BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
SPECIAL MEETING
Held at the Kahului Shopping Center, Kahului, Maui,
Hawaii, commencing at 1:00 p.m. on August 11, 2003.
REPORTED BY: LYNANN NICELY, RPR/RMR/CSR #354
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
A P P E A R A N C E S
CHAIRMAN: KENT M. HIRANAGA
VICE CHAIRMAN: MICHAEL P. VICTORINO
BOARD MEMBERS: STACY HELM CRIVELLO
KENNETH M. OKAMURA
DOROTHY R. PYLE
SALLY RAISBECK
GINNY PARSONS
MIKE NOBRIGA
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL: EDWARD KUSHI, JR., ESQ.
DIRECTOR: GEORGE TENGAN
BOARD SECRETARY: CATHY HOWARD
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: I would like to call
the meeting to order, please. Thank you. There are a
couple of people we're waiting for at the moment, so
we're going to go into a recess until those couple of
people show up and I just wanted to call the meeting
to order. Thank you.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: I would like to call
the meeting back to order. Let the record note Ken
Okamura, Sally Raisbeck, Clark Hashimoto, Stacy
Crivello, Ginny Parsons, Mike Nobriga, and myself are
in attendance. And we have some requests for public
testimony. We'll start with Ron Sturtz.
MR. STURTZ: Board members, my name is Ron
Sturtz and I'm here today sitting as the president of
Maui Tomorrow Foundation. And our goal is we're
involved in land use planning and community design,
responsible growth, and preservation of groundwater
supplies.
I see myself today as a resource to you. I'm
not proffering any specific recommendation to a plan
of action, but simply to fill you in since many of you
were not here during some of the events that have
transpired in the last several years impacting on this
situation.
There is some information that I've provided
to you. One thing that came to my attention was under
Old Business, Item B, Central Maui Joint Venture. One
of the things that you need to be determining is not
only where the water comes from but how it gets
distributed and when and whether there are priorities
in distribution. And one of the things which keeps
coming up is reference to the old joint venture
agreement, the Central Maui Source Development that
has taken in July 1975 and what water rights may or
may not stem from that agreement. Because that has a
rather large impact on our water needs and so I think
it's important for you to know and make a
determination and have your counsel advise you as to
what the impact of that agreement is.
You may or may not be aware that that
agreement was the subject of litigation a couple years
ago and [inaudible] by the board at that time to do a
subsequent --
THE REPORTER: Something is wrong with the
microphone.
[Adjustments made to microphone.]
MR. STURTZ: The Central Maui Source Agreement
has been the subject of litigation before this board
and before the courts and there is some question is
there any moral responsibility that rises from that
agreement or legal responsibility.
I would like to point out what I consider to
be the most relevant section, which is paragraph 10 of
that agreement on page three which says that the
agreement expires on the earlier of two events and one
of those is December 31, 1999. The bottom line, very
simply, is that that agreement seems to have expired
by its own terms several years ago, four years ago.
That's paragraph number 10. Almost four years ago.
The question comes then what do we do now to
impact our water supplies for the entire central
corridor. It's more than a South Maui issue; it's
Kahului, Wailuku, Paia, Wailea, Makena, Kihei,
Maalaea, and where do we find additional water sources
to the Iao Aquifer. It's very clear that between the
North Waihee wells and the Iao Aquifer itself wells,
that we appear to be exceeding our allowable capacity
and that seems to have been the trigger for the state
to step in.
I would like to encourage the board to look at
other water sources rather than try and delve further
into the Iao Aquifer wells, and also to look very
carefully and to ask your counsel to give you a proper
legal interpretation of the Central Maui Source
Development Agreement so that it doesn't detour your
evaluation in inappropriate directions. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Thank you. Questions
for Mr. Sturtz? Yes, Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: Ron, do you recognize the
Memorandum of Understanding concerning the settlement
of water and related issues in -- I guess it was dated
in 2000. It's in memorandum to the paragraph 5,
Central Maui Source Joint Venture. It's on the
website, on the Department of Water Supply website.
MR. STURTZ: What's the date of that, please?
MS. PARSONS: I believe it's in 2000.
MR. STURTZ: There's a March 12, 2001
memorandum, in effort to settle the water rights. Is
that the one you're referring to?
MS. PARSONS: I don't see the dates of the
signatures. 2000. April 13th, 2000.
MR. STURTZ: I don't have that document in
front of me.
MS. PARSONS: It's on the website. It
basically states that the Board of Water Supply
acknowledges that there is unmet obligations in the
Central Maui Source Joint Venture and they are going
to continue negotiations on the settlement.
MR. STURTZ: That was the agreement with
Alexander & Baldwin, A&B?
MS. PARSONS: Uh-huh. And the board.
MR. STURTZ: There was some -- in what way
would you like me to respond to that? I'm aware that
it exists. But there is some -- as I say, we're
dealing in an area of law and I would regard heartily
recommend that you consult with your legal counsel on
this point because it is not a clear case that this
document is the appropriate interpretation of what the
law is and whether it's legal or binding. So that's
all I'm suggesting. And you do have counsel sitting
at the table and I think it's important that you
consult with them. And I know this is slated for
executive session, but I wanted to alert you to raise
these questions when you're in executive session.
MS. PARSONS: I just wanted to see if you were
aware of this document because you didn't bring that
up.
MR. STURTZ: As you may have noticed, I
haven't reviewed it.
MS. PARSONS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any other questions for
Mr. Sturtz? Thank you.
MR. STURTZ: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Jim Smith.
MR. SMITH: Chairperson, members of the Board
of Water Supply, my name is Jim Smith. I'm a resident
of Haiku. And I'm sensitive to what I'll describe as
the integrity of our political system and what I see
is occurring is a destruction of that integrity. And
what I see this board as being, I think this board is
being victimized by a lack of understanding of how
important a role you play in preserving public
integrity.
The Haleakala Times published a commentary and
in that commentary a political activist claimed that
the mayor could not see certain things and then
admonished the mayor and then told the mayor that he
should enact a moratorium on the reservation of water
for Iao. The mayor publicly declared a moratorium
that the administration would not be issuing
reservations.
Where is the official act by this board
advising the mayor of this course of action -- of any
course of action? I've seen none. It says to me this
is a campaign gesture. It says to me there is no
public duty, no public or official act involved. It's
an exhibition of power that does not exist in our
system that corrupts and that's what's occurring.
You have before you a letter dated October 5th
which says nothing about a moratorium. It says
nothing about a person being denied access to water.
Subsequent to that proclamation, another
proclamation was made that somebody else who had a
large subdivision would be getting water. Now, if I
had a piece of land and I got a building permit and by
your rules I am required to pay a fee for a water
meter and you told me no and then I read the
proclamation that somebody else is going to get, then
I am losing confidence in government, and trust,
because my trust is in its integrity, not the zeal of
a leader.
Now, you have before you a complicated issue
and you have recommendations. It would seem to me
that there has been action without your advice by the
mayor's office. So what would advice do now to the
mayor's office? Validate? I don't think that's
appropriate. So I think any advice that you make
should be to the council because if there is no power
in the executive branch for that, and this board has
lost its power to make rules, then the charter
provides that it is the council that assigns power
when no power is identifiable. That's the way
integrity is preserved. So I would ask you to take
this matter very seriously.
The Iao rule, the management rule, it would
seem, has been trumped by the declaration. I mean,
you have one thing you can do now that there is a
declaration and that is to reach an independent
judgment of its merit and whether or not there should
be declared a caution or whatever. But all of that
has been negated by this wonderful exposition pleasing
a certain segment of a political spectrum, to the
damaging of everyone else.
So I would ask you to investigate this matter,
to produce any request for advice that you received
prior to the proclamation, and to -- don't fall into
the trap of the 1992 board who when I sued them argued
that it only was a public release and not a rule
except for the fact that there were exemptions to this
proclamation which made it a rule. In addition, it
applies generally governmental power that affects
citizens and that's either got to be in our political
system a rule or a statute or a charter provision, and
none of those are present in this circumstance. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Questions for Jim.
Yes, Sally.
MS. RAISBECK: Jim, I have the greatest
respect for your dedication to the Sunshine Law, for
your dedication to proper process. And the reason we
have the Sunshine Law, the reason we have proper
process is for the protection of the public.
We are in an extreme situation here. Since
the charter change, the board is in a strange unknown
position. The council and the mayor are also -- have
not clarified who has the power to act. It's simply
that this board has felt by the charter we did not
have power to act. And some members of the board have
even felt we didn't have the power to even give advice
unless we were asked. And generally people have been
too busy to ask us. Generally we have not come
forward with advice or considered important issues
that ought to be considered about water.
You reference a letter October 5th --
MR. SMITH: August 5th. It's the one listed
on your agenda from the director.
MS. RAISBECK: Oh, the director's report.
Okay.
MR. SMITH: What is your question?
MS. RAISBECK: My question is this: Would you
be willing to write a letter to the board, not just
complaining about action without rules but rather
specifying what you see as the proper route by which
this board can get proper rules? We've had an opinion
from our corp counsel that first the council has to
pass an enabling ordinance and then some body who is
given rule-making authority can make some rules.
Until that happens, all the important parts of our
rules are in limbo because they reference the board's
power which we know we don't have anymore.
MR. SMITH: That may be simple. That may not
need a letter. It may just need a reading of the
charter that says specifically "perform such other
duties and functions as shall be prescribed by law."
Now, your rules were adopted by the board and
they were approved by the mayor and they were approved
by the council. Those rules have the force and effect
of law. No one has nullified those rules. Those
rules are in effect until they are replaced. You
cannot have a void protecting the public interest by
rule and allow someone to rule by their stomach or
their intent. That creates courtesy, but it doesn't
create equality.
So you have in this charter -- now, from my
perspective, the majesty of this document has to be
respected and that respect must be demonstrated by all
quarters. That means the mayor must err on the side
of seeking advice, not on the side of performing for a
political elite. That's what it means. It also means
that this board is not governed by a corporation
counsel or by some ambivalence that is created by
unclear thinking. It has a specific duty and it has
protection -- I mean, it has a function to protect
integrity. And that is the function that was missing
in '92 and abused throughout and caused great
suspicion upcountry and now is spreading out to the
rest of the island.
Now, this board needs to be tough and
committed to the notion that no quarter will be lost
in defending its authority and duty which is to
advise.
MS. RAISBECK: Can I ask you to write a letter
with specifically your views as to the route we can
follow to have rules that recognize the advisory
capacity of the board and redistribute the power to
other bodies. Can I ask you for a letter like that?
MR. SMITH: Member Raisbeck, I'm flattered by
your request. And if I have time --
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: -- I'll give it some thought.
MS. RAISBECK: Thanks very much.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any other questions for
Jim? Thank you.
Because we have a number of people signed up
to provide public testimony, I would like to request
that each testifier try to limit their comments to
five minutes.
The next person shall be Douglas Ing.
MR. ING: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
members of the board. My name is Douglas Ing and I'm
here to speak to the board on behalf of the Central
Maui Joint Venture group and I'm authorized to
represent them here today in connection with Item
VI(B) on your agenda this afternoon.
The joint venture was formed many years ago in
1975 to develop water source which was then dedicated
to the county. They spent approximately I'm told
$2.8 million developing a water source and
subsequently dedicating those wells and facility to
the county.
In exchange, the county was to set aside and
provide upon request a fractional portion of the water
developed to the members of the joint venture and as
I'm sure you're aware, those fractional portions are
set forth in the joint venture agreement.
It is clearly our position that while the
document as referred to by this gentleman here that
paragraph 10 does say that the joint venture ends on
December 31st, 1999, the obligations that flow from
the agreement do not end. And in fact, even since
December 1999, the joint venture has continued to
operate simply because it has not received the
benefits of the bargain as it related to the
development of the water many, many years ago.
So it is our position that the joint venture
has a legal right to the water and the allotment and
upon request that water should be available to them.
I'm not sure whether there will be any action
taken today. I just note that it is noted on the
agenda, we weren't certain, and below that there is a
reference to executive session. But I think the joint
venture wanted to present this testimony to the board
so that the board was aware of the position of the
joint venture as it related to the agreement, joint
venture agreement, and the county's obligations under
the agreement. Thank you very much. I'll be happy to
respond to questions.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Questions for Mr. Ing?
Yes, Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: Since the designation, Mr. Ing,
have you had any conversations with the administration
regarding the credits that may be owed or due,
including the department itself?
MR. ING: I have not personally had
conversations with the department. I am, however,
familiar with the MOU that it refers to earlier and I
have seen that and read that. I was aware that it was
being negotiated at the time.
Ever since and even prior to December 1999,
the joint venture members, through their executive
committee which is now chaired by Mr. Roy Figueroa,
have worked and are trying to work with the county to
resolve a few outstanding issues, namely the
entitlement, if you will, of the amount of water that
should be available to them pursuant to this
agreement. So there have been many discussions I know
between members of the joint venture executive
committee and the administration and prior
administrations.
MS. PARSONS: Do you have a list or can a list
be provided of the amount of credits that you've used
around the different developments -- the joint venture
has used in different developments and how they have
been credited and do we have -- have you discussed the
amount of credits that you think are due with your
books to their books or to the department's books so
that we can see where we are as far as owed credits?
I mean, it's obvious to me from the last
meetings that we had with the director that there are
credits out there. We probably -- that would be an
agreement we would all make that there are credits out
there, but how many and how are they derived as what's
left.
MR. ING: I don't know whether I can provide
you that information -- I know I can't do it today.
But as far as the credits are concerned, I know there
were enormous efforts during the time Mr. Craddick was
here to determine the amount of water that was being
drawn down by the various members of the joint venture
from time to time.
And from the joint venture side, I don't
believe they have meters that could calculate, but
that the county had the meters and that there indeed
were readings taken from time to time that would be
able to educate us on exactly what was drawn down.
There were various discussions which led up to
that MOU talking about the amount of water that should
be available or the total amount of credit that should
be given to the joint venture. And that ranged
somewhere in the eight to nine to ten million dollar
-- 10 million gallon per day figure.
But as far as credits, other than that, I am
personally not aware of it, but members of the joint
venture executive committee may be and I'll be happy
to get that information.
MS. PARSONS: Would you check with them --
maybe what we should do is have an open meeting, a
public open meeting that everybody could see what
development has used what, so we can see how the
credits started and how they moved and how they have
moved down and to where we are today and make this an
open meeting instead of these closed door committee
negotiations. Would you be willing to take that back
and ask them if that's a possibility?
MR. ING: I could, but without discussing that
with them, I could not respond to that because I don't
know how they would choose to respond.
MS. PARSONS: That would seem to me like the
very best thing to do for the public to see what
credits have used. And then we could find out from
the department what they're using to evaluate the
credits with, too, as well, because it seems to be the
question that's up in the air.
MR. ING: Generally these kinds of records are
subject to the Public Information Records Act so it
would be -- it should be available to the public.
MS. PARSONS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any other questions for
Mr. Ing?
MS. RAISBECK: Yes, thank you. Mr. Ing,
Jonathan Starr was a member of this board for a number
of years and I believe he participated as a member of
the committee or the team that conducted negotiations.
And are you aware that he has said that no credits are
owed the joint venture; in fact, they have half a
million gallons more than they would be owed and there
are unmet -- some members of the venture got more than
their share and others got less. So are you aware of
his position on this? He's certainly made it many
times.
MR. ING: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of that -0-
his position on those issues. I did not directly
participate in those negotiations.
MS. RAISBECK: He just came in. Yeah, if I
could, I know there were extensive negotiations in
executive sessions of committees that were not even
posted, both before that April 13th, 2000 Memorandum
of Understanding and afterwards. And in fact, there
was one -- there is minutes on the Board of Water
Supply website for one meeting of the negotiation
committee held in September 2000, I believe, that
refers to two previous meetings on July 9th, I think,
or June 9th or July 9th, and another one later, the
24th.
Could we also get a list from the joint
venture of all the meetings with the board -- any
members of the board, and I believe Dorvin Leis was on
the negotiating committee even when he wasn't a member
of the board, of all the meetings that took place both
before and after that attempted to settle this. And I
believe there was also an attorney hired by the board
to conduct a meeting -- not to conduct a mediation, to
present the board's side of an official mediation.
And I don't remember the name of the mediator. But we
would also like to have the meetings -- when meetings
took place about mediation and what the result of that
mediation effort was. Could we get a list of
meetings?
MR. ING: I will try. I do know that there
was a mediator involved and typically the mediator
would meet with one group and then with the other
group. And whether that was the process that was
utilized for purposes of this negotiation, I'm not
sure. I do know that there was a mediator involved,
however, so there may be meetings that we were not
aware of between the mediator and the county Board of
Water Supply.
MS. RAISBECK: I think it would be very
helpful to know the history of the negotiations which
I believe were extremely extensive and expensive at
the time.
MR. ING: I'll try to get that for you.
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any other questions for
Mr. Ing? Thank you.
MAYOR ARAKAWA: I would just like to ask that
-- I get to be a member of the board -- of all the
boards, as mayor. But I would just like to ask for
clarification for everybody else, would like you to
explain that this administration has not negotiated
the joint venture issues at all since we've been in
office. So please clarify that.
MR. ING: I'm not aware that this
administration has negotiated with the joint venture
with respect to what do you call it the allotment of
the total credits.
I do know that there has been ongoing
communication with the members of the Department of
Water Supply on that issue.
MAYOR ARAKAWA: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Thank you, Mr. Ing.
Next testifier is Councilman Wayne Nishiki.
MR. NISHIKI: Before I start my testimony, I
would just like to alert you that I've got two
testimonies. I think you have a July 28th legal memo
directed to the Honorable Danny Mateo from your legal
advisor, Ed Kushi. The cover letter is July 28th.
I'm also passing you out the Department of
Water Supply, the new charter amendments. And then I
want to testify on two items, the joint venture and
also the Iao Aquifer.
I just feel that, number one, the area of the
joint venture -- I'm just going to read from one
document and maybe you can ask your legal attorney to
give you some interpretation if after speaking to
Mr. McDougal -- Doug McDougal -- that was involved in
the negotiation, if this condition was germane. And
where I'm going to quote now is Condition 10, which
says, "The term of this joint venture shall be until
the joint venture has water sources adding to 19
million gallons additional water to the Board of Water
Supply system in the Central Maui located in the study
area and the Board of Water Supply has accepted the
dedication of the water sources on or before December
31, 1999, whichever date occurs earlier." And then my
understanding is once that date comes, then bang, it's
pau.
"Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
the following item listed on today's meeting agenda:
Central Maui Joint Venture - Legal Issues Regarding
Joint Venture Agreement.
"I offer this testimony in my capacity as an
individual Council member. As Chair of the Council's
Planning and Land Use Committee, I have a particular
interest in County water issues because of their
relevance to the Council's deliberation on land use
matters.
"May I request your consideration of the
following. The Board of Water Supply is a critically
important body. But it is important for everyone in
county government to remember that the board's new
role, pursuant to the Charter amendment approved by
the electorate last fall, is advisory. Charter
Section 8-11.2 states in part: "The Board of Water
Supply shall act as advisor to the director of the
Department of Water Supply, the mayor and the council.
In all matters concerning the county's water system.".
The Board no longer has the power to initiate legally
effective rules establishing policy for the Department
of Water Supply. The Department of Water Supply, like
most county agencies, is now subject to the Council's
legislative oversight.
"Because the Board of Water Supply lacks the
authority to take any legally effective action on this
agenda item today, I question the need to convene in
executive session. Please note that the Sunshine Law
mandates that executive session be strictly limited to
deliberations that must occur in private, and that the
body seeking to convene in executive session shall
make a finding in open session of the specific need
for privacy. The usual presumption is that government
business shall be conducted in the open. The
justification for privacy in this instance is unclear.
"The Council has been repeatedly advised that
the Central Maui Joint Venture agreement has expired.
If the Administration seeks to reconstitute the
agreement, it must do so pursuant to Council policy."
And I'm glad to hear the mayor say today that
he has not in any way dealt with the Central Maui
Joint Venture.
"May I respectfully seek the board's
consideration in asking the Administration why this
item has been placed on the meeting agenda today.
"Sincerely, Wayne Nishiki."
I want to ask you to turn to the July 28th
legal opinion by Ed Kushi, Jr., if you have it in
front of you. I can wait a while. And ask you to
turn to page six. And the question asked of Mr. Kushi
-- and unfortunately, or fortunately, the opinion is
before you. And the question asked was, "Clarify
whether the council already has the authority to enact
ordinances that would establish Department of Water
Supply policy, or whether it must grant itself
rule-making authority." And the answer that your
legal and my legal advisor gives, "As the county's
legislative body, the council has the authority and
the power to enact ordinances "deemed necessary to
protect health, life, and property and to preserve the
order and security of the county and its inhabitants
on any subject or matter."
"As of December 5, 2002, such legislative
authority and power extends to matters relating to the
management, control, operation, preservation and
protection of the county water works and the
establishment and adjustment of rates and charges for
furnishing water."
And then he gives, for example, the council
could amend the Maui County Code by adopting a new
chapter or chapters relating to this management,
control, operation, preservation, or protection of the
county water works. This we have not done yet, as
Sally has stated.
I'm going to move on to the other subject
matter that I have some concern with and it has to do
with testimony regarding possible action regarding the
designation of the Iao Aquifer.
"Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
the following item listed on today's meeting agenda:
Discussion and possible action regarding the
designation of the Iao Aquifer.
"I offer this testimony again as an individual
Council member. As Chair of the Council's Planning
and Land Use Committee, I have a particular interest
in the County water issues because of their relevance
to the Council's deliberations on land use matters.
"May I request your consideration of the
following. The Board of Water Supply is a critically
important body. But it is important for everyone in
County government to remember that the board's new
role pursuant to Charter amendment approved by the
electorate last fall is advisory. Charter Section
8-11.2 starts in part, "The Board of Water Supply
shall act as advisor to the director of the Department
of Water Supply, the mayor, and the council in all
matters concerning the county water system." The
board no longer has the power to initiate legally
effective rules establishing policy for the Department
of Water Supply. The Department of Water Supply, like
most county agencies, is now subject to the Council's
legislative oversight.
"The Director of Water Supply has the clear
authority under the charter to manage the Department
of Water Supply and the county's water system. But
his management authority -- like that of all
government managers -- must be exercised in
furtherance of duly enacted policy. However
meritorious a particular management decision might
otherwise be, if it is not in the furtherance of
established policy, it is not proper or appropriate.
The Council now has legislative policy-making
authority over the Department of Water Supply. The
Director's decisions must be consistent with
Council-established policy.
"Effective July 21, 2003, the Commission on
Water Resources Management designated Iao Aquifer a
state groundwater management area. In response, on
July 29, 2003, the County of Maui Public Information
Office issued a press release in which the Mayor
announced that the Department of Water Supply had
ceased issuing water meter reservations. There may be
merit to this action. But there are serious questions
as to whether appropriate procedures have been
followed.
"Other than the press release" -- which I have
put in the back of this release -- "there is
apparently no documentation of the director's action.
Therefore, it is unclear what action has actually
taken place. Furthermore, there is no indication of
the legal authority for the action. There has also
been no communication to the Council. The press
release pointedly avoided any reference to the
Council, while contending that the county strategy
would be developed in concert with the Board of Water
Supply. Please also note that the Director's
correspondence dated August 5, 2003, to the Board of
Water Supply, does not acknowledge the action
referenced in the July 29th press release.
"Page 4 of the Director's August 5th
correspondence lists "Actions for Consideration."
There appears to be an assumption that the Board of
Water Supply still retains the authority to take
legally effective action. See, for example, the third
listed item, C, entitled, "Establish an Interim
Availability Policy and Allocation Pending Completion
of the Water Use and Development Plan." Any such
policies should actually be proposed to the Council"
-- and you should ask Mr. Kushi for this advice.
"I am concerned that the administration may be
under the false impression that it can make water
decisions without reference to any specific legal
authority for those decisions. In apparent
contradiction of the policy announced on July 29th
press release, according to the Maui News article
anyway, the Mayor has promised water to a developer.
I am not aware of the supposed authority for such an
action.
"My primary concern is that the county's water
system, an obviously precious public trust, be
effectively managed. For that to happen, the
Council's legislative prerogatives must be respected.
If the Director of Water Supply and the Mayor believe
that certain action is necessary for which clear legal
authority is lacking, may I respectfully suggest that
they simply request the Council to enact an ordinance
providing the necessary authority. I'm certain that
other Council members" -- but you need to ask them --
"would join me in being swiftly willing to take prompt
action to ensure that necessary policies are
considered and enacted."
Thank you for this time. And I will only
answer questions that I feel I can understand and have
any expertise in. I will not pretend to play your
legal counsel. Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Questions for
Councilman Nishiki? Yes, Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: Thank you, because I agree with
you, with exactly what you said.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Can you speak up,
please.
MS. PARSONS: I agree with what you said.
Thank you very much. I have one question for you,
going back to the joint venture, that was something
you were passionate about. And I know everybody keeps
reading this December 1999 end date. And when I've
read over this agreement, and I've read it over
numerous times, I can't find where it ends the amounts
due.
For instance, if I write a contract with my
business with someone and I've installed their sun
room, they still owe me the balance of the amount when
I'm finished the completion, the installing of their
sun room, they still owe me the balance due. The
contract's over at that point because I've done my job
and I've installed it and they have their product, but
there are always -- there is always 10 percent at the
end of the contract that's due upon completion. Now,
that's kind of what I look at, and I can't find in
here anywhere -- and if you've seen it -- where it
says that the credits don't continue on. I can
understand, you know, some of the issues in here might
be over at a certain point, but we've carried on
negotiations for some reason and it seems to me it
must have something to do with the credits.
MR. NISHIKI: As I stated, you need to look at
this contract. You need to ask Mr. Kushi or
Mr. McDougal. And it was mentioned earlier in
testimony from Sally that one of your ex-board members
was involved in those negotiations via Mr. McDougal.
And so I cannot give you that expertise, that legal
authority.
The only thing that I can read from, and I ask
you to go read from Condition 10. And I think it is
pretty clear here that it says, you know, when
December 1st, 1999 comes about, that is the cut-off
date and you know what, it's all over and let's move
on.
So, I'm sure that being that the big boy from
Sable today, Mr. Ing, is here and Roy Figueroa is
here, they want to try to move you people into, you
know, opening up this. And I would ask that you ask
Mr. Kushi there, and again I think Alan will have a
big part, and this Council, you know, you want to
raise the casket again and that's fine, but, you know,
I don't work for them, so thank God that, you know, I
can say what I say today to you. I hope that you
people also work for, you know, whatever has come out.
And sometimes people don't want to accept that. And I
can understand, you know. Because whatever was told
to them by the administration, I have no idea. But
obviously it's not acceptable. That's all I can say.
Any other questions?
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any other questions?
Sally.
MS. RAISBECK: Wayne, I understand your
concern about there has not yet been a clear
definition acceptable to all parties of what now under
the new system is the prerogative of the mayor, what
now is the prerogative of the Council. And certainly
this board is not going to be the one to decide that.
I had thought before I came, before I knew
there were going to be so many high powered people
here today, I had thought of asking the board to --
when we give advice, we can give advice to and direct
it to the mayor, the council, the director, all at one
time, and if it's advice that advances the welfare of
the community, then it's up to you guys to duke it out
about who has the legal authority to do things.
But the way I see it is this board has to
worry about the real substantive issues about do we
have enough water, where are we going to get the
water, and who's going to get the limited amount of
water. So if we issued advice that simply said to the
mayor, the council, and the director, this is what we
think ought to be done, do you think that is something
this board could do?
MR. NISHIKI: Ask Junior. He's the one that
issues the legal opinion. I'm serious. You know,
Junior is on the seat today -- which is good. I mean,
that's your legal opinion. I don't want to inject
anything that is nonsense. That's really being
honest. And you know, as I said, I don't know if you
should even have the ability to go into executive
session today. I think ask everything in open
session.
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any further questions?
Thank you.
Mr. Dale Parsons.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair and board
members. I'm here today because I maintain that the
designation of the Iao Aquifer was not inevitable. I
believe it came about because of mismanagement that
has occurred since the turnover of the Department of
Water Supply to the current administration. Soon
after David Craddick left the department, measures he
initiated to properly balance the levels of water used
from the aquifer were apparently ignored.
Designation is here. And there are many of us
out here who believe that it's not a mere coincidence
the key players in this administration have supported
designation for a number of years. Now they're trying
to make it look like they have the situation under
control and the bottom line is they just have no plan.
They have had plenty of time to come up with a plan to
keep us out of designation. They knew eight months
ago that there was a problem. But either through
incompetence or a pre-meditated act, they ignored the
problem.
Early on, the administration told the council
to keep their hands off the water department, that
they were in control. But they really did nothing.
And now they want to scramble for ways to clean up the
mess, like using surface water. It may sound
reasonable, but all we can add to the system
immediately is about a million and a half gallons a
day and any more will require expensive new treatment
plans that will probably need environmental impact
statements and maybe even the use of surface water may
require the addition of those chemicals that we have
Upcountry right now.
Another of their ideas is desalinization
plants, but these are energy inefficient, costly, and
many, many years in the future, if ever. Something
needs to be done now.
If the administration was truly interested in
supplying water for its citizens and if allowing
designation was not an act of deliberate indifference
to stop further development, they would already be
acting upon the numerous proposals from local
developers.
The quickest and most efficient way to add
water is for private developers to dig new wells
outside of the Iao Aquifer and dedicate them to the
county. Developers have been making or trying to make
offers to dig these wells since early this year, but
the proposals have fallen on deaf ears. Private wells
approved by the state and dedicated to the county can
quickly increase the flow of water into the central
valley and relieve the pressure on the aquifer. And
why haven't the offers been considered? Well, your
guess is as good as mine. But remember this, making
the calls are administration highers up that see our
water woes as a way to stop building on the island
and it's apparent they're ignorant of the consequences
of using water as their trump card. It's dangerous
for our economy, it's dangerous for the welfare of our
systems, and based on state law it just might be
illegal and lead to expensive and needless lawsuits
against the county.
I leave with you one final thought. If this
was a private company and it lost control of one of
its most valuable assets, managers at the highest
level of the company would be fired. Saying "I didn't
realize this was going to happen" or blaming it on the
previous management are not justifiable excuses for
not doing your job. Mahalo.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Questions for
Mr. Parsons? Thank you.
Next testifier is Lucienne deNaie.
MS. DeNAIE: I too have a little background
information here.
Aloha, everyone, Chairman Hiranaga, and
members of the board. This is quite a historic
meeting here. It seems we're covering a lot of
ground.
Well, what I'm passing around to you is the
history of the Central Maui Aquifer. And I thought
you might benefit. The large packet contains some
excerpts from the environmental impact statement that
was accepted in 1975 and it's a massive sort of thing
and there weren't a lot of environmental impact
statements done in those early days, but this one was
very thorough, some people put some time into it. It
covered only the transmission pipeline, did not cover
the wells. And what I have passed out to you are a
series of comments that were offered by the University
of Hawaii Environmental Center. They are the top four
pages or so. And there only about five or six folks
that submitted comments about this plan that had
anything of any real substance to say. The
Environmental Center was among them, Life of the Land,
which challenged the EIS, was among them, and the Army
Corps of Engineers. But the Army Corps and the
Environmental Center both made one point that was very
strong, they said you know, this doesn't really talk
about any of the stream sources here or the
groundwater sources here or the effect on any streams
-- and actually Fish and Wildlife said the same thing
-- and, you know, we're wondering about that, and by
the way there are a number of other things that really
you should address.
One of the main points that was made by the
Environmental Center was that, gee, it appears that if
you are going to need X amount of water by the year
2000, that you're really not going to reasonably have
that amount of water with this plan and that maybe you
should reconsider how your community plans are
promising hookups to folks because that could maybe
save the day.
The director of the water department at that
time, a Mr. Muriyama, wrote an extremely thoughtful
supply, which is also included in your packet, and
really looked at all of the points that were made.
And I just feel that you folks, as dedicated members
of the water board, would benefit from seeing that the
questions that you're dealing with today were all
raised 27 years ago. And this is one of my points.
These are not new questions. We are grappling with
the same sense of what do we do with our water supply.
For your information, there were moratoriums
in 1979 and 1982. In 1973 until 1975, the county had
to go and beg Wailuku Agribusiness for water from
Shaft 33, which it now uses as a water source, because
there just wasn't water available. So for those who
feel that this is something that's just, you know,
happened on someone's watch and boy, isn't it
terrible, I think that the more considered conclusion
is this is a problem we've needed to really get a
comprehensive solution to for a long time and I feel
that we're actually stumbling in that direction right
now, but we need more information about more sources.
I heard reference on the previous speaker
about the fastest way to get water is to work through
private development. This could have some merit. It
does so happen that there are two private wells
immediately outside the Iao Aquifer that each have a
million gallon a day capacity. They belong to Maui
Lani and they have been tested, they have good potable
water. It is possible that we need to spread our
pumping by looking at sources that are already on line
and do not even have to go through the process of
drilling new wells. But investigations need to be
made, information needs to be out here.
One of the things I passed out to you is from
this little booklet. An excellent conference was held
in 1986. This is all kind of on the theme of maybe we
don't need to reinvent the wheel. Everybody on Maui
who was interested in Maui participated in it. It was
sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, Maui Pacific
Institute, Maui Economic Development Board, and Maui
Electric. And the one page that I excerpted is from a
consultant who actually helped work on this EIS. He
worked -- he was supplied with a company called CH2M
Hill, his name is Robert Chuck. And he had worked for
the State Department of Water and Land Use before that
and done extensive surveys of water in the Maui area.
And I think it will give you a little perspective to
read his summary. He's talking about the area of Oahu
that was eventually designated as a water management
area, the first water management area in the state,
and why that designation was needed. And for those
who feel that designation means that we will have no
more growth, I have to point out that Oahu was the
first area designated and I think most of us realize
it has grown quite a bit since 1987. It was first
declared a Special Management Area under laws before
the State Water Code in '79 and then officially
designated in '87 when the State Water Code was
implemented. Obviously there has been very sufficient
growth there to fuel an economy, but there has been a
very different management approach. They are having
water problems because they didn't take the advice
that was offered by Mr. Chuck, which is conservation,
conservation, conservation.
Conservation is not just encouraging people to
turn off their taps. Conservation is using nonpotable
water for nonpotable sources, is limiting your use of
potable water to where it's really needed, and many of
those suggestions were also made in this report at the
end by a very knowledgeable consultant.
At any rate, to just skip along here, I know
we're all short on time, I want to make a couple of
key points. One is that the amount of water that is
available from a source is something that is still
being studied in terms of our aquifers. I noticed in
the staff report -- which was very excellent, I
thought that the staff did a very good job of trying
to put together some understandable facts and figures
so that the board would be prepared to make decisions
and give the advice that really in all true nature is
needed. We don't expect the mayor to pour over
documents about water. He is, I'm sure, interested in
hearing what you folks do in your research and come up
with working with the staff of the Board of Water
Supply.
But one of the things that we need to look at
is when we assign a sustainable yield, we need to see
how that is based. I notice that for the Waihee
Aquifer that we're still referring to the 8 MGD
sustainable yield. Now, we do hope that some day we
have a wellfield that takes advantage of that and I
know the department is working towards that, but some
of you were not at the meeting about a year and a half
ago when Mr. John Mink stated very clearly and he
states also in the EIS for the Haiku wells in the
final edition, that as we are pumping right now with
the wells that we currently have drilled by the
Department of Water Supply, our sustainable yield
should be no more than 4 MGD from Waihee. If we do
expand outward past Malahia, then we will have to see
if there is a additional capacity of significant
another 4 MGD. But there is very few wells in that
area right now and to tell you the truth, I have had
private discussions with private well owners there
that say that when they pump their wells which are in
the Malahia subdivision, they're private wells, at a
more significant level, that they notice rising
chlorides. So we really need the information that's
going to come with our head and shoulders model. I
think that that is going to be very, very valuable.
The second point I would like to make is about
the Central Maui Joint Venture agreement. And I
happened to be present at the meeting where the
Memorandum of Understanding with A&B was signed and I
and a number of other people really wanted to testify
to exactly that provision and we were not allowed to
testify. We were told we could testify after the
agreement was signed. That being signed, that seemed
a very important procedure, most of us had concerns
that although there was not specific language that
water was owed, there was an illusion to the fact that
it was. And this is something that does not seem
imminently verifiable. I look back in the records and
it seemed in 1994 the Department of Water Supply was
asked to prepare a report on exactly what Board Member
Parsons requested: The amount of hookups that were
actually out at that time. They promised a report
within six months. Well, it's almost 2004 and we're
still guessing a little bit, but that does need to be
resolved. At the Board of Water Supply meeting in
2001 where this was discussed, Director Craddick
brought up that because of the different sizes of the
meters and no one quite knew if a 5/8ths-inch meter
was reserved and maybe a 1/8th meter was given out,
that it was a little hard to pinpoint.
But my point is that it appears to me in
reading the contract that what these folks actually
funded -- and that might be a more significant pursuit
of our time -- was three wells. The little chart on
the top of your packet shows the county well system.
You'll see there is about 13 sources there. And the
three wells that the joint venture funded are the
wells that are labeled the Waihee wells, 1, 2 and 3.
My understanding was that by reading the EIS,
it was recommended that a whole field of wells be
stretched across the Iao Aquifer between the existing
Waiehu Terrace wells and the Waihee River, which is
the boundary of the aquifer area. For whatever
reason, that didn't happen and instead three wells
were installed very near each other. Because of that,
the chlorides levels on one of those wells is very
high and so only two of them are used.
So what I would like this board to consider in
its deliberations is actually this $2 million or
$2.8 million dollars that was put forward by the
joint venture partnership funded not the whole county
water system. It funded these three wells. And you
may need to look and see if they did expect to get the
19 million gallons out of these three wells, I don't
think that that was realistic. The capacity of those
wells when they went on line was expected to be 13
million gallons, and it proved to be maybe around 8.
So I think we may be looking at a situation
where everyone took a gamble and it didn't pay off.
And whether or not anyone is owed --
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Ms. DeNaie, could you
please wrap up?
MS. DeNAIE: I'm wrapping up. Depends on
whether or not that gamble is seen to be guaranteed or
not. I did not know that the language in the contract
that guaranteed a specific amount. And so I would
advise your attorney to consider that. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Questions for
Ms. DeNaie? Yes, Sally.
MS. RAISBECK: Lucienne, you're doing a report
on a study that former Mayor Apana commissioned, I
believe, you're doing a study of all the [inaudible]
in all aquifers; is that correct?
MS. DeNAIE: Yes, there is a report being
prepared which just collates information from a wide
variety, about 30 different documents, about water
that is being used out of different aquifers, water
that was historically used, water that -- estimates of
water availability from a variety of sources,
information like that.
Q. Are you aware of any amounts from the -- that
are being pumped from the private wells in the part of
the North Waihee aquifer that the county has not --
does not have any -- I mean the Mendes well and the
Kent Smith wells, do you have any numbers on what is
being pumped from them?
A. I do. I have exact numbers. Mendes does not
report, but the folks at the Malahia subdivision do.
It's very likely they pump about 20 thousand gallons a
day. And there are also some wells along the river
mouth there, the Moreno wells, and Mr. Moreno has
applied for some new wells.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Excuse me. Ginny?
We'll lose quorum if you walk out.
MS. DeNAIE: There is a small amount of
pumping that is going on in that section, but it's not
heavy pumping, in answer to your question.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any other questions?
Thank you.
Next testifier is John Varel.
MR. VAREL: Thank you. My name is John Varel.
Thank you, board, chairperson, mayor. My reason for
being here is as a private citizen, I bought a
thousand acres behind Waihee, a large parcel of the
macadamia nut farm that Wailuku Ag used to farm. I
and my neighbor have about 1550 acres there under
agricultural production and we would like to keep it
that way. We can't and have not been granted any
water and don't feel appropriate to ask the county for
ag water, although we have under the circumstances
sitting on top of the Waihee aquifer, we know what the
repercussions might be, whether it's a large amount or
a small amount.
However, in the acquisition, I was told by the
president of Wailuku Ag that water was not a problem
for the county nor for ourselves as individual
farmers, we have a mere 50 million gallons crossing my
property daily that should be no problem for future
expansion and development as well as agricultural
need. However, I don't see any of that going into the
aquifers except those two ditches that I've witnessed
it running right into the ocean, excess water.
I have a kuleana ditch that borders my
property that takes care of the dear taro farmers, but
God forbid any other farmer tap into that line, even
though it's on my land.
The Spreckels ditch and Waihee ditch continue
to flow water, continue to erode, and none of that
water is going back into the aquifers down below. And
so I believe that surface water is a major issue here
or is going to be because if there is 50 million
gallons being channeled through those two ditches, I
can only assume it's coming from the surface, not from
the aquifer below. God forbid it's being pumped up to
be surface and then run through those ditches. We are
wasting a lot of water on this island. I still do
believe we are.
Having said that, those two ditches are I
think an endless source of water that need to be
addressed and the forest reserve on which my property
borders and the back end of Waihee Valley, the river
running there, is water source that I have on my
property.
If we're going to have surface water as -- and
I believe as an old farmer, now a businessman with
four successful businesses on the Mainland, there has
to be a balance between all of this. One aquifer is
not separated from another by some mysterious hidden
wall under the ground, and nor does the surface water,
the 50 million purported gallons that cross my
property, if they were allowed to be back in to the
streams of which they have been deferred for many,
many years, I would think that common sense would tell
us that some of that, if not all of that, would, one,
either help the agricultural needs, and number two, go
into the aquifers to replenish those. At this point,
none of it is, to my knowledge.
As an agricultural farmer trying to -- I have
no source of water at that point, no means by which to
feed the 1500 acres that I am now managing and
operating and picking mac nuts on.
I would encourage the board to remember that
we're not all developers on this island and that we do
need some of that water for agricultural purposes,
riparian or a channelling of the ditch water already
that's been channeled by somebody else. So I would
encourage the board to remember those of us.
Every other parcel in Waihee is either in
escrow or has been sold to a developer. If you want
-- I would like to see personally that more of our
land stay in the agricultural, the beauty and the
reason that people come to this fine island, and that
we not have it all one subdivision backed up to
another one, so that there has to be some balance,
remembering the farmer, remembering the needs that we
so adroitly need and care for, as well as the balance
of what the citizens of Maui need. And I think both
of them can be gotten from surface water in
combination with what we need to do in drilling.
Thank you. Questions?
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Questions for
Mr. Varel?
MR. HASHIMOTO: You have no available water
for the 1500 acres that you bought?
MR. VAREL: No, sir.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Is that what you're saying?
MR. VAREL: We can go into negotiation with
Wailuku Ag, but we have chosen not to. And we have,
but the pricing would have been better for us to buy
through the county. So we've elected not to at this
point.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: So when you brought your
property, was the water withheld from you by Wailuku
Ag?
MR. VAREL: No water was sold with the land.
MS. PARSONS: Well, they can't withhold. I
mean, if you read McBryde and Lapoone, that can't
happen.
MR. VAREL: We understand and we're taking
action -- we are moving forward on several steps,
including a well site that I sold to the Central Maui
group and now -- I didn't realize that the contract
was -- had ended in '99, so we have a well site that
has also been sold to a group that wasn't even in
existence at the time I sold it to them. So I
understand. But it's a bigger issue. I have the
state -- I think -- I do not in any way, shape, or
form believe that we as a private citizen should be
the claws in the cat fight between the state and the
county and 50 million gallons of water flowing across
our land. That's not my point or issue here.
Yes, could we have negotiated. I don't know
of any others that have negotiated without it being a
separate contract. I know of none that I know of.
MS. PARSONS: I understand. But if it is an
issue -- are you asking that the county take a look at
this issue that the water was withheld from your
property?
MR. VAREL: No, I'm not looking for personal
assistance in my legal matter. I'm more concerned as
a private citizen that the riparian water rights, the
surface water rights are there for all of us, not a
select few, or not those that can afford to buy it.
MS. PARSONS: Absolutely.
MR. VAREL: Period. That was my only comment.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any other questions?
Next testifier is Jonathan Starr.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: I would like to call
the meeting back to order. Next testifier is Jonathan
Starr.
MR. STARR: Good afternoon. My name is
Jonathan Starr. I'm here as a private citizen and as
a customer of your fine product, though I see it's in
short supply today. The water shortage meets the
water board.
Anyway, I would like to begin by, first of
all, complimenting the mayor and his administration as
well as Director Tengan, and by association the board,
for finally creating this discussion. And I don't
think this is a matter that anyone is really happy to
have the realization that there are serious water
issues and shortages. But I think that it's years
overdue in having this discussion and having all these
players in one room and being able to talk about
Central Maui water. And I think that the designation
issue, that was inevitable. I think that by stopping
-- issuing reservations, I think that that's for the
first time a recognition of the problem. And until
you recognize a problem, you can't deal with it.
So I think that really we should all look at
the bright side that for now there is the opportunity
to create some solutions. And frankly, I envy you
guys who are on the board who are in a position to use
your wisdom and help to guide the policies here.
There certainly are problems. There are
certainly solutions, too. And I think that it's a
time for surface water to start to enter the Central
Maui system. Though it's a little bit more
complicated than it seems, I do think that a deal
should be struck with Brewer and those entities, but I
think that ultimately to make that work the county
will probably have to follow the practice of eminent
domain because there are quite a number of different
people, different entities that believe they own that
water. Brewer and Wailuku Ag and other -- the other
companies that preceded it, have been selling those
water rights for at least 80 years that I'm aware of
and there are all kinds of contracts out there that
may be illegal, but people believe that they have
bought that water and own it and just by having
control of the forest and control of the ditches may
not be enough because people will still believe that
they own that water and that may or may not be the
case. But eminent domain will certainly -- is
certainly one way to divorce rights that are not legal
from the process.
I recently was house shopping in the
Wailuku-Waihee area and I looked at three different
properties that were on the ditches. And all three of
them, one of the selling points was this has rights to
ditch water. And the previous people have been
watering, you know, their acre or two-acre or
half-acre of orchids or papayas or whatever they were
growing there with water from the ditches. And you
have a right, if you buy this, to that water. And in
all three cases I said can you show me documentation
and they said well, we'll work on getting them. And I
doubt such stuff exists, but still, many people
believe that they exist. So that will create an
issue. Whether they actually own that issue or not,
if people believe it, the county is going to have to
deal with it before it can be diverted into treatment
plants and used. And also, some of that water should
go back to stream restoration.
Now, probably a quicker fix would be something
that we discussed on the board a couple of years ago
and that would be to, first of all, tie the upcountry
and central systems together, which would immediately
end any problems with a drought affecting one system
and not the other. It would suddenly make the
upcountry system as adequate as the central system.
It would also get rid of -- enable operationally to
deal with the lead and copper problem in a more
effective way because by mixing groundwater in with
the surface water going upcountry and taking some
surface water down, it would be able to dilute the
acidity upcountry and keep that to where the
orthophosphate -- phosphoric acid or anything else
need not be added.
It would operationally save a lot of money
because water likes to flow downhill. When it's
really wet, water is very plentiful in the ditch
system and not much of it is getting used upcountry.
At those times water could be put through Memcor
microfiltration units and put into the central system
and the central system would be more than adequate
with that. And then in dry periods when the ditch
gets cut back, then the wells could be cycled a lot
harder because they have been pumping less when there
is a lot of water coming through the ditch system.
One of the previous testifiers mentioned the
Memorandum of Understanding with A&B. And my -- the
thing that I recall most about that was that the
county regained an additional 4 MGD of water at Kamole
Weir when which is unused from EMI. And so there is 4
MGD of unused water at Kamole Weir that can be used
most of the time, not all the time when the ditch is
dry, but most of the time that water can be used. It
would be a relatively easy thing to do to build -- put
in some Memcor units at Kamole Weir and then put that
water into the central system. And since that water
is already the county's by agreement, that could be
done relatively easily. So I request that those
options be looked at. And tying the two systems
together I think would alleviate a lot of operational
concerns.
North Waihee is not the immediate answer. And
I was very surprised to read in the material published
for this meeting that there was more water available
currently for North Waihee. Now, the only -- the
southern portion of North Waihee aquifer has been
developed. The northern portion, I know that there
are plans to eventually drill some wells up there, but
they're years away from functionality. On top of
that, the only research that's been done there, the
only memo I've ever seen regarding that is in the
staff report to the Water Commission in 1997 when they
were discussing designation at that time. And the
Water Commission staff, in consultation with USGS
hydrogeologists, said that they don't expect to get
more than half a million gallons per well north of
there because of the subsurface conditions. So the
southern half of North Waihee, which is where we have
wells now, we're currently pumping in excess of 6 MGD.
The 12-month moving average is I think four and a half
MGD. And I would like to read to you from the only
water planning document that's been accepted by the
water board that discusses Central Maui sources for
the last 10 years, and this is the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the East Maui water
development plan that was accepted by this board last
September and it was prepared by John Mink of Mink &
Yuen and it talks about different sources for Central
Maui. And I would like to read from page 69 of this
FSEIM plan. This is item 12.1.3, "Source: North
Waihee. Status: The average allowable yield of 4 MGD
is for the region between Waihee Valley and Makamakole
Valley. It should not be exceeded even when the Kupaa
well is added to the system. Currently about 4 MGD is
sent to the Central Maui system from four North Waihee
wells -- North Waihee 1 and 2 and Kanoa 1 and 2.
Another well, Kupaa, is not yet connected to the
network. Total allowable average yield when all wells
are on line will be approximately 4 MGD, potential
yield. An average production of 4 MGD from the North
Waihee aquifer between Waihee Stream and Makamakaole
will be fully developed. Constraints: No more than 4
MGD can be expected from the North Waihee project,
although the entire North Waihee aquifer system, which
extends from Waihee Valley to Kahakaloa, has a
sustainable yield of 8 MGD."
Now, those are the strongest words in this
entire document. And Mr. Mink, who has been the
geologist for the county for 30 years or so, is
mincing no -- he's not mincing words when he says that
4 MGD is the most we should be taking out of there.
However, right now we're taking six. So there is not
another two to take from there, folks. And we should
realize this and be willing to admit that. And I
think that now this is being discussed, perhaps we can
head toward a solution. But the solution is not in
North Waihee. We know that.
Just a couple of words regarding the Central
Maui Source Joint Venture. I'm the only person in the
room who participated in those negotiations on the
side of the water board and the county and I'll be
happy to serve as a resource if this issue does come
up again. And I don't think it should come up again.
I think that where it was left was that there
was certainly a feeling on the part of the negotiating
team that no water was owed and that there was not
going -- there was no merit that we would be sued by
the joint venturers. And there is quite a number of
reasons for this, I'll be happy to explain them at
length at any point. But just, you know, one or two
brief things is that the joint venture agreement
talked about the Drilled Wells Protocol which was an
additional document. And that Drilled Wells Protocol,
which was the basis for the joint venture water
production well plan, was not followed. The joint
venture did not do what they said they were supposed
to do. They were supposed to go in and drill a set of
two wells, starting in the location where they did
drill wells, and then go half a mile and drill another
two and another half a mile and drill another two. So
at each of those sites they were going to drill one
well that was a production well and one well that was
a back-up well. And that is the way you're supposed
to go about developing water.
And unfortunately, at that time the
sustainable yield expectations of Iao Aquifer and
Waihee were reduced and there were other arguments I
understand within the joint venture about whatever.
So instead of drilling these two wells here and then
half a mile another two and so on, they drilled the
first two and later added a third to that same
location. And where at that location there was only
supposed to be one production well working, they
drilled three wells and then they came in and claimed
that because the wells, two 4-million gallon and one
5-million gallon pump capacity wells, totaled 13, that
they were owed 13 million gallons a day. And that's
bogus. I mean, in reality, they should only get --
they should have only gotten production from one well,
but, you know, it's -- to give them the benefit of the
doubt, in all the calculations they were given the
production of two wells which when rated for peaking
factors turns out to be less than 6 MGD.
It also -- on another basis, those wells have
never produced an average of more than 5.5 million
gallons a day in any given year. Last year it was
about 5.4 MGD was the 12-month moving average of their
production. And the utilization so far by joint
venture has been close to 6 MGD. So they have
received more water in meters than they actually
provided. When I've heard it said that --
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Can you complete
your --
MR. STARR: I'll conclude quickly, yes. I've
heard it said that they both built a pipeline, so
something is owed to them. That's not true. The
transmission line agreement is a completely separate
agreement. They put money forward and built a large
pipeline that fed Kihei and Wailea. They were paid
back every penny for that pipeline. And by 10 years
ago, they had been paid back in full. So they should
not be using the fact that they built the pipeline as
an issue.
Anyway, I hope that this issue was dead, it
should stay said, it's been dead for a while, and
hopefully it will never come alive again. And if it
does come alive, I'll certainly be happy to be here
and plead the people's case. Good luck to you guys
and solve our water problems. Aloha.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any questions for
Jonathan? Yes, Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: Jonathan, when you were
referring to the Waihee well and you said we were
pumping 4 million, did you see the spreadsheet, the
weekly spreadsheet that took us up to designation
where we were pumping over 6?
MR. STARR: Yeah.
MS. PARSONS: And the week before that, it was
almost 6, it was 58.94. And the week before that, it
was 48.84. I mean, what you're saying, I'm agreeing
with what you're saying, but we were way over it at
the time of designation.
MR. STARR: Well, yes, we were over that. But
the 12-month moving average, which I would have to say
should be the arbiter --
MS. PARSONS: It was six something.
MR. STARR: Well, I think --
MS. PARSONS: At the time of designation, it
was 6.
MR. STARR: Okay. Yeah, it's certainly
exceeding 4. And whether 4 should be the real number,
I'm not sure. The real number should be 3.6 because
you should rate the sustainable yield by a little to
give some head space and provide some water for
private users. But in any case, we're certainly well
over 4, so we can't allocate more water from that
source and I think we're in agreement there.
MS. PARSONS: I see. And this was for the
mayor as well, I had a real problem with the idea that
we were going to be giving out more water when we
don't have enough to deal with in Waihee and this is
the point that he's making, I just want to make sure
you understood, we were at six something when we
designated. And we don't know right now what it's
going to be coming up in the future. And if we had a
drought, we have nothing left either, so.
MR. STARR: I agree with that. I own a lot of
property in Central Maui, I'm a developer, and I
certainly don't want to -- I certainly would like to
see meters be able to be issued because I'm going to
need some myself. But when we don't have the water, I
think that we have to do what has to be done and it's
going to be difficult for all of us.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Thank you, Jonathan.
Is there anyone else who wishes to provide public
testimony at this time?
MS. ANDERSON: My name is Michelle Anderson,
I'm executive assistant to Council Member Wayne
Nishiki. I'm speaking on my own behalf.
I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to testify. I
just -- from what I've heard, I feel compelled to say
a few words. And one is that nobody owns the water in
the state of Hawaii. The water is a public resource.
It's owned by the public. And it's managed through a
public trust by the state for the people.
Wailuku Agriculture does not have water to
sell. They don't own the water. The water was for
their use for their agricultural purposes, which no
longer exists.
The correct way to allocate the water is under
the State Water Code, there is a provision for
instream flow standards and that's how the water
should be reallocated, not through private sale to the
county. And I think the Supreme Court decision in the
Waiahole-Waikane case reaffirms that. And I do know
that the State Land Use Commission follows that
Supreme Court decision in their deliberations on
district boundary amendments and any petitions that
come before them. And I would hope that the county
would also start following that decision. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Questions? Thank you.
MR. SHEPHERD: My name is Glen Shepherd. I
have nothing particular to reveal, but I point out and
appeal to you people that there be no executive
sessions. This is a public trust. All people should
be privy to all the information, whether it's good,
bad, or indifferent, and we should know what's going
on, especially when it's considered that people
involved in previous deliberations and agreements,
that now we are in a more critical position, then by
golly we should know about it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Any questions for
Mr. Shepherd? Anyone else wishes to provide
testimony?
At this time I would like to call upon Mayor
Arakawa.
MAYOR ARAKAWA: Thank you very much. What we
were going to do, we were going to be part of the
administration proposal, so we would have some
discussion with you while the water department is
making presentations. There are a lot of things that
we need to discuss.
Now, contrary to popular opinion, we need to
inform you of a lot of things that we've been
researching so that we can do the evaluation based on
some facts and not just, you know, all these things
that have been floating as rumors. So we're going to
be trying today to inform you of a lot of the things
that we've been gathering.
Also, if our lawyers insist on an executive
session, the reason for it they will make clear, but
some of these things we need to negotiate and if we're
going to be doing negotiations we don't want to be
able to run afoul of what our lawyers' advice is.
But the basic purpose for us being here today
is to be able to try and now give you the information
that we've been researching for the last four months.
As the mayor, I feel that if we're going to be
discussing, we need to have the best information
that's possible. We don't fly off the handle with
half truths and innuendos and be able to make
assumptions based on smoke and mirrors. And hopefully
after the discussion today, you'll have a lot better
understanding of what we're looking at from the water
perspective. But I'll make a presentation as part of
the water department.
CHAIRPERSON HIRANAGA: Okay. Thank you.
George, do you have a presentation now?
MS. KRAFTSOW: As you I'm sure are all aware,
we're discussing the Central Maui system which is the
blue area.
This is a breakdown from the 2002 annual
report. You can see that even though the north area
has the most surfaces, the south area uses the most
water. And this breakdown between aqua, green, and
pink also equates to the community plan regions that
are served by that system.
These are our Central Maui sources. There is
also the Iao treatment plant which is now shown here
because it would be right on top of Wailuku shaft.
We're currently at present using on the order of
24.447 MGD. That includes ground and surface water.
As you know, the Iao Aquifer was recently
designated. The criteria for designation listed here
are in your handouts, but just to make them easier to
see, I've done it this way. Whether an increase in
water use or authorized plan use may cause the maximum
withdrawal from the groundwater management area to
exceed -- the maximum rate of withdrawal, which is the
sustainable yield.
Number two, whether there is an actual or
threatened water quality degradation as determined by
the Department of Health.
Number three, whether regulation is necessary
to preserve diminishing groundwater supply for future
needs as evidenced by excessively declining
groundwater levels.
Number four, whether the rates times spacial
patterns or depths of existing withdrawals of
groundwater are endangering the stability for optimum
development of the groundwater body due to upconing of
saltwater.
Whether the chlorides content of existing
wells are increasing to levels which may materially
reduce the value of their existing use.
Whether excessive preventable waste of water
is occurring.
Whether serious disputes respecting the use of
groundwater resources are occurring.
And whether water development projects that
have received federal, state, or county approval may
result in the opinion of the commission in any one of
the above conditions.
Designation proceedings are not new. They
have been ongoing since 1986. The most recent
designation proceedings were decided in November of
2002. And in that decision, the commission set four
triggers for designation: Two for Iao, one for
Waihee, one was a milestone trigger that would affect
both.
For Iao, they determined that they would
designate if pumpage exceeded 90 percent of
sustainable yield or 18 million gallons, or if the
midpoint of the transition zone at the Waiehu Deep
Monitor Well rose above 680 feet.
For Waihee, they decided that Waihee Aquifer
would be designated if the MAV of the water level at
Kanoa test hole dropped below 6 feet. Using their
initial benchmark -- I just had a phone call after
this was sent out to you, in the staff report it says
it's at 7.24 feet. The most recent MAV according to
the phone call was at 7.25 feet, so that's good news.
It appears that Waihee Aquifer is holding up fine.
And the milestone for both aquifers was to get a
contract going for a numerical model for the Iao and
Waihee systems within 60 days of the November 20th
decision, which was met.
As you're aware, based on those triggers we
exceeded 18 MGD on a MAV basis in June of 2003 and so
that's why we were designated.
So what happens now is that all existing users
have one year to apply for existing use. Each
application must demonstrate that seven criteria can
be met. Essentially that it can be accommodated, that
it's reasonable and beneficial, and so on. I won't go
into them because you have it in your handout.
This is a lengthy process. Most small
domestic users are exempted. We'll also have to
submit a shortage plan and the State Water Commission
may or may not find our existing Iao shortage plan
adequate for this purpose.
There were, as of the November findings of
fact, 48 wells, tunnels and observation wells in the
Iao Aquifer shown here. Since that time, an
additional 4, using a total of about 160,000 gallons,
were approved. At the time of the findings, non-DWS
pumpage from the aquifer was about 400,000 gallons a
day. So that would make about 560,000 in non-DWS
pumpage. All of those wells and users will have to
apply within one year for existing use permits.
We use about 10 existing wells in one tunnel
in the Iao Aquifer, and in addition two new wells are
proposed or in progress actually for the purposes of
distribution and withdrawal. But since we can apply
for these by wellfield, we'll probably be able to
submit for just five to seven "existing water use"
applications, depending upon the strategy of what's
the best way to go.
In the meantime, because of redundancy
standards, you can see that we have quite a bit more
installed capacity than what the regulations allow us
to use. And even so, the roughly 46 million gallons a
day in installed capacity is less than we need by
standards.
So looking at what we can really use, this is
getting to the point of water reservations. We assume
90 percent of the Iao sustainable yield which is 18
million gallons, 90 percent of Waihee which is 7.2
million gallons. The Iao Tunnel, which is shown here
as 1.2 MGD; the median flow is actually 1.4, but the
mean flow minus one standard deviation is 1.25, so we
didn't count it as any more than 1.2. And the Iao
treatment plant we assumed 0.6. Now, that plant
actually has a higher capacity, it's more than 1.2.
But the agreement that we have to use the water from
that ditch stipulates that we won't withdraw any more
than 300,000 gallons when ditch flow condition are
quite low. So we rounded that down to be conservative
and come up with a total of about 27 million gallons
total available capacity on that system, accounting
for all regulations.
Now, compared to that, here is what we're
using, this is the June 30th numbers. I got the July
numbers today, but I don't have them in this
presentation. Iao was over ninety percent at 18.63.
In the report I got today, it's come back down under
18 in Iao. We were using 4.536 in Waihee. Iao
Tunnel, that's just -- it's just whatever flows. So
we had been getting -- we've been pretty lucky,
getting 1.359. And the Iao treatment plant, our MAV
was 0.489. So our total moving average withdrawals
were about 24.447.
In addition, water meter reservations received
prior to the date of designation totaled about 565,000
gallons per day as shown here. So then the total in
use of reserved is the bottom number there, 25.012.
So now we get to calculating remaining water
capacity. And this is why we stopped giving out
reservations. With 27 million gallons available in
total and 25.012 used, the remaining supply
theoretically would be about 1.98, almost 2 million.
We did a tally and I should say that all of these
numbers are still estimates -- we're still not 100
percent comfortable with them, but we looked at all
the subdivisions pending, and that totalled about
1.953 MGD if they were all built out. Some of those
move much more slowly than others.
Now, some of those -- a subtotal which I have
in a different color there because it's still part of
the 1.953, have bonded their improvements, which means
they made an agreement and they have put down a bond
and they have started to build. And then there are
some others that are no longer on the pending list but
we know they're not completely built and that was
about another .143. So depending whether you subtract
bonded and pending or whether you subtract
subdivisions, all subdivisions, we came up with a
range of -0.108 to 0.035 to 1.122 million gallons
remaining available, which meant that there was no way
that we could guarantee that somebody who took a
reservation today and might expect to receive service
two years from now could necessarily be guaranteed
that water. And so we made a recommendation to stop
accepting water meter reservations.
In addition, there are discretionary approvals
in which people come to the planning department and
request approval of a project district or change in
zoning for a proposed project or an SMA or those kinds
of projects and we have a total water use represented
by these of about 8.47 MGD, of which about 3.76 were
told that they might have to develop their own source.
Now, that's Central Maui and this is South
Maui. Those projects can take 20 years to build out
or they can come much more quickly. So they may not
be asking for water during the immediate time frame of
concern, but we like to track them anyway.
Looking at just the demand trends, they
indicate consumption roughly in the range of 29 or 30
by the year 2020, and 34 or 35 by the year 2030. Now,
that's a smaller range than we would use for the Water
Use & Development Plan, but that's just to give you a
ballpark figure.
So you can see how things are changing. The
map on the left is the old land use and you can see
all the mac nut and cane in there. And then on the
right you see the proposed projects in virtually the
same areas. So looking at that, we have to consider
what we're going to do about it. I should also
mention that if we were to build out the community
plan, if it were to be built out it would represent
more than 60 million gallons per day of use.
MS. RAISBECK: I didn't hear that number.
MS. KRAFTSOW: If the community plan were to
be built out, it would represent more than 60 million
gallons a day of water use. That's including all
three Central Maui community plan areas.
So we've been preparing -- we have a table of
options that we've been preparing. Different people
are working on different projects. There are several
source options on the table to meet our source needs
and we've been looking at the yield and time frame and
costs and impacts of those and we'll be doing more of
that. Many of these have already been discussed and
raised today. I'm not going to go into this too much
more.
But I wanted to -- before I get into what our
best options are, I just wanted to back step a little
bit. I know this is a kind of a rap you've heard
before about the mountains and the forest and
everything, but it does affect our source choices, so
I just want to backtrack and say that as you probably
already know, despite that the fact that Hawaii is in
the middle of the ocean, it's actually in a fairly
arid area with rainfall in the open ocean only 25 to
30 inches per year, and yet Puu Kukui receives an
average of 355 inches per year. And the reason that
Hawaii is so water rich is what happens when the wind
converges on the mountains. The northeasterly trade
winds gain moisture and warmth as they flow across the
ocean. They reach the islands and they are deflected
upslope, cooling as they rise and causing the moisture
to condense. And meanwhile, high elevation cool winds
traveling from the northeast also subside towards the
ocean surface and that subsiding air blocks the rise
of the trades up the mountains and that creates a
thing known as the trade inversion, which is a layer
of warmer air between 4,800 and 7,000 feet. So when
the moisture laden air rises up the mountains and is
held down by the inversion layer, this convergence
leads to the condensation and release of moisture
which would just go run off if it weren't for the
forests which collect and store the water and provide
abundant surface area to help capture the water.
And all of that results in a precipitation
pattern that looks like this. You can see the blue
and purple areas have the highest rainfall. And now I
get back to source.
It will come as no surprise then that if you
look at an aquifer map of the island, the richest
aquifers are on the northeast side, by and large,
48,96, 48,31. You can see that we eventually --
that's where the water is in terms of groundwater and
that's also, as you can see by the ditch patterns that
were built years and years ago, that that's where the
surface water -- the most surface water is to be
found. So these patterns will dictate where we go for
new source.
One more thing before coming back to new
development options, I'm not going to go into much
into conservation today, but that is very much a part
of our plan. This graph estimates half a million
gallons per day saved out of the Central system with
existing conservation measures, not counting reclaimed
water use which is another 4 or 5 million gallons a
day, I think. These are based on average estimates
for fixture counts that we've given out.
More compelling is the reduction in
unaccounted for water that's been achieved from
measures such as automated metering and detection and
repair and preventative maintenance. And this is
based on a data set that our consultant claimed to
make sure that the pumpage and the billing actually
were reflecting the same exact period instead of
offset by as much as four months.
Okay. With all that said now, here are our
major source development options. The Iao tank site
well and Waikapu well are only for distribution of
withdrawals to improve the pattern of withdrawals from
within Iao Aquifer, which is something that the State
Water Commission does want us to do.
In terms of groundwater development, the Camp
Maluhia well -- well, the Kupaa wells will be done
soon and the Camp Maluhia well will bring us into the
northern half of that aquifer and then subsequently
the Waiolai and Waiolena wells. It would also be
possible to have another well such as a private
developer developing a well in the north half of the
aquifer. To bring East Maui water over, we are
stalled on that, but I think we might be able to bring
Hamakuapoko water soon.
Desalinization is an option that is also being
discussed, or temporary use of existing wells. I
think Lucienne brought up that possibility that's been
on the table, too.
And then surface water development. We could
develop new surface water, put in an intake, or we
could develop high level water that is -- that is
currently distributed to runoff and not groundwater.
Or we could take water from the existing ditch
systems.
Now, I want to go in a little bit further to
why we are seriously looking at surface water. The
left column of this slide shows the sustainable yield
for the nearest aquifers that we could use to serve
this system of groundwater. The right column reduces
the sustainable yields to 90 percent. And the far
right reduces the two on the east even further. The
reason that I did that is because John Mink in the
1990 State Water Resources Protection Plan said that
the sustainable yield estimates for the Paia and Haiku
aquifers were pre-irrigation estimates and he
suggested in the Water Resources Protection Plan -- in
the text of that plan that a more conservative
estimate for use until a better water budget is
achieved would be 4 million and 15 million
respectively. So just to be cautious, I reduced that.
And you can see that at 90 percent of sustainable
yield or less, if that were to occur, with an
anticipated community plan buildout of over 60 million
gallons, sooner or later we're going to need some
surface water.
I should stress that even though all these
numbers are estimates, they're clear enough that they
point a direction.
Desalinization of brackish aquifers could
help, but in the brackish aquifers that we have the
for the most part quantities wouldn't be high enough
to solve a problem like this. Ocean water could be
desalinated in quantities like this. I think that
that is being investigated by the mayor's office.
This is a schematic of a portion of our
Central Maui system with the costs of serving water in
different elevations and areas showing. And I don't
actually unfortunately have on here the main thing I
wanted to show which is the cost of the Iao treatment
plant because at the time this was put together, we
didn't have a year of data there. But I can tell you
the costs of some other similar plants, the cost of
the Lahainaluna area, the Lahaina treatment plant,
which is the same kind of treatment plant for fresh
water, is 51 cents per thousand gallons. And
Upcountry it runs from $1.43 to $1.71, but that's
because part of the pumping up is included in that.
So it looks like if you consider the costs and
ease of use and the quantities that we need, it does
all point to the need for surface water. And the use
of already developed ditch water, if we can obtain it,
is also likely to have less environmental impact than
the development of any kind of new source, be it
groundwater, surface water, or desalinization with its
brine disposal issues.
So despite environmental challenges and the
fact that environmental challenges exist to all of
these issues, that seems like a good option from that
perspective, too.
So now the question is can we get the ditch
water and if so, where can we get it. This slide
shows our systems. I don't know if it's showing up.
The aqua, the very, very light aqua we can kind of
see, are the ditches, and the dark blue is our Central
Maui pipelines. So you can see that it would be
feasible from an engineering perspective to get water
from either the Waihee ditch systems or the Koolau
ditch systems.
From USGS report -- one of the USGS reports
estimates that there were nine small ditches in the
Waihee area, but only six are still in use. The
Spreckels and Waihee ditch are the two major ones and
they divert an average of about 40 MGD from the Waihee
River and from tunnels that are driven into the valley
walls above the streams. About 6 million comes from
the Waiehu stream, two forks, and then the Nanania and
Waikapu ditch carry another 18. The [inaudible] ditch
is no longer in service. And Everett ditch, I don't
know if that's in service or not, but it used to carry
something like 3.
This is from the 1990 State Water Resources
Protection Plan, also estimates a total of about
somewhere between 55 and 65 MGD, depending on how much
flow in Spreckels came down from Waihee. And more
recently, Wailuku Agribusiness reported average flows
of 63.24 MGD in its entire water collection system.
And this data comes from a report prepared for the
Wailuku Sugar Company in 1978 and it evaluates 23
years of continuous data from 1955 to 1977. And
average, total average flows are estimated at 59.88.
But on one of the sources that they list there is the
Wailuku pump, so taking that out it estimates at
48.12. So we're looking at a total flow through those
ditches on the order of 50 or 60 million gallons.
And from the east side, the total flows are
about 164 million gallons. So both of those have the
quantity we need and probably would be cost effective
and less environmentally damaging to use than any of
the other options, which is why we're seriously
considering surface water.
And at this point I'll stop and just take any
board input. Thank you.
MAYOR ARAKAWA: If you're not going to break,
again, what we wanted to do is present some of the
numbers we've been able to dig up in order to present
you a more accurate description of what is happening
with the water situation.
But as you can tell, and I don't think this is
something that's a secret to anybody in our community
that's been here for any period of time, we are
running into trouble by taking water exclusively out
of the Iao aquifer system the way we're doing it and
some of the ditch systems. So the numbers that we're
working with are very restricted.
Now, whether it happened today, tomorrow, or
next year, we're going to run into a problem. And
it's time that we also looked at what the lead times
are in order to be able to get some of the corrections
because no matter what anybody else may think, you
can't make the corrections overnight. We can't just
say we want a new treatment plant, plop it down today.
Those concerns are that have been raised that it takes