BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 
 
Taken at the Kahului Shopping Center Conference Room,
Kaahumanu Avenue, Kahului, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at
10:30 a.m. on March 12th, 2002.
 
Reported By:  Rachelle Primeaux, CSR #370

IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

ATTENDANCE:
 
Members Present:
Jonathan Starr, Chair
Orlando Tagorda
Mike Nobriga
Kent Hiranaga

Staff Present:
Herb Kogasaka, Engineering
David Craddick, Director
Ed Kushi, Corporation Counsel
Fran Nago, Secretary
Wendy Taomoto, Engineering
Myles Fujinaka, Engineering
Mike Quinn, Fiscal
George Tengan, Deputy Director
         
 
   *    *    *
 
CHAIR STARR:  I would like to call to order
the Operations Committee meeting of the Maui Board of
Water Supply.  It's now 10:30.  And I would like to
recess that meeting and I would like to call the Joint
Finance Committee/Operations Review Committee back to
order.
 
(Recess taken.)
 
CHAIR STARR:  I would like to call the
Operations Committee Meeting of the Maui Board of
Water Supply back to order.  We have with us Committee
Members Hiranaga, Mr. Tagorda, Mr. Nobriga and Starr,
Counsel Ed Kushi and Director and staff and we do not
have any minutes I believe.
 And I would like to call for testimony from the
public.  If it's okay though, I would like to call
testimony in order because I think we may be able to
dispense with the first item really quickly.  So is
there any testimony regarding Director's Report 02-09,
Request for concurrence to allow participation in, and
minor assistance for, various non-profits by the staff
and Director?  None.
 I've been advised by counsel to defer this item
because it's going to require some research to see how
this fits in with our employee manual and other County
literature.  So if it's okay with other members, we
should probably defer this.  Do we have a consensus on
it?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I have no objection.
 
CHAIR STARR:  I don't see anyone objecting.  So
we're going the defer 02-09, and now we come to the
one we're all waiting for 02-03, request from
Mr. and Mrs. Marion D. Hanks for a water meter in
Hana, and we're looking for public testimony.  And who
wants to go first here?
 
MR. CLIFFORD:  I would be happy to.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Please sit down and I'll ask you
to speak loudly and state your name.
 
MR. CLIFFORD:  My name is Chris Clifford.  I'm
the son-and-law to Marion and Maxine Hanks.  By
chance, we had planned a trip from the mainland here,
and it was fortuitous that our timing of that trip now
presents itself this morning.  I've had fairly
extensive discussions with Marion and Maxine on the
subject of the meter having been a member of the
family for 25 years, and we're aware of the property
here in Maui.
 The property, as you have probably been informed
by previous correspondence, has been in the family
since the early 1940's.  As part of the larger
holding, that was -- that had a house on it.  The lot
was a property held by the family and then was
subsequently sold.  It was a matter of restructuring
the estate of Mr. Christianson who passed away.  And
Maxine arranged to purchase the property from her
brothers and sisters and then built this home on the
property back in 1992-'93, completed in '93, and at
that time requested the meter to be installed as part
of the permanent supply of water.
 Previously the water supply had been part of the
arrangement with the larger property known as
Hanahuli, and Hanahuli Ranch through that arrangement
supplied a necessary medium amount of water to the
property, but it sometimes has been inconsistent and
not, if you will, a guarantee of water.  Particularly
in the circumstances of a later transfer of that
larger property, the Hanahuli Ranch, to a private
individual getting assurance that the water could be
supplied to the property is in jeopardy.
 The Hanks are not newcomers to the islands.
Mrs. Hanks was born in Honolulu in 1925.  Her middle
name he is Lehua.  She has been a part of Hawai`i for
many years since her marriage to Marion Hanks.  We
have been a part of the islands.  We feel like Hawai`i
is our home, in effect, and they do, too.  And now
they're in retirement years and spend a considerable
amount of time here and in Utah, and they're
approaching their 80's.  And under the circumstances
of given their age, dealing with water is a very
tenuous situation for them and upsetting to them, and
so we come before you in a third attempt, if you will,
to make this formal request and hopefully convince the
Board to allow a water meter, and, therefore, secure
their water entitlement.
 Just as a matter of history, the past request,
the previous formal request was made in '93.  It was
reviewed in '94.  It was rejected, and then another
request was made in '97.  That was also rejected.  We
now come before you with a third consideration --
requesting your serious consideration.  And we
understand that since those requests, that two
additional meters have been granted on properties
nearby.  The Meyers and the Klibans put in their
second meter.  The Meyers first and primary meter for
the property were granted.  We are aware of current
requests and previous requests that, in fact, have not
been given serious consideration, and we're aware of
Mr. Dana and Mr. Blumerbuell's situation, and, in
fact, we hardily endorse their claims to water meters
as well.
 We are in understanding of the current capacity,
so-called capacity of the water system, and we
understand, of course, the limitations that the Board
has in granting water meters in the case of that
capacity.  What we're suggesting perhaps is not
something new.  In fact, I was just meeting with
Mr. Craddick outside of here just a second ago, and I
suggested that perhaps there would be an arrangement
where some kind of a bonding fee could be paid to, in
effect, guarantee against future liabilities in the
event of incapacity or lack of capacity or a shortage
of capacity in that area.
 And then I also visited with Mr. Blumerbuell
briefly before the meeting.  I think that today if we
were all to sit down and visit on the subject of the
mechanics of delivering water to this area, there is a
reasonable solution that could be worked out that
would satisfy all of the parties.  My only suggestion
to you is to do what you've done in the past, and that
is to be fair.  All we seek is fairness.  All we seek
is equity.  All we seek is a sense of serious
consideration given this request, and we, of course,
appreciate the fact that the Board will act in that
same fashion.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Again, any questions?  Okay.
Thank you.
 
MR. CLIFFORD:  Thank you.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Mr. Blumerbuell, could you come
and give us your name and try to speak loudly and
clearly.
 
MR. BLUMERBUELL:  Aloha, Water Board Members and
staff, Corp Counsel, my name is John Blumerbuell.  I'm
testifying on my own behalf, and I'm testifying
regarding Communication 02-03.  And I would first like
to say there's been some really unfortunate conflict
created around this issue because of the Water
Department, and that's the most unfortunate part of
this situation.
 Mr. and Mrs. Hanks and Mr. and Mrs. Dana are
both people to be held in the highest esteem.  They
are -- I don't want to say that there aren't many
people, but they're people of impeccable records and
public service and they're all great people in their
own way.  And I have to say that, you know, that this
situation when Mr. and Mrs. Hanks are being told
basically by the Water Department that if the
Blumerbuells and Danas will agree to it, then there
won't be any problem, when for many years we've been
trying to get the Water Department to act fairly in
all this, and our trying to get an equitable situation
and solution for everybody has been confused with the
idea that somehow the Blumerbuells and the Danas are
running the Water Department.
 I mean it's really -- it's that ridiculous that
it's really -- I read a letter that Mr. Isaac Hall
wrote regarding that very subject a while back.  It's
somewhere in your records, so I'm here today to set
some of the history straight.  And I also have
suggestions for a solution.  First of all, I have a
letter from the Director to the Board of Water Supply
dated May 20th, 1997.  And under justification for
request, this is talking about Mr. Blumerbuell, and it
says, "He has made written requests for water service
on February 19th, 1988, March 26, 1992, and April
20th, 1992."  And just prior to that, it says, "He has
talked to Kent Simon in 1976 about obtaining a water
meter for his property."
 Well, the record, and this is in the records,
the accurate record is that we requested two water
meters back then.  And we did so not out of being
greedy or anything else.  We have two kids.  We were
thinking down the line 25, 30 years when all the water
was Wailua stream catchment.  Everybody in Hana was on
surface at that time, and we thought it was
responsible to make that request to put the County on
notice that here is somebody that 10, 20 years, they
want some water.
 That is, for your information, it's rural
designated property with rural bills coming through in
Hana.  Again, I seriously doubt we will subdivide to
the extent allowed under that bill.  Because of the
Leeman situation, where apparently she was required to
have a meter just to build an additional structure, we
still think we made a good request.
 Now, again, to correct the historical record,
since we made our request for two meters and we were
the very first people to make any requests for water
out there during that time, the County has granted 8
meters to people, some of who made the request 10 to
15 years after we did.  That is a matter of record.
 And that is also well documented in an August
7th, 1997, letter to the Board of Water Supply from
the Director.  He identifies a meter to the
Blumerbuells, to Cleve Acarius.  And when Mr. Acarius,
who is my next-door neighbor, comes this year, I plan
to get a sworn statement from him about our meetings
with Kent Simon, our discussion on those issues, a
second meter to Judith Kliban.  I think I read
Mr. Hall's letters.  He's appropriately pointed out
the Water Board could have taken that meter back.
 And then the total is about 8 different meters.
It's just astounding to me that, you know, the people
that came in and requested water meters some 15 years
after we were given first shot, and it wasn't clear.
We were very up front.  It's in writing that it was
two, and, as the Water Board knows, you're allowed to
request more than one meter.  And it doesn't -- you
don't get one at the top, one at the bottom.  It was a
fair request.  There's never been any pressure from
us.
 And, you know, after reading Mr. Hall's letter
yesterday, which I got a fax of that from him as
the -- as the Danas' attorney yesterday, he's flat out
saying that he believes that there's grounds to
constitute a denial of Constitutional Rights of the
Danas and Blumerbuells.  Well, he, Mr. Hall is
incorrect in what I agree with that statement.
He's -- I would like to correct one thing if you have
Mr. Hall's letter, which apparently was delivered to
you yesterday.  Third paragraph of the first page, it
says, "Thereafter," and this is referring to January
29th, 1996, when Mrs. Kliban was given a meter.
 "John Blumerbuell and Dana requesting that the
Department grant a second meter."  That would be --
the correction would be that we actually requested our
second meter in writing in 1988, so that's a mistake
that Mr. Hall made.  And I have called him up and told
him that, and he said just please correct it at the
meeting, so I'm doing so.
 Another thing I just want to hit, and this is
very briefly, besides this, when the County made their
improvement of the water line out in that area, you
know, we were expecting to get two meters and so were
the Hanks.  A lot of people were expecting to get
meters, and the Hanks had requested one at that
point.  And they were actually stubbed out.  I mean
there is a water line going from the main line to
their property.  The County installed a meter for the
Hanks.  Mr. Hanks gave the County a check, which
apparently they never cashed, the County never cashed,
but, you know, and that issue got raised of them
getting a meter.  And then it was taken away from
them.
 So this, I mean this just seems like almost
cruel and unusual punishment for the Hanks.  They
wait.  They expect a meter.  They had one.  The County
took it away, and then everybody is going, well, why
haven't they -- why aren't they taking the water meter
away from Kliban when in writing they've admitted that
that was a mistake?
 So again, there's been an attempt to establish
some equity in the situation.  And so there's a couple
of other situations I want to make you aware of
because you're going to be maybe going into executive
session.  The first is that the Hanahuli Association
still has, as far as I know, an unmet water bond
obligation for that whole area from 1958.
 Now, you have somebody that knows about that.
Myles looked into that situation when Chet Gray, who
is the neighbor, asked for approval of the waiver of
the water requirements for the subdivision.  I
objected to that.  The Water Board approved that even
though the staff recommended denial.  And one of the
reasons I wanted the Board to deny it was because the
Grays are one of the primary people in the Hanahuli.
They still have an unmet water obligation from 1958,
and again, we were asking the Board to take a
comprehensive look at this and make it equitable for
everyone.
 And so at this point, I'm going to make a
proposal for a possible solution.  And I am suggesting
to bring the -- to make the situation more equitable
to diffuse the situation of Kliban getting an illegal
meter, which she did request at some point in time and
she should have been on the list for that request.  I
think what in my mind is fair at this point is to
allow the Hanks, Danas and Blumerbuells to buy meters
and to put severe limitations on water usage.  I would
suggest -- a lot of people know that 1,000 gallons is
a standard use.
 I would suggest selling meters to those three
parties and limiting the water usage to 500 to 1,000
gallons a day, no more for domestic and household use
only.  And I believe that there is -- I believe that
there is that 1,500 gallons available in the system
right now.  I don't want to embarrass the County water
supply right now, but if you want to go out to Hana
with me this afternoon and have me show you where
there's hookups and where people are pulling a lot
more than 1,500 gallons out of that system as we
speak, I'll be happy to do so.
 I took a good inspection the other day, and I
don't want to get into names or places.  There's more
than 1,500 gallons being pulled off that system every
day and some of it by people that probably aren't
paying for it.  And so everybody out there knows that
there's been plenty of water that's been used.  People
are neighbors, so they'll let somebody that doesn't
have a meter, they'll give them water for their
house.  My point is not to make anybody a criminal.
 My point is that I believe there's adequate
water to give 500 gallons for 3 people each, and that
would be an equitable solution at this point.  I'll go
even further.  When I said that I was looking
long-term for our kids, I'll agree not to use any
water on that meter for a year.  Okay.  You can, you
know, kick me in a year from now.  So I just, I'm
willing to do what it takes to make this situation
right.
 You know, I feel like something has got to be
done to make it equitable with people.  And I've
thought about anything else.  I think the idea of
having a contested case hearing, which Isaac Hall has
already requested on behalf of the Danas, I mean we've
been -- I think the fact that 15 or 20 years later I'm
sitting here having not run out of patience and still
trying to find an equitable solution should speak for
itself.  But when I look at the evidence at the point
where we want to do some of these things, we're being
required to have another meter, we're going to be
damaged.  We're going to be able to prove it.  There's
a clear record we've made these requests for more than
20 years, and there's witnesses to these things, too.
 So, you know, in conjunction with that solution
of, you know, 500 gallons per meter, I would suggest
the County water, in any case, think about putting,
you know, maybe require that the Hanks and/or Danas
put in maybe a few days' supply of water.  Let's say
the 5,000 gallon tank or some sort of small tank where
they have to have a pump system on there where they
can pull the water out where the Water Board
determines it's a low rate of usage.
 In other words, if the Water Board determines
with the graphs there's no water being used or very
little between 2 in the morning or 4 in the morning,
the Blumerbuells, Danas and Hanks can pull their water
out of the system at that point, and then the water
they use would come from a storage tank with a pump on
it so they would have their water pressure.
 And I think that's an additional step to be sure
that it's not going to hurt anybody else.  Now, I am
concerned, the final thing, I think that's the
solution.  There may be -- I don't know if there's
other people that have -- I don't think there's any
people in Muolea that have requested any meters.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  You know, Eddie Puu?

MR. BLUMERBUELL:  Eddie Puu, he's in Koali.
He's Kipahulu side of Muolea.  This is what I propose
dealing with what I know about, and, you know, perhaps
as part of the overall solution that an additional
storage tank in Koali would help to solve it.  The
other thing that we don't have in Muolea, and it's a
little perplexing to me, is when they did the new
pipe, and I believe it's 4-inch, David, or 6-inch?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  4-inch.
 
MR. BLUMERBUELL:  When they did the new 4-inch
pipe, they put fire outlets everywhere along the road
except in Muolea.  There's no -- there's no fire
protection in Muolea.  As part of this, I would be
happy to pay for a fire outlet in Muolea that the
trucks can come and tie onto.  I believe that a
storage tank we have up on the hill, 15 or 20,000.  If
we had a couple of fire outlets in Muolea, people
would actually have some protection.  And anyway,
that's all I have to say.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Members, any questions of
Mr. Blumerbuell?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Just a comment, Mr. Chairman,
thank you very much.  Mr. John Blumerbuell, thank you
very much.  I believe I thought you were coming here
to bid me farewell.  I heard your request since I came
to be a Board Member in '97, and I too have
sympathized with you and I've supported you all up to
this time; however, my criticism again is to the
Department.  In the past five years of being on the
Board, the recommendation was with the same reason
that they didn't do anything to solve the problem
there at your area.
 
MR. BLUMERBUELL:  Right.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I don't know what the plan is, to
tell you honestly.
 
MR. BLUMERBUELL:  I appreciate what you're
saying, and that's that the Water Department considers
the point of adequacy Kapia stream, which is almost
near Hamoa, and, you know, it's theoretically a
moratorium.  And this is one of the reasons why the
unequitable treatment of everybody doesn't make
sense.  I think that, you know, what maybe is logical
is for the County right now is doing looks like a
major repair from the pump station at the bottom of
Drummond hill going up towards Koali that, you know,
maybe there could be a reassessment of the situation
and see if 1,500 gallons a day would really bust the
system open.  And the other thing I would suggest is
to make a list.  Eddie Puu has made a request, and
let's get the -- let's get an accurate list and keep
it on file.  So in ten years or 20 years, Eddie is not
up here doing what happened to us.
 So, you know, that may be a way.  I mean I
respected when the Board said there was a moratorium.
I mean I respected that judgment, although we should
have had our second meter before they issued another
eight, but and that could still be a point of
discussion with the corporation counsel.  But again, I
think that the -- I don't know if the Hanks or the
Danas have agreed to it.  I did talk briefly with
Mr. Clifford, and I think they would be -- I think
that 500 gallons a day would serve them.  I've been
one of the people primarily responsible for making
sure they've had water for the last 28 years, and I
think 500 gallons is adequate for them.  And anyway,
that's my proposed solution.
 There may be some -- you know, there could be --
Jonathan's next with this, and you have a staff.
There may be some engineering solution how do we free
up 1,500 gallons if that's what creates an equitable
situation.  Would a 5,000 gallon tank next to the one
in Koali, would that solve the problem?  I would
contribute to that if that helps everybody.  If Eddie
Puu has made a request, let's look at him, too.  What
can we do right now to make it equitable before we
improve the whole system?  What can we do right now to
make it work for everybody?
 I think there's an engineering solution.  My
feeling is the water is there.  We know the water is
at the Hamoa well.  We know the water is in the Hamoa
water tank.  The question is it flows gravity at the
pump house at the bottom of Drummond hill, perhaps a
booster pump somewhere along the line, whatever, or
other storage in that area would be an engineering
solution to make the water available.
 I'm sure the Hanks and the Danas and the
Blumerbuells and I'm sure the Puus, too, would be
happy to participate in any engineering solution to
the situation.  Again, I think it's important to keep
in mind, the Hanahuli situation, which is in the
process of liquidating all of its assets, has an
obligation to your Water Board right now from 1958.
And I contend that at least they had an -- I mean that
at that point, I contended that you should hold them
responsible for what they agreed to in 1958 in
2000-dollar terms.  So I think the Hanahuli should be
held to their water bond obligation, and that's
potentially part of the solution.
 So I'm happy to -- I'm happy to do anything I
can to help out, and I know that the -- again, to
repeat it, the Danas, Hanks are very reasonable and
they want to work this out without conflict.
 
CHAIR STARR:  I would like to thank you for your
spirit of cooperation, and I do want to comment that
we did receive written testimony from attorney Isaac
Hall.  Anyway, if there's any other questions, I would
like to ask the Director to try to explain what he can
about this situation.  We will be making a site
inspection out there next week.  And I don't know how
that should tie in with this, and I also believe that
counsel may have some words for us as well.
Mr. Director, any comments on this whole thing?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The only thing I can say is the
Board has declared the system inadequate, and beyond
that, we don't have any other recommendations.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Okay.  Welcome, Attorney
Minatoya.  Thank you.  Corp Counsel, do you have some
comments here?
 
MR. MINATOYA:  I think at that point, I don't
see -- if I could just have a few words with the
Director.
 
CHAIR STARR:  A short recess while we do this.
 
(Recess taken.)
 
CHAIR STARR:  We're back in order.  I know it's
been suggested that we go into executive session
because there's some information that may -- could
theoretically be involved in litigation later.  What's
the opinion of the members right now?  Do you have any
other questions?  Do you want to defer until after the
site inspection?  What's your pleasure?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  If there's really important
information that we have to go to executive session,
Mr. Chairman, we'll do it.  But if that information is
just it can be open to the public, well, there's no
point.
 
CHAIR STARR:  I'm told that -- go ahead, Counsel.
 
MR. MINATOYA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  For the
record, Richard Minatoya, Deputy Corporation Counsel.
I'm the attorney for the Department.  Basically, I
guess the problem at this point, I don't know the
nature of that information, and I want to be clear on
the fact that there is I guess the potential for
litigation in this matter that that issue has been
raised.  And because we're not entirely clear about
the nature of that investigation, it does relate to
the Board's duties, responsibilities and liabilities,
especially the liabilities portion.
 At this point, I would like to request that it
be done in executive session so that, you know, we can
get to the root of all of this and the Board can get
that information and make its determination.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Okay.  Do I have a motion, if
that's the pleasure of the members?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to move
that the Board may convene in executive session
pursuant to HRS 92-5 (a)4 in order to consult with the
Board's attorney on the questions pertaining to the
Board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities and
liabilities.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Do we have a second?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.
 
CHAIR STARR:  I would like to be clear this is
not for us to take any action or discuss anything,
just to receive some information.  Anyway, all in
favor, say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Okay.  The Board will convene in
executive session.  The regular meeting is recessed.
 
(Whereupon, the Board went into Executive Session.)
 
         MEETING RESUMES
 
CHAIR STARR:  Back to order.  The meeting is
back in order.  Members, what's your --
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, in light of the
discussions with Mr. Blumerbuell and Mr. Hanks, there
appears to me that there is a lot more information
that we need to obtain before we can adequately make a
good decision on this matter.  If there is no
objection from the members, I would like to recommend
we defer action until we can get all that
information.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Second.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Okay.  We're going to defer this
item.  We also will be making a site inspection out
there, which will help as well.  So, Ed, were you
going to say something?
 
MR. KUSHI:  No.
 
CHAIR STARR:  Okay.  So that being the case --
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, whatever information that
you want, maybe it should be relayed to the secretary,
so the record has a request as to what you exactly
want.  You can do it later, but --
 
CHAIR STARR:  Yeah, okay.  We can do that, and I
know we certainly want to have real clarification of
what meters were issued, whether there was a meter
issued or withdrawn and what people have applied and
so on.  Anyway, the matter will be deferred, and that
being the last business, the meeting is adjourned.
 
(The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.)
 
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.