BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI, STATE OF HAWAII
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
Held at Council Committee Room, Seventh Floor, Kalana O Maui
Building, 200 South High Street, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii,
commencing at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 23, 2006.
ATTENDANCE
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 2006
CHAIRMAN: MICHAEL P. VICTORINO
VICE CHAIRMAN: KENNETH M. OKAMURA
BOARD MEMBERS: KENT M. HIRANAGA
GINNY PARSONS
CARL M. HOLMBERG
STACY HELM CRIVELLO
RALPH JOHANSEN
DIRECTOR: GEORGE TENGAN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR: ERIC YAMASHIGE
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL:EDWARD KUSHI
BOARD SECRETARY: MICHELLE SAKUMA
ENGINEERING STAFF: ALVA NAKAMURA
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: We will call this meeting to
order. In attendance today -- well, first of all, good
morning and welcome to the Board of Water Supply regular
meeting for Thursday, February 23rd, 2006.
Board members in attendance at this time are Carl
Holmberg, Kent Hiranaga, Kenneth Okamura, Ginny Parsons and
myself, Michael Victorino.
Announcements, there's a number of announcements.
First of all, as you can see, A, the American Water Works
Association, Hawaii Section Meeting is going to be held May
9th to the 12th at the Renaissance Ilikai Hotel, which I
think they've been using that for a number of years, yeah.
So there's a whole bunch of stuff in there about that. If
you need any further information, there is a number that you
can reach, or I think there's a website also, yeah, isn't
there a website? So you can pick up information from there.
Let the record show that member Ralph Johansen has
graced us with his presence. Good morning, Ralph.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Second, B, the National Water
Works Association annual meeting is June 11th to the 15th in
San Antonio, Texas. And this year we are only going to send
what, four, George? What did we agree upon, four?
MR. TENGAN: We didn't agree to any number. I
just requested that the Board restrict its number.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Due to some financial
constraints, Mr. Tengan, Director Tengan asked me if we'd
look at just maybe only sending four. And in the past
generally we only had four or five members. But I think
last year was the largest number we had, I think we had
seven. So we will look into that matter and get back to you
at our next meeting in June.
Attached here is also a layout and some of the
expositions, some of the seminars that are available. Like
Carl, those of us who have gone for a number of years find
it very, very enlightening, because you get to go to many
seminars. But in my point of view, and everybody has a
little different take on it, but I think the biggest thing I
get out of it is the interaction with other municipalities,
and finding that whether they're large or small we share a
lot of common problems.
And some of the solutions or some of the methods
they're using to solve these problems have been able to be
transferred, or at least brought to the attention here on
Maui. So it's a good interaction. Okay. So anyhow,
there's information here, and at our next meeting in
February -- I mean in March, excuse me, in March we will
discuss this more.
And also let the record show that our member from
Molokai is present. Good morning, Stacy.
MS. CRIVELLO: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: So if I'm not mistaken, we
have a full quorum as far as members on our Board of Water
Supply.
Any other announcements? I think, Ginny, you had
a couple about upcoming events. Would you like to share
that with us, please?
MEMBER PARSONS: I left everybody a little press
release on Mark Edwards coming to speak Upcountry at
Hannibal Tavares Center on March the 8th at 6 pm. Dr. Pang
from the Department of Health had frozen samples during the
chlorine burn that we did in August of 2004, and Dr. Edwards
and Dr. Falkingham have cultured and found DNA of certain
pathogens in the water, and he's coming to speak about that.
And it has to do with the lead leaching and with some of the
possible medical issues Upcountry.
On Sunday, April 30th we are going to have the
first Upcountry Maui Safe Water Fair. We are inviting
vendors that are in filtration, water, the fire department.
And it's just an awareness program of what you can do to
keep your home line safe, what's going on Upcountry. It's
going to have a lot of games for the keiki, food. It's
going to be more of a fun atmosphere, music, we are going to
have music and entertainment. And some people speaking
about their products, what they have that can help with
keeping your own house safe.
So I'd encourage anybody that knows anybody that
has anything to do with water, filtration, even pool,
chlorine pools, products, et cetera, let them know about the
fair, and if they're interested they can give us a call. We
only have a limited number of booths, so the sooner the
better. It's one day from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Thank you, Miss Parsons. Any
other announcements? Seeing none, I'll move on to item
four, approval of minutes, the regular minutes of the
December 22, 2005, which were provided. Any corrections,
additions or deletions to the minutes of the December 2005
regular board meeting?
If not, could I have a motion to approve as
submitted the December 22, 2005 minutes?
MEMBER OKAMURA: So moved. I move, I so move.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: It has been moved by Member
Okamura.
MEMBER PARSONS: Second.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Seconded by Miss Parsons.
Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. All
those in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes)
Opposed?
(None)
Thank you. Okay, moving to item number five,
public testimony.
Michelle, do we have any public testimony at this
time?
MS. SAKUMA: No.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: None, okay. We will still
reserve the right, if any subject matter comes up and
anybody wants to testify specifically on that particular
subject matter, we will allow them to speak on that matter.
Moving on to number six, communications.
Communication 06-04 letter from Michelle Anderson, Chair,
Council Water Resource Committee requesting the Board's
review and comment on the merits of "A bill for an ordinance
amending Title 14, Maui County Code, relating to a water
conservation plan."
You will find that on pages 4 through 6. I was
hoping Michelle might be able to attend, but she's not here.
Are there any comments? I will open the floor to comments
and discussion on this communication. Member Okamura.
MEMBER OKAMURA: I was wondering whether the
department would have the resources available, meaning
mostly the staff that would be able to do this within the
time constraints that are set forth in this ordinance?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Director Tengan.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That's a question to me?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I would imagine, yes, sir.
MEMBER OKAMURA: I'm sorry, I should have maybe
addressed the question.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: It states Board of Water Supply,
not Department of Water Supply. That's what it says here.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes, it does, Board of Water
Supply. So I was wondering where were you going with that
question.
MEMBER OKAMURA: We are not going to do it, the
public, it will end up with the staff having to do it.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: Then they've got to change the
wording.
MEMBER PARSONS: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Go ahead, Miss Parsons.
MEMBER PARSONS: Mr. Kushi, I know you reviewed
this. Does this have anything to do with the private
communication from their attorney with regards to the
Department of Water?
MR. KUSHI: Member Parsons, what communication?
MEMBER PARSONS: The private communication between
the County Council and their attorney with regard to the
powers.
MR. KUSHI: Oh, you mean the Special Council? I
don't believe so, but I would never put it past the Council.
But I really don't believe so. I believe this is just a
revolving development by the Council to put in some sort of
conservation plan. I don't believe there's any
recommendation by their Special Counsel to institute this.
MEMBER PARSONS: All right.
MR. KUSHI: And again, responding to the comments,
Mr. Chair, although it does say the Board, Council wanted
input from the Board to start this thing rolling. And any
legislation will be by the Council, of course. The comment
is correct that it is the Board. The Board is staffed by
the department. So in essence, if you say something that he
doesn't like it, the department would have to support you.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: So in other words, if this
was enacted and we were required to get this necessary
information and transmit reports within 180 days of the
ordinance being passed, then we still have to go back to the
department.
MR. KUSHI: Well, you would request the department
to do the write-up. The Board is staffed by the department.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: So with that comment, Mr.
Tengan, I go to you now, because now it does fall back to
them. Could you have the staff to be able to accomplish
these requests by the Council?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes, Mr. Chair, we do have staff
assigned to a conservation program that's within our
planning division under Ellen. So it is a continuing effort
on the part of the department. However, I don't believe we
have any formal written plan with goals and objectives. So
this would be a plan that would require the department to
set its goals and objectives in developing a water
conservation plan.
The one concern I have is the time that they're
allowing for this plan, the 180 days. I would hope that
that time could be extended somewhat to give the department
adequate time to do, you know, thorough planning in this
area and give the matter more consideration as far as what
we really want to accomplish and how do we get there.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: What would you think an
adequate time frame would be? Because again, I guess what
they're looking for are some specific time frames in which
they can anticipate a report.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Well, the Council needs to
realize that if this plan is being required or being asked
of the Board, then the Board would have to discuss this
matter also with staff. That might be a lengthy process.
So I would think minimum one year would be good.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Okay. Any comments on
Tengan's, Director Tengan's comments on the time frame?
Miss Parsons.
MEMBER PARSONS: I agree we've got to have more
time, but I'm just wondering how Council and the Planning
Commissioners are going to handle this not being done for a
year with a lot of things out there that this would be
addressing.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Well, we do have, like I said
earlier, we do have ongoing efforts in water conservation.
But as I stated, I don't think we really have our goals and
objectives stated in this program here. So that's something
we need to do. And even though we cannot just sit down and
just hastily write down our goals and objectives, we need to
do some analysis. We may even need to bring some outside
help in the development of this plan.
MEMBER PARSONS: Is that something that you'd like
to look into and we could discuss at the next meeting, who
you might want to bring in to help if that would assist?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Let me discuss this with staff
and come back with a recommendation as to -- and make some
kind of timetable as to how much time we expect something
like this to be developed.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I would only request that if
possible, and you know, because again she's asking for some
written formal response by March 1st. And with that time
frame put in front of me, I'd like to say from what I'm
gathering, and we can discuss this further, that most of us
like the idea of the ordinance. I guess the biggest
question is the time frame.
And so unless you guys want to discuss the matter
further, if I was to respond to Michelle by saying we agree
with the ordinance, however the time frame, the 180 days we
still have to, you know, work on that number and get back to
you by April 1st, because then we'd have our meeting in
between.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: You can state the staff is
recommending a minimum of one year.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: One year, okay, okay. I mean
that's fair enough.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Then it's up to Council whether
they want to grant it or not.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Is that all right with the
rest of the board members? I mean it's just to say
conceptually we agree, but the Board and the staff would
like at least a year, not six months, to be able to put a
thorough plan together.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I would expect that this water
conservation plan would be part of the Water Use and
Development Plan also. But that's something I need to
discuss with Ellen to confirm. But in my mind, if we are
going to do a Water Use and Development Plan it should
include a conservation element in it.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Definitely. Any other
comments to this ordinance?
MEMBER HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Member Hiranaga.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: I'm just wondering, since the
Director says the department already has a conservation,
water conservation plan, are we --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: It's not -- if I may correct
you, it's not a plan, it's a program.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: Water conservation program. Is
this ordinance really necessary? We already have a program.
I'm just wondering if this will just create more work for
the department that could be used more effectively
elsewhere. When you create an ordinance it's law, right?
And so it doesn't evolve, it's a static document, so I'm
just kind of wondering -- where program is evolving,
depending upon the needs of the community.
It's the responsibility of the department to
provide water to the community, so I'm just wondering if
this is time well spent by the department.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Member Okamura.
MEMBER OKAMURA: From what I can gather, what the
conservation plan of the department right now includes, like
passing out water-saving fixtures, very basic stuff. And I
think maybe the Council is looking at things like maybe
other ordinances or more far reaching things maybe. Maybe
what the county departments can do to save water. Or maybe,
you know, like maybe have a water conservation plan for the
county itself as one part of it, which would include things
like water fixtures, I don't know, incentives for conserving
water, for the homeowner to conserve of water.
But I would think that they're looking at
something more broad and covering more levels, from the
homeowners to government to private business, or whatever a
conservation plan would include.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: The take I get from talking
with some of the Council members and reading this, I think
it's long term, long reaching. They want to have a plan
from which this county can start moving forward. We have
evolved from an agricultural to a more of a residential,
industrial, visitor type industry, so a lot of this stuff
needs to be incorporated in a plan.
The program, you're right, Mr. Hiranaga, it's
evolving. It can change as time goes on. But even a plan
can be changed. It may not be quite as simple, but a plan
with maybe some enforcement, maybe even some means of
insuring things get done are maybe what really Michelle and
the Council are looking for and asking us to kind of put
together.
So I think it's time that somebody takes this and
gets this plan together. We've not really had a plan,
although the department has worked very diligently on their
programs. And there are some very good conservation
programs out there, but there's so much more that can be
done. I think this is what this is all about, to make
something where we have some enforcement also when we put
these things together, that there's some methodology of
enforcing what we're asking.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, it might help the
department if the Council can provide some direction as to
what its objective is with regard to this ordinance, you
know, what is the Council trying to achieve.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: In my letter to them then I
will ask for their specific direction, what are they trying
to achieve in this area. Okay, that's fair enough. So two
things. What they're looking for, what they're trying to
achieve. And secondly, changing it from 180 days, asking
for one year, and that would be my response to them. And is
that all right, is that okay with the members here? Okay,
thank you.
Moving on, unfinished business, none. Treasurer's
report, none.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: I thought we had a standing
request for at least a verbal report on the progress of
Po'okela Well or the status of Po'okela Well.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I was going to put that under
Other Business, but that's okay. Since Member Hiranaga has
brought that subject up, Alva, would you like to give us a
quick update on the Po'okela Well?
And may the record show that standing under
Unfinished Business the update on the Po'okela Well has to
be incorporated. Mr. Nakamura?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chair, the status on Po'okela
Well. At the current time, I don't know if I mentioned this
the last time, but the pump and motor is in Honolulu
awaiting shipment to Maui. In talking to Duane Ting of Maui
Master Builders last week, they just got through pouring the
concrete pad that would support the well pump and motor, and
that is currently being cured. You need a 28 day curing
time. So by the middle of next month, in fact, a week or so
before the middle of next month, they would be up at the
site assembling the pump and motor, and getting prepared to
install the pump and motor into the well.
Everything else is ready. The electric motor
control center, as I understand, is all installed. And in
essence, the major job right now is to get the pump and
motor installed, and that should be done about the second
week or so of March. Once that is installed, then of course
they've got to do testing and all that.
So we anticipate that they will probably have the
well running probably at this point in time about the first
week of April. And at that time, once it starts running,
then they'll have to take water samples of course and submit
that to the Department of Health for approval. And once
that gets approved, which we anticipate will probably take a
couple of months, the well should be ready to go on line.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: So your best estimation as
far as running?
MR. NAKAMURA: I would say probably say June 1st.
We will use that as a possible date. Again, it's a function
of how fast we get a response from the Department of Health.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Okay, any questions for
Mr. Nakamura?
MR. NAKAMURA: So we're almost there.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: It's been a long process.
MR. NAKAMURA: A long process.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Would you kindly -- I guess
if it's all right with the Board, and you have a moment,
email us when the motors are in and you do your first pump,
your first test. I'd just like to know. I mean maybe
before a meeting or after a meeting, but just so we all know
the pump is in and it's been run, and then we will go from
there. Is that all right board members? Just FYI, just for
your information, yeah.
MR. NAKAMURA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Any other questions? No?
Thank you. Thank you, Member Hiranaga, for reminding us.
That will be put on the agenda as a standard item until
completion.
Okay, moving on to Other Business, summary report
of the January 25, 2006 Upcountry Oversight Water Advisory
Committee meeting, including an overview of the Boyle's
briefing.
Eric, are you going to handle that? The Deputy
Director will handle that. Why don't you sit over here?
Oh, you need the board, okay. Would you introduce yourself
just for the purpose of --
MR. YAMASHIGE: Eric Yamashige. Thanks, Mr.
Chairman, Board Members. First of all, I'd like to
apologize if I cough, because I'm kind of getting over the
flu. And second, I'm not as smart as Ellen, so I hope I can
make you understand what I'm trying to say this morning.
To start off, there is a table in your packet,
which I'll get to in a little bit, but I wanted to give you
a brief introduction as to what this is all about.
Balancing our compliance with so many rules out there is a
real balancing act for the department. Primarily on one
side, and I'm sure you are all familiar with the lead and
copper rule. And this one, if the PH is high, which is an
indication of the acidity, the higher the PH, the less
acidic the water is.
If the PH is high, the less acidic, the less
leaching of the lead out of the brass fixtures and things
that will get into the water. So we try to keep right now a
PH at about 8.8.
On the other side of this is you see disinfection
by-product rule. In this case the simplified equation is
TOC, which is total organic carbons that are in the water,
plus free chlorine, which is a very effective disinfectant,
will create your disinfection by-products. And again, this
is simplified. There's a whole lot of other stuff that goes
on.
Okay, as a catalyst to help this actually occur,
you have the temperature of the water, something we cannot
control. And the higher the temperature the more this
happens, so we want to keep the temperature down. The other
thing is the time. The longer these things stay in the
system, the more this occurs. So we want to keep the time
down. And we can have some influence on this by flushing
the system, which is what we do quite regularly.
And then the last -- or, well, another item is the
PH. The higher the PH, the more this occurs. So we really
want to keep the PH down. But you will notice that keeping
the PH down here negatively effects the lead and copper. So
when you look at this, that's supposed to be a sword blade.
We're really balancing compliance with the lead and copper
rule, and compliance with the disinfection by-product rule
on a real thin thread.
And I hope you appreciate this. So this is George
balancing the two. And as long as we can keep George happy,
then we're all right. So with that in mind, we can look at
this table. In a nutshell, this is what Steve Duranceau
from Boyle Engineering discussed at that Oversight and
Advisory Committee. What we asked him to do was identify
what was being done before the EPA study. What is our
current condition based on the recommendations from both
Edwards and Boyle.
Ultimately, in the far right-hand corner, far
right-hand column, is where we want to be, you know, what we
want to do to really take care of all of this stuff. And
then in the interim if we are not able to comply, if George
falls off on one side or the other, what we have to do.
You will notice that on the far right-hand column
the answer to a lot of our problems is the reduction of this
total organic carbons. If we can reduce this, we can
maintain our free chlorine, which is a very good
disinfectant, to satisfy, to comply with the Chloroform
Rule, and we can reduce the disinfection by-products. So in
the years to come that's where we want to be.
In the interim, if we are not able to maintain the
system and there's a lot of outside influences on it, what
Boyle is recommending is the introduction of his
ortho-polyphosphate, which is a blended inhibitor. I don't
think anybody wants to go there. There may be really no
relationship between what happened a few years ago and if we
introduce something like this, but the public perception is
there. So we are doing whatever we can to avoid going to
that second to the last column.
But I wanted you to understand that it's a real
tight balancing act that we're going through right now. And
we've been able to balance it by a lot of effort, taking
care of the time. And our field operations or operations
groups are keeping a real close eye and monitoring the
system and doing what we can to stay in compliance.
Okay, so in a nutshell, that's what Mr. Duranceau
said, and I hope -- it was simple enough for me to
understand. When you start throwing in all the other stuff
it gets a little complicated. But it is a very complicated
issue.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Well, again, the bottom line
is the safety of the drinking water, and then the public's
perception is important you know. The realization is
they've had problems for many, many years. So when you say
-- you throw this in and the public perception sees that,
you cannot blame them for that fact. And they've had ill
effects from these things. So again, we've got to be
cognizant of that.
Before we dump anything into it, hopefully we have
really researched it, and hopefully when Dr. Edwards comes
hopefully he will give us some answers and ideas. But I'll
open the discussion, and I apologize to the Board Members.
Questions? Let's try to keep it in the basic matter, but go
ahead. Miss Parsons?
MEMBER PARSONS: As we discussed, the primary
issue that we think it still is is within the home, is that
correct, the home fixtures?
MR. YAMASHIGE: The thing with the Lead and Copper
Rule -- understand that I've been here seven months or so --
I could never understand why we as a utility had to worry
about what is actually occurring at the tap. We have no
control over what happens there. But that's where this lead
and copper, the numbers come from. We ask our residents to
take a bottle, and the first draw out of your kitchen faucet
in the morning is the water that you're supposed to take,
which we test for the lead and copper levels. You can
imagine, there's very little control on those samples.
We have heard comments that they forgot to take
the first draw so they felt bad, and they went down to the
second, third, fourth bathroom that hasn't been used for
weeks and took the sample there, and of course the level
will be elevated. At the same time, if they don't take the
first draw and then they take the sample, the levels will be
lower. So when we get these numbers we're really not sure
where you're at.
MEMBER PARSONS: But we think it's the fixtures,
correct?
MR. YAMASHIGE: We went through a big discussion
about this last night in the committee meeting, and any time
there's brass -- brass has lead in it, okay, and there's new
brass, and we can go through all of that. But that's where
you are going to get the lead. We don't have lead pipes in
our system. But maybe the meter. Primarily I think
fixtures in the home, and the fancier your fixture in the
home is, if you have one of those European pretty fixtures.
I guess Europe has a lot of lead, that's why you get those
nice crystals. But anyway, those are not the best things to
have.
MEMBER PARSONS: So given that, that we think it's
still in the home, could we look at some other options,
before we ever get into the discussion with the community
about adding another additive, of maybe recommending that we
put together some kind of replacement program and use --
like the solar, like what they used for the solar program a
couple years ago where the County basically gave you the
solar and then charged it back on your bill over a period of
time. They lent the money out for you to put a solar unit
in.
And if we could do that, I mean faucets aren't
that expensive. Make that available. Or look at the County
Ordinance that would say by July of 2006 all new buildings,
all new construction has to comply under certain rules. I
mean can we do some proactive things along that line before
we even consider another additive, and see if we can hold
things down?
MR. YAMASHIGE: I am not prepared to speak to
that.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: That's an ambiguous question
to be asked of him. That will have to come really from the
Council and the other parties that need to have the power to
change some of these things. And I think the problem we
have right now is additives is the most efficient to get to
the most people at the quickest time. Grant you, I
understand what you're saying. And I agree with you that it
may cause more problems, but we don't know. In the
meantime, no matter what ordinance, even if the Council was
to move and act real fast, and people were to react real
fast, I don't see anything happening within the next year to
make anything change that drastically. And to change
faucets and all of that could get very expensive if you're
asking all of a sudden. Councilmember Johnson.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair, could we have
restated what the vintage of the system is and how that
affects the likelihood that there's lead in the system?
MR. YAMASHIGE: I'm not familiar with the pipe
material, and I think that's what you are talking about.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: It was my understanding that at
some point lead in the water system, the homeowner system
was forbidden in construction.
MR. YAMASHIGE: Yes.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: And I wondered what that date
was, what the cut-off date would have been.
MR. YAMASHIGE: I believe that date was just after
I built my house, so I think I have lead solder on my
drains.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: When did you build your house?
MR. YAMASHIGE: That was in the early eighties.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: So my place is 1976. We're at
risk then.
MR. YAMASHIGE: At that point you did have lead
solder in the copper pipes.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Maybe that question can be
addressed by Director Tengan. Do you know what years
specifically this was changed?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No. I'm sure Ginny would know.
MEMBER PARSONS: 1992 to 1996 I think is when that
legislation was brought together. So I think there's some
things that after 1992 were pretty much safe.
MR. YAMASHIGE: Wasn't it 1982?
MEMBER PARSONS: After 1992 I think the rule went
into effect. It's on -- you know what it's on, George, it's
on our fixture count. You know that fixture count that we
use? I think it's on there. December 1992, I think, 1992
or 1993.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: The only thing that's important
about the date is that the Department of Health required
that we take samples from these homes that were built prior
to that date, because they were more likely to have lead at
the tap. And basically that's what the test results that
reported to or the samples taken are sent to the lab for
analysis and reported to the Department of Health. That's
the primary group that we looked at, the Department of
Health looked at.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Member Johnson?
MEMBER JOHANSEN: We don't have any way of
estimating how many homes are at risk then, and if we
require some kind of survey to do that. But until we know,
we don't even know the extent of the problem, right?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Well, we don't have a problem
complying with the Lead and Copper Rule, provided we can use
the --
MEMBER JOHANSEN: I understand, but I'm talking
about the homeowner. If there's going to be a process of
education and some kind of process of subsidy or something
like that, we don't have any idea what the extent of it is.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That's the purpose of the
upcountry committee, and that's why I believe you're doing a
water fair and all that, that's to educate the public. And
it's been ongoing since the committee hired Pam Rossman --
MEMBER PARSONS: Grossman.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Grossman. She's responsible to
get to the schools and get to, I guess, community
organizations so that the community upcountry can be
educated about the Lead and Copper Rule and all that.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Would it not be, not simple,
but a method of just going to the building department and
finding all the homes that were built prior to 1992,
wouldn't that be the best and simplest method?
MEMBER PARSONS: We identified at one point I
think, George, about 3,000 homes that were affected
initially up there. And now they're talking about the lead
leaching out at a certain phase too. But I don't know if
that's still part of the formula. But I think at one point
early on when we were talking about putting in the
phosphates the first time around, that David Craddick had
identified about 3,000 homes that were affected, that were
more in the lead solder issue, and that was something that
you can't change a fixture and control.
But I think what he's saying is even if we change
the fixtures we still have to balance the formula of the
mixture we have in there now. And the disinfection
by-products are what might set us off on the other end of
it. And we're either going to have -- if we don't put those
chemicals in to correct the lead leaching, we're going to
have high disinfection by-products.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Mr. Okamura?
MEMBER OKAMURA: One question. You know, in the
Haleakala Times there was a thing about water, about the
high disinfection by-products. And I don't know how they
worded it, but was their statement correct, did you see that
article?
MR. YAMASHIGE: Yes.
MEMBER OKAMURA: They said it was at the dangerous
level. Was that correct?
MR. YAMASHIGE: That was sometime in history, it
was earlier. It's not now.
MEMBER PARSONS: It was last year. We went over
it. And it's not exorbitant, it wasn't like off-the-wall
charts, but we went over the maximum contaminant level. And
if you do that like twice in a row you have to bring back --
that's why we brought back the Chloramines, because two
times taking it we were over the maximum contaminant level.
MEMBER OKAMURA: Did the department respond to
that?
MR. YAMASHIGE: Yes, there was a response made. I
did see it in the paper, but I didn't see the draft. And
that was really in the upper Kula system. You will notice
that that disinfectant is Chloramine, which is a chlorine
ammonia mix. It's not as strong a disinfectant and free
chlorine, so you really don't have this reaction happening.
What happens is because the disinfection isn't as
strong, you do have the risk of the bacteria. So at that
time when we had those violations, when we had those high
levels, it was because we were going through a chlorine
burn. And when I heard that I was kind of surprised. But
it's just that we were putting free chlorine in the upper
system, and the upper system has the highest organic
carbons.
So for that period when we were introducing
chlorine to kill the bacteria, the disinfection by-products
were high. A misunderstanding on how the rule was being
implemented caused the violation. But after we did that
chlorine burn the system has been working very well.
If that's the only questions, then I do want to
point out in the last column under Pi'iholo, currently the
Pi'iholo plant is the only plant upcountry that is on a
multi-media filtration. It's like a sand filter. The rest
of them all have this microfiltration or the spaghetti
looking filters that filter out a lot of stuff. It's state
of the art. You will be happy to know that Maui really did
start the nation on this thing.
In the future we do want to go to microfiltration
at the Pi'iholo plant, as it says, potential microfiltration
retrofit. It will bring us up into a position where we
would be in compliance with the rules that have not yet come
out. And that's the other thing, we keep on shaking the
sword because they keep on adding new rules.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Does anybody else have any
questions before I go back to Miss Parsons? Okay, Miss
Parsons.
MEMBER PARSONS: That was one of the questions I
was going to ask you. When these new rules come out and as
they sit right now, what's the feeling in the department,
are we going to be able to be in compliance once they start
testing for some of these pathogens?
MR. YAMASHIGE: The microfiltration will do a lot
of it and the chlorine will do the rest of it. And once we
get this TOC done, we will be better off. I know that there
are some that maybe neither will be able to take care of,
but at this point we don't know. We have got to cross some
of these bridges when we get there.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Carl?
MEMBER HOLMBERG: Excuse my ignorance, I am
assuming that because most of the rest of the island is on
well water, that this isn't an issue for the other
customers.
MR. YAMASHIGE: You know that we do have some
surface water being introduced into the central system, as
well as the Lahaina system. All of the surface waters are a
little bit different. The water in West Maui is different
from East Maui. In fact, as you come down the system from
Olinda to Pi'iholo to Kamole the water is different, which
is why in the upper Kula system we have the highest TOC. We
cannot use chlorine because we would fail on disinfectant
by-product. We need to stay on chlorines for now until we
can reduce this.
In Pi'iholo we're at this balancing thing where we
can still use chlorine, but we're getting to the point where
maybe we've got to change the way we do things. At Kamole
the TOC is relatively low, so even with the chlorine, the
disinfection by-products are not as serious. You know, all
our well water we use chlorine, so if we start to use both
sources we need to be consistent with the disinfection.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Eric?
MR. YAMASHIGE: Are we equipped to do testing as
we introduce the surface water into the central system and
Lahaina system, to make sure that what has occurred
upcountry, and it probably won't, but are we prepared to do
testing in a similar manner, maybe not right away, but in
the near future?
MR. YAMASHIGE: Actually, the Surface Water Rule
requires that any time we introduce surface water into the
system we kind of lose that protection of the groundwater.
So we do have to do the same tests in all of our systems
now, for all of them that have surface water, so we don't
have this problem.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: So the results have shown no
problems existing in the central or Lahaina systems at this
time?
MR. YAMASHIGE: That's correct.
MEMBER PARSONS: Do you have any rise in your lead
at all down here? I mean have you kind of looked at --
have you charted this to see?
MR. YAMASHIGE: I will plead my ignorance as well.
That has not been brought to my attention, and I really
don't know.
MEMBER PARSONS: Can we look at that?
MR. YAMASHIGE: Since it hasn't been brought to my
attention, it's not something that I'm familiar with.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Mr. Johnson?
MEMBER JOHANSEN: The notes here, could you
explain a little on ortho-polyphosphate, how that works and
what it benefits?
MR. YAMASHIGE: Okay. I almost had to ask my
daughter, who is in high school, about this equation,
because it's been too long since I did chemistry. I don't
know all about ortho-polyphosphates. I do know that as an
inhibitor it will add a protection in the pipe that will
limit the leaching of the lead out of the brass, or whatever
fixtures that there are.
And that's why, like Mike said, it's something
that we can do to put into the system that will help the
lead problem or the lead leaching. And that's really the
intent of that inhibitor, it just inhibits the leaching of
the lead. I can't go into the reactions and things.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: One request. Is it possible,
Mr. Tengan, that these test results from both Central and
West Maui, if at our next meeting we could look at those
results? Because I'd be very interested to see what's
occurring now. And then maybe a year or so down the road
somebody else will ask the same question, but there will be
some kind of reporting system that we can make sure that we
do not get into that stage where upcountry is. I don't
think it will, but just to be fair. We'd have some
historical background. Miss Parsons?
MEMBER PARSONS: One more question. That upper
system that we have the most problem with, is that all EMI?
Does that source come from -- is that all the EMI ditch
water total?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That comes from the upper system
intakes, the Waikamoi flume. There are several places where
the water is taken from, but they're not the same as the
lower system, or even EMI's intake system extending all the
way out to Nahiku.
MEMBER PARSONS: Is that the one that goes up into
the Olinda, the Nahiku run?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No, the Nahiku intake, that
water goes to the Kamole plant.
MEMBER PARSONS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Any other questions?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes, Mr. Tengan.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I wanted to ask Eric to kind of
explain the strategy we're looking at as far as dealing with
the TOC utilizing GAC filtration. Maybe you can mention
that to the Board.
MR. YAMASHIGE: Okay, thank you. Yes, when we
talk about total organic carbon reduction, the technology
that is used to do that is the granulated activated carbon.
It's a cylinder, it's a vat with activated carbon in it.
The water runs through it and the carbon will take out the
TOC.
When we say reduction, it really takes out
everything. But we don't have to take out everything, we
just have to reduce this, so this will be reduced
(indicating). So the way they do it is they put in a GAC,
but they also put in a bypass. And by regulating how much
water goes through the GAC and bypasses it, we can control
what the TOC will be in the finished water.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I guess the question Member
Parsons has, how soon can that be on line?
MR. YAMASHIGE: I have asked Boyle Engineering for
a proposal, because they're looking at a column study to
determine what is the size of this filter, how much material
is going to be there, how long we can expect the material to
last before we have to change it out. And they've submitted
a proposal, and I've kind before gone back to them and said,
"I'm not sure we can do that." So they're going to be
discussing how far we can go.
What I do want to ask for is criteria that we can
put out in our request for proposal for the design of this
facility. And at this point, as you will notice, we are
looking at TOC reduction at both the Upper Kula and the
Lower Kula systems. Kamole, again, has the lowest TOC, and
it has not been a problem.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: The technology is similar to
what we're doing at H'Poko.
MR. YAMASHIGE: Yes, it's really the same thing.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: That we're using in the
H'Poko?
MR. YAMASHIGE: Yes. Also Dr. Duranceau mentioned
in his presentation that in the Pi'iholo plant, because of
the multi-media sand filters, some municipalities are able
to put in the activated carbon as a layer in the sand.
That's a concern, because it also requires adjustments to
our back wash system that will back wash all of the
coagulants. And the rate that that will be introduced will
either throw all the carbon out of the filters or back wash
it.
So that's something that, you know, we certainly
want to look at, because it may not be as involved as a GAC.
The Boyle report isn't completed yet; this is preliminary.
He wanted to update the committee on where we were. This
was a real simple, easy way to understand the basics of what
is involved.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: And basically that's what
we're asking for, so most of us would have an understanding.
I've gone through the preliminary report, and I'll be
honest, I haven't the foggiest idea what they're trying to
tell me this that report. I'm sorry, you have to be
scientific. Like you say, go to our children so they can
understand those equations. I forgot, that was a long time
ago, sorry.
Any other questions for Eric? If not, thank you
very much. At least that update us on the preliminary
report is very, very enlightening, thank you. And I think
George has a little more height and a little less round,
okay. At this point I'll call from a 10-minute recess.
(Whereupon a brief recess was had)
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I'd like to reconvene the
meeting and make note that Miss Parsons has to leave us at
this time. Thank you, Miss Parsons.
MEMBER PARSONS: I will be in Haiku tonight, if
you all are going. We're going to talk about lead in the
water.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Thank you, Miss Parsons.
Okay, go ahead. Now, moving on to agenda item under B,
discussion with the Corporation Counsel's office regarding
Board's authority, duties, powers, role and functions,
subsequent to the 2002 Maui County Charter Amendments,
specifically with respect to the following. And there's a
whole list of things 1 through 7. I won't read them all,
but there's a bunch of communication, and if you will start
from page 7 through 14 that will be a memo dated December 4,
2002 to then acting Council Chair Dain Kane from Brian T.
Moto, First Deputy Corporation Counsel, regarding complying
with and implementing the new charter amendments.
Why don't we start there and we can move on from
that point. Page 7.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, if I may.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes, Mr. Kushi.
MR. KUSHI: In conjunction with the department
staff, it's kind of a mixed bag, but we tried to hit on --
at the last board meeting we reviewed the minutes, and I was
here also, but we were trying to respond to Member Okamura's
concerns and requests. Looking at the minutes we summarized
in the first three points under your agenda item a review of
the department's annual budget, advice by the Board to the
director, the Mayor, the Council, and three internal
department policies.
Items 4 through 7 are copies of memos that our
office issued mainly to the Council, and the last one to
Kent Hiranaga, who was the chair at that time. And they
kind of go all over the place and address various issues.
It's kind of hard for me to summarize today, but these are
the basic memos and the background within which we can
respond to the first three questions.
So I hope all of you have had a chance to look at
those memos. But in essence, I can respond to questions
concerning those memos. But to respond to the first three
questions, if you want me to respond, we can move on from
there.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Mr. Johansen, do you have a
question on 1 through 3? None? I think that's pretty
self-explanatory. I think we've been doing that. I think
the only question that has been brought up is, again, when
we do not have the time, when it says review the
department's annual operation and capital improvements
budget, it says review. And there was incidences in the
past where we haven't had the time to review it. In other
words, even give approval. It was just sent up.
What legalities, if there were any, that wasn't
reviewed by us, again, we're advising. We understand that.
But if it's not reviewed by us and somehow I don't know
whatever approval we are supposed to, what seal of approval
we're supposed to put on it, then it's just sent up. Are
the procedures being followed the way the charter set forth,
the new charter?
MR. KUSHI: Right. So responding to that, which
is item number 1, if you would refer to the opinion at page
32, which is the February 25, 2004 memo to Kent. And this
came about because I believe that was the first year that we
went into regular departmental status. And because of the
time constraints I believe the Board at that time didn't
even look or didn't maybe, after the fact, look at the
budget.
So in response to the then Chairs request, we did
a memo saying that in essence, notwithstanding what the
charter says, and the charter basically says that the
departmental budget shall be reviewed by the Board, and then
the Board sends it up to the Mayor, and then the Mayor sends
it up to the Council. The bottom line is only the Council
can approve the budget, but the Mayor has veto power. But
the Council can still override that veto.
In essence, it's not the department's or the
Board's review or approval that affects the final outcome.
However, what the charter says is what it says. But in
essence, if that doesn't happen, the Mayor is still
authorized and has a duty, as well as the Director, to
submit the budget before the Council.
So to interpret it any other way would not make
sense, because you may have a situation where for whatever
reason the Board cannot submit a recommendation or review a
budget. And then if that's the case, if you interpret it
strictly, then the Mayor cannot submit a budget to the
Council. Then the Council cannot act on a budget. And for
the next fiscal year the department has no budget. That was
not the intent, we believe, of the charter amendment.
So that's our position on I guess your review
powers. And the department has tried this fiscal year to
submit the budget, which this Board did review. But
unfortunately it did not come to a majority conclusion.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: But it was reviewed?
MR. KUSHI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I don't think it says that we
have to approve it, it says review.
MR. KUSHI: It says review and submit.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: It does not -- submit does
not say approve, right?
MEMBER JOHANSEN: It does say recommendations.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Right, but not approve. The
word approval, okay. I'm not a lawyer, but you tell me,
Member Johansen.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: I'll defer to Counsel.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I'll defer to you, Counsel.
We review it, it does not say we have to approve it. We
send it up. Yea or nay, it still goes up to the Mayor,
right?
MR. KUSHI: Yes. Submit does not necessarily mean
approve or disapprove. But again, you look at the end
result, and the consequences of -- I mean an opposite
interpretation, it just is absurd.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Okay, thank you. Number 2,
does anyone have anything on item 2, advice to the Director,
the Mayor, and the Maui County Council? We do that, okay.
Kenneth, do you have something?
MEMBER OKAMURA: I think Mr. Kushi wanted -- I
wondered if Mr. Kushi wanted to make a statement prior to
addressing that.
MR. KUSHI: Yes, I believe we did address that
specific issue. Not as to a specific question, but the
issue in general. If you return to page 21 in our memo to
Councilmember Mateo dated July 28, 2003, we basically under
the first section summarized what the charter amendment did
to this Board in terms of its authority. And in essence,
I'm just quoting from a section that says that, "The
Council's proposal would recast the Board of Water Supply as
an advisory body."
MEMBER OKAMURA: What page is that?
MR. KUSHI: Page 21. Now, you have to understand
the history before the charter amendment. Prior to the
charter amendment, this Board was a so-called
semi-autonomous body. Not so much advisory, but it did have
the power and authority, I should say, to not only advise
but to overrule, to modify and overrule or rescind any
decisions from the department. It couldn't overrule or
modify anything that the Council or the Mayor said. But as
to the department, the Board did have that authority.
The Board also had the authority to hire and fire
the department director. So that all changed with the
charter amendment. And the background and the legislative
history behind the amendment in essence put the Department
of Water Supply into a position where it is exactly like the
Department of Public Works, the Department of Housing, the
Department of Parks, and all the so-called other line
departments. Other departments, like Civil Service
Department, Police Department, Fire Department, they have
semi-autonomous boards that are independent. Their
directors are subject to their boards, okay.
In any event, the question is what is the term, I
guess Member Okamura, when they say advisory to the Council,
the department, and the Mayor? We have not addressed that
specifically, but our position would be if these bodies ask,
you advise. If they don't ask, there's nothing for you to
advise on.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair, if I may.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Member Johansen.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: It says in the charter as
amended, The Board of Water Supply shall act as advisor to
the Department of Water Supply, the Mayor and the Council in
all matters concerning the County's water system. That
calls for some interpretation.
MR. KUSHI: And I just said that.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Well, it sounds as if we're
sitting at the end of the table and we're only to have any
advisory function if we're called upon. Like the kids at
Thanksgiving, we don't speak unless spoken to. Is that
really what our role is going to be, is that how the
Corporate Counsel interprets this?
MR. KUSHI: Yes.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: In other words, we cannot
initiate any issue on which we would recommend or advise, it
has to be brought to us by the Mayor or the department
before we have any function at all?
MR. KUSHI: No. If you in your own deliberations
on your own feel you have a position on a water matter,
bring it up and request an explanation from the Council, the
Mayor or the department. But otherwise, to interpret it
your way is that for any decision on any matter regarding
water for this entire county it needs to come through here
before a decision is made. Again, that will result in an
exercise beyond your authority.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: One question at a time.
MR. KUSHI: That's where I think you are leading
to.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Well, we know that isn't
practical, but it is made and it does call for
interpretation, and it leaves a lot of latitude for the
Mayor and the department, which I think we should have some
handle on so that we know where we are. We've been just
flopping around on, well, take the issue of the Wailuku
Water Company. This wasn't brought to our attention. It
was brought to our attention by a citizen who appeared
before us in December and said, "Where are you on all of
this?"
We've got to know, I think, as a reasonable matter
a more definitive interpretation of what "all matters"
means.
MR. KUSHI: Well, if you need a written response
to that we can look into it and respond. But I can tell you
right now our position will be if you choose to ask the
Director or the Mayor or the Council, "Let us review this
issue," you can do that, okay. But if you're saying if the
Mayor, the Council or the Director comes to our office and
asks us, "Do we have to appear before the Board on any
decision that we make on any water matter?" Our response
would be "No."
MEMBER JOHANSEN: I understand that. But that, to
me, is not responsive, because we're going to have to deal
with substance, and if we're going to have to take it case
by case we don't even know what's going on until after the
fact, as with the case with the Wailuku Water Company
agreement. There's got to be some way that we're more in
the loop, or we're absolutely useless as far as I can see.
It really diminishes our function way beyond what I see as
the intent of the charter amendment.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Do you want to respond to
that?
MR. KUSHI: I think I've said enough.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Member Okamura.
MEMBER OKAMURA: I think Ralph hit the nail on the
head as far as what I was concerned about. Where this says
that the Board of Water Supply shall act as advisor, not so
much the word "advisor" as the terms "advisor to the
director of the Department of Water Supply, the Mayor and
the Council in all matters concerning the County's water
system."
And so I don't think this implies that the Council
or the Mayor has to come before us for each specific item
for our approval, but he has to provide information on what
he's doing, at least to this body. And I think what Ralph
says is true, otherwise we become just like, you know, way
to the side of the issues. But the way it's stated here,
"relating to all matters concerning the County's water
supply," I don't think we should be left in the dark.
And I think maybe, to be specific, maybe your
offer to submit a written interpretation of this part would
be good for the Board to have as a starting point in terms
of what our role is. Because the Mayor and the Council did
not come before us for every item for our approval, but just
at least to run these issues by us. Whether he accepts that
advice or not, it's up to him, but we need to be informed
about that.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes, Director Tengan.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: So that I can have a better
understanding of the Board's concerns regarding this issue
here, could we have a little discussion on Member Johansen's
concerns with regard to Wailuku Water Company? Because I'm
not aware of any new agreements that we entered into with
the Wailuku Water Company.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Well, I think what Member
Johansen was referring to was the fact that a number of
agreements or decisions were made, and we read them in the
paper or the public brought it to us. We never -- and I
think this is what Member Okamura is asking, is there some
methodology that when decisions are being made on water
matters to the County system that we are put in the loop?
Now, do we have to make decisions on everything? Obviously
that's not feasible. But when you're entrusted by the
charter, and then someone asks you and you go, "I'm sorry, I
don't know." I mean --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I'm trying to discuss the
specific situation that he's concerned about.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Okay. Do you want to
address, I mean your specific concern on the Wailuku Water
Company?
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Well, I stated what I understood
about it, which was just that there were some agreements
that had been made that we have not been privy to. We
haven't been informed or consulted in any way. And if you
say that there are no such agreements --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No, there are agreements, but
there are no new agreements that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Okay, Member Hiranaga.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, I guess regarding
Wailuku Water Company, I think the Mayor may have stated
certain positions that he's taken, but these are not binding
decisions, these are position statements. You still need
Council to approve whatever funds to acquire whatever assets
the Mayor may want to, but that hasn't happened.
But beyond that, if Member Johansen is not
satisfied with Corporation Counsel's interpretation of the
charter amendments, is it appropriate for the Board of Water
Supply to retain independent Counsel to provide an
independent opinion? Because Corporation Counsel, the chief
Corporation Counsel is appointed by the Mayor, so are they
providing a totally independent interpretation of the
charter amendment?
So something to think about, if you are not
satisfied with their interpretation, is to request outside
Counsel opinion, but I don't know if that's appropriate or
not.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: May I just say --
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Member Johansen.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: As a general observation, when
this charter amendment passed it left us in place. I don't
think that the Charter Commission or anyone involved had in
mind that we were going to be only involved in those things
specified, which are the annual appropriation and the
establishment and adjustment of rates. That when it says
that we are in an advisory position with respect to all
matters with regard to the Department of Water Supply, I
think it means more than that.
And I'm satisfied with Mr. Kushi's explanation as
far as it goes, but I don't think it specifies at all to at
least my satisfaction the limits of the Mayor's discretion
in not bringing things before this Board, and the same with
the department and the same with the County Council. That's
what I would like to have spelled out more specifically.
And as you say, it may be that if we are
dissatisfied with that response and we feel that more is
called for, we certainly can, I would think, as a county
body, request independent Counsel.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Before we pursue it any
further --
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, one comment about
independent Counsel.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Go ahead.
MR. KUSHI: I'm not sure if this Board as well as
other boards have the authority to request. I know the
Council does, but I have got to look at that too.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: One thing I will point
everyone's attention to is the notes from February 18, 2003,
pages 17 through 20. I was particularly taken by this,
because on page 19 it in its own way shows the roles of the
Council, the Mayor, the department and the Board, okay. It
clearly shows on this part of the memo the roles as
established in their opinion for the new charter changes.
And the thing that takes me most out of all of
this is number four, "Perform such other duties and
functions as shall be prescribed by law." Okay. And
that's, again, where my interpretation -- and I am not a
lawyer, I apologize, I'm not that well versed with law. But
when it says perform such other duties and functions as
shall be prescribed by law, that to me -- and you correct me
if I'm wrong, Mr. Kushi -- would be any of the new Council
proposals or ordinances that would put us -- for example,
they were trying to put us in charge of adjudication of the
Director's decisions on water matters, meters and all of
that.
Would that fit into that if that was to come to
fruition and we were to be given certain powers by the
Council, would that be number four as I interpret it?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, that's correct. What you
are talking about is a proposal pending in the Water
Resources Committee that would give this body appeal
authority, and it's still in committee.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: That's correct.
MR. KUSHI: That would fit into your item number
four, because it would be enacted as an ordinance and
ordinance is law. However, our office is of the opinion
that we will not sign off on such an ordinance, because in
essence it gives back this body the authority that the
charter change took away. In essence, it's an end-run
around the electorate's decision to take away your power.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: But I go back. This is the
interpretation from your office?
MR. KUSHI: Correct. Now, if an ordinance comes
down that says, We hereby delegate and authorize the Board
of Water Supply to do something else that it never was
authorized to do, that was not taken away, then maybe we
would see that would fit into number four.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: But again I go back to the
point, whether you are calling it an end-around or not, by
your interpretation any changes by ordinance, which is law,
by the Council empowering us in any section, whether it was
new or once was under our privy, this says it would become
part of our responsibilities.
Whether you sign off on it or not, that's not the
question. But you're saying because you took something away
that we wouldn't sign off on it. But if it's something new,
we would. By your interpretation such functions that shall
be prescribed by law.
So that's all I'm asking at this point. If
something came down, whether you sign off or not, it says
here in your number 4 that we would be, under your
interpretation, be given that because it was statutorily put
back as an ordinance, which is prescribed by law.
MR. KUSHI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Okay. I didn't want to get
into a long argument.
MR. KUSHI: I will tell you frankly that the
Council has passed some ordinances that we have not signed
off. We have recommended strongly against, and it's still
on the books. The problem is if it's ever challenged the
record will show that their own attorney advised them not to
do it.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Anyhow, continue. I'm sorry,
I didn't mean to get into a long discussion. Member
Hiranaga.
MEMBER HIRANAGA: Just correcting Member
Johansen's statement that the Charter Commission prepared
the Charter Amendment. It was not the Charter Commission,
it was the Council that came up with this amendment. The
Charter Commission had an amendment proposing to grant more
power to the Department of Water Supply. The Council was
unhappy with that proposed charter change, so they came up
with their own Charter Amendment.
So maybe we should ask the Council what role they
perceive the Board of Water Supply should have, since
they're the ones that prepared and submitted this Charter
Amendment.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair, to respond to that, I
notice that Mr. Kushi has extracted from the Charter
Commission narrative some wording. I wonder if there's more
in that narrative that would spell out how they envision
this amendment to operate in practice.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Mr. Kushi?
MR. KUSHI: We did extract that citation from the
Charter Commission's narrative. Member Hiranaga is correct
in that the narrative just basically recited what the
Council's amendment was. I can review, go back and review
the Charter Amendment, Charter Committee's narrative, but as
I recall, in essence that was the intent.
Now, to go deeper into it, one could basically
look at the minutes of the Council meetings that discussed
this charter change. We haven't done that yet, but it is
there for review.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Could we request that that be
done and that we get information about it?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Corporate Counsel Kushi?
MR. KUSHI: Put it in writing, because my plate is
kind of heavy. But I will try and get to it.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Okay.
MR. KUSHI: Not heavy, overflowing.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: While you're writing, my
perception of what has taken place here is that there's
still a feeling, I think, that there would be, if the
electorate were considered, a feeling that we had a role,
that we represent the community in ways which the Council
and the Mayor don't quite. And with specific reference to
the affairs of the water department here, our role is to
represent the community and to be apprised of major
activities and concerns.
And it seems to me that that could be spelled out
in some way that would give us more of a role to play here.
And I think that's consistent with what I see as the intent
of this Charter Amendment.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, if I may comment, and it's
just a comment.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes, Mr. Kushi.
MR. KUSHI: As I recall, the election that caused
this Charter Amendment -- and I believe Member Hiranaga was
on the board -- I believe the sentiment that passed this
Charter Amendment was just the opposite. The campaign for
passage of Amendment 9A was to take away from the Board.
That people were kind of upset at the Board, and they wanted
to move authority from the Board to elected officials, and
that happened. And now if the sentiment is going back,
maybe should you go back to semi-autonomous. But that's
just my discussion, nothing legal.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: It's just an opinion at this
time.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: I don't think that contradicts
what I said. What I'm saying is, since they left this Board
in place with an advisory function and they said with
respect to all matters, and this is what they voted on, that
all matters is something that should be taken seriously and
should be spelled out. That's where I am.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Member Okamura.
MEMBER OKAMURA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What if
the Board were to ask for a written opinion on this
particular section, and then we will start from there. And
then whatever we want to do afterwards, at least we have
something to start with, some opinion.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: So when you say written
opinion, you're referring to our role in all water matters?
MEMBER OKAMURA: In regards to this specific part
of the charter that says --
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Which section?
MEMBER OKAMURA: That says we shall act as advisor
to the Council, the Director and the Mayor in all matters
concerning -- in all matters concerning the County's water
system.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: 11-3 and 11-4.
MEMBER OKAMURA: Especially the last part, "in all
matters concerning."
MR. KUSHI: Your intent being, Member Okamura,
that all matters determine when, if, and how. All matters
get to you. That's what you want, right?
MEMBER OKAMURA: Yes. At least to be kept in the
loop, or something like that. Not for approval.
MR. KUSHI: I've got it.
MEMBER OKAMURA: Because there are things that
happen which we have to say we don't really know about,
because we don't know about them.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: And sometimes it may be
beyond our privy. Maybe there are things that go into
executive matters, such as the Council goes into executive
committee meetings, and it may not be able to be sent to us.
But let's go with that first, and then we can then discuss
the matter in more detail.
MEMBER OKAMURA: One last question.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Sure, go ahead.
MEMBER OKAMURA: Page 19 under the Roles of the
Mayor, pursuant to number 5, pursuant to Section 91-3 HRS,
the Mayor shall, you know, in regards to the Mayor, approve
or disapprove administrative rules or regulations proposed
by the department. So administrative rules can be proposed
by the department and the Mayor approves it and they become
rules?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I believe that that section
is a Hawaii Revised Section that is regarding promulgation
of administrative rules by agencies, such as the department
or boards. The reason why it's listed under the Mayor in
this case -- well, let me give you some history.
Before the charter change, any rules of the
department as enacted by the Board would go up to the Mayor.
Then the Mayor's office would then review it and submit it
to the Council. Any rules, any and all rules, rates, fees,
priority lists, water meters, et cetera. Any rules in this
book would have that path. Then there was a time schedule
where the Council could approve or disapprove, et cetera.
Now, because of the charter change, the question
is who can promulgate rules. That question is yet to be
answered. But in the event the department or another
agency, not this Board, because that was taken away, does
promulgate rules --
MEMBER OKAMURA: What does that mean,
"promulgate"?
MR. KUSHI: Go through a public hearing process.
There's a specific process about enacting rules, amending
rules pursuant to state statute. Then the final authority
to accept those rules, to approve the rules would be the
Mayor. And in the case of the state, the Governor. That's
why that was put in there.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Okay, thank you. Any other
questions or discussion in area number 2?
MEMBER OKAMURA: Do we need a motion to request a
written?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: No, he's already agreed to
give us back, so no motion necessary. Anything else we'd
like to ask of Corp Counsel Kushi at this time?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes.
MR. KUSHI: I believe I just responded to number
3, item internal department policies, which are basically --
lawyers hate to use the word policy, but any policy that
affects more than one becomes a rule, and we talked about
rules.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Right. Okay, anything else,
ladies and gentlemen?
MEMBER OKAMURA: That's a good definition, more
than one person.
MR. KUSHI: More than several, I should say.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: More than several, okay. I
hope this, and again, I don't think it clears it up, but at
least now you have some historical background, Ralph. And
some of us were here when all these changes did occur, and
yes, I think we still are all grappling with what exactly
the Board of Water Supply shall do, can do, will do. I
think that's still there.
However, I think we're getting closer to some
definitive roles. But I still point out, and I leave with
the closing statement, that I have been told that unless the
charter change powers that were taken away from us are put
back by a Charter Amendment, that we cannot get that back.
Just by your own interpretation on the Corp Counsel, if it
is given to us by law or ordinance, then you say, yes, you
are to do that. So I will leave it at that, and I am not
going to get any further in that discussion. But I'm using
your interpretation on number 4.
Anyhow, moving on, we go now to C, receipt of
Board Member requests for agenda items to be placed on
future agendas. One of these will be this letter, and
hopefully the response from Corp Counsel on these matters we
just discussed. If we could have that by next month. Do
you think that's possible?
MR. KUSHI: Probably not possible, Mr. Chair.
Maybe two meetings from now.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Two meeting from now, okay.
I'm not going to hold your feet to the fire, but two
meetings from now we will look for it.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes?
MEMBER JOHANSEN: We still have not gotten a
response on our request for information about the opinion of
independent counsel to the County Council. Mr. Kuda, I
think his name is.
MR. KUSHI: Ben Kudo is the Special Counsel to the
Maui County Council. Mr. Chair, I believe we discussed that
last meeting.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I will work on finishing that
up with Corporate Counsel Kushi. I will try to finish that
up and see what kind of response we can get back from them.
I will put that as next month's agenda item, okay.
Anything else, any other request? Member Okamura.
MEMBER OKAMURA: A brief follow-up regarding the
Planning Commission meeting topic in regards to coordination
between the two departments. There was something that Ellen
proposed I think at that meeting.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I'll ask Ellen.
MEMBER OKAMURA: Just as a general topic, it's
getting harder to figure out, to remember what we talked
about.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair, we are going to get
minutes of that meeting, right, that joint planning meeting?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Yes. Michelle?
MS. SAKUMA: The Planning Commission secretary is
drawing up the minutes, and we will include a copy. She did
say that she would get us a copy.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Can you call her and request
that it be ready for our next meeting, if possible? Because
I mean if we are going to review it three months from now, I
agree with Member Okamura, it's going to be hard to remember
what we discussed, even though it may be in writing. So if
it could be available at our next meeting, that would be
greatly appreciated.
Any other requests? And you all know that you
can, and I usually say by the following month by the 6th,
March 6th, if you can get any other requests via email so
that I can make sure it gets on the agenda.
Now, also I will remind everyone that March 8th we
have that upcountry, and I think that will be very
interesting to attend. I think we can all attend, if I'm
not mistaken, because it is not a department or a board
function, sponsored function. Is that correct, Corporate
Counsel Kushi?
MR. KUSHI: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Under the Sunshine Law,
because I've had this real grapple with the fact when you go
to meetings if there's more than two members we're violating
the Sunshine Law. What the Upcountry Water Oversight
Advisory Committee is putting on, if any and all board
members wanted to attend we would not be violating any
Sunshine Statute, Sunshine Law statute?
MR. KUSHI: What is the purpose of the meeting
now? It's just an informational meeting put on by who?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: It's put on by the Upcountry
Water Oversight Advisory Committee. They're the sponsoring
entity.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, is this something that this
Board will take up later? Is this meeting, the results of
this meeting, is this something -- are the results or
decisions of this committee, of that committee, is that
something that this Board would take up later?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I am not sure, to be
perfectly honest.
MEMBER OKAMURA: But it's not on the agenda right
now, anyway.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, it might come back to
the Board in the form of a report.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: I see, okay.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: But I don't think any decisions
to make any kind of recommendation to the Director, the
Mayor or the Council.
MEMBER JOHANSEN: Mr. Chair, this is informational
only, there's no action of any kind to be taken, right?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: As far as I understand it,
yes, strictly for informational purposes.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: This is in conjunction with the
federal grant that's funding the upcountry committee.
MR. KUSHI: One more question. This committee,
was this committee appointed by this Board?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: No.
MR. KUSHI: Who formed this committee?
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: The Mayor.
MR. KUSHI: Okay, no problem.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Thank you very much. So all
members, I encourage you to attend, if you so desire.
Okay, moving on to division reports. They are
provided. If you have any specific question on any of the
division reports, I would ask you to direct it at this time
to the Director or any of his representatives. Any specific
questions on the division reports?
MEMBER OKAMURA: I had a couple of things, a
couple of comments. I didn't really get to see all of the
division reports, but I received the whole packet on Tuesday
and it gave me like two days to go through the whole thing.
I know sometimes you're busy, but if at least I could get it
by Friday or Thursday or Friday then I have --
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Let me see your postmark.
When was it postmarked?
MEMBER HIRANAGA: The 17th. I got mine Saturday.
I guess it takes awhile to get up to Kula.
MEMBER OKAMURA: Long way.
MEMBER CRIVELLO: It's longer to get to Molokai.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: When did you get yours?
MEMBER CRIVELLO: I probably got mine on Monday.
MEMBER OKAMURA: Monday was a holiday.
MEMBER CRIVELLO: Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Member Okamura, I will talk
with Michelle and Director Tengan and see if maybe we can
put it out a day or two or three earlier, so that you get a
little more time to review it. I understand that getting it
on Tuesday and here it comes Thursday, it's difficult.
MEMBER OKAMURA: And Monday was a holiday.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: You need to understand that
these packets are mailed out at the same time or on the same
day that the agenda is posted. And the agenda is usually
posted one week, at least one week prior.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: One week in advance, yes.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: So that leaves only one week for
the members to get their material.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Well, is it possible -- and I
don't want to get too expensive because, you know, in
multiple mailings -- however, if these division reports are
available prior to the posting of the minutes, I mean the
posting of the notice of meeting, would that be possible to
have that mailed out in advance?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That's possible.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Again, just to ensure that
the board members have an opportunity to review it. Grant
you, Monday was a holiday, but still. Just the division
reports, that's all. I don't think that would upset the
apple cart too much, and that way, Member Okamura, you would
have more time to review it.
MEMBER OKAMURA: The minutes too, if possible.
Whatever is ready.
CHAIRMAN VICTORINO: Well again, certain things
have to follow certain things. This can be done. I don't
know about the minutes. Sometimes the minutes are not even
ready from the prior month.
So okay, anything else on the division reports?
If not, meeting adjourned.
(The proceedings were concluded at 11:00 a.m.)
