible use per day, my calculations indicate that one 1-1/2
inch meter will use the equivalent of 8.5, 5/8 inch meter on
this simple calculation.  The Sieles petitioned the committee
for recommendation to the board to exchange their 1-1/2 inch
meter, I believe, for three, 5/8 inch meters.
 With that on the table, members, is there any
discussion or questions?  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  It doesn't say this on here, but
Mr. Siele's consumption is about 1300 gallons a day on the inch
and a half meter, not 15,000 or anything near that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Okay.  Members?

MR. STARR:  I guess, again, we're back to the
adequacy issue.  I assume that's -- is that the only issue, or
is there a distribution line, transmission line issue?

MR. CRADDICK:  No.  Actually, he has fixed the
system up; he's paid substantial money to fix the system up.
It's just that if you give him these additional meters,
obviously consumption will go up.  And he is on the waiting
list to get meters for this subdivision.  That's all I can
say.
 Basically, what you are doing is letting him jump
the list by giving the extra meters without actually having any
usage on the existing meter.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Clark?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  But actually it's an exchange.
Isn't it like an even exchange, or it's not even an even
exchange?

MR. CRADDICK:  It's not even.  He's only using 1300
gallons a day on the existing inch and a half meter.  It
doesn't matter if he has a 20-inch meter, if you are only using
a thousand gallons a day, I can't say you can have a bunch of
small meters that you know the consumption may be -- the
average consumption on a 5/8 inch meter is --

MR. HASHIMOTO:  1700.

MR. CRADDICK:  1700.  He is not even using just barely --

MR. HASHIMOTO:  May I ask Mr. Siele, what are you
doing with the land right now?  You are not living on the
land?

MR. SIELE:  We had to sell our house and move off
the land because we did not have the ability to keep it going,
because we have not been granted the water that Mr. Craddick
has promised us through the years.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  The 1300 gallons a day --

MR. SIELE:  -- is because we're not living there at
the time.  The meter, I would think, is granted on potential
use.  Again, this was discussed in other meetings that if an
inch and a half meter -- if I give an inch and a half meter in
public business, I would give it out as far as what the
potential is of the meter, and that's how I would base my
decision on giving out meters.
 If I'm looking to save you 8. times the amount of
potential use on it, there's only a basic decision that could
be made quite easily.

MR. CRADDICK:  One more thing.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Fine.

MR. CRADDICK:  If the board makes a decision that
potential use of the meter is what you are going to do, there
are many other large meters like this Upcountry, some waiting
for fairly large multifamily type buildings that are just
waiting for this to occur.  So be very careful in your decision
on this one.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  I have a problem with allowing issuance
of meters while there are still people -- while there are still
other people on the waiting list.  Just in fairness of allowing
anyone to jump the queue for new meters, to me, is wrong.  I
know we have been all around on that.  For that reason, I'll be
voting against, because I just don't feel that anyone should be
allowed to sort of jump the queue Upcountry.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Siele?

MR. SIELE:  Number one, to address Mr. Craddick, as
a businessman and as a director of the Board of Water Supply, I
don't understand how you can issue someone a potential use and
then be worried that you cannot give it to a person, especially
when the person pays the price for that potential use.  No one
purchases an inch and a half meter to put, what you said, 1300
gallons a month it is used for --

MR. CRADDICK:  1300 gallons a day.

MR. SIELE:  Whatever the use was.  It works out to
millions and millions of gallons of savings.  And it is not --
I'm nervous this morning, I apologize.  It's not a matter of
meters, Mr. Starr, it's a matter of savings to the public and
to the water department.
 The potential use that I could use, if you read the
paper, is up to 45,000 gallons per day.  So if I was to go into
the full use, if I move on that property and wanted full use,
that's how much use I would have on that one meter.  Besides
the fact that I was already promised by Mr. Craddick two other
inch and a half meters, which is another issue.  So I see that
as quite a savings to the county and to the public.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you.

MR. SIELE:  It's strange to be in front of a
different audience each time with everyone not knowing the
facts.  I know a few people here know the facts, but there are
a lot of people -- this goes back nine years.  This whole
thing.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Question.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.

MR. HIRANAGA:  When was the subdivision application
initially submitted?

MR. SIELE:  '93.

MR. CRADDICK:  He is pretty high up on the list.  If
we start through the list, he is one of the first.

MR. HIRANAGA:  How does this relate to detrimental
reliance?

MR. CRADDICK:  He did a family subdivision, he made
the improvements.  And I believe got the extra meters for the
family subdivision; didn't you?

MR. SIELE:  I got the two, 5/8 meters.  I did not
receive the meter I was told I would receive.

MR. CRADDICK:  He had the one, inch and a half, then
he got the two, 5/8 inch meters.

MR. HIRANAGA:  So that subdivision was completed?

MR. CRADDICK:  Completed.  And he is now
resubdividing one of the larger lots.

MR. HIRANAGA:  When was that application submitted?

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know.

MR. SIELE:  Right now there's not a subdivision
application in at this time.  Only because of the fact that if
you have been through the subdivision process, it takes
thousands of dollars just to get that far before it goes in
front of the water board, and knowing that the water board is
going to turn you down anyway, it makes absolutely no sense.

MR. HIRANAGA:  The application in 1993 was for a
three-lot subdivision which was granted?

MR. SIELE:  It was granted to me at that time, but
previous to -- which was forgotten because there have been many
other meetings.  The reliance came from -- previous to this.  I
was -- at the time when I originally set down for subdivision
it was to be for 11 lots.  This was totally discussed with
Mr. Craddick at that time, that it was going to be 11 lots.
 We sized the lines coming into the subdivision for
the 11 lots and was told at that time to go to three meters.
Mr. Craddick from that time had told me many times, Go for the
rest of your improvements, the water is on the way.  He also
told me that the latest I would receive the rest of my water
would be in 1996.
 I met with Mr. Craddick many times at many meetings,
and Mr. Craddick at those times said, You will have your water,
it's coming.  That's where the reliance comes from, from many,
many meetings.  There's been much money put into the project
and it has never happened.

MR. HIRANAGA:  After your three-lot subdivision was
granted final subdivision approval, you did not subsequently
submit a new application?

MR. SIELE:  No, but I sat down with the water
department on numerous times.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Do you have anything in writing that
provides you this reliance?

MR. SIELE:  Yes, I do.  I have the minutes from the
last -- from the first meeting, stating where Mr. Craddick
admits he did say these things.

MR. HIRANAGA:  That he was going to grant you three
additional meters?

MR. SIELE:  Not that he was going to grant me
additional meters, but that he told me that the water was
coming.  There's a letter stating that the water would be no
later than 1996.  This is really -- when you say is there
letters to prove this, not only is there letters but there's
phone conversations.
 The man has misled me so many times.  I mean, we'll
be in a middle of a meeting, we're trying to accomplish
something and he will be whispering in my ear, Why aren't they
giving you the water?  We have the water.  What kind of
department is this?  How do I -- this has been happening for
year after year after year.  He'll tell me, Fight the
department, we have the water.  Take it up against them.
 There's a lot of matters here.  There's also matters
that were discussed where I was called up and said, Please
don't bring these matters up, they would be -- it would cost
him his job and would be an embarrassment to the department.
Maybe they will cost him his job; maybe it will be an
embarrassment to the department, but there's a lot of things
that are going to have to be brought up from this.  There has
to be a responsibility factor.

MR. HIRANAGA:  When was the three-lot subdivision granted?

MRS. SIELE:  '94.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  Where is the letter that you referred to?

MR. SIELE:  Letter referring to what?

MR. STARR:  You said there was a letter.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, he said he prepared minutes of
the meeting.

MR. SIELE:  I have minutes from the last meetings.

MR. STARR:  Those were board meetings?

MR. SIELE:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Committee meetings.

MR. SIELE:  I'm not sure of the name of the
particular meetings.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I would like to ask Mr. Fukushima
if you could add some light on the subject for us.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I'm not sure if I can add any light
to the person's request.  Again, our office would caution the
board or this committee in considering this particular request
in the absence of any rule.  There appears to be no standards
that could be applied or that have been adopted by any agency
with respect to the exchange of meters.
 We believe that absent any standards, there is the
appearance that there's unfettered discretion on the board to
do anything.  And agencies making decisions, the law is very
clear that in cases of the exercise of discretion, that
discretion should have some bounds, that discretion should be
guided by standards, and in this case there are no standards.
 And again we would caution the committee in taking
any action on this without any standards in place in the form
of a rule.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Hashimoto and then Mr. Starr.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Has there been any cases where
meters have been exchanged?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes, and that's the standard that I
said previously what we have done.  If you got usage on your
meter for five years that equals or exceeds what we would
expect from whatever number of meters you want, we would
approve it.  Because there's no effect on the water system.
 Now, we have seen that people who have done that, we
probably need to go back and look at those ones that we have
done, because even that may not be working.  Because we noticed
some rather huge looking monstrosity of houses on some of those
lots with the 5/8 inch meter; but be that as it may, that's not
the issue here.
 But again, if you are going to say that simply
because he is not using the meter that he has for ag which he
is zoned for, that he can build a bunch of houses on there and
then use that amount of water that you would normally use for
ag is -- we've never been in the business of trying to put ag
out of business Upcountry.  If they want to use it for ag and
they start using it and they show some consumption that's
actually being used, they are using it.
 But to say that you are going to allow all these
houses to go on the property and you know there's going to be
water use at that point, is an effect on the system.  If for
whatever reason no farming goes on there -- I don't know what
the land looks like or anything like that -- for whatever
reason no farming goes on, that reason is there.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  But that means you're applying
one different set of standards to Mr. Siele versus other people
that you've handled before.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, we're not.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We're going to go back to
Mr. Fukushima's comment about we need to seriously look at some
rules.  Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Personally, I have difficulty with
potential usage.  I think it should be based on actual usage.
Because the usage is not free; you still have to pay for the
gallons of water that you use.  So to say that he has the
potential to use X amount doesn't mean he will, because it's
not -- the increase in usage will cost him money.
 He could have basically opened up his meter for the
past five years and let it run 24 hours a day, then he would
have qualified for the meters he wanted, but it would cost him
money to be running that water.
 On the detrimental reliance, the detrimental
reliance is based on any representations made to individuals
prior to 1993, which influenced them to continue or to commence
development after 1993, is that the department's position?

MR. CRADDICK:  Basically, yes.  In this particular
case, right, he did have -- I guess when he came into the
property, there was a plan to do many, many lots on there, but
I believe he bought the property prior to the Kula rule
lapsing.  And prior to the Kula rule lapsing, you could only do
the family subdivision.  We told him that.  If you want to
subdivide, you can only do a family subdivision.  So he did
it.
 Now, beyond that, I don't believe any other
representations were made.  I told him yes, we are trying to
get additional source.  I told him about Kahakupao; I told him
about the Haiku well; I don't think at the time we knew what
was going to happen with the Hamakuapoko well.  He is right in
that, that I did tell him we are working to get additional
source on line.
 But I don't believe I ever represented when it
will -- inadequacy will be taken off.  And that is something
that I have always maintained.  He has to look at his own
financial resources to make his own determination on what can
be done or can't be done.
 And I probably did tell him that he may have some
rights in light of the current state of the system, that if he
petitioned the board from that angle, he may be more successful
than this one.  But beyond that, I don't believe we have ever
given him any false indication of when the system would be
adequate to do what he wants to do.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA:  The distribution system fronting the
property is up to standard?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes, he fixed it up, yes.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I guess my position would be that the
burden of proof that there was detrimental reliance lies upon
the applicant.  He would have to convince the board that there
was detrimental reliance.  I guess my personal opinion, it
couldn't be hearsay; it would have to be official written
communication on official department letterhead with the
director's signature on it.

MR. CRADDICK:  In this case, there couldn't be any
detrimental reliance, because we have --

MR. HIRANAGA:  That's why I say the burden is upon
the applicant to prove it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  I have a motion to make.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Let's ask if there's any more discussion.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Just curious, Mr. Siele had to make
improvements to run the line to his property to make it to
comply?
                            
MR. CRADDICK:  To get the three-lot family
subdivision, yes.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  That was quite a cost.

MR. SIELE:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Siele, you have other
information you want to share with the committee?

MR. SIELE:  Yes.  The gentleman just asked for
proof.  This is from the board meeting held 5/14/02, where
Mr. Cravalho asked Mr. Craddick a question:  Were assurances
given to the gentleman as potential availability by a period of
time, by a certain date and time?  That's all.
Mr. Craddick:  Well, I did tell him when I thought
water would be in on line and it is on line.
These are Mr. Craddick's words, then he just said
that he never said anything.

MR. CRADDICK:  What we're talking about is system
adequacy.  We're talking about the system adequacy, and I did
say that, but --

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We're talking --

MR. SIELE:  Mr. Craddick, you have an awful gift for
playing with words and you do it well; but if people can't see
through it by now, if the board can't see through it, something
is definitely drastically wrong.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  The matter before us is a request
for an exchange of a 1-1/2 inch meter for multiple meters.
Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  Yeah, I see this as an attempt to jump
the queue on issuance of meters, and we're not here today to
discuss the adequacy issue.  In that light, I would like to
move that the recommendation be to deny the request.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  It's been moved.  Is there a
second?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Moved and seconded.  Any further
discussion?  I myself have not yet been satisfactorily swayed
on that position, but it is a democratic meeting and the ayes
will have it, I guess.  All those in favor of the motion
signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  I oppose.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  You oppose?

MR. HIRANAGA:  There were two ayes.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Two and two, then.  I no can
vote, yeah?  Shoot.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If your vote will make a difference,
you vote.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  My vote would be a nay, which
would be a tie, so it won't count.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  It does make a difference.

MR. CRADDICK:  No action would be taken.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  No action would be taken.

MR. HIRANAGA:  You can open the floor to more motions.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's an alternative.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  The vote is 2 to 2.  There's no
action to be taken at this time.  The matter is deferred to our
next meeting.

MR. HIRANAGA:  You could open it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I could, yeah, the floor is open
for further discussion.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Or motions.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Motions or whatever have you.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I was just following the procedure.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  No, no problem.  I don't see --
I don't see the exchange of meters as being a detriment for the
area in which the Sieles are in.  So that's why I voted nay.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  I feel the exchange of meters for
all the improvements he put in and he complied with everything
else, I don't think an exchange would be a detriment.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I also hold Mr. Fukushima's
comments near and dear, as in order before us to take a good
try at solving this question, we should have a rule so that
everybody is treated equally from here on in and not one guy is
one way and the other guy is something else.

MRS. SIELE:  I wanted to bring that up about the
ruling.  If there's no ruling, how can anything be said against
it, and by the time a ruling is put in place, where do we stand
since ours was applied for long before the ruling was in
place?  I don't understand the legality of it.  I don't
understand how everyone can come up with a decision when there
is no ruling.  How can that be legal?  Right now it doesn't
make sense.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I'm not an attorney and it don't
make sense to me either, but anyway --

MRS. SIELE:  How long do we wait for a ruling to
come in to being?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We should be moving rapidly
through that.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  If we create a rule, do we have to
go to public hearing?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  You certainly do.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yeah, that whole rigmarole.  Yes,
Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  If this matter is deferred to the
next committee meeting, would you want a listing of all the
inch and half meters that are unused Upcountry so you get an
idea of the overall impact of the decision?
 Because there are substantial numbers -- under the
Kula rule on the lower line, for a period you could get an inch
and a half meter.  And I suspect people went out and got these
inch and a half meters with no intent to do anything until they
could split them up into more meters.  And there's a bunch of
meters out there that have never been used since the '80s when
they were put in.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I'll let you know what we want
for the next meeting.

MS. NAGO:  This is deferred to the next meeting?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.  Item C, Communications
01-22, request from Thomas Welch on behalf of John Elder for a
waiver of the fire protection requirements.

MR. SIELE:  Do I have a chance to say something?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Sure.  Excuse me.

MR. SIELE:  What does that mean to me now?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  You are not denied, but you are
not approved.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  There's no recommendation.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  There's no recommendation being
made to the board.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I have a question for corp counsel.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Sure.

MR. HIRANAGA:  If the committee is unable to submit
a recommendation to the board, does the applicant have the
opportunity to go before the full board or does he have to wait
until the matter comes out of committee?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, I believe it would depend on
what this committee wanted to do.  If this committee wanted to
send it back to the board with no recommendation, that's an
alternative also.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We should do that.

MR. HIRANAGA:  How many members on this committee?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Four.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  You got Orlando; right?  But he's
not here.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I don't know.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  So five.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Chairperson, I have no concern or
difficulty with referring this to the full board, because I
think Mr. Siele needs closure.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We'll recommend it to the full
board if there's no objection.

MR. HIRANAGA:  With no recommendation.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  With no recommendation.  It will
be brought out at the next meeting before the full board.

MR. CRADDICK:  Is that a motion?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  No, I just said it and that's
it.  Thank you.
 Item C.  Mr. Welch.  At the last meeting we heard
Mr. Welch describe the request in the area and one pool in the
backyard and all kinds of stuff, and then we learned that the
neighborhood was wrought with problems on fire protection.
That's why we have Mr. Welch coming back on behalf of
Mr. Elder.

MR. STARR:  Fran, may I borrow your paper on this
quickly?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Anybody need to hear Mr. Welch explain
the situation again?  I'm sure you'd love to do it, though.

MR. CRADDICK:  Are you aware of the guy that is
straight in the street, you are down the street and the guy
that's straight in?

MR. WELCH:  No.

MR. CRADDICK:  You may want to get together with him
because I think he is bringing the line in, straight in to
where the road T's off, which is more than half the way.

MR. WELCH:  Really?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. WELCH:  The cost of doing it was -- 2600 lineal
feet is about a half mile that we were going to have to put in
a 6-inch or 8-inch line for fire flow and it was going to cost
$450,000.

MR. CRADDICK:  He is doing about half of it.

MR. WELCH:  So he is doing about $250,000 worth.
All we're trying to do is to do a small barn that is going to
house his agricultural equipment and his potting, and put
potting facilities, storage of fertilize seed and other
things.  It's an agricultural function.
 The reason -- and it's not much of a building.  And
he would not -- even if it's going to cost $250,000, it won't
be worthwhile.  The reason that the fire flow requirement is
triggered here is because it's the third structure.  The second
structure, however, is only an open gazebo for recreational
purposes by his pool, it's worth probably under $5,000.
 So we're glad the neighbor is bringing it in, but
its just not worth it to spend a quarter of a million dollars
on this barn.

MR. CRADDICK:  Actually, it's two-thirds of the way
he was bringing it in, not half.  Two-thirds.  So as we talk,
the price is dropping.

MR. WELCH:  It's a hundred -- now let's call it a
hundred thousand.  We're suggesting that the fire department
has agreed that the on-site fire protection, as a practical
matter, is sufficient and that the public interest will be
protected.
 Now, Captain Bal last time questioned that.  There's
a letter in your file from Captain Niemczyk that says that he
thought it was adequate and met the requirements as far as the
fire department was concerned.
 Captain Bal wasn't so sure and wanted to look at it
again.  I believe Captain Bal has been talking to the Elders
and so forth.  I think that he's now satisfied, but I don't
know if he has followed up with another letter at this point.
But as far as we're concerned, the record is clear that the
fire department has a written submittal approving it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any questions, comments,
members?  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  Yeah, I'm looking at the letter from
Captain Niemczyk.  I remember what Captain Bal had said at the
last meeting -- oh, there's another one.  I just want to be
sure that the letter was in relation to a new structure, not
that it was sufficient for what was existing.

MR. WELCH:  No, it was.  For the record, the Elders
met with the fire department with specific reference to the
construction of this proposed barn of approximately 1680 square
feet in size.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  This barn is not a dwelling; right?

MR. WELCH:  Correct.  It is not a dwelling.

MR. CRADDICK:  Under the rules, the rules say two
dwellings are exempt from fire requirements.  No structure
whatsoever is exempt from fire requirements.  The board, I
believe, passed a resolution sometime back, saying they would
view the second structure as long as it didn't have any greater
fire requirements in the dwelling as a dwelling.
 That just -- resolution of the board, but
technically speaking, neither the gazebo nor this would be
waived from the fire requirements, by strict application of the
rules.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Fukushima, could you
translate that for us, please?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, the clear language of the
rule, as I read it, refers to an exemption in, I believe, urban
and in rural, residential, business, industrial, apartment,
duplex, commercial, airport and hotel districts.  There is an
exemption for two dwellings.  I would presume that this
property is within one of those two areas.

MR. WELCH:  I thought it was in agricultural
districts --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Excuse me, those are fire hydrants.

MR. WELCH:  It goes on to permit standpipes.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  But the clear language is two
dwellings, the first two dwellings would be exempt, rather than
structures.

MR. WELCH:  Correct.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And there is a difference between a
structure and a dwelling, I'm sure Mr. Welch would concede to
that.

MR. WELCH:  I would not argue with that.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I'm just wondering if it's perhaps
possible to -- strike that.
 That's all I can say, is that's what the rule says.
It exempts the first two dwellings from fire protection
requirements.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Okay.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  In this case, we do not have two
dwellings; we have one dwelling, one structure, and one
proposed structure.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  So in light of the rule being two
dwellings and we have only one dwelling, does this matter
really need to take up this body's time?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, he is asking for an exemption
from fire protection requirements.  My only problem, and
Mr. Welch can correct me if I'm wrong, is whether in fact it's
part of a subdivision, and I believe that the answer would be
no.  The board and this committee has the authority -- or this
committee has the authority to recommend waivers from
subdivision requirements.
 But as we reminded this board on numerous times in
the past, that we have real problems and we want to caution
this committee again on appeals from -- in this case, I'm going
to characterize it as an appeals from the director's decision
which there is no rule in place to handle these types of
appeals.  Appeals from subdivision requirements we believe are
appropriate and they are provided by rules.
 But again, we want to caution this committee on
considering appeals from director's decisions where there are
no standards for this board to apply in reviewing the
director's decision.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Welch?

MR. WELCH:  I would like to say this about that.  I
am a great believer in the rule of law and in complying with
the rules and applying the rules in accordance with their
terms, and in this case, this kind of comes within the rule and
it kind of doesn't.
 If you talk about subdivision, you can grant a
discretionary departure from the strict rules on fire
protection if it's in connection with a subdivision.  This lot
is part of a subdivision.
 And what this person is doing is merely building out
the destiny of this lot within a subdivision which is -- which
was -- it's permitted by the zoning ordinance.  It is for an
agricultural use that is consistent with the -- and in
furtherance of the goals of the agricultural district, it is
within an agricultural subdivision which contemplates those
uses.
 And to say that just because he is not technically a
subdivider, that he can't come under that discretionary rule
which allows the board to depart in a common sense situation
where the public interest is protected, and there's no reason,
real regulatory reason to apply the rules strictly, that he
should be entitled to come under that.
 Now, if Howard says, Well, you know, maybe it is a
subdivision; maybe it isn't.  But we'll say it isn't.  If it
isn't, you have no basis, no rule, then, for applying common
sense.
 Now let's look at the common sense deal here.  The
rule allows two full dwellings to be exempt from the
requirement.  The rule also says that if you are building a
third dwelling, it is a subdivision -- automatically within the
definition of subdivision.
 But where these are not technically dwellings, the
rule doesn't entitle -- not only doesn't entitle the owner to
an exemption for the second structure, the third structure does
not trigger the requirements for a subdivision.  Now, does that
really make sense?  What is the difference between a
residential structure and a barn to park tractors in?
 Certainly, there's no increase in water use;
certainly, there's no increase in fire protection requirements
or fire risks for the neighborhood.  The public is perfectly
well protected one way or the other.  And the board is saying
well, we just can't help you.
 Well, the effect of this is to cause a property
owner who is just building a barn which is not creating any
regulatory problem, not creating any risks, not really going
against the grain with effect to going against regulatory goals
of the water board, and you are saying he can't build this
thing out without having to upgrade the water for the entire
district.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, only for his thing they are
bringing it down to his house.

MR. WELCH:  It's the entire district because it's
inadequate for the entire area.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, it's not.  It's only --

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We're drifting away,
Mr. Craddick, from the points at hand.

MR. WELCH:  I would suggest that -- couple of
things.  One, I think legally a common sense interpretation of
the subdivision -- of the rule allowing a discretionary
departure from the rule or modification where the public
interest is protected should be applied in this case.
 It's close enough to a subdivision.  It's part --
even though what is actually happening is not a subdividing
act, it is in connection with a subdivision.  And the rule is
pretty broad.  It just says in connection with a subdivision or
in the subdivision context.  We're talking about improvements
here that should have been put in when the original subdivision
was put in.  They weren't for whatever reason, but they should
have been.  So we would request that you consider that.
 If the answer to that is no, then this is the rules
committee, I implore you to adopt a rule to allow the water
board to be able to conduct its business in a common sense
way.
 And I would like to say one other thing while I have
the pulpit here.  This business about telling people that they
have to spend a quarter of a million dollars to bring fire flow
to a situation where they are doing something like a
consolidation, resubdivision or changing a boundary with a
neighbor or something like that, and even rules where you are
denying meters for people, even in the Siele case, the way --
I'm really preaching now and I apologize in advance.
 But the way this looks is the citizens of Maui that
are property owners that are affected by this, and sure there
are people that are antidevelopment and so forth, but the
people are saying to themselves, My God, we're taxpayers, it's
the duty of the water department and the water board to provide
us with water and fire protection and to accommodate reasonable
growth.
 Why should in an individual case the whole thing
fall on the individual property owner.  I would think that at
any time you discuss a case like the Siele case or turn
somebody down, you do it in the context of saying yes, but help
is on your way.  Because that's your duty.  Anyway, that's not
our case and I apologize for that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you, Mr. Welch.

MR. WELCH:  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  It was my view that the guy like
build one barn, the rules says dwellings -- he don't have two
dwellings, so there's no reason for us to even look at waiving
fire protection because there's no two dwellings.  So the guy
can build a barn.

MR. WELCH:  He can build a barn?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  That's where I was headed, but
try something else here.

MR. STARR:  I have a different view on this, and I
have actually been through this one personally myself and it's
not really fair when you are trying to build a barn.  But the
real issue here is fire protection, and he is willing to create
his own fire protection, which the fire department is happy
with.  So if they say that that's good enough for them, it
ought to be good enough for us.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Exactly.

MR. STARR:  I will be willing to make a motion to
that effect if we're at that point.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Sounds good.  So moved.

MR. HIRANAGA:  More discussion, please.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Oh, yeah.  Is there a second to
the motion?

MS. NAGO:  What's the motion, please?

MR. STARR:  The motion is that we recommend a waiver
of standard fire protection, and in light of the fact that
there is a fire protection being provided and we also would
want to have a proper indemnification and --

MR. CRADDICK:  Is that with insurance?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Leave it at that for now.  Is
there a second?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Discussion?

MR. HIRANAGA:  I guess the letters referred to from
the fire department does not specifically state that his
on-site system is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the
fire department for the third structure.  It just quotes fire
flow.
 So I would hope to have a more specific letter
addressing this specific request of Mr. Elder be addressed by
the fire department since we're talking about fire protection.
All they are quoting is gallons per minute needed to fight a
fire in an agricultural district.

MR. WELCH:  Excuse me, Kent, did you see the letter
of December 1, 1999?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Right.

MR. WELCH:  This one says the fire protection
provided is adequate for use by the fire department and for the
Department of Fire Control.  And then the February letter was a
follow-up letter to explain why they thought it was adequate.

MR. CRADDICK:  Understand this is for the gazebo.

MR. HIRANAGA:  This does not specifically address --

MR. STARR:  It's for the property.

MR. HIRANAGA:  It does not specifically address the
request for a third structure.  These are general statements.

MR. WELCH:  We'll provide that to you.  We have been
talking to Captain Bal and we can do that.

MR. HIRANAGA:  The other thing is -- I would
appreciate that.  In this letter from David Craddick to William
Garvin dated April 13th, which is No. 32 in your packet, could
you expand on this, the first and second dwelling exemption has
been expanded to include the first or second structure on the
property that would not exceed the fire flow demand of a
typical dwelling unit in the area.  Who expanded that?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's what I said, the board made a
resolution saying they would view the second structure as a
dwelling if it didn't have any greater fire requirement than a
dwelling.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Fukushima wishes to comment.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  No, I don't wish to comment.  I just
want to say that it's difficult to amend the law with a
resolution and there is a definition for dwelling unit
contained in the board's own rules.  And I find it highly
unusual that by resolution the board purports to waive a
portion of its own rules.
 The resolutions certainly do not have the force and
effect of law.  The resolutions are certainly down the list in
the hierarchy between statutes, ordinances.  Rules and
resolutions come way down.  So again, I find it a little
unusual that the board would take that sort of action in
redefining their own rules which state something entirely
different.

MR. CRADDICK:  Another thing is, too, I don't know
whether the resolution was ever in a written form.  It was just
something in passing at one of these types of discussions going
on right now at the board.  Except back then it was the whole
board and they just said shouldn't we view these as these
things, and I don't believe it ever actually got written under
the hard written form of a resolution.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Why are you including that statement
in the --

MR. CRADDICK:  I just want to make sure you're aware
that's what we've been doing since the board said that.  From
the sounds of things from corp counsel, we'll take his advice
and we're going to stop doing that.

MR. HIRANAGA:  How long have you been doing that?
When was the resolution made, approximately?

MR. CRADDICK:  I believe '94, '95, somewhere around
there.

MR. CHANG:  Somewhere around there.  I don't recall.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, it's been quite a while.

MR. WELCH:  Why don't you legitimize it by adopting
or recommending the adoption rule?

MR. CRADDICK:  The only thing I would do, getting
rid of the two house exemption and just say you have to have an
adequate system for whatever you want to do and that's that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any further discussion?
Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Welch, regarding the size of the
structure that's been approved by the planning department, they
don't consider it a second dwelling?

MR. WELCH:  That's correct.  It's not a dwelling.

MR. HIRANAGA:  You submitted a farm plan?  I'm not
sure how the new ag --

MR. WELCH:  I don't think you have to if it's a farm
building.  This is not an attempt to get around -- this is not
a phony dwelling, I assure you of that.  This is what it is.
The applicant is telling the truth and he does have an
extensive agricultural operation there and he uses tractors
under tarps and he needs the space, and it's a profitable
operation.

MR. HIRANAGA:  It still goes before the planning
department for approval?

MR. WELCH:  It doesn't have to under the ag bill.
He just gets a building permit, and once you sign off, then
everything else is squared away.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I can, I believe if it's a
structure accessory to the farm operation, then it would be a
permitted structure.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Who makes that determination, public works?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I think in -- planning department.

MR. HIRANAGA:  The planning department does review?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I'm not sure -- let me step back and
say I don't know.

MR. WELCH:  I think land use and codes.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Land use and codes certainly does
review all building permits, but they may be asking for
recommendations or review by the planning department with
respect to these types of accessory dwellings.  Since --

MR. HIRANAGA:  Or accessory structures.
  
MR. FUKUSHIMA:   Accessory structures.  -- since
that's part of the zoning ordinance which is administered by
the planning department.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Hashimoto?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  If we get a current letter from the
fire department, I wouldn't hesitate to approve it.  You need a
farm structure to store equipment, tractors, and supplies, and
I realize that.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Yeah, a letter specifically
addressing the request versus general statement on fire
protection needs.

MR. STARR:  Can we amend my motion that such a
letter will be provided?

MR. WELCH:  The recommendation would be conditioned
upon the provision of the letter.  We'll be happy to do that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Second to the amended?

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any discussion on the amendment?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Question.  So Mr. Elder could
theoretically get a second dwelling beyond this if he meets
fire protection requirements?

MR. CRADDICK:  As Howard said before, this is a
service request, there's no exemption at all for structures
whatsoever.  If he came in for the dwelling -- I don't know.
We would have to get advice from corp counsel.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If he comes in with a dwelling,
according to the rule, the first two dwellings are --

MR. HIRANAGA:  As long as he meets the fire
protection requirement?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  The first two dwellings are exempt
from any fire requirements.  That's contained in the rule.  And
again, that's why we have been urging the board for the last
two years to adopt the process where these types of appeals can
take place.  I'm hopeful that that rule would be approved very
shortly.

MR. STARR:  Recall the question.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any further discussion on the
amendment?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Question.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.

MR. HIRANAGA:  If Mr. Elder were to remove the
gazebo, would he then not be required to come in before the
board?

MR. CRADDICK:  If the board does this, what's going
to happen is that the guy who is putting in the line fixing up
two-thirds of the way obviously is not going to do it anymore.

MR. HIRANAGA:  It's irrelevant.
  
MR. CRADDICK:  No, I don't know if it is
irrelevant.  What you are doing is, simply because people come
into the board and ask for waivers that they don't have
authority to get from the board, and the board says yeah, you
can have the waiver.  I mean, what does that tell the guy who
is spending the -- whatever it is -- 175,000.  It may cost
another 25 to make the last little bit of a way down to this
other guy's house.  What does it tell that guy?  Hey -- you
know.

MR. WELCH:  It's okay.  So be it.  Common sense is
common sense.

MR. HIRANAGA:  The answer to my question is?

MR. WELCH:  Yes.

MR. HIRANAGA:  If he took the cabana down, he would
not have to come before the --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  No.

MR. HIRANAGA:  He would or he would not?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Again, let me repeat myself.  The
rules, this board's rules exempt the first two dwellings.  I
can't comment on this resolution.  I don't want to comment on
what the department has been doing in the past with respect to
second structures.  I believe the resolution that was referred
to by the director really didn't mean anything.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I guess being relatively new on this
board, we really need to try and eliminate these types of
confusions as far as interpretations by the department on what
the will of the board is.  I'm sure we'll address that in the
rule making process.  I'm sure this has affected a lot of
people in the last seven years.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any other discussion on the
amendment to have Mr. Elder provide a specific letter from the
fire department outlining acceptable to fire requirements,
anyway, whatever have you, any other comments?  Ready to vote?
All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed?
(No response.)
Back to the main motion as amended.  Any further
discussion?

MR. STARR:  Just that the indemnification wording, I
know there's some standard wording that's been used in similar
cases.  Is corp counsel comfortable with taking responsibility
for creating indemnification language after the fact?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I don't understand that question.

MR. STARR:  The motion is vague about what kind of
indemnification we need, and we do feel we need
indemnification, can corp counsel handle the job of --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Of course we can.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Question.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Why is there a need for
indemnification if it's the board's position that this is not a
dwelling?  Why do we need indemnification?

MR. STARR:  Because the applicant is providing the
fire flow and if that -- say he decides after a while to leave
the swimming pool empty and not have the fire flow, people
shouldn't be able to come back and sue the board; they should
sue him for not maintaining what he was required to maintain.
He's holding us harmless.  Since we're not building his fire
protection, he is building his fire protection.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any further discussion on the
motion as amended?

MR. HIRANAGA:  I would just like an opinion from the
corp counsel whether the indemnification requirement is
justified.  You don't need to provide the opinion now.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I can.  Anytime we can be
indemnified or the board can be indemnified or the county would
be indemnified, we would support that.  We would also support a
$10 million insurance policy, but I'm not sure if the committee
or the board is going to be willing to require that.
 As an attorney, you want to be protected as much as
you can from any potential liability.  You may not see it today
but you don't know what is going to happen tomorrow.  So as an
attorney, we would like to see as much protection for both the
county and our clients as we can.

MR. CRADDICK:  Especially when you are waiving rules
we don't have the authority to waive.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any other comments or questions?
All those in favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed "nay."
 Motion carries.  Recommending to the board that a
waiver be granted providing a fire -- specific fire flow letter
is received from the fire department.
 This meeting will be recessed for ten minutes and
reconvened in room 207.
(A recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  The rules committee meeting of
ten o'clock will come to order.  This is the regular scheduled
meeting duly noticed for Thursday, September 20th at 10 a.m.
The rules committee meeting scheduled for 10 a.m. is now in
recess.

MR. STARR:  That makes it real clear.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We're waiting for Mr. Williamson who is
reparking his car.  Reconvene of the reconvened meeting of
the reconvening.  We're reconvening the September 11th, 9 a.m.
meeting back to order.
 Taking up the agenda as previously posted, item 3,
approval of minutes of August 10, 2001.  Motion is in order for
receivement (sic).  Is there a motion to receive the minutes of
August 10th of the rules committee meeting?

MR. STARR:  I move that they be accepted, and
subject to a 30-day review period.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Moved and seconded.
Mr. Fukushima?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, I generally don't want to
correct minor errors, but on page 7, line 16, Again we have
opposed the rule relating to appeals.  That should read, Again
we have proposed the rule relating to appeals.  That changes
the entire substance of what was said, so I think a correction
is in order.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  So noted.  Any other
discussions?  All those in favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes.)
Opposed "nay."
Motion carries.
 As soon as Mr. Williamson comes back -- we can
start.  We'll start on item D.  A letter from Linnel Nishioka,
Deputy Director, Commission on Water Resource Management
forwarding a copy of a Petition from Maui Meadows Committee
Association.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  For clarification, are we dealing with
that communication or are we dealing with the Iao rule making
regarding Iao management and so on?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We're dealing with a letter from
Linnel.  We did not notice, I guess, a new rule on Iao
management, but I believe -- Mr. Fukushima can correct me if
I'm wrong, but that discussion on the current Iao water
management rule is appropriate.  No?  Yes?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  As I view it, the letter from Linnel
Nishioka is informing us that the water commission is in
receipt of a request from the Maui Meadows Homeowners
Association to have the Iao aquifer designated.
 I'm not exactly sure what action this board or this
committee would recommend other than, perhaps, if they are in
agreement or if they are not in agreement with -- quite
frankly, it's just our notification, a notification to the
board that this communication has been received by
Mr. Williamson and Ms. Williams.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  I would like to begin this by trying to
understand what the position of the board or department is that
has already been taken.  Because I understand that a letter was
received by the commission, which I, as a board member, have
not seen.  And I would like to begin by seeing what
communications have gone from the department or board to the
commission on this already.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't think any letters have gone
from the board to the commission, that I know of.

MR. STARR:  Did you write a letter --

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, but it's not under the board's
direction.  We're just responding to this letter here.

MR. STARR:  Who is "we"?

MR. CRADDICK:  The department.

MR. STARR:  Can we get copies of this letter?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  Can you pass around copies?
   
MR. CRADDICK:  I don't have it here with me.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  My understanding of this, why this is
on the agenda is that there was a response on September 10th.
You were the only one that had a meeting scheduled early enough
or was going to schedule a meeting.
 At the regular board meeting when this was referred
to your committee, I think they formed some kind of a special
committee.  You had brought up the comment of having special
restrictions for Central Maui, and I said they are already in a
rule that we have.  You wanted to look those things over, as
well as, I guess, discuss whatever response might be made to
this letter from the board.
 See, the board also -- I mean, this is the one in
here, but my understanding is that Peter Rice also got a letter
worded exactly the same; didn't he?

MS. NAGO:  I believe so, I'm not positive.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.  And he just got his by
himself, and I think when we put the agenda out we didn't have
his letter and we stuck this one in.  But there is a separate
letter to the board, asking for the board's response to this
letter.  So that's all I can say there.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you.

MR. CRADDICK:  Mr. Williamson is back.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Do you wish to offer us testimony
at this time?  You can sit down next to Fran there.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  It's an honor.

MS. NAGO:  Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  I'm Jim Williamson, and I'm the
vice-president of Maui Meadows Homeowners Association.  We're
the organization, of course, that filed the petition for
declaration.  Subsequent to that, I reviewed the data report
received from the USGS for the period ending June 30, and I
submitted additional testimony to the water commission, which
they tell me, I talked to them yesterday, that they had not
disseminated to anybody.
 They told me that they had not received any kind of
correspondence on this from the county, either the council or
the administration or the water board, but they had received
something from the staff of the water department, which
surprised me because I thought they had to go through the water
board.
 They didn't tell me what that was, but they said
they would send the minutes of the September 10th meeting and
this whole action has been deferred for two months.  So it
would be November 10th, more or less, before they take action
on it.
 What action they take is -- well, they could say
that they didn't receive any other correspondence or testimony
from anybody; they could actually dedicate it; or they could
put it off somewhat longer, which is probably what they will
do, because that has been the history of how they operate.
They are not an organization to take prompt action.
 But conceivably, though, if there's no real -- they
told me, for example, if the Iao aquifer went up to 20 million
gallons a day, maybe they would take some action.  But
conceivably, they could take some action by the end of the year
or early next year.  But that's all I have at the moment.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Any questions for
Mr. Williamson?  Yes, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I was wondering if Mr. Williamson was
aware of a test conducted by the director without informing the
board beforehand or without any instruction for the board that
resulted in a report by Mr. John Mink recently, and I believe
that was also -- it also resulted in a letter to the Maui News.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  Yes.  David Craddick gave me a copy
of that and I reviewed it.  I might say it was a little bit
self-serving as far as John Mink was concerned, because it
related to a formula he developed and so on in the past.  I
didn't think that really contributed too much.
 First of all, a deep well monitor wasn't even
monitored because it was not functioning at the time.  So this
was all the basis of test well B, I believe.  I think the
report was somewhat reaching in saying that if you didn't pump
any more water that you could -- the water would come right
back up in 70 days or 80 days or whatever it was.  I thought
that was reaching.
 My professional analysis of that is that it didn't
really throw too much more light or any more light on the
situation where we are.

MR. STARR:  Thank you.  I have the same opinion.
And I have actually talked to several other hydrogeologists who
have the same opinion that this was really trying to bend very
little fact to come out with a certain result.
 But going beyond that, there's been a lot of
discussion about designation of water management areas on Maui,
especially regarding Iao.  I know that there was a big
political drive against it several years ago culminating in a
water round table and a lot of home rule rhetoric, and I don't
really subscribe to that myself.
 I feel that we're lacking something that is very
important here on Maui, which is an agency, a governmental
agency that is responsible for our water resources, and we
don't have that.  And we don't have that because none of them
exist.  We are basically utility to provide potable water to
our consumers, and we end up stretching trying to do that
sometimes, but it's really not our kuleana.
 The only entity that is chartered to do that in the
state is the Commission on Water Resource Management.  However,
the way the water code is written, they only undertake that and
it only becomes their responsibility when an area is designated
as a water management area.  Looking at those areas that have
had that occur, frankly, I think it's a much better situation
than in areas where it has not occurred.
 I don't feel -- people like to criticize state
government, but I feel that they try to do their job and it's
better than not having anyone do it.  We have no pumping data
for any entity beyond the Board of Water Supply here on Maui.
The state commission does not have pumping data for hundreds of
wells on Maui other than the wells of the Board of Water
Supply.  We do have pumping data for our wells and we stay
within our limits and we do report those.
 However, none of the other entities who pump water,
whether it's golf courses or the county parks department -- the
county parks department was cited for not providing pumping
data for Keopuilani Park this last month and fined by the water
commission simply because a citizen went out and asked for it.
 The process of designation basically means that
pumping data will be made available to the commission, and if
there's pumping in excess of what's available of the resource,
then the commission will decide where the priorities lie, and I
feel that that's a good function.
 I don't think that it has hurt Molokai.  I don't
think that it's hurt those areas of Oahu.  Except it has made
people realize what the real water situation is and deal with
the problems.  Where we're not dealing with it here; we're
hiding from it.
 So I, for one, am not afraid of that process.  In
fact, I feel it may be time for that to be encouraged.
However, I don't think that it should just be Iao aquifer.  I
think it should be a much wider area that should be looked at;
namely, all of Wailuku, Central -- of Wailuku and Central and
Lahaina aquifer areas, which is basically all of that
(indicating).

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr was pointing at a map
of Maui indicating everything from the belly button to the
tippy top of the head.
 Mr. Williamson, you said you had a comment.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  Couple of comments.  I mentioned we
sent an additional report to the water commission, and that
report related to two issues based on the analysis of the
latest USGS data report.
 The way this has been presented by the department,
and I think viewed by the commission, is that the Iao aquifer
is not connected, or if it's connected at all, but not very
much to the North Waihe'e aquifer.  However, if you take a look
at the data going back to 1988 on the North Waihe'e pump 1 and
the test hole A-1, the level pattern is almost identical.
 In other words, you can see the drop in the water
and the actual cycles of the drop in the water for both of
those situations, and then when you look further into the
aquifer, the deep monitor wells, test hole B, test hole A, it's
all the same.
 So we really have a situation where we have got a
gross interconnection, and so we shouldn't be looking at just
what's drafted out of the main aquifer, but what's drafted out
of the total area.  And if we do that, instead of being maybe
10 percent under, we're 10 percent over, even assuming 20
million gallons a day is a correct number, which we doubt very
much.  That's number one.
 Number two, it's been assumed by the department that
there's a lot of water down there, because the deep monitor
well shows the salt level, you might say, at least the
transition zone which really represents salt level.  Even
though it's coming up but maybe 8 feet a year, that salt level
may be somewhat low down around 600 feet for the deep monitor
well.
 But for the Mokuhau and the Waiehu Heights A wells,
it's only around about minus 250 to minus 338, and they are
basically at the level -- allowable level of salt
concentration.  If you take a look over this whole aquifer, you
can't say that the deep monitor well is the way we have got
everything over the aquifer.  Far from it.
 In fact, my analysis of this is that instead of
being 600 feet down, a prudent analysis of this would say that
all you've got is about 250 feet.  Which is quite a reduction.
Because if you go much further, you are going to get saline
concentrations much greater than 250 parts per million.
 And I think for that reason, maybe somebody
independent should look at this.  I've been looking at it from
the outside, other people have, but maybe the board should
think about talking to the Honolulu Board of Water Supply and
talk about who their consultants are to take a look at this
situation.  I think we have had a rosy picture here with our
head in a sand operation, where we don't really know what's
going on and it could be quite dangerous.
 The county council, surprisingly enough, had been
very complimentary of the fact that we filed this petition.  I
expected -- Jonathan Starr said the home rule situation that's
come up.  On the contrary.  The council has talked to this
charter commission that's now being assembled for the county
and said get the aquifer out of the water board and back on to
the council again.  That's the extreme of what we're talking
about.  Instead of being for home rule, they are talking about
the fact it should be under the county.
 I would be perfectly willing to send in a copy of
this supplemental report that I sent to the commission.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMSON:  You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr did allude to a test, I
guess, that was conducted and there is a report, I would like
the director to give us an oral dissertation.

MR. CRADDICK:  You want a copy of the actual report?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I don't want you to read the
report, just give us something that we can understand.

MR. CRADDICK:  I have a copy of my letter to the
commission here.  Basically, what we did was, we're trying to
understand why the interface level is so far down in Iao.  It
does not correlate to what they call the 1 to 40 ratio that the
density of fresh water and salt water would normally have.  And
one theory is that the salt water level has not risen up to
match what are the perceived water levels in the aquifer.
 And because Mr. Mink is involved with Carl Takumi
doing our wells out there in North Waihe'e, I think he took it
upon himself to do this.  They didn't charge anything for
this.  It did cost us something because we had to have people
out -- a few people out shutting off valves and things like
that during the night and incurred overtime.
 What we want to do was, if that's correct when we
shut all the pumps down, the water levels would not change;
they would basically remain the same.  When we shut the pumps
down, I believe they recovered about .8 feet.  And you can see,
and what I have handed out, the graph of that recovery.  Now,
whether that's in test hole B or any other well, it won't make
any difference.
 The reason I say that is because we did the same
test back in January of 2000.  We did use the results from the
state monitor well and it came to 89 days.  So this was 82, the
other one is 89 during the same scope.  Now, what he has done
is he has taken an equation -- or the equation best fit curve
of these points.  There's no equation that Mr. Mink grabbed out
of the sky or anything like that.
 He simply plotted the points, and then said at what
point would this rise up to a level that would equal what you
see, the mid level point, which is minus 699 feet below sea
level, and that number is 82 days.  So that's based on numbers
measured.  The actual real factual information.  It's not based
on a model where you put constraints on it to make the model
match what your idea is of what the aquifer should or shouldn't
do.  It's based on actual test information.
 And whether you think that if we shut it off for
actual 89 days or 82 days or whatever it is that would recover
up to that.  That's why I have said that later on this year
we're going to try for 24 hours and we'll see if it keeps
matching this curve.
 The other thing the board could do, we had it in our
budget the last few years to actually get a real working model
of Iao.  Now, to do that, we have had cost estimates in a range
anywhere from 150,000 to $600,000 to do a model like that.  And
that would be a good bit of information, I would think, for all
of us if we were to do something like that.
 But as far as the results of the test here, that's
it.  We were basically trying to show that -- or find out what
time it would take so there was a match between the water level
that does match the interface level.  And keep in mind that our
Waikapu well does match that.  It's in an area where no pumping
is going on and that water level out there is about 17 1/2 feet
and that does match the interface level.  So you've got a well
in Iao that does exactly that.
 When we shut Wailuku shaft off, it came up to this
level in about 90 days.  We did that in 1994 and it came up to
this same level in about 90 days.  So, too bad we didn't have
the actual water level as it climbed up.  We could do that, we
could actually shut down Wailuku shaft for 90 days and do that
over again to make sure we got the data this time.  There are
other ways to prove that this report from Mink & Yuen is
factual.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  I would note the arrival of
Howard Nakamura, committee member, board member.
 Subsequent to the letter from Linnel Nishioka, make
us aware of the petition, what action, if any, does this
committee feel is warranted?  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  My feeling is the first action should be
to write a letter saying that the board does not necessarily
agree with the opinion that was sent in the director's letter,
which I think is misleading, and that it could cause them to
believe that this is the opinion of the board.  Since it comes
from the department on letterhead and it says "we feel."
 It is not necessarily -- I would like to begin by
distancing ourselves from what the director has gone off on his
own and done, which I feel he should not have done without the
board taking a position.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  What do you feel that -- whatever he
did is not -- well, is not sufficient what he did?  Or what are
you disagreeing with the report?

MR. STARR:  I disagree with most of his points.  I
would not like the commission to be under the impression that
this is the position of the board.  The board may take a
position similar to this on its own, but it has not.  And I
thought that at the meeting, at the board meeting where we
discussed it, it was clear the board at that time was not
taking a position.
 And here I see a letter that seems to state that the
department, which means the board, is taking a position, where
in reality what we have is the director personally taking a
position.  So I would like to see a letter from the board to
the commission, saying that this is not the position of the
board, at least at this time, and this is maybe the position of
the director personally.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Who would write the letter?  Who
would be more knowledgeable?  Or you would write the letter?
Who would draft a letter from the board?  I'm not knowledgeable
enough to really --

MR. STARR:  I'm not contesting any points in this.
All I'm saying is that this was not a position taken by the
board.  That's the extent that I'm talking about.  Now, if
we're interested in taking a position, I am willing to discuss
that.  But I just want to make it clear that this is -- that
this letter that was received by them is not the official
position of Maui Board of Water Supply, which --

MR. CRADDICK:  I'll write a letter like that, with
no board action.  I'll write a letter like that.  I tried to
say in there what the board was doing at their last committee
meeting.  They said they were going to convene this special
review of alternative sources.  That was the motion made by the
board, and I put that in there so the commission is aware that
the board is doing something additional.  But I can make it
very clear that the board is not taking any position on this
matter.

MR. STARR:  And that this letter that was sent was
your own personal opinion.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, Jonathan, it's not my personal
opinion.  I mean, we talked this over with the staff.  I don't
just make these on my own.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Clark.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  You are suggesting that we have an
independent firm doing the tests?

MR. STARR:  Well, as far as this test goes, my
belief is that this is bad science, you don't turn off the
pumps for 15 hours, have it bounce back a few inches, and then
say, well, I'm going to multiply a few inches to -- multiply
out a few inches by that and try to find an ending point.
That's not the way it works.
 What it does in the first 15 hours after you turn
off the pumps is not indicative of what -- of the change that
will be taking place a month later or two months later or three
months later.  So I feel that this is just an attempt to
justify that everything is peachy keen.  Whether it's not -- or
whether it is or not, I don't know.
 I, for one, want to see real testing and real
modeling, and not only of the Iao aquifer but of all the
aquifers on Maui.  If we had a mechanism for doing it, I would
be satisfied.  I don't think we do.  That's why I, for one, and
it's just one voice, feels that I would welcome the commission
to look into the sustainability of our resource and make sure
that we're not abusing it, and not just in Iao aquifer but
outside of Iao aquifer.
 For example, the Kahului aquifer segment, which is
right below Iao, has a sustainable yield of 1 million gallons a
day.  There's perhaps 30 million gallons being pumped out of
there.  When you add up various pumping between Maui Electric,
Keopuilani Park, other parks, several golf courses, and so on
and --

MR. HASHIMOTO:  But these are being used for irrigation.

MR. CRADDICK:  Potable.

MR. STARR:  But they're still -- they are in
connection with the Iao aquifer.  There's no geologic line;
there's simply a political line between Iao and that.  So the
science now has kind of bypassed that, looking at an aquifer as
a separate entity.  We're one of the few places on earth where
that's still done.  Every place else models; you take a larger
area and you model the whole thing.
That was done on Molokai and I believe it was --

MR. CRADDICK:  Lanai.  Not Molokai.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any other comments from the other
members?  Recommendation is to defer action on this matter.
We'll set up a meeting exclusive to reviewing Iao management
rule.  Any objections?

MR. STARR:  Just that we are expecting the director
to write a letter saying these were his comments.  I'll be
happy with that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Objections?
 The reconvened meeting of September 11th is now
adjourned.
(Whereupon the September 20, 2001 Rules Committee
meeting was reconvened.)

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We're reconvening the rules
committee meeting noticed for 10 a.m.  Back to the agenda.
We're in receipt of written testimony from Hugh Starr.  Any
oral, verbal testimony wishing to be given at this time?  Okay,
good.
 Item 5 is discussion and possible recommendation
regarding a proposed amendment to the definition of subdivision
in Section 1-2 of the rules and regulations of the Board of
Water Supply.  We have a proposed amendment, I think, submitted
by member Howard Nakamura, which added, "For purposes of these
rules, consolidation and resubdivision, pursuant to Section
18.04.020 of the Maui County Code, shall not be construed a
subdivision."
 There's also another amendment we could take up at
this time that's to take us out of the subdivision practice
altogether, and leave the subdivisions part of it as a function
of the planning department, I guess, or land use and codes.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman, I believe
this discussion should be limited to the proposed amendment
since that was -- since there is specifically -- the amendment
was specific -- this proposal was a specific proposal, with any
other amendment -- if you want to consider any other amendment,
I believe that should be another agenda item.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  I disagree with corp counsel.  I think
we can have whatever discussion we want, or action.  If we're
going to approve something might be limited.
 I would like to get a greater understanding of why
we're involved in the subdivision process.  Try to examine that
a little bit.  I'm also not really convinced that we need to
necessarily be in that loop except where it pertains to fire
flow requirements or the issuance of meters.  I'm not even sure
if we're the right entity to be looking at it in terms of fire
requirements.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  In support of that comment, I would
say, also, I know the rules have things for regulating
subdivisions in there, but a number of utilities don't have
that in.  I see little necessity for it except to protect the
subdivider.
 Because if we just say the system has to be adequate
and they have to construct our standards to hook up to the
system, it puts a lot of responsibility on the design engineer
to design the system so that it will do that.  And later on
people don't come in and -- like the last meeting that we had
and subdivision got approved with inadequate services to it.
And I would be very happy.
 I know our staff has a little bit of concerns on
whether the board would then take their focus off the
subdivision and on to the standards; but even then if the board
decided they wanted to do that, I think the focus would be a
lot more properly on water issues rather than subdivisions.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Let's focus our
discussion right now on the amendment that is proposed.  Yes,
Mr. Nakamura.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an
amendment that I had requested corp counsel to prepare and the
genesis of the request was -- I believe that when we had that
young couple from Haiku come before the board -- I can't recall
their names but --

MS. NAGO:  Hughes.

MR. NAKAMURA:  The Hughes issue where in review, it
turned out that the Maui County Code permitted subdivisions
which merely adjusted boundaries to proceed without any special
requirements, and the rules and regs of the Board of Water
Supply did not address that.
 And the department's determination was that, in
fact, it was a subdivision pursuant to the rules, and the
Hughes were in a situation where had they not done anything,
then they would have been able to proceed, but the act of
trying to adjust the boundary triggered what seemed to them to
be a very onerous situation.
 I thought that was a reasonable position that if you
had merely an adjustment of boundaries that did not otherwise
impact the development of the lot, that it was reasonable to
have the rules provide that this was something that this did
not require improvement and ask corporation counsel to prepare
an amendment accordingly.  And that's what is before the board
and the committee.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  I'm willing to support the intent of
it.  I have some concerns after having experienced my neighbor
in Kaupo doing a consolidation and resubdivision and somehow
taking something that was -- it was originally three different
grants, and somehow at the end of it they ended up with nine
different lots.
 Because there was a -- the main road, and then there
was an old road which had not been used for 50 years and they
both cut through it.  So they were able to take advantage of a
loophole in the consolidation and resubdivision, so that they
ended up with a lot more lots, and I know that loophole does
exist.
 I would like to add some wording that states that
the consolidation and resubdivision that does not create
additional lots.  In other words, when they start with two lots
or start with three lots --

MR. CRADDICK:  The law says that --

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

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Fukushima?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  The subdivision that Mr. Starr is
referring to, I don't believe he has his facts correct.  Number
one, 18-04-020 clearly states that consolidation and
resubdivision, you cannot end up with more developable velocity
than you started out with.  So, in other words, his
representation that three lots suddenly turned to nine was not
as a result of this particular section of the code.
 But we do agree, and we think that the board should
consider limiting the number of lots that are available under
this provision, such as that consolidation and resubdivision of
more than three lots, perhaps.  Some language that would limit
it to -- would limit the application of this particular
waiver.
 We can see that the main problems -- and when we
don't consider resub -- the consolidation and resubdivision of
ten lots, there could be a significant impact on the water
system and the department's obligation to supply water.
 So again we would -- the idea we believe is a sound
idea, but we would also recommend that it would be limited to a
number of lots, not an indefinite number of lots.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  Also, a word that was turned up by
Howard, it's developable lots.  We have encountered a real
problem with that.  And this board has had to deal with it on
more than one occasion.
 One of the first subdivisions that came out of this,
the guy took nine lots down in the gulch, little kuleanas, you
know, small-sized, probably could never have built on them, all
landlocked, and rearranged them around a road, with no water
system whatsoever and subdivided them, and now all of those
lots are all coming in for resubdivision calling themselves
private water systems.
 The other thing is taking little scraps of road
remnants, 500, 600 square feet, they attach that on to a 3.9
acre piece of land and it goes over the 2 acres, so boom, then
you got 2-acre lots out of this little road scrap that you
never could put a house on in the first place.
 Is there any other examples, Herb, that you can
think of?

MR. CHANG:  I think the last example was the --

MR. CRADDICK:  Hughes, you know, Hughes, no question
about it, that was kind of egregious because they simply wanted
to get a septic tank in.  There are a lot of people out there
that have -- are using this basically to get around the
requirements, and so without some kind of qualifying language,
I think to just generally say okay, is going to make trouble.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  Can counsel suggest language that would
limit it to three lots?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  We certainly can.  And just to
clarify, if I may, Mr. Chairman, a statement made by
Mr. Craddick.  The developable lot is defined as something over
1200 square feet, and that number was arrived at by considering
setbacks, and considering what a reasonable sized dwelling can
be placed on that lot.  I believe it was a 500 square foot
structure.
 If we put a 500 square foot structure applying with
the appropriate setbacks, the division of land use and codes
came up with 100 feet.  And so a 500 square foot remnant parcel
would not be -- would not qualify under this particular
provision of the law.

MR. CRADDICK:  Let's say you had a 2,000 square
foot, 5-foot wide remnant, would that be a developable lot?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If it's over 1200 square feet.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, but you can't build on it, it's
only 5-feet wide.  Those are the type of things we're getting.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  There is a definition of
developable, if you believe it should be something different,
maybe we could ask the council to reconsider that, but right
now it's 1200 square feet.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Kent?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Chair, I believe that if we start
specifying number of lots and we're entering the arena of
subdivisions, I thought we were trying to get away from that.
That is what the public works department duties is, to
administer the subdivision process.  My opinion is that the
proposed language is acceptable.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Nakamura.

MR. NAKAMURA:  On the issue of developable lots, I
agree with the concept that this should not be used to take a
reasonably undevelopable lot and somehow turn it into a
developable lot through this mechanism.  If it's necessary
to -- is it possible for the board to develop its own
definition of developable?
 I agree with David, that if it's only 1200 square
feet, I don't know if that's by itself a reasonable definition
of a developable lot.  It could be 1 foot by 1200 feet long,
and then I think that would be improper to then use this
ordinance to create a developable lot.  Is it possible that we
can qualify it in our rules?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman.  I believe
that you can develop your own definition of developable lot as
it pertains to the water rules and it's applicability to this
particular -- the water rules and this definition of
subdivision.  I believe it could be incorporated.
 You have another definition of what is -- for the
department's purposes -- what is considered developable lot.
It may not fit with the definition under Title 18, but I
believe you can.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Howard, are you saying we can come up
with a definition for developable lot?  Because we don't have
one now.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's correct.  As it would apply
to subdivisions and they are reviewed by the department, you
certainly can.  There may be some confusion because you have
two different definitions, one in Title 18 and one in the
board's department's rules, but I don't believe that's
something that cannot be overcome.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Question for corp counsel.  Can you
explain this sentence, easements for roadway or access purposes
shall be construed as subdivided land?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  The interpretation of that
particular language is that these types of easements generally
have to be subdivided.  Now, I believe, if I'm not mistaken,
the Title 18 in its definition of subdivision has been
changed.  And I can get back to the board on that, but I
believe that approximately -- let me strike that.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I believe there was a court ruling
regarding the Harrison case.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's correct.  And in fact, I
wrote an opinion to the Department of Public Works indicating
that in that case the court ruled that these types of
easements -- let me strike my first statement.
 That these types of easements did not have to be
subdivided out.  Subsequently that case was remanded, that
opinion, that Supreme Court opinion was stricken and the case
was remanded to the second circuit court.
 However, if I recall my opinion, that we believe
that the reasoning contained in that stricken opinion was solid
reasoning and we advised the department that unless they made
the rule clear that these particular types of easements had to
be subdivided out, that they shouldn't require subdivision and
that we would be glad -- if they believed that it was an
important issue, that we would be glad to revise the
subdivision ordinance.
 I thank Kent for reminding me of the Harrison case.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Chairman Nobriga, I would suggest
perhaps this matter be deferred pending definition -- the
department reps coming up with the definition of developable
lots that we can include in the proposed amendments.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.  I was leaning that way
myself.  We will be reviewing the entire document -- in our
efforts to upgrade our structure.

MR. STARR:  I still feel that I'd like to limit it
to a certain number of lots, developable lots, and I would hope
that, you know, whether members agree with me that wording for
that can be created so that we can deal with it once.

MR. CRADDICK:  We can ask corp counsel to get some
language for that and have it for you the next time you look at
it.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Would corp counsel also be addressing
that statement regarding easement as to whether it's still
applicable or not?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Again, we don't believe that it's
part of the -- if it's part of the subdivision process, yes;
but if it's outside of the subdivision -- if it's outside of
the subdivision process, if it's merely designating access or a
roadway easement, then that does not have to be subdivided
out.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Should we change language in this?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I don't believe the language has to
be changed.  Now, if it is the opinion of the committee and the
board that easements or roadways for access purposes should be
subdivided out under the department's definition, we believe
that should be clearly stated.  But as it's stated now, we
don't believe that it requires subdivision.

MR. HIRANAGA:  So it's consistent with subdivision ordinance?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's correct.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Another comment.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I don't understand why
condominiumization of a lot should fall under this rule,
because it's my understanding that condominiumization does not
allow additional dwellings beyond what the county zoning
permits.  Therefore, as an example, if you were to
condominiumize a 2-acre ag lot, you are still limited to two
dwellings, one being no larger than a thousand square feet.
 So I don't -- the point in fact was that that lady
who wanted to condominiumize her ag lot was told she had to get
a separate meter; but if she did not condominiumize, she was
allowed to build the second dwelling.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman.  The reason
why that's in there is that in the past, in the interim
districts, you could build one dwelling per 6,000 square feet.
 And there were numerous types of these developments
that were coming up in the interim district where you have a,
say, 3,000 square foot lot and you're putting up five houses,
it was clear the impact of five dwellings on one lot without
having to -- through either the requirements of Title 18 or the
board or the department's rules, was significantly impacting
not only water service but other services provided for under
Title 18, which is the subdivision ordinance.
 That's specifically why this language was placed
both in the subdivision definition in Title 18 as well as the
subdivision definition in the department's rules.  These
particular types of developments were creating significant
impacts on the infrastructure without having to put in the
appropriate infrastructure that was necessary to serve these
developments.  So there is a very good reason for this language
being there.

MR. HIRANAGA:  Question.  Are there still areas on
Maui that are zoned interim?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  There certainly are.  As well as --
I believe there are pockets on Lanai and --

MR. NAKAMURA:  Molokai.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I'm thinking of Mr. Hiranaga's comments
and I kind of agree with them, as I do with Hugh Starr's
comments here that came to us.  I'm wondering if while we're
doing this, we might want to exclude condominiums of two or
three units.
 And Hugh Starr suggested some language where we
would add the word -- after "planned unit development and
condominium," we would add "of four or more units."  It would
basically exclude the two and three unit condominiums like the
one case that came before us.  I would be amenable to adding
that language as well, when it comes back to us.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Four?  I would think we should
take the condominium out of the subdivision and create another
definition just specifically to condominiums and
condominiumization.

MR. STARR:  That's a possible way of doing it.  I do
feel, my own feeling is two units certainly should be
allowable; three units is questionable, above four shouldn't
be.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We'll review that when we go into
the definition portion of the review of the rules.  Any other
further comments?  That item is therefore deferred.
 Let's go to item 6, discussion and possible
recommendation regarding rules and regulations of the Board of
Water Supply, Subchapter 2, Section 2-1, extensions or
connections.  Anybody see anything they want to try and do with
this?  Yes, Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know if it's appropriate now
to have that discussion that Howard was saying may not be
appropriate last time of whether the board wants to busy
themselves with this or delete all the subdivision rules out.
Whatever ones have to be that are not in the water service
section, put them in there.
 Like, for instance, if you want to do waivers of
some of the rules, put that in there, get rid of the -- all of
the subdivision stuff.  Because it -- I mean, I don't know why
we're doing it.  The subdivision itself doesn't use any water
unless people start moving in.  That's when you need the
adequate system.  Somebody just makes a subdivision and nobody
ever moves in, nothing ever happens.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  I had a suggestion to -- in fact, I was
lobbying quite strongly one time by Mr. Brian Miskae, who felt
that we should get rid of fire flow requirements totally in
agricultural areas.  I thought about it and I decided that I
don't think that that would be building the kind of society
that we want.
 Because if we don't force fire flow requirements,
sure it makes it a lot easier for us to build our system and a
lot easier for people to do their own development; but as areas
go from ag to rural and to urban, we would then end up with
more and more communities that don't have fire flow, and we
would ultimately have to pay the price to put them in after the
areas become urbanized.  So I don't really think that's the
solution.
 The question is, at what point do we have -- what
point should the fire flow requirements be triggered, whether
it's at the subdivision, whether it's when people build their
houses.  It seems like when it's when people build the houses,
then it becomes a real hardship, and a tendency is to excuse
people from that, because it's kind of too late.  It also gets
more expensive that way.
 I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think that's
what we really have to decide, at what point does that have to
be done.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  I think that's exactly why I say we
shouldn't be in that decision making process.  That's a
decision for the developer and how he decides to market their
lots.  If they build a system that all you can do is have a
gazebo there and toolshed, that's what he is going to build the
system for.  If they want to have larger houses, multiple
houses, that's what they are going to build the system for and
they build it to that standard.
 And then as far as the fire requirements -- I mean,
with the charter commission and stuff talking, I believe there
are going to be some changes made there, if not already going
on, that are going to happen within the fire department where
they do step up to that responsibility for the fire
requirements.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I can comment.  I believe if we
got out of the -- if the board decided to get out of the
subdivision process and we relied upon subdividers, we'll have
a lot more requests like you have from Maui Ranch Estates.
Where they have an inadequate system, say they have an
inadequate system, Can you help us make it up to standard?
Look where that has taken us.

MR. CRADDICK:  But nobody in there will get a
meter.  Nobody will get a meter.  If it's not already to
standard in the first place.  So they won't be on our system.
So if they want to build up later on, they have to produce a
system that's up to standard.

MR. NAKAMURA:  I definitely agree with what
corporation counsel just said.  I think that we would be very,
very derelict by taking a position that we are not going to
review subdivisions and we'll deal with water issues when
someone comes in for a meter.  I think that's completely
contrary to any good principals of planning where you consider
zoning, capital projects, subdivision.  Those are all elements
of community planning.
 And I do somewhat support the idea that perhaps we
should not be making the determination as to whether or not
fire flow is adequate; that may be perhaps a determination the
fire department should be making.  But I would be strongly
opposed to supporting any suggestion that we get out of the
subdivision review totally.  I think we would have chaos.
 The point Howard brought up about Maui Ranch Estates
is really an appropriate one, because when that project was
approved, I don't know if people really know the background,
but the county used to have what they used to call an
agricultural exemption provision, whereby a developer who
stated that the project was an agricultural subdivision was
able to put in substandard improvements and clearly what has
happened is as a result of those substandard improvements.
 It's the same thing on the Big Island where you had
thousands of lots created by bigger subdivisions and they are
having chaos there because people don't have the improvements
and they are screaming at government to provide it.  And so I
think it would be a huge mistake to get out of the review of
subdivision.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I agree.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Oh, good.  Okay.  We should leave
that section in place then.
 Move on to Section 2-2, reservoirs.  I don't see
anything specific that we need to address to reservoirs at this
time.
 Section 2-3, water mains and appurtenances.  Any
reason why we specifically looked at the two-unit subdivision
and the three to twelve-unit subdivision?  Why was it split up
like that?  You don't know?  You do know, but it's too funny.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, it would only be an opinion,
let's put it that way.

MR. STARR:  Can we ask the director how we can
improve this?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yeah.

MR. STARR:  How are we going to improve this?

MR. CRADDICK:  I have given my suggestion for
improving it.  I don't know, I would say what's the policy of
the board.  It comes down to a money issue.  How are you going
to fund these things?  If somebody puts in --

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Don't go away, Herb.  Stay there.

MR. CRADDICK:  What it is, is the staff does have
some suggestion changes for all of these things, and I suppose
we could provide them to the committee.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  That would be really nice.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Easier for us.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Way easier.

MR. CRADDICK:  I guess I was having hope upon hope
that somehow the board would see that we really don't need to
be in the subdivision process, but I do understand what
Mr. Nakamura is talking about, and I believe there are other
ways to handle that.  Other than getting into the minutiae of
the design of a system for somebody.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR:  I think we should maintain parameters,
but I would like to revise these parameters.  Maybe there's a
way to save money, modern materials.  I don't believe that, you
know, 8 inch -- we always need to go 8 inch for the way we have
now.  I think it's possible to fine-tune it somewhat.  I would
like to call on Herb to join us every day.  What do you guys
suggest?

MR. KOGASAKA:  We were looking at trying to
reference the water system standards, which all counties are
working on in a virtual, pretty much completed, putting
together a standards reflecting -- that's consolidated all the
counties' requirements.  And I think maybe, Larry, you can
elaborate and go into this a little bit more.

MR. CRADDICK:  Larry is the one that's been working
on the standards review committee with the other three
counties.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Right on, Larry.

MR. WINTERS:  The standards of the procedures that's
been going on for approximately ten years, meetings and
updating them, and it is essentially final, just minor
fine-tuning items now.  And we anticipate that they will become
essentially final in the next month or so.  Then they will go
through a printing process and a training -- information
training.

MR. STARR:  Can you tell us what they are?  How they
relate to what we got?

MR. WINTERS:  As far as the rules, the rules have a
lot of standards information contained in them that is
contradictory to what the updated standards are.  So what our
draft is, is going through and essentially eliminating all the
standards requirements out of the rules and leaving just the
policy, the rules policy.

MR. CRADDICK:  Not eliminating.  Putting the
requirements to follow standards in the rule.  You are talking
about things that are in the standards, that are in the rule
eliminating them.

MR. WINTERS:  Eliminating the specific requirements
that are in the standards, and the rule will refer to the
standards as the guideline for construction.  Not adopt the
standards.  We don't want to adopt the standards, because then
every time we make a standards change we have to go back and do
a rule change, which is complicated.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Let me remind the department, they
have an obligation to have whatever changes in standards they
are proposing for subdivisions go through the subdivision
engineering standards committee for their comment, for their
review, and I'm cautioning the department not to forget that
important step.
 It's provided for by code that if there's any
changes in water department standards, it's got to go through
the subdivision engineering standards committee for their
review and comment and recommendation.

MR. STARR:  Hasn't that standard been done in
relation to the subdivision committee and all of that?  If it's
coming out with the state standard.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  All I'm saying is that the Maui
County Code provides for any changes to subdivision standards
must go through the subdivision engineering standards
committee.

MR. STARR:  Who is that?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's a committee under staff by
public works.

MR. STARR:  I would assume that that committee is
going to approve the standards that public works has been
working on with the other counties.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I don't believe they have seen them
yet.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes, they have.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Have they seen them?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  My understanding was that they had
not seen anything yet.

MR. CRADDICK:  We have given them a copy.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  When they asked for it two months
ago, perhaps you gave it to them.  Prior to that when these
rules were being considered, I mean, if it wasn't for the
chairman of the subdivision engineering standards committee
reminding you, Dave, they would not have been seeing those
things.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, actually, I am supposed to be a
member of that committee.  I have never known that up until a
couple months ago that I was even on the committee.

MR. STARR:  Who is the chair?

MR. CRADDICK:  I didn't even know the committee
existed.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I believe the chair of that is Tom
Godfrey.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Anyway, continue.  Or are you done?

MR. STARR:  Can I ask, like, pick something out of
here and see how is it changing -- say, like, if we have
something that needs a 6 inch or 8 inch, are they reducing
sizes, increasing sizes?

MR. WINTERS:  With reference to Section 2-3?

MR. STARR:  Yes, just general trends.

MR. CRADDICK:  We're suggesting deleting the whole
table.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.

MR. CRADDICK:  That whole table there.

MR. WINTERS:  Actually not, David.

MR. CRADDICK:  It says do we still want this table.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Yes, Howard.

MR. NAKAMURA:  May I ask a question to corp
counsel.  The issue of rule versus standard, how is that going
to be reconciled, or how should it be reconciled, in your
mind?  Because can you change a standard basically at your
discretion or does there have to be some additional process
which is short of rule making?  What is the relationship?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I think you could draft the rules to
reference standards that are on file with the department, and
on file with the department or as may be amended in the future
and handle it that way, and it may be a little more flexible;
it may be a little more time saving if you do it that way.
 But again, there are -- even then there are steps
that you've got to go through, such as subdivision engineering
standards committee being one.  But if the rule is made in that
fashion, I believe it would lend a lot more flexibility when
new standards want to be adopted, new materials, or what have
you.

MR. CRADDICK:  An interesting group, but I never had
an agenda, never knew I was on the committee.  It says in the
ordinance that they have some authority over the water
department standards.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  For water mains and
appurtenances, we have the Section 1, urban districts, it says
current standards of the insurance service officers guide,
blah, blah, blah, to the end of the sentence, fire flow, that
would be -- that's all we need in this rule.  The rest of this
table is just a reflection of that guide, yeah, with the
determination of required fire flow that was in effect at the
time this rule was written.
 
MR. STARR:  Excuse me, what's the name of the guide
that you are working with, Larry?  Is that the same thing
that's reflected here?

MR. WINTERS:  I'm not sure I understand what you
mean.

MR. STARR:  Are you working on a committee that's
rewriting the insurance --

MR. CRADDICK:  No, no.

MR. STARR:  -- determination of required fire
codes?

MR. WINTERS:  No, we refer to that.  We still refer
to that.

MR. STARR:  Does anyone have one of those?  Can I
see one?

MR. KOGASAKA:  We can provide that.

MR. STARR:  Is that a book you use on your
day-to-day stuff?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, ISO standard.

MR. STARR:  ISO.  What's the one you are working on
with the other counties?

MR. CRADDICK:  When they say ISO, don't confuse that
ISO with the International Standards Organization.  That's
Insurance Services Offices.

MR. STARR:  I would not think of making that mistake.

MR. WINTERS:  We're working on the water systems
standards.  It's actually several volumes, it's planning,
materials, construction, and approved material list and
standard details, and also a corrosion standard.

MR. STARR:  Is that state or national?

MR. WINTERS:  It's county.

MR. CRADDICK:  ISO?

MR. WINTERS:  I'm talking about the water system standards.

MR. STARR:  It's a state book.

MR. WINTERS:  It's county.

MR. STARR:  Okay.  But it's statewide, all the
counties statewide?

MR. WINTERS:  Yes, all the counties.

MR. CRADDICK:  And we think that the health
department may be adopting it also.

MR. STARR:  It would seem like that would be a good
thing to adopt.  It sounds like that commission that Howard
reflects -- that refers to is kind of a shadow entity.

MR. CRADDICK:  Only for us, not for public works.  I
think public works, they actually do run a lot of things
through them.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Isn't it created either by charter or
ordinance?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  It's created by ordinance.

MR. STARR:  Can we get them to approve -- I feel
what it is, the county -- the statewide thing that Larry is --

MR. WINTERS:  Updating the water standard systems.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  You get them to approve?

MR. STARR:  Yeah, if we can get the subdivision
committee to approve --
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's their function, is to
review.  Whether they approve it or not, I can't speak for
them.  But anytime standards are proposed to be changed, it's
got to be run through that committee.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Herb?

MR. KOGASAKA:  We were contemplating, going back to
the reservoirs, for example, taking out the section -- Larry,
can you help me out over here?  That's a simple approach.

MR. WINTERS:  We were going to delete from 2.2 the
fourth line after "storage tanks."

MR. CRADDICK:  From "with a capacity of 100,000";
right?

MR. WINTERS:  Right.  To down to "other material."
Then insert "size and construction shall be in accordance with
the Department of Water Supply standards or" -- continue on
with that paragraph -- "as approved by the director."

MR. STARR:  I know that a lot of times when we're
dealing with fairly small-sized tanks, in a real world everyone
puts up steel tanks with liners and they are good for 20
years.  I've done -- I'm sure Mike has done it and Clark.  They
work fine for a fraction -- a tiny fraction of what we're
spending on tanks.  And I would like to be able to see them
used where it's suitable.  There are places where it's not
suitable.
 But my feeling is that it should be something that
the director can make a call on and go from a lot of time
and -- to a 100,000 tank to a $20,000 tank.  Will that do --
will that do that?  Will that allow that?

MR. WINTERS:  It will, because anytime that the --
our design feels that the requirement is less than the
standard, as approved by the director, will allow installation
of something like that.

MR. STARR:  I would like to institute that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Well, I would like to see it in
writing.  I just wanted to hear Herb's views right now.  Go
ahead, Herb, finish your whole thing.  I'm tired, I'm going to
adjourn.

MR. CRADDICK:  Rather than going through that line
by line, why don't we just give the suggested changes to you at
the next meeting.  I don't know if you want to reconvene this
meeting at some future date and not close out here.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  We'll be revisiting these items
again in the near future.

MR. CRADDICK:  We'll just make some suggested
changes from our side when you put these different headings in
here.  Corp counsel is suggesting a ram (phonetic) sort of
format.  That's how we'll do it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  Any question or comments on fire
protection at this time?  Or do you prefer to wait for a new
meeting with a fresher --

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Why don't we wait for the changes.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA:  The matters are deferred.  If
there's no objection, this committee meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.
(The proceedings were concluded at 12:00 a.m.)

IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.