BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR MEETING
Held at the Kahului Shopping Center, 65 West Ka'ahumanu Avenue,
Unit 29, Kahului, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m., on
Thursday, November 7, 2002.
REPORTED BY: JEANNETTE W. IWADO, RPR/CSR #135
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
A T T E N D A N C E
CHAIRPERSON: PETER RICE
VICE CHAIR: MICHAEL NOBRIGA
BOARD MEMBERS: CLARK HASHIMOTO
ADOLPH HELM
KENT HIRANAGA
HOWARD NAKAMURA
GINNY PARSONS
JONATHAN STARR
MICHAEL VICTORINO
DIRECTOR: DAVID CRADDICK
DEPUTY DIRECTOR: GEORGE TENGAN
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL: EDWARD KUSHI, JR.
BOARD SECRETARY: CATHY HOWARD
FISCAL OFFICER: HOLLY PERDIDO
ENGINEERING: HERBERT KOGASAKA
PAUL SEITZ
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 7, 2002, 9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Good morning. Call to order the
regular meeting of the Board of Water Supply of November 7th.
We are in the Kahului Shopping Center. It is now 9:00 am.
Board Members present Clark Hashimoto, Jonathan Starr, Mike
Nobriga, Howard Nakamura, Ginny Parsons, Adolph Helm, Mike
Victorino, myself, Peter Rice, Director David Craddick, Corp
Counsel Ed Kushi, Junior, staff members and the public. We
have a quorum. We have people rushing to put their public
testimony up, thank you. The first item on the agenda is the
approval of minutes.
MR. VICTORINO: So moved, Mr. Chair.
MR. NOBRIGA: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Moved and seconded to accept the
minutes subject to the standard review period.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I just noticed in our package
there are some amendments to them. I would like those
included.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Including the amendments as prepared
by Kathy Howard. Mr. Victorino?
MR. VICTORINO: Corrections, not amendments. Thank
you.
MR. STARR: Yes, corrections.
CHAIRMAN RICE: The second accepts that. Any
discussion? All in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
Motion is carried.
Members of the public, at this point in the meeting
we accept testimony from the public on the issues that are on
the agenda. And we have a lot of testimony, so we are going to
begin. Let's try to keep the testimony to three minutes,
people, and then we will move into the regular agenda. If you
would rather testify at the beginning of the item as it comes
up on the agenda, let me know when I call your name and we will
move you to that section. Otherwise, you can testify at this
point.
The Chair is going to allow Miss Raisbeck to testify
under the section of testimony that says, "i.e., those persons
who have a specific application or request for action
pending." And I would urge that we review that language. But
under that language I think Miss Raisbeck can testify as to
things that are pending. Sally, would you be first?
MS. RAISBECK: Do you use this?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Let the record show Board Member
Kent Hiranaga is present.
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are
two items, two things I would like to testify about. The
second one would involve the political activities of the
Citizens for Clean Water, but that one I could take up when the
agenda item on evaluation of the Director comes up. So I'll
defer that until then, if you would prefer.
The other item that I wish to discuss is on November
15th there is a meeting of the Board of Land and Natural
Resources at Cameron center at 9:00 am, and they will be -- I'm
sorry? A little closer, okay. They will be taking up, I
believe they will be receiving the hearing report of the
Hearing Officer, former judge McConnell. And I was going to
ask Mr. Kushi, but I didn't get over to him in time, whether or
not he has received the findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and order from Judge McConnell. It should be today, I would
think, if it's going to be on the agenda November 15th.
I don't know how soon after that they can put all
the water in East Maui up for 30 year leases, but I believe
that is their intention as soon as they receive the report from
Judge McConnell. As you gentlemen all know, there is an East
Maui water agreement that was signed between the Territory and
the Board of Water Supply in 1938 which gives the state and EMI
mutual perpetual easements on the ditches on the transmission
of water across the land of either party.
Recently Mr. Craddick wrote a letter to Howard
Fukushima asking if this in any way prevented the County from
bidding on those water leases. 30 year water leases to 160
million gallons a day of water. And Howard's answer was no,
that some of the provisions of that agreement were specifically
in there to allow other parties to bid on those leases.
I don't know why the Board of Water Supply has never
investigated the County bidding on those leases, but they
haven't, and I don't think they intend to. One of the reasons
I supported 9-A so strongly was under the hope that under the
Mayor and Council the Department of Water Supply would indeed
investigate getting those leases for the County.
Things have changed, 9-A passed, 9 was defeated, so
the whole structure of control of water in the County is going
to be different. Linda Lingle is governor; she has expressed a
desire to eliminate the Commission on Water Resource
Management, which will change the way the state controls
water. I think it would be wise for this group to tell the
BLNR that this is not the time to give 30 year leases on 160
million gallons a day to a private commercial company.
I did ask Mr. Craddick why the Board of Water Supply
was supporting A&B in every respect. Mr. Kushi was in
agreement with all the arguments by A&B on this matter, and he
said that they wanted to protect their 25 year agreement with
A&B, but why would you want to protect a 25 year agreement on 7
percent of the water when you have the opportunity to get
control of 100 percent of the water? That 1938 agreement means
that either party, any party can use those ditches.
So that's all I guess I need to say. I think the
November 15th meeting is of crucial importance. I think the
November 20th meeting is of less importance, but still
important. One of the reasons, as I say, I supported
designation, one of the reasons I supported 9-A on the ballot
is because I want to see a more proactive attempt by the
Department of Water Supply to get some of that East Maui
surface water under their own control rather than under the
control of a private commercial company. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Sally. Yes, Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Sally, this filing that you said was
done on behalf of the Board by Corp Counsel, have you actually
seen this?
MS. RAISBECK: Yes. I mean you guys were one of the
parties to the contested case, the Department of Water Supply
was one of the parties to the contested case. And I read
through the arguments, and in every case where, you know, what
do they call them, the memorandum for the lawyers was asked
for, Mr. Kushi has said, "We agree with A&B and EMI on
everything."
MR. STARR: I'd like to comment that this was done
without the knowledge of the Board Members, and so I object
strenuously. Corp Counsel was off acting as a loose canon, and
I think Board Members are at least due the opportunity to see
what was filed on our behalf, and put it on an agenda for the
next meeting. Because that's not right. If the Board had
specifically acted that way is one thing, but I think that Corp
Counsel was out acting on their own.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. Any other questions for the
testifier? Thank you, Sally.
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So noted, Mr. Starr. Okay, Vivian
Bernard. You are here to testify on the use of the chemical
C-9. Do you want to wait for that to come up or do you want to
testify now?
MS. VIVIAN BERNARD: I think I'll wait until it
comes up.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Lois Laird, the same thing?
MS. LOIS LAIRD: Thank you very much, I will wait
until later.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Marie Beatty?
MS. MARIE BEATTY: I'll wait until it comes up.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Marie. We have got
Astrid Watanabe.
MS. ASTRID WATANABE: I would rather now.
CHAIRMAN RICE: You can, Astrid. Please come
ahead.
MS. ASTRID WATANABE: Do I have to push a button or
something?
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think it's on. Speak into the
mike and we will see.
MS. ASTRID WATANABE: I am not that familiar with
it, I just recently heard about it, and somebody handed me a
paper that stated all kind of toxic things. I really don't
know that much about it, but I want to say that I'm very leary
about chemicals. And sometimes the solution is worse than the
problem, and that happens over and over. And there are other
things in the water, like toxic runoff from agriculture. We
know there's all kinds of bad stuff in the water. And also I
have seen obviously herbicides were used in the ditch on the
way to Hana. I've seen it obviously, herbicides. So there must
be runoff of that in the water. And then we have the chlorine
and whatnot in the water. And it's never quite predictable
what a combination of chemicals will do, it's very hard to
predict. To have more chemicals, when you already have toxic
stuff around, to do more of it, I doubt very much that that is
beneficial.
And also, I want to tell you guys I don't really
trust you. Our culture tends to trust what we call the
progress and chemicals, and we tend to overly trust, and later
on it turns out to be extremely toxic and detrimental to
everything. I know only that if there is chlorine in the water
I know what it is, but chemicals we don't know, and we don't
know the long term effects.
So I would be, you know, I don't like, as a private
citizen, to have toxic stuff. A friend of mine told me it
makes your skin itch, your eyes burn. I would, without being
very knowledgeable, you get the drift of what I'm saying,
yeah? And so we trust chemicals, and people who warn against
it are regarded as cranks or extremists. I just want to say
I'm an ordinary citizen, I was a nurse for 19 years, I'm very
cautious. I have been here from 1970 and I'm not a crank or an
extremist, but I do see a lot of stuff that is being done that
would be better not to. So this is what I want to say. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Astrid. Astrid, one
second, any questions for Astrid, members of the Board? Thank
you. Okay, let's see. We have water standards, Mark Spencer.
Do you want to testify now?
MR. MARK SPENCER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Mark.
MR. MARK SPENCER: Mark Spencer with Spencer Homes.
I guess I have a question. And we talked a little bit about
this, what was said at last months' meeting. A project where
we're the contractor for which my brother Doug Spencer owns,
Kilohana Hema. The department has been enforcing or has been
applying code that we believe is part of the new code that
hasn't been accepted yet, and I am trying to find out what your
policy is on that.
What it is is it's their meters. They have been
pushing us to put meters on private property using a different
meter box that no one has yet, and we brought it to their
attention. The response was, Well, it would be more economical
of you to just go ahead and do this now rather than go through
the appeal process. And again, we feel like we're being forced
to use a code that our understanding is hasn't even been
adopted yet. And I guess I want to bring that to your
attention and hopefully get a response later on in the
meeting. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you. Any questions for Mark?
MR. STARR: Yeah. Are those those stainless steel
covers?
MR. MARK SPENCER: This is a box that now
incorporates a valve inside the box. It's a larger box. And
again, the irrigation systems, the other people hadn't even
heard a word of it. Also, they're wanting it placed, let me
see now, I think I may have had this backwards now. They're
wanting it placed on private property, they're wanting it
encased in concrete. It's a completely different kind of
code. They offered a compromise of letting us put it within
the County, but also still using the new meter boxes. So
that's where we're at.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, Mark. Any other questions for
Mark? Thank you.
MR. MARK SPENCER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: Let's see. I don't think that item
is on the agenda, but -- oh, yes, it is. What he's talking
about is right now the meter boxes are required to be on
private property. The new standards require it to be in the
County right-of-way. And the longer meter boxes are required
because of the check valve, which is required because of 9/11,
not because of any standards.
CHAIRMAN RICE: We will talk more about it when the
item comes up on the agenda. Ian Smith.
MR. IAN SMITH: Good morning. My name is Ian Smith,
members of the Board. I'm here to testify on the rules and
regulations on the proposed new standards. One standards upon
my review that's not included in the new standards is the use
of PVC, C-900 water line. PVC C-900 water line pipe is used
throughout the United States, 48 of the 50 states use it, it is
AWWA certified, it is NSF certified, it is EPA certified.
I brought along a bunch of research that I
downloaded off the web from the Association of American Water
Works that actually prove it has a higher corrosion resistance
than ductal iron, which is the standard here. And because it
is a non-conductor, the corrosion resistance is superior to
that. It also is not susceptible to alkaline or acid soil
conditions. Because PVC does not respond to those, it has a
longer life. It is approved, it has superior flow
characteristics. It also, over a recent research done by an
independent lab funded by the American Water Works Association,
it was shown to have superior life over the ductal iron pipe.
And these things all combined I've done, I don't
know, miles of water line here on Maui, private and public.
The number one thing I find in dealing with my men in the field
and using both pipes is safety. Two men can lift up a 20-foot
length of PVC C-900 pipe, put it in place, put it together. If
you use that same length of pipe ductal iron you are going to
need a piece of machinery. You have the potential of it
falling, crushing a man's leg.
You also have to wrap that pipe in plastic to avoid
corrosion from the soil. These are all things that take extra
steps, and they're also things that the department has to deal
with in repairing lines, where if the line was PVC the repair
would be a lot easier, there wouldn't be as much danger
associated with it.
And then finally, it's the cost factor. It's
anywhere from 25 to 30 percent cheaper than ductal iron C-900
pipe. The transportation, the shipping is cheaper. It's just
something that I would ask that the Board look into to be
included, or at least reviewed as part of the new standards.
It's allowed on Kauai, it's allowed on Oahu, state jobs allow
it as a standard, and I think just the County should catch up
with the times and look to put it in with their specs. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Questions for Ian? Yes, Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: In looking over this new amendment and
rules, how much do you estimate it's going to affect your
business to have to comply?
MR. IAN SMITH: To the new rules? Oh, the new
rules, it would probably -- if everything was incorporated in
those new rules, I would imagine somewhere in the neighborhood
of 35 percent, 30 to 35 percent more cost across the board in
dealing with that.
MS. PARSONS: What does that translate to in your --
with what you have subdivisionwise on the books right now? What
does that translate to in dollars.
MR. IAN SMITH: It would depend upon the size of the
system. There are some of our projects that, you know, it's a
simple crossing, short things. If it's a large subdivision you
could be talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.
MS. PARSONS: So it's a profit issue too, right?
MR. IAN SMITH: Not only that. I mean a lot of
times the improvements that are required benefit the County as
well. I mean when the County improves their systems they're
paying that same price as well.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Victorino?
MR. VICTORINO: Ian, you did mention it being a
little cheaper as far as 25 to 30 percent as far as your cost
factor, and I might have missed this in your statement when you
started. What is the life expectancy between the two? What is
the percentage of difference there when you're talking the PVC
versus the ductal line?
MR. IAN SMITH: Well, because PVC pipe and C-900 PVC
pipe is relatively new, 25 years or so, they don't have -- I
mean it hasn't been around long enough. But if I can quote
part of this research right here it says, "When water utility
managers and engineering firms were surveyed in the study
sponsored by the American Water Works Association research
foundation, they cited corrosion existence, longevity, and
durability as their top reasons for choosing PVC. When these
same water supply professionals and engineers were asked to
rank PVC against other common types of pressure pipes for life
expectancy, PVC ranked first."
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions for Ian? Thank
you, Ian.
MR. IAN SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, Hugh?
MR. HUGH STARR: I'd prefer to testify when it comes
up, thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, any other testimony to be
taken from the public on issues on the agenda at this time?
Hearing and seeing none, we are going to move on. Director's
Report 02-42, request approval to procure the services of a
legislative liaison.
MR. CRADDICK: In light of recent events, I'd like
to withdraw that item.
CHAIRMAN RICE: If there's no objection, so
ordered. Director's Report 02-44, request approval to cancel
an Agreement Authorizing Waiver for Subdivision Water Systems.
Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: Okay, this was, I believe, a 216
referral that has now been complied with, and I just want it
off of the title report.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nakamura?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the
request to cancel the waiver.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Moved and seconded. Any
discussion? . Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Yeah, I'm a little confused over what
this is. Can we get a more detailed description from the
Director?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: Well, this is a 216 deferral. They
have now done the improvements that are required, so there's no
necessity to have this on the title report anymore. When they
get a 216 deferral it runs with the land. And once it's
complied with it still runs with the land, unless you do
something like this to cancel it off.
MR. STARR: If they make further improvements would
that have any affect on it?
MR. CRADDICK: Further improvements? I'm not sure
what you mean. You mean put more demand on the water system?
MR. STARR: Yes.
MR. CRADDICK: We would have to look at that
situation when it arose.
MR. STARR: But it wouldn't fall under this in that
case, is that what you're saying?
MR. CRADDICK: No. For what they did, the
subdivision they did, they put the requirements in.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions, discussion?
All in favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
The motion is carried.
Item C, Director's Report 02-45 is a personnel
issue. Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: I think we'd have to go into
executive session for that, for any discussion on that item.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, could we move that to the
tail of the agenda?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Certainly. Any objection, Board
Members? Okay. Old Business A, request from Marion and Maxine
Hanks for a water meter for their home. This was on a previous
agenda, I believe.
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RICE: And Mr. Craddick has distributed
some additional information, I believe. Is that correct, Mr.
Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes. The additional information is
they entered into an agreement in 1992 to basically say that
they were on a private water system and wouldn't be asking the
County for service, and I think our staff wasn't aware of that
before they found the agreement.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Kushi, there was a need to go
into executive session on this issue at the last meeting. Is
that still --
MR. KUSHI: I don't recall, Mr. Chair.
MR. CRADDICK: That was if you were, you know, in
light of this item here, there may be a reason to deny the
meter. But the issue about other services having been given in
the area is still an item out there, and that was the reason
for the executive session, if you wanted to go into that.
CHAIRMAN RICE: What's the pleasure of this Board?
MR. NOBRIGA: Is there a representative of the
Hanks?
MR. CRADDICK: They live in Utah. I don't believe
there is.
MR. NOBRIGA: There's no representative for the
Hanks?
MR. CRADDICK: No.
MR. STARR: Can I get a clarification of what's
before us, what's being asked of us here?
MR. CRADDICK: They want a meter on the system that
the Board said not to give any meters on after the Grey, the
Grey issue.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Yeah, I'd like to ask Corp Counsel
whether we have standing any ability to deny this, considering
they signed this agreement.
MR. CHANG: It's not a denial.
MR. CRADDICK: What Herb was saying is it's not a
denial, they just have to put in the improvements and they
would be able to get the meter.
CHAIRMAN RICE: That's what this agreement says. I
think there's a question for Mr. Kushi at this point. .
MR. STARR: And if we were to file it, is that
sufficient?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, this is the first time I have
seen this agreement. So without knowing the background and
really looking at this agreement, I can't comment on it. I
would suggest the Board defer this again. And we need a
response from our office based on the current request and what
they signed.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think that's sufficient.
MR. STARR: Move to defer.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Moved and seconded to defer.
Discussion? All in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
Hearing none, the motion passes.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair, just one recommendation.
I get a little tired sometimes coming to these meetings and
being given surprises, and then also finding out that Corp
Counsel is not prepared. I mean if this was sent out on
October 29th and today is November 6th, there seems to be
sometime that somebody should have given it for review. Just
make a note of that. Something like this should be done and
given to Corp Counsel so that he's better prepared when he
comes to the meeting.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So noted. Thank you, Mr.
Victorino.
Okay, moving on to B, here we are, request to amend
the rules. Hugh, do you want to go ahead and testify?
MR. HUGH STARR: Good morning, Chairman Rice,
members of the Board. I have to confess I'm a little uncertain
where everything goes from here as far as procedure and the
like. But I'm here to testify, offer some comments on the
proposed changes to the water system standards.
The main thing, the point that I wanted to draw your
attention to is that, you know, I've watched your proceedings
in fascination often, and some of the things that I note is
that there's a great deal of sympathy, a lot of you as
individuals, toward people, especially in the Upcountry area
where systems are maybe not up to standards are faced with, you
know, incredible infrastructure improvements in order to get a
water meter or in order to get a one-lot, two-lot, three-lot
subdivision. I see a collision course coming here pretty
quickly between the adoption of the new water system standards
and the Upcountry water meter issuance rule.
Essentially, you've got up until December 3rd. You
have got people who are coming to the department with prior
privileges, if you will, for water service. And then once that
date passes you have got something like 580 people on the wait
list for up-sized meters, additional meters and the like. Most
of these people have been on a list or waiting for water
service for, you know, upwards of nine, ten years now, and they
see this progress with the Upcountry meter issuance rule as a
really positive thing.
Ironically, at the exact same time the Board is
being asked to consider changing the water system standards,
and it will have a dramatic impact on many of the people who
are on the list Upcountry. And what I see happening is a lot
of the frustration of this, you know, conflict is going to end
up before the Board or the County Council, I'm not sure.
That's the part I'm not so sure about. But there's going to be
a lot of conflict, and there's going to be a lot of kind of
up-cry, if you will.
Many people who are on the list and anticipated
getting water service are going to find if the standards are
adopted as proposed that they are going to have to now conform
in many cases to increasing the distribution lines to their
properties in order for them to get water service. You've seen
many times people come before you and say that it's going to
cost them $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, and that's very real.
So my suggestion is, if it's appropriate, that
perhaps there be some consideration for not making this
retroactive, which in essence is what it appears is going to
happen as it's being proposed. And I don't have an answer to
this. I think dialogue might be a little helpful. Whether it
is that you just say that upon adoption of the rule that any
new applications that come before the department would have to
meet these new standards. That's one alternative. There are
others.
I think that the Board has expressed the desire to
develop a long-range plan for upgrading the systems that are
substandard, rather than making and putting the onus on
individual people who come before the department for an
individual water service. So without taking any more of your
time, that's pretty much the gist of my comments. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Hugh. Questions for
Mr. Starr? Mr. Starr for Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Where is the wording that makes this
retroactive?
MR. HUGH STARR: I don't see -- well, I don't see
anything specific in there that says it's retroactive. But the
department, I think as was alluded to earlier in earlier
testimony, I think the intention of the department is to make
it retroactive. When I say retroactive, I may be using the
wrong term. But currently if you go into the department now
you actually are asked to meet these new standards, even though
they haven't really been adopted by rule, by rule change. So I
don't know that there's anywhere specific in the standards that
suggests it will be retroactive, but in practice my
understanding is that it will be in essence retroactive.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Mr. Nakamura?
MR. NAKAMURA: Hugh, quick question. Are you
concerned primarily about the timing aspect, the retroactivity
or the retroactive aspect of it, or are you concerned about the
fact that the standards themselves may be excessive? And if
it's the latter, do you have any specific items that you would
like to bring to the attention of the Board?
MR. HUGH STARR: Thank you. On the issue of the
standards being excessive, I've had a chance to talk with the
department and consider them, and I think the standards are
probably appropriate for the times. You know, I think the main
concern seems to be that the nature of development in
agricultural areas has changed a great deal since the rules
were initially adopted, and the fire protection or fire flow is
insufficient oftentimes to deal with the kinds of improvements
that we're seeing in ag areas.
So I have no argument with the standards themselves,
by and large. What I'm concerned about is that people who have
-- this will affect virtually everybody Upcountry. There are
very few exceptions that I've run into where people won't be
affected either being asked to put in a fire hydrant or extend,
upgrade a 4 or 6 inch line to an 8 inch line to meet these fire
protection requirements. So it's a real burden on people who
have been waiting for water service, so that's my main
concern.
And the Board has expressed collectively I think,
and individually, that this is a real issue of equity in
requiring individuals to make system improvements in order to
get a water service, that there has to be another way of
upgrading the systems, and that the responsibility perhaps
should rest with the department to, in their long-range
planning, to upgrade these systems rather than putting the onus
on individual people on an as-you-walk-in-the-door basis, which
is the way it's been. And now it's going to be expedientially
tougher because the standards are more stringent.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Victorino?
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Starr, I understand where you're
coming from, but I think the word "retro" is not really
appropriate. You are really referring to that these people are
waiting for their meters. And as these meters are rolled out,
based upon new standards, they would then have to comply with
these new standards. So it's not really a retro, it's just the
fact that they have been waiting to get their meters. Now they
get their meter, and whatever rules or regulations there are at
that point they've got to comply with, right?
MR. HUGH STARR: That's right.
MR. VICTORINO: That's basically what you're
saying. Just to get that straight. Retro kind of means I go
back and if I did something ten years ago I've got to go back
and do it again. Secondly, this fire flow issue, I think you
and I agree, being that I'm in the business of insurance, it's
a tremendous area of concern because of the life and protection
of people, okay. It's not so much property, but the life and
well being of people are very important. And I think this is
something that the compliance with these new standards for fire
flow and all that is going to be real paramount.
Now, I understand and I think I concur with you that
we should, as these standards are adopted, make sure that the
Board and the Department of Water Supply work with the people
and individuals. And if a cross sharing or whatever needs to
be done, that we need to get in there and get ourselves
involved in that area. But I think it's very important to
understand that these systems, these new rules and regulations
are very important, because if we let you put in something
substandard now and years come down the road, like what
happened in Kula, even though now there's a fire station, still
there's inadequate fire flow. So even if the fire truck gets
to that home, it cannot put out the fire because there's a
standpipe instead of a fire hydrant.
So anything being built new, I think it's
important. But I agree with you, I think we have to look upon
ourselves that the department and the individual owners somehow
come to work and find a common ground and share cost in that
area.
MR. HUGH STARR: Thank you. If I could make a
couple of comments. On the issue of the retroactive, and the
department can correct me if I am wrong, but it's possible that
someone who came in for say a three lot subdivision and had
construction plans approved for the water improvements will now
then be asked to go back and redo those construction plans
according to new standards. And so in a sense, they may have
had construction plans approved and they're waiting on the
pipeline for their meters. And then these new standards come
in and they will be asked to go back and redesign their
system.
So to that extent I believe there is an issue of --
I don't know if retroactive is the right word, but it's the
ideas that people could have complied with all conditions, you
know, back in 1993, and they're just sitting there waiting for
their water service. Now they have the opportunity to get
their water service, and now they're going to be asked to "Oh,
by the way, you have to upgrade the system."
And on the issue of fire protection, I understand,
I'm sympathetic to what you're talking about. In rural areas,
and this was raised by Scott English, he made a distinction
that I thought was interesting between fire protection to
protect life and limb versus fire protection to save a house.
And as far as the fire department is concerned, and they're the
ones actually out there fighting these things, their primary
concern is to get into the house with their personnel and get
people out. And the amount of water that is required to
perform that task is significantly less than the amount of
water that it takes to physically save a structure. I think
it's safe to say that the priority is health and safety.
So that distinction somewhat deals with the issue of
can you save every house that burns in the Upcountry area.
Perhaps not. But if you could save peoples' lives, maybe the
standards that we have in place right now, while they're not
adequate, and I would agree, would at least meet that
requirement.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions for Mr. Starr?
Thank you, Hugh.
MR. HUGH STARR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Board Members, at the last meeting
that this issue was taken up there was a request made regarding
these standards. Mr. Kushi, do you recall?
MR. KUSHI: Again, I don't recall, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN RICE: In the minutes we were discussing
this. Mr. Kushi makes a comment that he just got handed a copy
of the water system standards by the state and signed off by
the then Director, as well as the Board Chair of the City of
Honolulu, Kauai and the Big Island. So we were trying to
figure out if we were amending those rules that were previously
adopted, or if they weren't adopted, and how these new
standards fit into that. And we deferred the issue based on
some decision or some opinion that was forthcoming.
MR. KUSHI: Yes, go on.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Well, I guess that's why we deferred
it. So in trying to avoid the same question coming up again, I
just wanted to deal with it up front.
MR. KUSHI: It's slowly coming back to me,
Mr. Chair. I recall that at the last meeting we were confused
-- I was confused as to what we were amending or
incorporating. Subsequently we did have several meetings with
staff. And I'm not sure if all of you have seen this, but in
the proposed rules and regulations I guess the key to all of
this is on page 121 of your handouts at the top. It says to
add a section to the definitions under standards, water system
standards, State of Hawaii.
So in essence what the department is trying to do is
to incorporate this book into its rules to provide a set of
standards. Now, these standards are adopted, from my
understanding, through associations of state and county
departments, water departments, or water so-called experts.
And again, they may be amended from time to time. However, I
think it was the consensus of the staff, and I would agree to
it, I would go along with it, that at least now you have or the
department has and the public has something to look at by
incorporating these standards.
Just reviewing your current rules, they do mention
rules and regulations and standards. There's no reference to
any -- to what is the standard. And that being the case, the
standard could be whatever the Director thinks should be the
standard.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So if I'm hearing you correctly,
right now the rules refer to standards in the generic sense and
there is no definition of standards. So up until now the
Director has been using his interpretation of standards.
MR. KUSHI: That's my understanding. Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So that answers that part of the
question from before. So we would be proposing, for the
public's benefit and for the Board Members' benefit we are not
approving anything at this meeting today. The action taken by
this Board would be to propose a rule which would then go for
public hearing, and then upon its final approval by this Board
go to the Council and the Mayor for approval. Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Yeah, with that in mind, I do feel we
should move forward with this. However, I do want to make it
clear that I don't think that the community should be mandated
to follow them until they are incorporated as a rule, which as
you state, if we did go ahead with the motion I am about to
make that would send them out to a public hearing, then back to
the Board for our approval, and then to the Mayor and the
Council for adoption. So I don't think that the Director
should be mandating them until they're passed.
But with that in mind, I'd like to move that we
approve sending these out as a package for public hearing as
amendments to the water system standards.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: It has been moved and seconded to --
I'm trying to think of the right word -- to recommend that the
standards, that the rules and regulations of the Department of
Water Supply of Maui County be amended to include these water
systems standards. Okay, discussion? Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Starr
that the rules should not be utilized if they're not adopted or
somehow sanctioned. But I do have a question to David. So
these are new rules or these are new standards, right, 2002
standards?
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct.
MR. NAKAMURA: So in light of Mr. Starr's concerns,
are there old standards that you have been using, and if so,
how old are those standards?
MR. CRADDICK: They're similar to this, 1985.
MS. PARSONS: 19 what?
MR. CRADDICK: 1985.
MR. NAKAMURA: So would you continue to use those
1985 standards until such time as this rule is adopted?
MR. CRADDICK: The item that was brought up, the
meter box, there's I guess three changes in there. One is the
location of the meter box, one is the size of the meter box,
the last thing is what goes inside the meter box. We have
already made the decision that we're going to go to radio read
meters. Because of 9/11 we've made the decision that back flow
preventers are going to be put on every single service. We're
putting that inside the box. That is what's driving that.
There's nothing in the rules driving that decision.
What our staff had done with their particular
subdivision was require the location of the box be changed from
private property to public property, which is what these new
standards require. And in that process there's a concrete
apron around it. That was very expensive. And what I told
them was, okay, you can move the thing back onto the private
property, but the check valve is still going to have to go in
there and the box is still going to have to be big enough to
put the radio read meter in.
So those are not even covered in these rules here,
that's just a decision that had to be made because now we have
radio read meters and we're putting check valves on every
single service so things cannot be pumped back into the
system.
MR. NAKAMURA: But despite some of these unusual
circumstances, generally speaking, are you going to continue to
use 1985 standards?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. NAKAMURA: Until such time as there's some
formal acceptance of these 2002 standards?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes. I guess the only thing is that
the fire code has changed as of October 2001, and to meet that
fire code we are requiring things that meet that fire code.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Go ahead, Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: It was my understanding that the fire
department is making the fire flow issue. That when it hits,
when the building permits hit the fire department they're the
ones coming back to the owner, the permittee, saying that "You
need to do these improvements," is that correct? That wasn't
coming directly out of our department, it was coming out of the
fire department?
MR. CRADDICK: For waivers from the requirements, I
guess they're coming from the fire department.
MS. PARSONS: Waivers of which requirements, these?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MS. PARSONS: So they're working with these, is that
correct?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MS. PARSONS: Who gave them that authority to work
with these?
MR. CRADDICK: It meets the fire code that they have
to comply with now.
MS. PARSONS: Who complied with -- who makes that
code, what body?
MR. CRADDICK: Well, it's the National Fire
Protection Association.
MS. PARSONS: So nationally they have this code they
have to deal with, and that's why things are getting driven.
Because I know we've got a lot of homeowners that are coming in
and saying, "I want to do an addition and it's going to cost me
$50,000 to put a fire stand out there." And they're working
off these rules, but we're not, and this is the major change
that we're talking about, correct?
So it really isn't up to us. I mean this is still
-- the problem that we've got is the fire flow issue, that's
your main problem, and it's not up to us because we don't have
to work under these rules until we bring them in under our
rules.
MR. CRADDICK: That's true.
MS. PARSONS: But they're still going to be up
against the fire department.
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct.
MS. PARSONS: So this is a non-issue.
CHAIRMAN RICE: There's more than just --
MS. PARSONS: That's the only thing he's working on.
He just said that while you were out. That's the only thing
he's got a problem with right now.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Adolph?
MR. HELM: David, I've just got a question. I'm
just basically curious with regards to your back flow
preventers. Are you saying that each individual person that
goes in for a meter are required -- right now currently you use
a single check on all of your standard meter installations.
Are they going to be required to put like double checks? What's
required?
MR. CRADDICK: No. It's an inline check valve that
is inside the meter box. That's the difference. Before it was
outside the meter box where people could mess around with it.
MR. HELM: So we're talking about downstream with
the meter or upstream with the meter?
MR. CRADDICK: It's right behind the meter
downstream.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Victorino?
MR. VICTORINO: In light of what happened the other
day too, Mr. Chair, I'm very confused because, as you all know,
we're being changed. And we can send something like this to
the Mayor, the Council, public hearing and all that, but now
that we're going to be under the Mayor, maybe it's time for us
to say we are going to need some direction, because the new
Mayor will be telling us basically what to do. And I think
that's a fact that we've got to face up to. I mean we can do
all the things we want to do, and they can all come up and say,
"No, this is not what we want. This is the direction we're
going." Isn't that correct, that's what was voted on the other
day?
CHAIRMAN RICE: You may be correct.
MR. VICTORINO: So whatever actions we may be taking
may be for naught. And I am not against that, Jonathan, I'm
not against your proposal, I second it. But I'm also saying we
could be going through a whole mess of changes and it could all
be kicked back or changed or amended or whatever. So I'm very
confused just basically trying to get something done now. I
don't want to be inactive, but I also want to be proper in how
I handle it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Mr. Victorino. Mr.
Starr?
MR. STARR: You know, my thought process had gone
through what Mr. Victorino said. But this is one item that
will go not only through us but to the public and then to the
Mayor, and it will be, I assume, the new Mayor by that time and
the Council. So I think we ought to keep acting. I don't
think we ought to say that we should be afraid to act on things
that have been ongoing. So I do feel we should proceed on it.
But while the issue of meter boxes is kind of on the
floor here, I want to make a comment. I recently installed a
water meter in Wailuku and it was a very difficult experience
in talking with my contractor and other contractors. We were
forced to put in a very, very large and very, very costly meter
box, you know, and it was just a massive thing. And it had to
have a stainless steel lid, which was a recent requirement
added. But we were told that if we didn't put this massive box
with a stainless steel lid we would not get it approved by the
department.
And even still it was a difficult, you know, a
somewhat difficult process. I'm told it added over $8,000 to
the cost of just installing a water meter. And, you know, this
great big box with this beautiful stainless. It looked like
something from NASA, you know. And the meter was about this
small (indicating) and the check valve was about this small
(indicating) and then there's this massive thing with stainless
steel, you know. And it seemed crazy at the time, and I hated
paying for it, but we were kind of told we had do it. And now
I'm hearing that that's not even part of this. So I don't
know, I just wanted to vent on that issue. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you for venting, Mr. Starr.
Any other discussion on the motion? Yes, Mr. Nobriga.
MR. NOBRIGA: I notice in section 2-3, water main
and appurtenances, yeah, water main and appurtenances, there's
a suggestion on an amendment to the two unit subdivision for
both urban districts and agricultural districts that bring a
two unit subdivision to the same standard as a three unit
subdivision. It kind of doesn't make sense to have a two unit
subdivision with the same standards as a three lot
subdivision. I would propose to make the three lot subdivision
a two lot, to a 12 unit subdivision, because it's the same
standards. At this time it don't make sense to have two
standards as the 3 to 12 unit subdivision.
MR. CRADDICK: What are you saying is the same,
Mike?
MR. NOBRIGA: It's the same stuff.
MR. CRADDICK: Are you talking about the minimum
size water main?
MR. NOBRIGA: The part that is underlined.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Section 2-3.
MR. CRADDICK: Yeah, that's a good idea, you could
just put a two down below and get rid of the 3.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: I guess in closing I'd like to say
that I have no problems and I'll support the motion. However,
I still would like to make sure and let Mr. Starr know that I'm
not afraid to take action, but I'd like to, knowing that the
new Mayor would be the one that would be given this
opportunity, that they're given the chance to make whatever
they think would be appropriate changes. And I just don't want
to be pushing things out without letting them have an
opportunity to assist in these areas also. So I'll vote for
the motion in the sense of I would like to get it out and
moving ahead in the public.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, one second now. Mr. Nobriga
made an amendment and he suggested an amendment. The motion
was to accept the document as it was submitted to you. So in
order to go forward one way or the other we need to either have
an amendment or --
MR. VICTORINO: What amendment?
MR. STARR: Yes, make the amendment.
MR. VICTORINO: What amendment?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mike suggested changing the proposed
rules and everyone seemed to like his suggestion, including the
Director. If we were to vote on the motion that's on the table
it would not include Mike's suggestion. So if we make an
amendment to the motion to make the change to the rules as
suggested by Mr. Nobriga, then we can deal with it.
MR. VICTORINO: I missed the amendment, but go
ahead.
MR. NOBRIGA: Move to amend the motion by -- move to
amend the motion in section 2-3, section 1, new section 1,
urban districts. A two unit subdivision should be included
within the 3 to 12 unit subdivision. So the new language would
not have a provision for two unit subdivision, would have a
provision stating two, 2 to 12 unit subdivision.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
MR. NOBRIGA: In addition to section 2,
agricultural, formerly rule areas, the same amendment would
apply where the two unit subdivision would be included within
the 3 to 6 unit subdivision. Whereby the 3 to 6 unit
subdivision would now read two, 2 to 6 unit subdivisions.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: On the ag one they're not the same,
the run distance is different, it's longer. One is 300 feet
for the 3 to 6, and the other one is 400 feet.
MR. NOBRIGA: Remove the amendment to the
agricultural then, if there is a difference. They look the
same to me, that's why. Too much lines.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So your amendment only relates to
the first section one with regard to the two unit subdivision
will fall under 2 through 12, is that correct?
MR. NOBRIGA: That's right.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: The second is by Mr. Victorino. Any
discussion on the amendment? Okay, all in favor of the
amendment say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
Okay, the question on the main motion, any other
discussions? Mr. Nobriga.
MR. NOBRIGA: Further amendment if possible on the
fire protection. During the discussion that ensued a couple of
topics ago, Mr. Craddick referred to a standard being applied
by the fire department on fire protection water flow
standards. Is that correct or did I misunderstand?
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct.
MR. NOBRIGA: Should we not have within our section,
fire protection section 2-4 language that refers back to that
fire department standard as well?
MR. CRADDICK: The short story is you're right.
That book is about twice the size of our standards, and you
know if we have to do it we would have to do it, but it
probably would get some consistency there between the fire
department and ourselves going away from -- what you're doing
is you're going away from the OSI, the Office of Insurance
Services, going over to this National Fire Protection
Association standard.
So anyway, I will leave the comments at that rate.
Right now our standard is the Office of Insurance Services
office's fire protection requirements, which is actually the
insurance company. The other one is just, I shouldn't say
just, it is the Fire Protection Association, and there's very
minute detail in there that our staff quite frankly would have
no knowledge of. And if you meet the requirements in the fire
system that's out on the road, 99 percent of those other things
don't apply.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So?
MR. NOBRIGA: That was as clear as mud to me, but
apparently what it sounded like was language should be offered
to include --
MR. CRADDICK: Coordination of the standards.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah. I don't have that language at
this time.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nakamura?
MR. NAKAMURA: I'm still a little confused, like Mr.
Nobriga. But section 2-4, the fire protection that's being
proposed, David, that is different from the standards that are
being required by the fire department? They have a different
set of standards, is that correct?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. NAKAMURA: And are they inconsistent or are they
just further detailed than what's in this 2-4?
MR. CRADDICK: There's is extreme further detail.
This deals with just the pipelines and the fire flow
requirement to the buildings. Those fire protection standards
deal with sprinkler systems within the building, all kinds of
other issues.
MR. NAKAMURA: But if they're not inconsistent, but
they're just further detail, I would be a little reluctant to
adopt a lot of detail that your department is not going to have
the ability or the need to review, you know. So that's my
feeling, anyway.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Ginny?
MS. PARSONS: Didn't the Board or somehow the Board
sent the ability for the fire department to make -- it was
divided off somehow. David, can you explain that? Wasn't it
one time the fire protection was under the water, and then it
split off, and now the permit process or somehow it goes to the
fire department to make the decisions?
MR. CRADDICK: No. What happened was the fire
department, under the charter says they're responsible for fire
protection for the county.
MS. PARSONS: Right.
MR. CRADDICK: Under the water department in the
charter it doesn't say they're supposed to do anything about
fire protection. But I think it's relatively obvious to
everyone that if the water department doesn't provide the water
flow necessary for the fire department to fight fires, they
cannot do it with the current building standards the way they
are.
MS. PARSONS: But didn't the department at one time.
MR. CRADDICK: Wait, wait, let me finish. Anyways,
the fire department only looked at commercial entities prior to
last year. They now look at everything, as the charter
requires them to do. So that's basically the difference.
Prior to last year they only looked at commercial. Now they
look at everything, residential, rural, the works, which is
what's in the National Fire Protection.
MS. PARSONS: Well, who handled it before that
period?
MR. CRADDICK: We basically did.
MS. PARSONS: That's what I thought. So we also
have a problem within the fire flow. As I recall, there's a
book where there are about $65 million worth of fire flow
issues within the County of Maui, is that correct?
MR. CRADDICK: Oh, you are talking about the 1993
water line replacement and fire flow improvement program?
MS. PARSONS: Right.
MR. CRADDICK: Yes, that's correct, there's about
120 miles of line identified that need fixing.
MS. PARSONS: So they're actually the ones setting
the standard now so we don't run into more of that same thing?
MR. CRADDICK: If they stick to it, yes, that's
correct.
MS. PARSONS: But we're going to be the ones paying
for the improvement?
MR. CRADDICK: Well, keep in mind we also charge the
County for that per hydrant, so we do get reimbursed at least
for the hydrant portion of it. If you are talking about the
increase in line size and the depreciation on that, whether
somebody else ought to be paying for that, I mean that's just a
rob Peter to pay Paul kind of an issue. It's provided for the
people that are using the service.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Victorino?
MR. VICTORINO: I think in light of this I see no
real rationale for amendments, as I stated earlier. I think we
are putting this out to the public, giving both the
administration and the public the opportunity to comment, to
make the necessary improvements, bring together the parties. I
think it's just a first step, and I think the more detail we
get maybe we make it more difficult for people. So I'd like to
call for the question and move on.
CHAIRMAN RICE: All in favor of the motion say
"aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
MR. NOBRIGA: Nay.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Let the record show a nay,
Mr. Nobriga. The motion is carried.
Okay now, as it relates to any other concerns
expressed by the public, did the Board want to send this rule
with any other -- no? No. Okay now, as it relates to Mr.
Craddick, if we have to have a rule that needs approval, we
enforce it when it's approved, right? It's pretty clear.
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Yeah, and I think we should -- we should
ask that the fire department comment.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Absolutely.
MR. STARR: Specifically.
MR. VICTORINO: I think that's what I said,
everybody needs to be brought into the picture at this time.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, moving on, we have item C
under Old Business, the continuing evaluation of the Director.
MR. NOBRIGA: Can we defer that to the end of the
agenda, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN RICE: If the rest of the Board Members
have no objection, okay, let's move on to Communication A, nine
people waiting for comment on the C-9 and it relates to Miss
Deisel's earlier comments.
MR. STARR: Could we have a very short recess?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, let's take a minute.
MR. VICTORINO: Five minutes.
(Whereupon a brief recess was had).
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, let's move on. We are on
Communication A from Diesel regarding the use of chemicals in
the Upcountry water. Diesel is here, and there is other public
testimony to follow. And cell phones off. I apologize, the
first phone ringing was mine.
MS. DIESEL: I'm not really sure where to start
because I've given you guys my story. And in trying to resolve
my situation I have been through an unbelievable bureaucratic
run-around, not because of you guys because I haven't called
you personally. But everybody that I know and everybody that
I've talked to thinks that they know the way to handle this.
So I've made I can't tell you how many phone calls and written
how many letters in trying to solve this.
So one of my -- first I want to say that I'm a
little sarcastic, especially when I say something like this,
because I have to have humor in order to keep going. But I
have to say that I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe that
there is a solution, and that you guys are not these monsters
that a lot of people tell me that you are. And that you are
willing to work with me in finding a solution.
So anyway I just want to reiterate that there is a
solution that's going to be better for you guys, for me, for
everybody. And I think when we look outside our little box
that as humans we tend to look at, we find that.
I'd like to address the doctor thing, because I was
told by David Craddick to get a doctor's note, which I got.
And before he even read the note he said then I had to do
something else, I can't remember what it was, I have it written
down. Then when he read the note he said, "Well, that's not
scientific proof." So I'd like to address this issue.
First of all, no doctor helped me when I was in my
one month of pain, none of them. They sat there and looked at
me, "Here, have some drugs, have some steroids." None of them
helped me. None of them helped me figure out what it was. By
the time I finally figured out what it was, I went to a
doctor. It was a week, it had been like three days after I had
stopped using the water, so all the symptoms had gone away
except what was left was some eczema what I like to call
really-pissed-off-skin, which is eczema. So I didn't have
anything to show him.
One of the doctors that I had gone to when I had the
symptoms, I got there at 10:00 in the morning and the first
thing I said is, "I don't even know why I'm here, there's
nothing to show you. It comes, it's gone. There's nothing to
show you. I'm tortured all night and I don't know what to do
about it." She's the one who gave me the drugs.
Okay, so then I go well, I have got to have a doctor
support me. They don't know what happened to me, they didn't
there, they weren't with me in the middle of the night. They
weren't with me when I was waking up. So I've got to try to
communicate with these people, and this is what I've got.
Doctor A: Sorry, Diesel, but I can't help you. I
won't have anything to do with the water department. The
Board, those people are evil they will drain and suck every bit
of tissue out of your body. I highly advise you to stay away
from them. You know what's keeping your skin good, don't go
anywhere near them. Okay, well, at least he's honest.
Doctor B: Doctor B doesn't know anything, and he
refers me to Doctor C. Doctor C says, You will not get the
department to move unless you force an attorney down their
throat. "This is war, Diesel. You will have to torture
yourself so bad." My boyfriend says I have got to die first.
Well, you don't have to die, but you have got to get pretty
darn close. The fact that most of your systems are unseen
makes it pretty difficult.
I said, But Doctor, Doctor you can give me two
bottles of water and you can tell me which one to wash my face
with, and don't tell me which one it is and I'll tell you which
one it is. It doesn't matter. You have got to die or come
pretty close to it.
So Doctor D: The doctor says, "This is not a
medical issue. Your skin is fine, you're doing what's right.
This is a political problem. I wish I could help you, but I
can't." Oh, this is a good one, the EPA doctor. I called the
EPA --
CHAIRMAN RICE: Doctor E?
MS. DIESEL: Yeah, Doctor EPA. I E-mail this guy
and I tell him, I say, "Listen, I've got this catch here. The
water department is saying they need proof. The doctor is
saying well --" it's basically I kind of feel like you guys are
asking me to have a doctor tell you what I went through, and I
don't understand that. I understand the business part but I
go, "It doesn't make any sense. He didn't go through it, he
wasn't there."
So anyway, I tell this doctor that I'm in this
Catch-22. And he says, Well, it's very simple. "Just have
your doctor write a letter stating that when you get in the
water you have these symptoms, and when you're out, you don't."
But this doctor says, "It's war, we have got to go to court.
It's, it's war, attorneys, blah, blah, blah." I have to have
more than that, but he says that doesn't make any sense. I
say,.
Well, okay, he told me, "My job in the EPA is to
evaluate the personal effects, personal exposure to toxins in
air and water." I told him what I went through and he says,
"Well, it's my opinion that you should get yourself out of the
water. You might need to move." This is totally
unacceptable. So I said, "Well, can't you just say what you
said to me? Can't you just write that? Just write it in a
letter to the County." "Sorry, I can't help you."
So I've either got dumb doctors or I've got weanie
doctors, I don't know. I do have a letter, I didn't bring the
letter today because he says it's going to be shredded. But
what I'd like to do is give you the results of my test that I
did that he wrote the letter based on.
One week reverse osmosis water no oil, no lotion, no
soap, no nothing, on my skin. No soap. I don't know how I'm
going to get clean, it's kind of miraculous. It's kind of like
going and bathing in a natural pool or something.
First day, Friday, 9/27, all is at peace. Saturday,
9/28, all is at peace. Sunday, 9/29, ditto. Monday, 9/30,
ditto. Tuesday, 10/1, ditto. My skin is supersmooth, not at
all dry, despite the fact that I haven't used any
moisturizers. Wednesday, 10/2, ditto. Thursday, 10/3, ditto.
Wish I could elaborate, but it's just all good. Friday, 10/4,
all is good. In the p.m. I take my first shower in County
water.
Saturday, 10/5, my skin is okay, it's just a little
bit itchy. Sunday, 10/6, p.m., woke up at night with severe
itching on my lower legs. Kept me up for about an hour. Put
me to tears and then back to sleep. Completely gone in the
morning. Monday, 10/7, my face is really stiff and tight,
light burn. I like to compare this to it's the
ever-so-slightest sunburn, but I wasn't in the sun. That's the
tightness, that's what it felt like. Creepy, crawly, itchy
skin, dry. Strange dots on my stomach. I first noticed them
because I was itching, and then it stopped and there were just
dots.
Tuesday, 10/8, my eyes were burning today. This
morning in the shower my feet had an itching attack. Last
night a brief attack on my right leg in the evening before
bed. Now my skin is just generally itchy. The little dots on
my stomach that showed up yesterday are still there. My lower
legs are dry and itchy and covered in white. They look washed
out. So do my arms. I could actually look at my skin and I
could see this white film on it. My face is still stiff and
tight with a light burn. I ran my finger over the skin just
under my eye once and it feels like what happens when you come
out of the ocean and you have salt on your face. And it's like
a light burn, you can feel the salt scraping.
Also had a strange sensation when tying my shoes and
when making the bed. My hands feel hypersensitive to the touch
of fabric, or a shoelace feels like it cuts into my fingers.
My arms and hands and neck itch, my ears itch, and my eyes are
just so tired and sore, and I feel so dirty I cannot get my
skin clean of this film.
Wednesday, 10/9, I didn't shower in the morning
because I was ambivalent about the whole thing. I didn't know
if I wanted to continue, so I just thought I'd give it a rest
and see what I wanted to do that evening. I had woken up that
morning and I felt toxins in my lungs kind of similar to if you
clean your shower with bleach and you feel it, and you just
want to go outside and breathe fresh air, only I hadn't been
using any cleaning products. My face was all tight and hot all
day, my eyes burned. There's a strange film covering my body,
especially visible on my arms. So that evening I finally
showered in reverse osmosis water, and I just couldn't bring
myself to go any further. After showering my skin was
immediately clean, light, happy, and the film was instantly
gone.
Thursday, 10/10, another reverse osmosis shower, and
I'm just breathing a sigh of relief and exhaustion. I actually
looked in the mirror and I cried because there was so much
color in my lips and my face and my skin it was unbelievable.
I'm doing these tests I tend to like beat myself up, I'm so
horribly old and ugly, and I have terrible skin, and it's just
unbelievable the difference that comes back, and I forget. I
have good skin. I stopped by a friend's spewing forth my
frustration and exhaustion about the experiment, and he said,
"You mean it's the water? My family has been itching for
months. We thought we had fleas. We couldn't figure out what
was going on."
Friday, 10/11 feeling great. Occasionally itching,
slightly dry skin, but still good. Haven't started using any
skin care products yet. Saturday, 10/12, all is back to good.
And Sunday, 10/13, started back to my skin care routine.
On the 25th of October is when I wrote down when I
actually felt my balance return. When I actually felt like
that, even though I had been better. You know, we are given a
natural balance, and anything that takes us out of the
balance. I just got it back that day, it was like my skin was
totally balanced. The moisture level was perfect and it didn't
matter what I put in my skin, it was healthy.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Ginny?
MS. PARSONS: Diesel, I want to first say that when
your article came out or your letter in the Haleakala Times I
did try to contact you by email because I had some personal
concerns too. I live in Makawao.
MS. DIESEL: You know what, I apologize, I had
misprinted the email.
MS. PARSONS: And I tried to get ahold of it through
Ken Pinsky and he didn't have it earlier. My family has been
through this same kind of rash situation. My husband has had
it pretty bad, and one of our house guests also. And so I had
concern because, you know, I feel that there's a problem and we
do need to look into it. And I'm terribly allergic to just
about everything from trees to grass to shrubs. Mangos
especially.
And during certain periods of time, certain periods
of time it gets worse for me. I mean I can wake up in the
middle of the night and I know when they're burning cane,
because at 4:30 when they spray the toxins down I wake up
coughing. But it's part of living here.
MS. DIESEL: Yeah.
MS. PARSONS: So I was real serious about this
entire situation, and I looked into it with the water
department, and I tried to find out where you were. And I
guess your faxes had come from Island Essence.
MS. DIESEL: That's my employer.
MS. PARSONS: That's your employer. And, you know,
they're in Kula, correct?
MS. DIESEL: Yes.
MS. PARSONS: Where are their offices? I want to
see how close they are to my house.
MS. DIESEL: We're about a mile before the winery on
the road.
MS. PARSONS: Is that agricultural land?
MS. DIESEL: The zoning, I guess it would be
agricultural land.
MS. PARSONS: Okay. And I know that they're a
company that makes products.
MS. DIESEL: Skin care products.
MS. PARSONS: Skin care products with no additives
whatsoever.
MS. DIESEL: That's actually not true, but we do try
to maintain natural. There are some that are questionable.
When you get into these things there's people who will have a
problem with anything. And there are some that we use that are
a little controversial. But we do lean towards natural
products.
MS. PARSONS: Well, the reason I'm bringing this up
is when Dale had his problems, when my husband had his problems
we had to take him off of everything. I mean we had to do it
from food testing all the way through. We went to Kaiser and
had the same run-around that you did in asking them is it water
related, is it air, water, whatever, and they can't define it
either. And, you know, there's just no way because there's
just too many things that interact with us on a daily basis,
whether it's the air quality, whether it's the chemicals that
we put on our body, you know, just everything works together.
And the C-9, I said, "What can we do about it?"
Because if it is something that's causing a problem, my
understanding from the department is that it's regulated by the
Federal Government, which is a good thing right now because
we're going to be recognized by Washington, and the EPA can do
something about it. And it's an EPA issue that tells us we
have to have it in there in order to eliminate the lead
content. And we're putting it in due to their mandate, not to
Maui County's.
MS. DIESEL: Yeah, I do understand that. But I also
understand that you have to put something in to handle the
lead.
CHAIRMAN RICE: This is not a discussion. Do you
have questions for her? We have other testifiers.
MS. PARSONS: I do.
CHAIRMAN RICE: You are not lecturing her.
MS. PARSONS: I'm just saying I do. What I'm
asking, my question was, you know, if there was anything else
that could have caused your problem, was that something that
you --.
MS. DIESEL: Oh, I went through everything and I've
been through food testing before. When I moved to Maui ten
years ago I had a bout with allergies. I never had them in my
life. I used to feel that people who had allergies were
weanies. I thought they were sickly people who just didn't
know anything about their health. I got here and had to deal
with all these new things, and I got allergies.
I spent about three years balancing my diet, and I
don't have allergies. I wake up in the morning and I usually
have one little sneeze and that's it. I do herbs and there are
certain foods that I stay away from, there are certain foods as
soon as I start feeling a problem I know I have got to back off
from that food. So I went through everything before. You guys
are the last thing that I looked at. And even after I looked
at it I waited a week before stopping bathing in the County
water. I said it can't be the water, you know. I looked at
everything, I promise you. I went through so much due
diligence in this.
MS. PARSONS: Thank you, because I guess I
understand.
MS. DIESEL: And it is difficult, and you do know
how difficult it is if you have family suffering. There are so
many things. That's why, to me, this is even more important,
because there are a lot of things that we fight out there and
the most important things that we can do is clean air and
water. And we need the clean water to wash things off of us,
other things that are bothering us.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions for Diesel?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick, do you have a question
for Diesel? We have other testifiers.
MR. CRADDICK: I do. I'm presuming you don't shower
at work. Where do you live?
MS. DIESEL: Right across from Rice Park. A big
concern that I had too, I went through so much in trying to
find something to take this out of my water, I really did. I
ended buying a filter that finally I found out, before having
my plumber cut into my pipes and put it in, that it was going
to give me .25 gallons a minute. That's nothing. So then I
thought well, then I could get one that's 1.25, which is still
slow, but I'll put a bypass on it in case my boyfriend just has
to have the water pressure. And then I went down and found out
that I have to buy these in bulk because nobody stocks them.
And even then it's not guaranteed, because it's not that great
of a filter.
The system that I have to put on my house to get
this out costs over $2,000. Then it makes my water so pure
that it's going to eat way the nice little protective lining on
my copper pipes which protects me from copper poisoning. I
went through to see well, what about my copper pipes? And they
told me, "If you get your water so pure your copper pipes,
which are not causing you a problem, are going to start."
I went to the NSF website because your
representative, Ellen Kraftsow, told me to, so I went there.
They can't tell me, they said. There's no national testing
standard. "We can't tell you what takes it out." I also
checked -- I'm going on vacation, I thought, I want to know
what's in the water. Almost everything can be taken out with a
simple carbon filter, including chlorine, which to me is very
drying. And I can deal with chloring, but if I use it over
time.
That was the first thing I did months ago when my
skin was starting to go downhill. I didn't think much of it,
but I thought I'd better get a chlorine filter, and it didn't
make much difference. So I just thought, oh, I'm getting old,
you know.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Diesel. Okay, Vivien
Bernard.
MS. BERNARD: I appreciate the time to be able to
share and have all these mighty faces looking at me. I
appreciate all what had transpired through Deisel's
experience. Because of her experience is the reason why I'm
here. And I'd like to share, read my testimony so that it
could be in concise form. And if you rehear this on tape you
can hear it clearer.
But I am here today because of the concerns I have
over the integrity of the Upcountry water supply, particularly
the Upper Kula area where I live, where the Department of Water
Supply began the corrosion control program on June 15, 2001, by
adding the chemical product C-9, zinc chloride and phosphoric
acid into our water supply.
I have spoken to Gordon Muraoka, the head of the
State Environmental Health Drinking Water Department on October
21, 2002, and he explained the problem of lead in the drinking
water due to the acidity of the Upcountry water reacting to the
sodder in the pipes, which led to his decision in mandating
that C-9 be placed into the water. In this process with the
acidity and the solder reacting it does leach lead.
I have also inquired of someone in the Kula
treatment plant if I could be sent a C-9 report. His response
was that he was instructed not to give out any more
information, but instead referred me to call the Director of
the Water Department, and he wished me good luck.
So for many months throughout this year I have been
experiencing a noticeable change or itch on my body after
taking a shower, revealing some tiny red bumps on my skin,
which disappears but leaves my body feeling itchy. This itch
comes and goes, but lasts for days. For a period of two weeks
last month I felt a sense of fatigue I have not experienced
before and needed to something daily. Also, my throat remained
red for many months, and it felt like the burning of a soft
drink freshly swallowed, but the dull pain would not subside.
On October 22nd my throat bothered me greatly so I
decided to gargle with regular unfiltered tap water after
brushing my teeth, and later regretted doing so, for my throat
pain started to burn even more. The pain did not subside for
over a week. November 1st was the first day I did not feel
this nagging pain in my throat. I did a simple experiment.
Since October 22, 2002, I eliminated drinking my
filtered water, which does not take out zinc chloride nor
phosphoric acid, and started brushing my teeth with the
unfiltered tap water, and I had already improved before my
doctor's appointment on October 28th.
On October 17th I first learned of another person
experiencing physical problems possibly linked to the use of
the water. From then on speaking to over 20 people in the
Upcountry area I learned that they too experienced various
symptoms or degrees of symptoms described in the material data,
Safety Data Sheet of the product C-9. I do realize that the
MSDS data sheet of C-9 is at the concentrated level, but there
are testimonies of physical reactions happening throughout the
Upcountry community, even at the three part per million level
of concentration.
Phosphoric acid, which is one of the chemicals in
C-9, is also found in Coke and other soft drinks. Studies show
that phosphoric acid can impair the ability of calcium to be
absorbed into the body. This affects young and old alike.
Toxic phosphorous oxides can form upon heating phosphoric acid
at a concentrated level. Are we at the water-down level still
breathing unhealthy vapors that may eventually effect our lungs
while showering in heated water? Or is the phosphoric acid in
water heated for drinks questionable? The active ingredient in
Coke and most soft drinks is phosphoric acid. Coke can remove
stains in a toilet, remove rust spots from chrome car bumpers,
loosen a rusted bolt, clean corrosion from a car, remove grease
from clothes, clean car engines, even melt a T-bone steak in
two days, and dissolve a nail in four days.
To carry Coca Cola syrup in a concentrated form, a
commercial truck must use a Hazardous Material place cards
reserved for highly corrosive materials, and the distributors
of Coke have been using it to clean their engines for over 20
years. As confirmed by the Coca Cola company, an 8 fluid ounce
can of Coke has 4.9 NG's of Phosphoric Acid, and 164 NG's in a
litter.
Those of us who regularly love to drink water other
than soft drinks due to health reasons would ask how many NG's
of phosphoric acid is in an 8 fluid ounce glass of Upcountry
water. To remain healthy a body needs at least 6 to 10 glasses
of water per day, according to one's weight. How much of this
corrosion inhibitor chemical are we drinking daily in the
Upcountry area, and after time will it accumulate in our system
and cause degenerative health problems?
Also added to my concern of ingesting zinc chloride,
as stated in a book called Prescription For Nutritional Healing
written by James R. Belch M.D. and Phyllis R. Belch, CNC, An
overabundance of zinc in one system can deplete copper in our
bodies, which aids in the formation of bone, hemoglobin, and
red blood cells. It is involved in the healing process, energy
production, hair and skin coloring, and taste sensitivity.
Copper is also needed for healthy nerves and joints.
So according to the informed letter sent to the
Upcountry residents dated sometime before June of 2001, which I
did not receive, but got one from a friend, it first states
that some homes in the Makawao and Lower Kula water systems
detected levels of lead. Many homes today understand the value
of having one's own in-home water treatment system, or purchase
bottled water to avoid drinking lead. My water system easily
filters out lead, but now the water department has created
another complex problem, and also perhaps many others whose
systems do not filter out phosphoric acid or zinc chloride, or
for that matter, a concern problem for those who drink right
out of the tap, children and adults alike.
As stated in the report done by Walter Hager, all
of the reservoirs in Olinda, Piiholo and Kamole Weir treatment
facilities are presently treated with C-9. My question to you
is why weren't the Upcountry community informed properly in
letter form about the chemical description of the corrosion
inhibitor C-9? And also by consuming the water, why weren't we
informed of what potential physical reactions C-9 could
curtail?
So in conclusion, I sincerely request that the water
department will consider another route to possibly treat homes
individually. And do test lead in their water supply instead
of having all of the Upcountry area ingesting and washing with
such an inorganic chemical as C-9.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Questions? Thank you, Vivien.
Let the record also show that we have written
testimony from Nancy Pilger. Okay, Lois Laird.
MS. LAIRD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Board
for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns about
the water supply Upcountry and in Makawao. My main concern
here today is the lack of information that was given to the
public. The first notice that came out was March 16th, with
notice explaining to the public what your plans were for the
corrosive treatment control program. That notice did not
properly, however, completely give information that people
might need in case of problems with their skin. None of these
chemicals were put in that report.
There is a report, however, that does explain that,
and we did finally get access to that only after 13 months of
indescribable pain and suffering. I would like to give the
description of that report so it will go in for the record.
This report is MSD Code 0580-03-21-94. The issue date is
5/9/96. The water department had access to this report at that
time. It was very unfortunate and is very unfortunate for the
public that this information was not made more readily
available at the time when the program was implemented. Had I
known what was in that report I would have been able to take
care of my body in a proper way by getting out of the water,
but I didn't know that.
I would like to share with you five documented
doctors' visits that I have gone through during this period of
time. The first appointment was with Dr. Lips at the Kihei
Clinic in the Wailea Medical Center. I had developed a
respiratory condition with a dry cough and much mucous coming
from my throat. I was very weak and had some problems with
breathing at the time, and also a difficult hoarseness which I
still have, that's a carryover.
Dr. Lips decided to run a TB test, however it came
back negative. He then ran a series of X-rays which he was
very concerned about. I had another appointment with Dr. Lips
on August 22nd of 2001. He decided that it was very necessary
that I should have a CAT scan and tried to get to the bottom of
what was wrong with my lungs. I am a health practitioner in my
own right and have always eaten organic food and taken care of
my body. I take absolutely no medication whatsoever, I don't
even take an aspirin. So I refused to take the CAT scan
because I did not want the chemicals that would be put into my
lungs. Had I known at that time what might happen, I would
have probably made another decision, but I did not have the
information to make that decision.
On August 22nd -- on August 23rd, 2001, I was also
having itching and burning of the skin, and I had an
appointment with a dermatologist at the Laser Center of Maui to
see Dr. George Martin. I had this awful stinging and burning
of the skin, and Dr. Martin prescribed a soap alternative and
also a moisturizer of the same brand. I used that for the
entire time that I have had -- that I was having skin problems,
but had no results.
On August 23rd, 2001, I also had an appointment.
Since August 23rd, 2001 I have had itching and burning skin. I
continued to have skin and respiratory problems, but was unable
to determine the cause. In August and September of 2001, my
eyelids were stressed with burning and itching and my eyelids
seemed to have something under them. On October 16, 2001 I had
an appointment with the Aloha Eye Clinic. The doctor
prescribed an ointment to put under the eyelids at night. I
used this for over a month and my eyes seemed to be becoming
more swollen, so I discontinued the use of the medication.
On August 20, 2002, the skin irritation had reached
a high level of stress, and red, open scabs that would not
heal. I went back to Dr. Martin again. He did a biopsy on the
sores, on one of the sores. It came back negative with no
cancer. However, the symptoms of the skin still remain
irritated and remained the same, but Dr. Martin was looking for
cancer.
On September 3, 2002, thanks to Diesel, some light
began to shine on the cause of my year and three months of
torture. I read her Letter to the Editor in the Haleakala
Times. Once I read the Safety Data Sheet, all of my above
symptoms stood out like a flash of light. I live at Hale
Mahaolu in Makawao, and I would like to inform you that my site
manager, Charles Robinson, did not get your first report on the
corrosive control program until October 30, 2002, which he
immediately posted. It was a little late for me, had I been
depending on that report. But I had asked him for a copy of
that report, and he did not have it in his office. He said he
did not get it. And I have also talked with a number of people
who said they did not get the first report on the corrosive
control program.
There are many innocent unsuspecting people out
there with the symptoms that I have had. It would be a
disservice to the people of this community who have been
consuming the water in the Upcountry area to not have the facts
contained in the Safety Data Sheet made available to them.
Once again, I request that this sheet be mailed to all the
affected houses and businesses in the area, in the affected
areas.
I have run water tests on my skin three times in the
past three weeks. When I used the water for the shower the
above-stated symptoms gradually began to appear. And when I
use only the reverse osmosis water to shower with, the symptoms
gradually diminished and disappeared. I do not know what else
I can add to this testimony other than I feel very strongly
that it is the right of the people to know, and that their
rights have not been fully addressed by not knowing what
they're consuming. They should know what these chemicals are.
They should not have to guess that something might be happening
to them because of this. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Lois. Any questions for
Lois? Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: Yes, Lois. You said your site
manager finally got the report on October 22, 2002. I may be
wrong, because you went through a lot of dates, but I might
have missed it.
MS. LAIRD: That was October 30th. He just got it.
MR. VICTORINO: He just got it. So prior to that he
had never gotten any other information?
MS. LAIRD: That's what he said. I had a long
conversation with him because I was very concerned about this
not being posted. I wanted to inform Hale Mahaolu, the head
person at Hale Mahaolu that I did not have this information.
And he said that he did not get the information. In fact, he
told me that he had called the water department and asked for
this information to be sent to him after I alerted him to the
fact that there was one that was out there.
MR. VICTORINO: I guess the other question I have,
and that would probably be directed at David, when was notice
-- or I heard you say something about notices being sent out
when you started this corrosion preventative maintenance for
the system up there. When was that, when were notices sent
out?
MR. CRADDICK: It was approximately May of 2001, and
then we also held a public hearing on it or public
informational meeting.
MR. VICTORINO: May 2001?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. VICTORINO: And a public hearing thereafter?
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct.
MR. VICTORINO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions for Lois? Thank
you, Lois. Okay, Marie Beatty.
MS. BEATTY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Board of Water. Thank you for this opportunity to share
my concerns regarding your use of the C-9 phosphoric acid and
zinc chloride in our Upcountry water systems. I live near the
Kula Elementary School, and over the past year I've noticed
extreme itching on my entire body after a shower, and also
blurred vision and red eyes if I rinsed my eyes with water. I
have lived in my home since 1987, and I installed shower
filters six years ago to take out any chlorine because I was
having just a slight problem back then. My son, who is now 11
years old, fills up with mucous and doesn't breathe well at
night if he has showered or bathed before bed. He has had
recurring sore throats and ongoing problems with his ears
plugging up, just driving to school.
I purchased an expensive air filter system for his
room, thinking that that was the problem, but after other tests
and so on we've done, we've related it to our water instead. I
did have a reverse osmosis system, which I actually removed and
bought a better system, a solid carbon block system to filter
our drinking water, and I use sensitive skin care products to
try to help the situation.
Water is essential to life, and I'm extremely
concerned about this matter. They say 75 percent of Americans
are chronically dehydrated, and this applies to half the world
population. I mean it's incredible. A mere two percent drop
in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with
basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen or
printed page. Lack of water is the number one trigger of
daytime fatigue. So if all of you are thinking of a caffeine
hit, drink a little water, you'd be surprised.
Drinking five glasses of water a day decreases the
risk of colon cancer by 45 percent, plus it can slash the risk
of breast cancer by 79 percent, and one is 50 percent less
likely to develop bladder cancer. So water is just so
essential for everyday needs. Is there another more
environmentally safe solution to softening our water to prevent
this lead leaching without adding the C-9 toxin to our system?
I know just -- in fact, I had no idea there was
other people that were really as bothered as I was. I thought
I was just extremely sensitive to it, with mouth and throat
sores, skin irritation, noticeable mucous. My son gets up and
just literally coughs up a wad of mucous every day if he's been
showering the night before. And stomachaches too.
I notice a huge smell change when I'm out watering
the yard, and it's something that it actually gives me a sore
throat for a little bit, so I literally stand out there with
kind of a wash cloth over my face so that I don't smell it when
I'm watering the yard now. I can get by with it on Halloween,
but other times of the year people question it, "What is she
doing?"
My friends are having outbreaks of eczema. I have a
girlfriend that lives up off the upper highway and she's really
having a challenge in the last year. My boss, who lives in
Kula Glenn, actually has had open sores all over his body. I
mean a major, major skin problem. It looks like pimples all
over his body, and he's had that for a year now. And he's seen
doctors here and also in Canada, and they do not know what is
actually caused it. So we just let him know this last week,
"Have you thought of the water?"
I have friends that moved to Makawao last October,
and since moving in their son has constant stomach problems,
mucous problems, and skin problems, and they really thought he
was just not wanting to go to school every day. So I do see it
as there is quite a problem, and I'm hoping that there's a
solution. I really would like to find that solution. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Marie. Questions for
Marie? Thank you, Marie. Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: Could we get where they live so we
can have samples of where they live?
CHAIRMAN RICE: It's on the testimony sheets.
MS. PARSONS: Also, David, how often do we add the
C-9 to the water?
MR. CRADDICK: It's constant. We have to keep a
certain residual in there.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Use the mikes, please.
MS. PARSONS: David, when you say we're adding it
constantly, does it mean that it goes in every single day we
add more to it, or is it on a schedule?
MR. CRADDICK: No, it's metered in, just metered
into the water.
MS. PARSONS: Explain the metering into the water to
me, please.
MR. CRADDICK: Meaning for every meter that goes
out, so many milligrams of the product is in the water.
MS. PARSONS: It's automated, then?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MS. PARSONS: So even if we took their schedules of
when they peak at this or when it started, is there any way
that we can do some tracking? I mean I understand our
situation is the EPA issue. It's really something that we
can't, unless we can change the product that we're using. But
I'm with these people, I think that if it's a problem we need
to go -- we need to either get it out of our water or go to the
EPA. Or go to the federal government and say, "Hey, we have
got problems here." And maybe we're the test case,
unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, Sally? Last testifier.
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you. I'm Sally Raisbeck, I
live in Wailuku, so thank heavens I'm not showering with
Upcountry water. But I did look yesterday through the notebook
of the material that is provided to you in advance of the
meeting, and I looked at the data sheet for C-9, and I think
you should check it because of the fact that I believe you're
adding C-9 in a concentration of 1.98, up to 1.98 parts per
million to the reservoirs. And in that same data sheet there
was information that for zinc chloride the aquatic toxicity is
for 2.86 parts per million, which is just as compared to 1.98.
The LC-50 for Blue Gill sunfish is 96 hours, which I
believe means that if you put sunfish into water at the
concentration of 2.86 parts per million, 50 percent of them
would die within four days. And so you could compare that to
the fact that you are putting the C-9 in at 1.98 parts per
million. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any questions for Sally, Board
Members?
MS. RAISBECK: Oh, and may I say one more thing? I
remember when the water department made this decision to put
anti-corrosive material in the water, and I don't believe there
was any real disclosure of the information that's in the data
sheet at the time of that public hearing. I believe it was an
Upcountry public hearing that I went to. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any questions for Sally? None?
Thank you, Sally. Any other public testimony on this item?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Hearing and seeing none, then Mr.
Starr?
MR. STARR: Yes, Mr. Chair, I remember when this
issue came up over I think it was about two-and-a-half years
ago when we first started discussing it, and the lead and
copper rule. And I had just come back from one of the water
conventions, and I had done some research on it, and there are
a number of different ways of dealing with it.
You know, at the time when we first had discussions
I questioned whether we needed to deal with it at all, whether
it was really an issue or not. And, you know, whether this
chemical was safe. And frankly, in hindsight I probably should
have pushed it further, because we did go out to public
hearing, which wasn't very well, you know, there wasn't much
public participation, and we let it go.
But I really think that we should look for another
solution, or perhaps see if we can get by without using it,
because the rule, the lead and copper rule is pretty complex,
and I'm not sure if we even really need to add something to do
this, and I would like some more explanation.
It's my understanding what this stuff does is it
glazes the lead and the copper on the inside of the pipe, which
is a pretty strong function to do, and I wonder if we really
need to be doing this. And if we do need to do it, let's find
something that is less corrosive to the human body than what
we're using.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Board member Helm, then Mr.
Victorino.
MR. HELM: I guess the question I had is what
short-term implementation process we can put in place that sort
of one, can get information out to all of the customers; two,
what protocols or things we can do to sort of help with this
process while we deal with the bigger picture stuff. I think
there needs to be an implementation process immediately with
regards to coming up with some resolution to resolve some of
these problems that we're seeing, whether it's PR, information
stuff out to the public, or whether we can actually do
something about it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Victorino?
MR. VICTORINO: Well, I would like to echo
Mr. Helm's comments, also by asking Mr. Craddick to make sure
that these various people that were here today, and anyone in
the adjacent areas, that testing be done and reports being
brought back to us as soon as humanly possible, because I think
we need to address the problem.
Also along with Mr. Starr's comments, if there are
alternatives or there are methodologies that we can do away
with doing this or not do it I'd like to explore that too, but
that would be at a future meeting. But I think something like
this we need some information and we need it ASAP.
MR. CRADDICK: We have the person here with all the
information here, Mr. Kemp, so we're prepared to give that
information right now.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Kemp did you say?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes, Paul Kemp.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Paul?
MR. KEMP: I am not entirely sure what information I
can provide that's going to mitigate the situation. One, I can
add a couple of things.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Paul, one second. Can you tell us
what you do? Who you are, what do you?
MR. KEMP: My name is Paul Kemp, I'm employed by
Brewer, BEI Hawaii. I represent the supplier for this
product. My background is I'm an analytical chemist, so the
chemistry of the water in Hawaii is my area of expertise. I
have been involved in corrosion control systems throughout the
state. We have attempted a number of methods to mitigate lead
and copper problems throughout Hawaii, and the only one that
has been successful has been Calgon C-9 or Calgon C-11, which
is unfortunately a discontinued product, but is essentially the
same, a mixture of zinc and phosphoric acid.
Now, the thing that you need to seriously consider
here is what the material Safety Data Sheet refers to is a
concentrated solution containing 37 percent phosphoric acid and
I think it's 26 percent zinc chloride. This mixture in that
form has certain characteristics which are the ones that these
people are describing. However, in drinking water the pH is at
about roughly 7, 7 and a half, to 8, and phosphoric acid does
not exist at this concentration. At this pH only zinc hydrogen
phosphate and zinc dihydrogen phosphate ions can exist in the
phosphate form.
And because the zinc is present, what we have is a
zinc hydrogen phosphate complex molecule floating around in the
water. This is what reacts with oxides on the surface films of
metals and prevents them -- forms a mineral layer, what we call
a monolayer on the surface, and this prevents the water
basically from touching the metal, and this is how we prevent
the leaching of copper and of lead into the water, and this is
the purpose.
The levels that we apply produce phosphate levels in
the water as phosphate, as PO-4 phosphate of approximately 1.08
parts per million in the water. The zinc concentration in the
water is about 0.37 parts per million. This means that in a
glass of water you are talking about micrograms. That's
millionths of a gram present, about 18 micro grams or .018
milligrams of either of these metals in a glass of water.
Also, it should be considered that phosphate is an
essential part of human metabolism, without which you cannot
distribute oxygen to your system. Phosphate is involved in
what we used to be taught was the phosphate cycle in early
biology, which oscillates between a denzine triphosphate and a
denzine diphosphate, which transports the oxygen energy to the
part of your system that makes use of it. Zinc is essential to
the pancreas to produce insulin, without which people get
diabetes. And I don't know what else I can say.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: I understand you're the company
representative, so I'll take it from that point of view, okay?
MR. KEMP: Yes.
MR. VICTORINO: We have all these people you have
heard testify today, they're having all these challenges, and
your rebuttal is no, it shouldn't be caused by our chemical,
right?
MR. KEMP: The data that I have presented thus far
doesn't have any real bearing on that. All I've done is given
you is the chemistry of it.
MR. VICTORINO: So is it safe to say that it could
be causing the problems that these people are describing
today?
MR. KEMP: Okay, let me take it to the next step,
which is this product specifi