BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING

 
Held at the HGEA Conference Room, David K. Trask, Jr. Office
Building, 2145 Kaohu Street, Room 207, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii,
commencing at 10:45 a.m., on December 19, 2001.
 
REPORTED BY:  JEANNETTE W. IWADO, RPR/CSR #135
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

A T T E N D A N C E
CHAIRPERSON:                   HOWARD NAKAMURA
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:             KENT HIRANAGA
                               MICHAEL NOBRIGA
                               PETER RICE
                               JONATHAN STARR
                               ORLANDO TAGORDA
DIRECTOR                       DAVID CRADDICK
DEPUTY DIRECTOR                GEORGE TENGAN
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL:    EDWARD KUSHI, JUNIOR
BOARD SECRETARY:               FRAN NAGO
ENGINEERING:                   HERBERT KOGASAKA
ALSO PRESENT:                  ELLIOTT KRASH
                               WARREN SUZUKI
 
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2001, 10:45 A.M.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay, I'd like to call the
Committee of the Whole to order.  It's Wednesday, December 19,
2001.  It is 10:45 in the morning.  We are meeting in the HGEA
Conference Room, room 207, in the David K. Trask office
building in Wailuku.
 In attendance this morning are committee members
Orlando Tagorda, Jonathan Starr, Peter Rice, Mike Nobriga, Kent
Hiranaga, and myself, Chairman Howard Nakamura.  Director David
Craddick, Deputy Corporation Counsel Ed Kushi, Junior.  Members
of the staff, and Elliot Krash and Warren Suzuki.
 We have minutes that had been previously mailed
out.  What is the pleasure of the committee regarding the
minutes?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Move the minutes be received subject
to 30 day review.  If there's no corrections, the minutes be
filed.
 
MR. RICE:  Second.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Moved and seconded that the
minutes be received.  All those in favor signify by saying
"aye."
(a chorus of ayes).
Opposed?
(None).
The motion is carried.
 We have one item on the agenda today, which is the
issue of source adequacy Upcountry.  At this time I would open
the meeting for testimony from members of the public who wish
to be heard.  Elliot?

MS. KRASH:  Good morning, Mr. Nakamura and members
of the committee.  My name is Elliot Krash and I'm speaking
today for the Kula Community Association.  I don't have
testimony, I have questions.  But I was just handed this
document that you prepared, Mr. Chairman, with additional
information, and it might answer some of those questions so it
might not be appropriate for me ask my questions now.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  You can do either, Elliot.

MS. KRASH:  Then I will run through them quickly.  I
was basing my questions on the September 26th document from
Director Craddick to the Chairperson and Members.  That's
dealing with the Upcountry water system.
 In the second paragraph of that document there's a
statement "existing sources exceed current demand."  My
question there, and throughout this letter, is can we deliver
that water where it needs to go?  We have three different
Upcountry systems, and can the water get where it needs to go?
 The second question is in the paragraph that's at
the bottom of that first page.  There's a statement that we're
"able to meet peak day demands during low rainfall."  Do those
estimates for peak day demands accommodate unusual or unforseen
needs or demands?  For example, broken lines, fire pump
failure, et cetera.  In other words, do we have a factor built
in?
 My third question deals with the drought
availability on H'Poko wells.  The statement at the top of the
page, "1.5 million gallons a day would be available then."  My
question there is, for how many more years do we anticipate
that we will be able to use the water from those wells, how
long will they be available for the Upcountry system, when do
they need to be dedicated to the central system?
 My fourth question is, further down page 2, item
one, commitment to the Hawaiian Homelands.  Is that commitment
of half a million gallons a day based on what we need right
now, what we will need this first year, or is it what we will
need when there's full buildout.
 My fifth question deals with the ag park, that's
item number four of those factors, and it's also in the last
paragraph on that page.  "We say that ag park demand is one
million gallons a day."  That I assume is the average day
demand, but is there a peak day demand for the ag park in dry,
windy, hot weather?  Does the ag park need more water than one
million gallons a day?
 And my sixth question, well, it's that same
question, and it's incorporated in the top paragraph on page
three, the ag park demand, the ag park need.  Because we are
using that figure of 1 million gallons a day in several
calculations here, and we come up with a bottom line "excess of
0.4 million gallons a day."  Will it really be that excess if
the ag park needs more in dry, hot weather?  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay, David, I trust you were
paying attention.  Would you like to respond?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  Although I put the numbers in
there for the ag park, it's totally separated from the domestic
water system, and it is almost irrelevant what their demand
is.  And the million gallons actually is the peak number that
they use.  Their average is around slightly over half a million
gallons a day.  So they're well covered in there.
 And for the rest of the system, there is a
built-to-deliver the water pretty much anywhere in the system.
The transmission systems, storage tanks and things like that
are in place.  Some of them were probably approaching our
limits on what we have for two-thirds of two-thirds, meaning we
can't deliver everything at peak demand with the largest pump
out of service, but we can certainly do it with the booster
pumps that are there to supply peak day demand for everybody.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Elliot, do you have any
further questions?  Does that answer your questions?
 
MS. KRASH:  Those were the questions I had.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  I did have a similar question as
it related to the ability of the Dowling well to supply water
during times of drought, and that's something that David has to
address because he did not include the full pumping capacity of
the Kaupakalua well, recognizing that there were limitations on
ability to get that water into the system.  Is that right,
David?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  And the limitation is that to
get it into the system you would have to have a booster pump at
Kokomo tank to put it into the Makawao system to push it
further up the hill where it could be used.  Now, the other
factor is that if we went to the point of 16 million gallons in
the ditch where we had to start cutting back what we could take
out of the ditch, at that point we could add the water into the
ditch.  We'd again have to retreat it, but we could add it into
the ditch, and that would allow us to go that much further
below 16 million and still be able to meet full demands.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  I think, as I mentioned,
the item before the Board is to make a recommendation -- before
the committee is to make a recommendation to the Board
regarding David's findings regarding the adequacy of source
Upcountry.  Do any of the members have any other questions or
comments?
 
MR. STARR:  I have a question.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Please, Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Elliot, could you come back for a
minute?  I have a question for you, sorry.  I know you have got
a pretty good handle on the water Upcountry through your
position with the association.  Have you been -- we have gone
through some pretty dry periods in the last year,
year-and-a-half.  Have you heard of any considerable problems
regarding brown-outs and problems with our ability to
distribute water Upcountry?
 
MS. KRASH:  No.  On the contrary, I've heard people
pleased that we haven't had cutbacks, if that's what you mean
by brown-outs.  Water outage, no.  I have heard concerns
expressed about our ability to cope with the possibility of
putting out fires, should there be a fire during these dry
periods, but that's more related to just nervousness about the
dryness rather than the water capacity.
 
MR. STARR:  I have another question.  Do you think
the Hamakuapoko well should be dedicated to the Upcountry
system or do you kind of have the expectation that they're
going to go into the central system?  I know you mentioned that
in your comments.
 
MS. KRASH:  I don't have an opinion on that, I don't
know enough about it.  My question was based on the fact that I
have heard the question raised about where that water is
supposed to go.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Anything else, Jonathan?
Any other questions to Elliot?  Okay, thank you, Elliot.
 Mr. Suzuki is the other remaining public member.  Do
you have anything you want to say?
 
MR. SUZUKI:  No, thank you.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So we have the --
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chair, a side comment.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Mr. Tagorda?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I heard something that Miss Elliot
Krash brought out, that that one million gallons the ag park
takes from the County, during peak demand they probably might
be able to use that one million.  David, isn't that included in
our MOU with A&B intake to Wailua Ditch if the ditch goes
down?  The 8.2 million, it's stated in that Wailua Ditch for
drought availability.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's covered in there, yes.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  It's covered in there. So you minus
that one million or you exclude that one million?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I put it in there because it's a
factor we have to deal with, but it's not a factor we have to
deal with with the domestic water system.  It's totally
separate and doesn't depend on any treatment capacity or
anything like that.  It's got its own pumps and its own
reservoirs.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  If they take their one million, will
that not reduce your intake to Wailua Ditch?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  What we can take from Wailua Ditch?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Yes.  Do we exclude that one million?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Under the MOU we are allowed to take 12.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Another question I'd like to ask, it's
a good point that she asked you, what happens if that H'Poko
well would be decided by the court that that goes to the
Central Maui system?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's what I wanted to ask about
before.  We have already done the EA to use this well any time
from now until kingdom come, to use this for drought in the
Upcountry water system.  If we complete the EIS it allows us to
send that water to Central Maui.
 Now, the EA that allows us to use water for
Upcountry says you can issue meters off of it for Upcountry,
and I think that was the concern that you are addressing in
your note here.  But even if it's going to Central Maui, if
there's a drought, the Board has the MOU with HC&S to use the
water for Upcountry, and I would have every expectation that
that's exactly what would happen.
 We don't pump Iao to the maximum now, nor would I
expect we would pump Iao to the maximum in the future.  If we
have a drought and that water goes Upcountry, and you pump a
little bit more in Iao or North Waihee to go up to the limit of
what the aquifer can yield, that's not going to be a problem
operationally.
 So the water, the wells can provide a dual purpose.
It can go to Central Maui, you can issue meters off of it.  And
if you have a drought you can let that water go Upcountry and
just increase your pumping in the rest of the wells.  I mean
this is a very small capacity for the Central Maui water
system.  So it is not going to be any problem at all using them
for both purposes.  And the final EIS that comes out, hopefully
that will allow it to be used for Central Maui, and I would
fully expect it would be used for Central Maui and meters would
be issued off of it.  But it is not going to nullify the EA
that has already been done for Upcountry to allow it to be used
during a drought.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  When you say the EA has been
done, the EA has been processed?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes, it's all completed.  We couldn't
run them unless it was all completed.
 
MR. RICE:  It's existing.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We had to do that before we could use
it.  Because when the Governor waived the procurement laws, the
first time he waived the EA requirements and the procurement
law.  The second time he only waived the procurement laws to
get everything going.  He said we still had to complete the
environmental process, and we did.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay, any other questions by
members of the committee?  I did send out to members of the
committee some information which I had, some additional
information which I asked for and received from David, and I
tried to format it in a little different way that made it
clearer to me, at least.
 It would appear as though during what I would
consider normal conditions, taking David's analysis and the
additional information he provided, which I think was more
conservative, that if you look at so-called normal conditions
that the source does seem to be adequate to meet demand.
However, that is one person's opinion at this point.
 So what is the pleasure of the committee in this
matter, or do you have any other questions or issues that you
would like to have clarified by the Director or by others?  Mr.
Starr?
 
MR. STARR:  Yes, I have several concerns, and they
all relate around the Hamakuapoko wells and the drought
emergency.  First of all, I cannot see in my heart being able
to say that the system is adequate or more than adequate when
we are in a drought emergency and it's raining.  That's
something that has been disturbing me for some months.  And I
know this isn't the venue for it, but I will want to see us go
out of a drought emergency, otherwise it's the wrong use of
that term of that state.
 I have no problem if we need to go in it when
there's an emergency, but I hate to be in a drought emergency
when it's wet and then say but we have excess capacity.  It
means that we lose all credibility.
 The second point is that in the paperwork where we
define the availability of water Upcountry, in light of feeling
that there is a surplus and we can issue meters, I don't feel
that Hamakuapoko should be mentioned at all.  I feel that there
is several hundred thousand gallons per day of excess capacity
right now, but I just want to be sure that in the paperwork
we're using to justify it that no mention is made of
Hamakuapoko, because it is only usable in a drought emergency.
If we're issuing meters but we are doing it with any mention of
something that can only be used as a drought emergency, I think
we are leaving ourselves open to lawsuits and legal action, and
I also just don't feel that that's right or fair.
 So I'd like to request that the paperwork that we
base it on not have any mention of the Hamakuapoko well.  And I
believe that even without that there's enough capacity for us
to earmark some additional water for issuance of meters.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay, I think with regard to the
first issue on the drought declaration, I agree that that's an
issue, a related issue that we need to address.  And in the
memo I sent out to the members of the committee, that's one of
the related items that needs to be looked at in the context of
whatever decision we make on the adequacy of source, the others
being updating of the waiting list, the appropriate rule
dealing with issuance of meters for the waiting list.  And at
some point we need to get an update on the status of additional
source development.

MR. STARR:  Could we get that right now?
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  It's in design.  We are doing an EA
for the Pookela well.  The state has offered to pay for it, so
it's moving along.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Do we have a timetable?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We would expect that it would
probably go to bid sometime probably in April.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Mr. Starr?
 
MR. STARR:  I thought we were fast-tracking and
moving a lot faster than that.  I get the feeling that this is
kind of on a lazy back burner somewhere.  How can we speed this
up?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No.  What happened was we thought we
were going to be able to avoid the environmental process
because it's an exploratory well, and we found out that back in
the 1970's when the environmental rules first came out all the
counties submitted lists for exemptions from the Chapter 343.
Maui County did not, so we are submitting that list now, but
it's going to take three months to get that process complete.
It will only take us three months to do the EA.
 So we felt that we shouldn't go that way and then
find out that they deny us having the exploratory well on the
exempt list, and then have to do the EA anyway, because then
we'd be done in June.  So I think we are moving quickly on it.
 
MR. STARR:  Can we move quicker?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  If you want to put in the bid that
the completion time has to be 90 days I suppose we could move
quicker, but that will jump the price of the well way up.
 
MR. STARR:  Can we get it bid both ways and then let
the Board decide?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We could, yes.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay, any other questions?  Mr. Rice?
 
MR. RICE:  Mr. Chair, a couple of things.  As it
relates, and I guess I'm referring to the Chairman's memo on
the suggestions about how to find adequacy.  And in relation to
Mr. Starr's comments, I want to make sure I understand.  In
this analysis, normal available source does not include
Hamakuapoko wells.
 
MR. STARR:  I'd just like to have it stricken.  In
that paper I would just like to have it stricken.
 
MR. RICE:  You want the actual line to disappear.
But in a drought condition it's listed.
 
MR. STARR:  I'd like it to disappear there, too.

MR. RICE:  But that's not accurate then.
 
MR. STARR:  Well, I feel that if we are in the
context of issuing meters we are better off doing it that way,
and then if we need it and have to go to it, it's there, but we
are not creating a culpability for ourselves.
 
MR. RICE:  But it's real, it's not a creation. If
nothing changed today they would be used for drought only.  If
nothing else changed.  So why wouldn't you include them?  It
clearly says drought.
 
MR. STARR:  Well, I feel that we have abused the
drought emergency so badly that those who might not like to see
us move ahead with this will probably be able to go and show
our abuse and say that they're actually intending to issue
meters against it.  And probably they can hold us up for five
years in the courts and maybe cause us a lot of pain and
suffering.
 If we just remove that line from the paperwork so it
is not there, we still have the well to use but we are not --
no one can accuse us of issuing meters with any regard to that
well that the court only allows us to use in a true emergency.
So I think it's sort of a semantic thing at this point, but I
really would like to see it be gone from the papers we're using
to justify the adequacy, and I think the numbers still prove
that.
 
MR. RICE:  Well, I don't.  And I think that's the
point, because that's my third point, is that if we were to
take this analysis, and let's take normal available source at
12.25 MGD, right.  And then we are going to take our maximum
day demand, 1.6, okay.  We have available water of 650,000
gallons, okay.  Which is fine, I am not questioning the
numbers.  I'm just saying, okay, how many additional meters
does that buy us?
 Then if we take, if we were to take drought
conditions and we take out the one-and-a-half, we're down to
10.25 during a drought condition, which is well under our
maximum day demand, and it's slightly under our 30 day highest
day demand.  So then our analysis looks goofy, to me.  I mean
the normal situation looks fine, but then the analysis for
drought looks goofy if we don't include that.
 
MR. STARR:  I understand that argument, but I also
understand that our average day demand is 8.2.  And also we're
looking at the Kaupakalua well producing .7 MGD, whereas in a
drought we could theoretically raise that to 1.5.  And I am
going to ask that we look at putting that booster pump in place
so that it is in place next time for next summer, so that we
have that extra head room from the Kaupakalua well.  I'm just
requesting that we --
 
MR. RICE:  I am just trying to make it look
sensible.  The other thing is, if we agree to these numbers,
David, how many meters does 650,000 gallons a day of excess
capacity buy us?  Now all right, if you use 8.2 it's a grossly
different number, okay.  What I'm getting to here is, in the
end do we say okay, we've got source availability Upcountry and
we start giving out meters, and then we run out of water.  And
a thousand meters will go like that.  We start with the list
and everybody Upcountry who wants to develop a lot, a thousand
meters is nothing.  Would you agree?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, the list as revised, I think
it's about 530, and that's just items on the list.  Still the
number of lots will be more than that, there may be up to about
a thousand, say actual lots or meters being needed to satisfy
the entire list as it is right now.
 
MR. RICE:  There's a thousand meters right there,
gone.  So I just want to be careful as we go forward with this
finding of source adequacy that, you know, it's going to look
funny. "Water Department finds source adequacy Upcountry."
Next year in February, "Water Department finds no longer source
adequacy Upcountry."  Is that realistic or am I dreaming?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know if that's what you're
saying.  Is that what you're saying here, that you want to give
out the full 600,000 gallons?
 
MR. RICE:  I'm saying that once we declare source
adequacy that that equals meters are given out.  It doesn't
equal reduced meters or a selective release of meters unless we
write a rule.  Source adequacy means we give out meters.
Anybody who comes in the door who wants a meter pays a fee, and
whatever other requirements there are normally, and gets a
meter, right?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I beg to differ, but I hope that's not
the way we proceed.
 
MR. RICE:  No, I'm just asking the question.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Mr. Nobriga?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I'm sorry.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Go ahead, please.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I follow Mr. Rice's understanding, but
to me, the people waiting on the list should be taken care of
first, regardless of who comes in the door.  The guy that comes
in the door should not be automatically given a meter.
 
MR. RICE:  I am not differing with you on that
opinion.  I'm just looking at the total number of meters and
how much water is there.  And if we say we have got so much
water, and just taking your example.  Everybody on the list
gets a meter first and it's a thousand meters, and we are out
of water.  Are we out of water, that's my question.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I think, excuse me, but I believe we
should go back to Howard's thoughts, because I think he
provides us the answers that we need to decide and pass onto
the Board.  Specifically the second half of his page one that
identifies that during normal conditions it seems clear that
existing sources are more than adequate, et cetera, and
continuing on to the bottom.
 The other part of our duties today should include
verifying the four tables, which of the four tables do we
identify as the statement of fact that we want to operate
under.  I compliment Mr. Nakamura, he has done some extensive
work in helping all of us understand what's going on, without
kind of jumping the gun, and starting to talk about things that
have been addressed in Mr. Nakamura's four key points at the
bottom of his report.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Thank you, Mr. Nobriga.  I
think, if I may, again, I would like to -- I believe that
what's before us today is to make a determination on the
Director's recommendation that we have adequate source
Upcountry.  That basically source exceeds demand, which is a
change from the finding that he developed in 1993, which was
that demand exceeded source.  I think that is the issue before
the committee.
 The material that has been developed by David and
has been modified through my questions of David for further
information seem to indicate that under normal conditions the
sources do exceed demand.  My feeling is that during times of
drought, which the Board has the authority to declare, we would
then have to determine the conditions and the method in which
the Board responds to the drought.  So I think that's something
that everybody has to kind of make their own conclusions on.
 But I think the first step, if it is the desire of
the committee to support the Director's recommendation, would
be to take that action.  And then, as Mr. Starr has indicated,
we need to perhaps in the Board meeting deal with the issue of
the drought declaration, the update of the list, the rule that
would deal with, first, opportunity being given to those on the
list, and then subsequently the limit on how many additional
meters can be justified.  I think that's the sequence of
activity that we need to proceed on.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to
move that this committee recommend to the Board that we accept
as a statement of fact your table number two.
 
MR. STARR:  Which one is two?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Upcountry water system demand,
including prior commitments, which is your page three.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  The table that says "Demand
Including Prior Commitments."
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  That's right.  And we also accept
table three as the normal available source statement of fact.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  It has been moved by Mr. Nobriga
that we accept as a position of the committee and recommend to
the Board it is the position of the committee the demand as
defined in the table entitled "Demand Including Prior
Commitments," and that we accept table three, which is the
table entitled "Normally Available Source," which totals 12.25
MGD.
 
MR. STARR:  I second that.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  It has been moved and seconded.
Any further discussion?  Mr. Hiranaga.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Just to clarify my understanding, on
the first table the average daily demand of 8.2 million gallons
per day and maximum daily of 11.6, those numbers were provided
to you by the Director?
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Those were the numbers that were
the Director's communication of September 26th.  And the 30
highest day demand, which is approximately 92 percent demand,
is the additional information that I had requested of the
Director.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So then I'd like the Director's
comments regarding the hundred percent reliability on the
Waikamoi Intakes, and the 95 percent reliability on the Piiholo
Intakes on the chart labeled "Normally Available Source."
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, if you look in the packet that
you have there on page 10 and 11, those discharge duration
curve and the required storage annual demand curve for the
Lower Kula system is what that reliability figure comes off of,
and that comes out of the report prepared by the Federal
Department of Ag to do the Upcountry dual waterline project.
 And I believe these were originally developed by the
Austen report in the 1960's, that's where those numbers come
from, and I believe they're correct.  I don't think anything
has changed enough in the watershed to change those numbers
from the time they were originally done.
 There's different ways of calculating reliability
now.  You can actually do each packet of rain that comes down
and calculate it a different way, but these are conservative
enough numbers that I believe they're correct.
 
MR. HIRANAGA;  I guess the question is, are you
satisfied or is it your position that the assumption of 95
percent reliability for Piiholo and 100 percent reliability for
Waikamoi, is that a reasonable or acceptable assumption factor,
in your professional opinion?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  He's being a lot more conservative
than I was in my estimate.  I was using 85 percent; he's upped
that to 95 percent.  So it's a lot more conservative than my
original estimate of water availability.

MR. HIRANAGA:  So you are willing to stand behind
that assumption?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  And digressing a little bit, this
average daily demand and maximum daily demand, it's not really
stated in this letter.  You compiled his various factors to
come up with that.  So I just wanted David's confirmation that
these totals are correct and that we have not left anything out
or included unnecessary assumptions.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  There's no odd assumptions that I can
see.  And it does, I believe, cover the issues of Hawaiian
Homes, whatever commitment we have to Kulamalu, and then the
existing unused meters.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So this is the criteria that we will
be using in our decision making.  Average daily demand is 8.2
MGD and average daily demand is 11.6 MGD.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That will change as more customers
come on.  That's just currently what it was for the last fiscal
year.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Ending when?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  June.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  2001?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  And in my letter of September
26th I think I made some adjustments to what I had given the
Board in 2000 to bring it up to current numbers.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  I might note that the prior
commitments, both the Kulamalu and the Department of Hawaiian
Homelands, that demand will come out over a period of time.
And I would certainly hope that by the time those demands come
on that we will have our Upcountry well in operation, as well
as some of the other things, the ability to fully utilize the
Kulamalu well.  Any other questions or comments?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, just a comment.  So for
my clarification, which number here are we trying to vote on
now, is it the 12.25 available source or David's old 14.4?
 
MR. RICE:  12.25.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I heard something about 650,000 available.
 
MR. RICE:  It was just a babbling of the Chair,
forget that.

MR. TAGORDA:  So it is not really available on this
number.  So how much available water is from 12.25?
 
MR. RICE:  I was going somewhere.  I wasn't very
good at explaining it.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, it depends on what you are
going to look at.  Are you going to look at the demand during
normally available times?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And during drought, if we are going to
take the new numbers in front of us from Mr. Nakamura.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Excuse me, Mr. Chair.  Currently we
are not discussing drought conditions.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  The motion, Mr. Tagorda, was to
accept the demand including prior commitments, and the normally
available source.  Those are the two tables that the committee
is recommending that we accept.  The Director's representation
is that the 12.25 is an accurate and reliable number.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Conservative number, too.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Conservative number.  Okay, any
further questions?  Ready for the question.  All those in favor
say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed?
(None).
Motion is carried.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman?
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Yes, Mr. Nobriga.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  In light of the situation of drought,
I am kind of sensitive to the inclusion of Hamakuapoko, but
then there are so much "what if's," I am not opposed to listing
Hamakuapoko, because those are actual usable water sources that
we would access currently under normal drought conditions for
the Upcountry area.
 If we could reach a compromise whereby we could
change Hamakuapoko, the wording to other sources or something,
that would seem to meet the objections of Mr. Starr, and so be
it.  But if it's not -- but I would not be able to authorize
statement of fact any position of drought available source
without that 1.5 million gallons.
 So I would move that we accept and recommend to the
full Board the acceptance of a statement of fact of table four,
which is the available source drought conditions which
currently does include the notice of H'Poko wells 1 and 2.
 
MR. RICE:  But you want to change the wording to
"other sources"?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  That would be an amendment.
 
MR. STARR:  Could I make a suggestion before we go
there?  My suggestion is that we remove Hamakuapoko wells 1 and
2 and we take Kaupakalua, since it's capable of supplying 1.5,
and change it from .7 to 1.5.  I believe that by doing that,
that gives us some headroom.  And I understand that even if we
need to set a booster pump in there on a temporary basis within
a week or two, we could do it.
 So that we take out Hamakuapoko, and Kaupakalua goes
from .7 to 1.5.  And the bottom line figure would be 10.8.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I have no objection to that amendment.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Let's take this in order.  Mr.
Nobriga has made a motion that we accept table four, which is
the "Available Source - Drought Conditions," as circulated.
That was the original motion, is that correct?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Yes.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Do I have a second to that motion?
 
MR. STARR:  For discussion, I will second it.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay, the motion has been
seconded by Mr. Starr.  Discussion?

MR. STARR:  I'd like to offer an amendment.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay, Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  That the Hamakuapoko wells 1 and 2 be
removed, and that Kaupakalua well be changed to 1.5 million
gallons a day.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I would second that amendment.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay, it has been moved and
seconded that the motion be amended to change Kaupakalua well
to 1.5, which will require certain modifications to the system,
and that the H'Poko wells 1 and 2 be deleted.  Any discussion
to the amendment?
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, if I may.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Mr. Attorney?
 
MR. KUSHI:  I feel very uncomfortable with what the
motion is about.  As I read your agenda for this meeting, it's
regarding the communication from the Director.  Your motion
seems to be saying what you are going to adopt as a basis for
future decisions drought conditions, and I must caution you
that that is not noticed on your agenda.  If you accept
anything, as Commissioner Nobriga says, you may have a
problem.  That's my concern.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  In light of that concern,
we have dealt with the item on the agenda, which is to find
that there is adequacy of source, which is the issue.  The
question of drought I suppose, as recommended by the attorney,
could be left until you have an actual situation.
 Perhaps in light of the Corporation Counsel's
suggestion or recommendation or concerns, perhaps that's what
we should do.  I think we have moved ahead with what we are
tasked with doing today.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  In that case, I would very much
withdraw my second to the amendment.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Mr. Tagorda?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Can I interject, Mr. Chairman.  I
would just like to ask the Corporation Counsel about the
culpability that Mr. Starr had mentioned about if we put
Hamakuapoko wells in our discussion in this finding by the
Director, is there really a culpability if you are honest
enough to say that during drought declaration by the Board we
are going to utilize H'Poko wells to go Upcountry?
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, I am not sure what Mr. Starr
is talking about.  But being a lawyer, I suspect that you can
sue anybody for anything.  And he's right, that some people can
keep things in court.  But again, what Board Member Rice is
saying is that if it's in the EA and it's been a matter of
public record, then you have a basis to say that.  But again, I
won't make a blanket statement that you are or you won't be
subject to it.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Mr. Rice?
 
MR. RICE:  I think we have just had a good solution
here.  I don't know why we have to make a motion on what we
would do during a drought.  We would use resources as
necessary.  And our statement ought to say that we find that
the demand exceeds -- I mean that the source exceeds demand
during normal conditions, period.  Right?
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And that's where we are as of now.
 
MR. RICE:  That sounds to me like a good solution.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  One thing I would like to add,
Mr. Craddick, is that I think you have a sense of the
committee, which I think also represents the sense of the
Board, that although there is a finding, we support the finding
of adequacy, that the issue, the matter of issuing meters
should be held until such time that the Rules Committee deals
with the use of the list.  Because I think there's a strong
sense that people on the list in all fairness should be given
the appropriate attention.
 
MR. RICE:  And I guess just as a side comment, Mr.
Chairman, I was trying to figure out a way where we could find
for source adequacy and then not have to go through the process
of a special rule for those on the list.  But as I'm thinking
today, we may be safer and smarter in the long term to go ahead
and do a rule, deal with that, put it to bed, and not have to
come back and be afraid that someone is going to challenge us
from the other side.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Mr. Starr?
 
MR. STARR:  I'm very much in favor also of going
through the rule, primarily so that we get rid of the issues of
the empty lot and the expectation, because that deals with
those.  I think the list is a no brainer, but those other
things, let's get rid of them.
 
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any other comments?  Thank you,
Members, for your patience.  It's been a long day.  Meeting is
adjourned.
 
(The proceedings were concluded at 11:45 a.m.)
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.