BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
County of Maui
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 23, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Planning Department Conference Room
First Floor, Kalana Pakui Building
250 South High Street
Wailuku, HI  96793





I. Call to Order

Chair Kenneth Okamura called the August 23, 2007 Board of Water Supply meeting 
to order at 9:06 a.m.

II. Attendance

Board Members:			Also Present:

Chair Kenneth Okamura		Jeffrey Eng, Director of Water Supply
Vice Chair Lee Aldridge		Eric Yamashige, Deputy Director
Michael Howden			Edward Kushi, Jr., Deputy Corporation Counsel
Marion Haller			Alva Nakamura, Engineering Program Manager
Carl Holmberg			Holly Perdido, Fiscal Officer
Scott Luck			Gaye Hayashidaolly Perdido
Kelli Myers				
Phyllis Robinson			
					
Excused:			Others:			

Kui Lester			Renae Gansky, USDA NRCS District Conservationist
				Dudley Kubo, USDA NRCS Planning Engineer
				Warren Watanabe, Maui County Farm Bureau president

III. Announcements

Chair Okamura introduced the newest board member, Kelli Myers.  Ms. Myers 
previously completed former member Michael Victorino’s unexpired term and now 
has been reappointed to a five year term.

Also, at this time the Chair thanked the Department for allowing the board
 members to tour the Upcountry water system.

Member Holmberg stated that it was good to get a better overview of the 
Upcountry facilities and the chance to talk to the staff was very illuminating.

IV. Approval of Minutes

A. July 26, 2007 Meeting

There being no corrections or additions, the minutes of July 26, 2007 stand 
approved as read.

V. Testimony from the Public

A. Warren Watanabe, President of the Maui County Farm Bureau

Warren Watanabe stated that he has asked the director for another grace period 
and was told that Ag users can appeal to the department on a case by case basis.  

He stated that it is not just for Ag in general but special consideration should 
also be given for the livestock industry.  A lot of farmers have cut back on 
their plantings to comply with the 10%.  He has been tracking the levels at the 
reservoirs and though it has gotten better since the previous month, there is 
still a concern because for Hawaii, the drought has been extended to November 
where previously it was to October.  

The farmers cannot continue to take the mandatory restrictions.  The County and
the State need to set policies in support of agriculture and must provide all 
the necessary resources.  

When he talks about agriculture he also includes Maui Land & Pine and HC&S.  If
you drive by the HC&S fields you will see the plants are under stress.  They 
do not have enough water.  

Those in the Ag industry believe diversified Ag is not practical in the Central
Valley area.  And while HC&S is looking at bio-fuel, if we cannot supply the 
water to grow the crops, then where are we?

Member Howden stated that we limit ourselves when we allow water hungry crops 
for the Maui saddle.  There are no windbreaks and often when the fields are 
harvested not only is the burning detrimental to the public’s health  but you 
have tremendous amounts of soil erosion by the constant wind across the saddle,
which he considers as poor agriculture practice and indicative of industrial 
agriculture.  He suggests looking at diversified Ag by growing tropical 
hardwoods, and fruit and nut orchards.  

He further stated that he finds it difficult to be sympathetic because they 
have had such a sweetheart deal for over a hundred years in terms of public 
trust waters.  Though they are an important part of the Maui agricultural 
economy he believes we need to shift our paradigm and look at sustainable 
agriculture for the Maui saddle.  A mono culture of sugar and pineapple across 
the Maui saddle is not a sustainable agriculture.  

Mr. Kushi asked Mr. Watanabe what agency extended the drought from October to 
November.  

Mr. Watanabe stated that it is put out by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration).  This is just a long range forecast.    

B. Sumner Erdman of Ulupalakua Ranch.

Sumner Erdman stated that he will limit his testimony to Ulupalakua Ranch.  In 
May they instituted a culling program on the ranch in preparation of the drought 
restriction.  It is not just water but they also run out of feed because they 
rely on the rainfall.  Their goal in May was to cull 400 to 500 cows.  They have 
reduced the herd by 180 to 200 cows in the first phase.  Right now there is no 
market for these cows.  Though they are trying to meet the 10% cutback and short 
of shooting the cows there are not a lot of choices.  

He is hoping that the Board or the Department look at how the livestock producers 
will meet the 10% cutback goal.  You cannot ask the cattle to drink 10% less 
water.  As it is now, they are eating dry grass which only makes them increase 
water consumption not decrease it.

Mr. Erdman asks that the Board and the Department take all this into inconsideration 
for all livestock producers.  

Member Howden commented that his motion made it clear that agricultural use would 
be exempted for 60 days.  This was not communicated clearly in the Maui News or 
through the Department’s letter to the agricultural users.  The Board may want 
to discuss exempting cattle/livestock operations from any 10% cutback and also 
make it better known to the users at large that other farmers who are making 
bona fide efforts can apply for exemptions to the Director.

Member Haller asked Mr. Erdman if there was a way for the ranch to continue to 
conserve and still receive enough water for your cattle.  Could he suggest 
something where the Board can do this?  How do we get all the other farmers to 
do that?  

Member Howden stated that it would take enforcement capabilities that the 
Department does not have.  

Mr. Erdman stated that Ulupalakua Ranch uses around 80,000 to 100,000 gallons 
per day which is less than 5 gallons an acre.  He cannot speak for the farmers 
but he can say that the dry grass will increase his cattle’s water consumption 
by about 5%.  He suggests that they continue to do what they are doing and if 
they cannot comply then they can come before the Board and show that they are 
trying to comply.  

As odd as it may seem the Ranch is putting in more water troughs so that the 
cattle won’t destroy pipelines trying to get water.  They are combining herds 
so that they can turn off some systems.  Though this will lead to some meters 
at zero and others jumping way up so the Department has to take this into 
consideration.  The Ranch is trying to reduce its overall water usage anyway 
they can.

Member Howden asked if the Chair would consider a motion.  

Chair Okamura responded by saying that there is an item on the agenda dealing 
with the implementations of the Drought Guidelines.  

Chair Okamura stated that each operation whether it is livestock, vegetables, 
fruits or flowers have different locations and different needs so we cannot 
make a blanket statement or try to put the same standards for reduction on 
everybody.  This is what we need to talk about later, trying to understand each 
particular situation before we make a one size fits all regulation for the 
farmers and the ranchers.  

VI. Appeals

A. None.

VII. Unfinished Business

A. None.

VII. Communications

A. COM 07-16 Chair’s letter to Jeremy Jameson denying his request to appeal the 
director’s decision due to the request being received after the time limit of 
30 calendar days as set forth by MCC 14.11.010.

B. COM 07-18 Chair’s letter to John J. Jacintho denying his request to appeal 
the director’s decision due to the request being received after the time limit 
of 30 calendar days as set forth by MCC 14.11.010.

Chair Okamura stated that these are two communications or requests for appeals 
from Jeremy Jameson and John Jacintho that were requested after the deadline.  
According to the ordinance on appeals a person who is not satisfied with the 
decision of the department had 30 days to request an appeal.  Both Mr. Jameson 
and Mr. Jacintho did not make their request in time and were sent letters stating 
that.  These were placed on the agenda so the Board could review the situation.

Member Haller stated that she feels the correspondence is fine and asked that 
the Board be made aware of correspondences like these when people don’t meet the 
30-day requirement.   She asked Mr. Kushi what other appeal board has a 30-day 
appeal time limit.  

Mr. Kushi stated that most of the appeal boards usually have 30 days.  He 
recalls 45 days would be the maximum, but 30 days is not unusual.

Member Holmberg asked Director Eng if the potential appellants are made aware 
of the 30 days.  

Director Eng replied that in a previous meeting a board member wanted to make 
sure that the Department adds that language to the letters of denial.

Vice Chair Aldridge suggested that not only should the director’s letter mention 
the 30 days but also the ordinance should be attached so that it is clear.  If 
all the other boards have the same deadline then it is not unreasonable to make 
a request within 30 days.  

Member Haller noted that it is not 30 days of receipt; it is 30 days from the 
date of the letter so it doesn’t even allow for mail time.  

VIII. Director’s Report

A. None.

IX. Other Business

A. Discussion and Update on the Petition to Designate Na Wai Eha as a Surface 
Water Management Area. 

B. Discussion and Update on the East Maui Water Licenses Litigation. 

Chair Okamura announced that Deputy Corporation Counsel Jane Lovell was not able 
to attend today’s meeting, therefore these 2 agenda items will be deferred to 
the next possible agenda.

C. Discussion and Update on the Upcountry Maui Watershed Project (Dual Line) by 
Representative(s) of the NRCS.

Chair Okamura introduced Dudley Kubo and Ranae Gansky of the NRCS who will give 
an update on the Upcountry Maui Watershed Project.  Brian Kau of the State 
Department of Ag declined the Board’s invitation.

Dudley Kubo, planning engineer with the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS), explained that they have been engaged in projects to supply agricultural
 water to Upcountry Maui farmers for the last 20 years or so.  He has personally 
been involved in the planning and implementation process.  

The program they have been implementing is the Small Watershed program, Public 
Law. 83-566, which allows the NRCS as an agency of the US Department of 
Agriculture to come in and provide technical and financial assistance to 
communities having water resources problems.  

They were asked in 1985 by Elmer Cravalho and the Olinda-Kula Soil and Water 
Conservation District to come in to provide planning and create a project to 
provide water to farmers up there because the Upper Kula water system was not 
providing the quantity the farmers needed especially during drought periods.  
When they started the project they worked with the farmers, the soil and water 
conservation district, the Department of Water Supply (DWS) and the State 
Department of Agriculture (the State) and various other agencies and organizations.  

The planning project resulted in an assessment in 1989 that outlined several 
alternatives that could be put in place.  One of those alternatives was a dual 
line on the upper system.  The Olinda-Kula Soil and Water Conservation District 
was adamant that they look at the upper and lower Kula lines as an entire system.  

The county and the state in partnership put in the collection improvement and 
the Kahakapao reservoirs in the upper system.  Without that their agricultural 
water project would not have gone anywhere.   Once that was in place they started 
to come up with a plan and an EIS.  In 1997 they produced this watershed plan 
and EIS which is now being implemented in the Upper Kula water system.  Since 
2000 the state and the federal government together have put in about $12 million 
in pipeline improvements.  

They are working on the first 2 laterals of the system and extending the 
distribution pipeline, taking untreated water before the Olinda treatment plant
 and conveying it to the farmers.  None of the farmers have been serviced as 
yet because the lateral systems have not been in place and money wise they are 
about 2/3 done.  The intention is to take the main pipeline all the way out to 
the Keokeo area where the Hawaiian Homes beneficiaries are.  

Once the Kimo lateral and the Pulehuiki lateral are completed there is the 
possibility of providing water to those farmers along those lateral systems.  
Before water can be provided to the farmers the State must establish an 
irrigation district out there, but he cannot speak for the State on their 
schedule and intentions.  Also the State and the DWS must come to an agreement 
on how the water will be allocated, especially during periods of drought and 
they must have a clear understanding on the matter of operations maintenance.  

They would like to begin planning on the Lower Kula line.  The Upper Kula line 
with the dual system seems to be a good model to follow.  The Lower Kula line 
would also need improvements in the collection system and storage.  

They have a contract with R. M. Towill Corporation, an engineering and planning 
consultant to do an assessment type study.  They would like to have some 
finalization of the reservoir and collection in hand before they move ahead 
with the planning.  This is several years down the road but it affords them a 
little bit of time to complete the Upper Kula water system improvements.  

Their interest in these projects is now the need to protect the farming 
enterprise.  Without these types of water improvements farmers are at risk.  
There are very unique conditions that really benefit the farmers.  

Unfortunately their funding for the small watershed program is declining.  In 
the last 5 years or so they have gone from about $100 million of construction 
money down to about $30 million dollars.  Last year they received nothing 
because the Democratic Congress had issues with ear-marking so the funding for 
the program was declined altogether.  2008 will be a better scenario but the 
program funding for all their projects across the nation is down.  

Renae Gansky stated that at the time this project came out and still today, they 
want to meet the farmers’ needs for water.  That’s what this project is all about.  

Member Howden stated that he was amazed that in the design and implementation of 
the system they speak about the other agencies involved, evidently the DWS and 
the County of Maui was not intimately involved in this.  It took him as a private 
citizen quite awhile to be even referred to NRCS for further information and Alan 
Murata who was handling this for the County had no real information on the design.  
He has been told numerous times that there is no water to put into the Upper Line.  
The farmers’ needs are in the Lower Kula system.  

The average agricultural use for 2006 for the Lower Kula system was 1,465,000 
gallons a day.  The Upper Kula system was 547,000 gallons a day.  It doesn’t 
make sense when you can easily supply the Lower Kula agricultural users from 
the Piiholo reservoir system than to try to draw from the Upper system and 
according to the DWS there is no water to put in it.  

Member Howden stated that he had more questions but what he would really like to 
see is the design.  Individual farmers from Upper Kula came to him and told him 
they were informed that the Dual Line would run through their property.  

What concerns him is at Polipoli and Middle Road the line begins to drop down, 
instead of keeping the water at an elevation of over 3,000 feet, and continuing 
it along Waianu or Polipoli where there is easy access going mauka of Kula San.  
This is depriving the neighborhood that is potentially agriculturally rich.  

It doesn’t make sense to have that water at that elevation and then drop it down 
when you could feed most of the agricultural use makai simply by a lower dual 
line.

Mr. Kubo stated regarding the coordination between the DWS and this project, 
when they did the work on the early planning assessment they had a lot of 
dealings with the DWS.  When they started the environmental assessment on the 
watershed plan he believes the DWS was in from the very beginning and upon 
completion of that planning they signed the watershed agreement.  

The NRCS has worked closely with all the directors.  He remembers that this is 
probably the fourth of fifth meeting he has attended before the Board.  Also in
 1993, when they began the planning they brought together the Board of Water 
Supply and the State Board of Agriculture in a meeting at Maui Community College.  
The Boards have had the opportunity to be involved in this project a lot more 
than Member Howden has stated.  

Member Howden responded by saying that in recent years the board and the department 
have been totally left out of the loop.  Maybe that was just a procedural 
oversight on the part of NRCS.  He doesn’t understand the presumption that there 
is enough water to actually put in a dual line for the upper part of the Kula 
system.  We have this potentially great system but no water.

Mr. Kubo stated that seems to have been the case for the last few years.  Their 
analysis showed that we go through water-short periods and that the State and 
the DWS would have to come to some sort of agreement on that.  But it seems that 
we have fit that situation every year for the last few years.  The benefit for 
the DWS is that untreated water will go to the agricultural customers thereby 
reducing the treatment needs at the Olinda plant.  

Member Howden agreed that there is no point in treating agricultural water but 
he questions why one would begin with the Upper Kula system rather than the Lower 
Kula system.  

Mr. Kubo stated that because of the 2 different systems and the difficulties in 
just generating one project they thought they would start with the easier phase.  
As it turned out the difficulties were greater than what they had anticipated. 
The time-frame has slipped but the intention is to provide agricultural water 
improvements for the lower system also.  Right now they are waiting for the 
reservoir improvements and the flushing system improvements to be firmed up for 
the lower system.  

Member Howden stated that it would have made more sense to begin with Lower Kula.  
For the upper system to be functional there need to be another sizeable reservoir 
or two.  It might take a decade or so to get it online in terms of an environmental 
review.  He doesn’t understand why $12 million was sunk into a project that 
really won’t fly without additional sources of water.  

Member Howden further stated that those were his primary concerns though he is 
still concerned that he doesn’t see the function of the Kimo lateral and had 
pointed out to Mike Hayama that he needs to reconsider dropping makai at Polipoli 
Road and Middle Road.  If we find more water, it would be silly to have that 
water drop down there and not be able to continue out to Ulupalakua.

Mr. Kubo stated that regarding the dropping of the pipeline through those private 
properties, this a technical issue that they grappled with.  However in order to 
get up on to the Haleakala Ranch lands where they really wanted to be, they would 
have to have a pumping station right there at Crater Road otherwise they would 
run into a vacuum situation in their pipeline.  There were also some issues with 
where the gulch crossing would be.  They would have wanted to avoid crossing 
those private properties because it would have caused further delays.  The 
decision was mainly a Department of Agriculture decision not to put in a pump 
station at that point.  

Regarding the potential ag areas down towards the south end of the yet to be 
constructed pipeline, if they could be shown that there will be agriculture 
higher up on the slopes he thinks that they would consider revising the alignment 
out there.  They did make those alignment choices based on the farming that was 
taking place back in the mid 90’s.  

Member Howden asked to reiterate his request for copies of the design and asked 
if it was in the watershed plan.

Mr. Kubo replied no, they just have the alignment and general guideline that was 
put into the design project.  However, the DWS has all the designs.

Member Howden asked Director Eng for copies of that, actually topographical type
 maps.

Director Eng stated he will check on it.

Member Robinson asked in terms of the request for further funding in 2008, who 
writes the grants to the feds and whether or not they might want to think about 
how much money is requested for assessment phase and how much is for 
implementation?

Mr. Kubo stated that in actuality the assessment and the implementation/construction 
are 2 different programs.  We are not robbing from Peter to pay Paul in this case.

Vice Chair Aldridge asked if there were other facilities other than the 2 
distribution laterals that were funded.  Does that include some funding for any 
of the reservoirs or the collection system?  

Mr. Kubo replied that as far as the federal participation from NRCS, no, they 
didn’t participate in the reservoirs or the collection systems.

Member Haller asked what the capacity of this Dual Line is.

Mr. Kubo stated that they are looking at about 2 mgd, which would be the peak 
use but they expect the average use to be about half a million to 1 mgd day.

Member Haller asked how that will be regulated.

Mr. Kubo replied that the intention was for farmers in the Upper Kula area to 
convert from the county water system meter to a meter provided by the State 
Department of Agriculture as part of the agricultural irrigation district.  All 
the farmers will be metered; they will be billed by the Department of Agriculture 
but the meter reading might by conducted by the DWS.  For this particular system 
the Department of Agriculture would have to work in close cooperation with the 
DWS.  

Member Holmberg asked who will ultimately own the valve that determines whether 
water goes into the system or not.

Mr. Kubo replied it is the Department of Agriculture.  When the reservoir was 
built there was language that it was being built to also benefit and support 
agriculture.  But right now there is no valve there, though the DWS is asking 
for a valve.  

Chair Okamura asked regarding the Lower Kula assessment or plans, is there a 
plan for a larger Piiholo Reservoir?

Mr. Kubo stated that if they included the cost of the Piiholo Reservoir rolled 
into their project, they wouldn’t be able to justify it.  For the upper system,
they were fortunate that the convergence of the state and the county effort to 
build the Kahakapao Reservoirs matched up with their time-line.

Member Haller asked if there was a projected completion date for this project.

Mr. Kubo stated that as far as the funding goes they are 2/3 finished, there are 
still miles of pipelines to be put in.  A lot of it depends on the federal and 
state funding.  If they get the type of funding they were receiving up to 2006 
they probably could have been out of there by 2010.  

Member Haller asked if the Board could look at the language of that agreement 
on that reservoir as to what the county’s obligations are.

Member Howden stated that there is no way for the Department to manage water use 
without being able to control what exists through the Dual Line.  

D. Discussion on Department Implementation of the Drought Guidelines, Resolution 
98-18. 

Chair Okamura stated he had questions on Resolution 98-18 and on the implementation 
of the drought guidelines.  He first asked whether Resolution 98-18 was rescinded 
or not.  It was mentioned at an earlier meeting last year that the resolution was 
rescinded.  

Mr. Kushi stated that he was at this meeting on September 21, 2006 where there 
was a discussion about declaring a drought for Upcountry at that time.  The 
minutes reflect that at that point in time, then-Director George Tengan stated 
that “Resolution 98-18 is no longer in effect because the Board rescinded this 
resolution several years ago.”  

Mr. Kushi further stated that he did not have the time or the resources to look 
at the minutes for the last four or five years.  But he has been with the Board 
since 2002 and he does not recall this resolution being specifically rescinded.  
That being said, the recent drought declaration does make reference to the 
triggers and guidelines as set forth in Resolution 98-18.  The way the Board 
ruled on the drought the director has the authority to implement any conservation 
measures that he deems reasonable.  He would need to get back to the Board to 
find out if there was indeed a formal board action to rescind this. 

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that from what Mr. Kushi is saying is that it is 
irrelevant whether it was rescinded or not since the Board made a drought 
declaration and it is up to the Department to use whatever effective guidelines 
they wish to implement and asked if this is correct.

Mr. Kushi stated yes and no, because if this Board was fully or semi-autonomous,
 he would advise the Board to do a resolution which would have the force and 
effect on the Department as well as on the entire county system.  Since the Board 
is not and we really don’t know what this Board is, except for appeals, the rule 
on drought is in limbo.

The way it is worded the Vice Chair is correct, regardless of what the resolution 
states, this Board or the Director could come out with other measures.  In fact, 
this Board has, by declaring a drought and made a 10% mandatory reduction for 
non-ag users and for Ag users a 60 day waiver.  That in itself is not in 
conjunction with the resolution.

Chair Okamura stated that regarding the implementation of the 10% cut-back, up 
until now the Department has used an average.  In his case, the area where he 
lives has lots of rain during the winter and is very dry during the summer.  
Considering the number of acres he has under cultivation, the extension service 
estimated that he would need about 12,500 gallons per day.  But the average for 
his quota was 4,000 gallons per day.  There is no way he could continue farming 
and still follow the average.  

Those who do conserve the rest of the year would be penalized because to cut back 
further would be very difficult.  And it varies from operation to operation.  It 
is a problem to try to apply the 10% cut-back based on the yearly average.  So 
he would like to throw this out to the Board to see where they could make some 
other recommendation.  

Member Howden stated that after Sumner Erdman’s testimony today, the Board might 
want to consider exempting livestock endeavors entirely from this and also to 
emphasize that other agricultural users would have access to an exemption.

He agrees with Member Haller that there should be a more intelligent use of water.  
It drives him nuts when he drives in Kula and sees overhead sprinklers during the 
heat of the day.

Chair Okamura stated that it depends on the operation.  Some operations have 
limited water and to go through a whole cycle of watering, you have to water a 
small section at a time.  So no way will you be able to go through a whole cycle 
of watering by only watering during certain times of the day.  But it is hard to 
say anything about an operation by just looking at it.  This is the problem that 
he had with this implementation of the 10% cut-back.  

No one else in the community makes such a sacrifice as the farmer or the rancher 
during periods of drought.  Maybe the Board could make a recommendation for 
livestock.  Or the Board could ask the Department to look into implementation of 
cut-back for the future, implementing water conservation rates as opposed to 
cut-backs.

Director Eng asked that the Board provide some suggestions or directions on how 
the Department can deal with this basis for determining cut-backs.  The current 
basis of 400 gallons per day per customer taken at a given month or a 24 month 
period average is not the most equitable way to go.  There are a lot of Upcountry 
customers who conserve year round and now we impose this 10% mandatory cut-back.  
It makes it quite difficult for them.  

These drought rates would be one way to go.  But rates and fees need to be 
approved by the Council.  The Department’s attempt this current year to have a 
single-family four tier classification where the highest consumer will be hit 
hard, got shut down by the Council.  He was very disappointed on how they dealt 
with that because he thought he had their concurrence all through the Water 
Resources Committee prior to the budget sessions.  

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that if the board members do not want to see this 
happen every summer, they must push hard to increase the Department’s ability to 
access water supply, build reservoirs and to deal with the real problem of drought.  
He suggests that the Department contact water agencies in southern California 
because these agencies deal with drought constantly, and they have agriculture 
and those golf courses and developments, all the things we have here they have 
there.  They can tell what their management practices are and where they have had 
problems.  

For the long term this Board must focus on the critical issues that will help 
solve this problem – more storage, more stable sources of water.   Let’s not get 
caught up in micro managing, let’s support the Department and suggest they use 
the best management practices that are available.  

Member Holmberg stated that he would like to second what Vice Chair Aldridge 
said and further stated that he doesn’t know if we can ever keep up with the 
water demand if there also isn’t a dedicated attempt to conserve.  He sat in on 
a couple of presentations from California water districts that have severe limits 
on water supply.  For instance, Redwood City worked it out with the various users 
on how to make the best use of their water.  

Member Haller asked if there was a way in which we can continue to exempt the 
farmers until such time as we can’t anymore.  

Director Eng stated that there were some things that happened that caused the 
Department to continue on the course we are going.  They had planned to use the 
Kaupakalua Well to take the Ag users off the mandatory 10% cut-back, but the 
replaced pumps failed.  They will take requests for exemptions from even single 
family customers who have special situations.  Right now he would like to stay 
the course but he is open to the Board’s suggestions.

Motion:	by Member Howden to recommend to the Department to exempt livestock 
producers from the 10% mandatory water use reduction and that other agricultural
users and even other members of the general public under extraordinary 
circumstances have the right to apply for an exemption from the director of the 
Department of Water Supply.  

Second:	by Vice Chair Aldridge

Discussion:	Mr. Kushi asked for clarification.  He stated that the notice of 
drought and the declaration on mandatory cut-back is couched in terms general 
class users and customers on Ag rates.  Are livestock producers on separate 
rates?  

Member Howden replied no, they are in the same category as Ag users.  The Board 
is exempting them from the 10% without having to apply for an exemption.  

Member Luck asked why is it more of a hardship on them than on the other Ag users.  

Member Howden stated that Ulupalakua Ranch prepared as best they could but they 
are in a very dry area and when they can’t market their beef then we are giving 
them unnecessary hardship.  

Member Luck stated he doesn’t understand why the Board is giving this to the 
livestock producer and not to other agricultural producers.  

Member Howden stated this is a reluctant wake-up call for other agricultural 
users.  It is unfortunate that HC&S is not a participant in this process, since 
they use the bulk of the water in Maui County.  

Mr. Kushi apologized and stated that he didn’t mean to get involved, whatever 
this Board decides is fine as far as policy, it’s just that he needs to know the 
mechanics of the motion so he can advise the Department accordingly.  As he 
reads the Declaration of Drought there is no exemption at all.  Everyone is 
under the 10% mandatory because the 60-day waiver has expired.  However, the 
Director has said that he would take requests for exemptions on a case by case 
basis.  

Now, that being said, requests for exemptions are a discretionary call.  The 
Director may say ok to livestock farmers and he may say no to cabbage growers.  
Cabbage growers can come and appeal this decision.  The Board may have 2,000 
appeals.  

Member Howden stated he understood what Mr. Kushi is saying, but this is basically 
an amendment of the Board’s original motion in declaring a drought.  

Member Holmberg stated that he supports Member Howden’s idea trying to give the 
livestock producers a break and not have to cull their herd.  But he wonders what 
the mechanics are to determine who is running livestock so the Director knows who 
gets a break.  

Member Howden stated that it is already on their agricultural use applications.

Member Haller stated that her problem with this proposal is that the people who 
grow cabbage don’t have 20,000 acres and don’t have the kind of resources that 
the ranchers do.  Hardship would in fact hit the small farmers more severely.  
As long as the overall water usage is down more than 10% over this time period 
where the farmers were asked not to comply we can still continue to have them be 
exempt.

Vice Chair Aldridge suggested extending the waiver another 30 days for instance 
and that will give the Department a chance to see in mid-September if we can 
extend it another 30 days.

Member Howden suggested 45 or 60 days because at least it would give people more 
of lead time.  It’s not much when you are a farmer but at least it’s something.  
He then withdrew his original motion.

Motion:	by Member Howden to recommend to the Department to extend the 
agricultural user exemption for another 45 days.

Second:	by Member Haller

Discussion:	The Chair stated that it has been moved and seconded that the Board 
recommends to the Department to extend agriculture waiver for another 45 days.

Mr. Kushi asked does the 45 days begin August 13th.

Member Howden suggested that it should start today.  

The Chair re-stated the motion, to recommend to the Department to restore and 
extend the waiver for agricultural users for another 45 days beginning today.

Vote:		Unanimous.  Motion carried.

Member Haller proposed to have on the Board’s agenda as a regular item how the 
Board wants to help move this county to address this long term problem.  The 
Board needs to talk about this every month regarding long term source and capacity 
issues.  And the second thing she wants discussed is island wide water conservation.

E. Discussion/possible action on a Recommendation for a Declaration of a Drought 
Warning for Central Maui and other measures the Department may take. 

Director Eng directed the Board to the handout, U.S. Drought Monitor – Hawaii.  
It shows a state-wide map of the location of severe drought areas.  The second 
page is the news release of July 31, 2007 announcing that the entire State of 
Hawaii as drought disaster area.  At that time they were offering farmers 
emergency loans for any losses.

One of the concerns they have is the amount of rainfall particularly the rain 
gauges on Puu Kukui because that watershed area is the primary source of recharge 
for Iao and Waihee aquifers.  It has been reported that year to date the gauges 
have only shown 41% of normal rainfall.  Last year the entire year had only 
58% of normal rainfall.  

The chart of Waiehu test hole B shows the water levels since 1982 in this 
particular well.  This gives you a good idea of how the water level has dropped 
over time and it is continuing to go down.  The next chart is Test hole E which 
also shows the similar type of trend of the ground water level.  

The next is the Waiehu deep monitor well.  This well was drilled almost through 
the transition zone.  The blue line is the water level which is consistent with 
the other wells.  With this particular monitor well they can actually look at 
the salinity levels and changes as charted on the next page.  

Over time the 2 percent line or the top of the transition zone and the 50 percent 
or the midpoint, have continually gone up meaning the salt transition zone is 
rising.  If you combine this graph with the one showing the lowering water level, 
we can conclude that the fresh water lens is thinning out.  This is a concern 
that has been confirmed by the USGS in their ground water modeling.   

The demand for Central Maui in July the average daily was 28.3 mgd.  The twelve 
month moving average for the Central Maui water system in July ’07 it was 25.65 
mgd.  The twelve month moving average for July ’06 was 24.9 mgd.  The moving 
average itself has increased three quarters of mgd in one year.  

It is important for us to properly manage the aquifers.  The Department believes 
it is time to do some kind of management.  The Central Maui system has pretty 
much have had the freedom to take as much water as growth develops.

The Director would like to propose to the Board for discussion purposes a proposal 
for a 10% voluntary cut-back for the Central Maui system.  It has never been 
declared in the past.  Also they would like to establish a target demand of 25.5 
mgd with the Board’s concurrence.  They would monitor this for a month and discuss 
this at the next board meeting.  

Member Haller stated that she would rather see this done in terms of conservation 
as opposed to drought.  This isn’t a drought situation this is 20 years of 
declining resources.  Maybe now is the time to talk about conservation.  

Member Howden stated that it is well past time we address the drop in the Iao
aquifer.  We have to address the Wailuku Water Company’s use of public trust 
waters.  Obviously if the State comes out with the finding that it is a district 
that needs to be under the State Water Use Commission purview then maybe it 
would be easier to slow down Wailuku Water’s use.  But if he were to make a 
recommendation he believes 25% would not be unreasonable.  He is in total 
agreement that we begin to address this publicly and he would add that we should 
also keep an eye on the Wailuku Water Company’s usage.  

Chair Okamura asked if Waihe’e and the new treatment plant would be able to 
supply the same system.  

Director End replied yes, they are all tied together.  The Iao Aquifer wells as 
well as the Waihe’e Aquifer wells and the Iao Water Treatment Plant, all serve 
the Central Maui water system.  We are trying to pump as much as we can from the 
Waihe’e Aquifer and we are pretty much maxxed out.  As far as the Iao Surface 
Water Treatment Plant we are running at maximum right now.  

Member Haller asked to change the Director’s recommendation to include all of 
Maui.

Member Holmberg suggested that it would be better to start with Central Maui then 
gradually let people get used to it month by month.

Director Eng explained that Central Maui water system extends from Waihe’e to 
Paia/Kuau, Maalaea all the way to Makena.   

Motion:	by Member Holmberg to support the 25.5 mgd consumption target that 
the Board recommends to the Department a 10% voluntary usage reduction for an 
indefinite period of time subject to a 30-day review.

Second:	by Member Haller

Discussion:	Mr. Kushi recommened that the motion include that the Board has 
reviewed and recommends that the Director also declare a drought, because in 
order to start the ball rolling on these restrictions you need to overall 
declare a state of drought.

Member Holmberg and Member Haller agreed that the motion should be so amended.

Chair Okamura stated that it has been moved and seconded that the Board recommend 
the Department declare a drought and set 25.5 mgd target for consumption in the
Central Maui water system with a 10% voluntary reduction subject to a periodic 
30-day review indefinitely

Vote:		Unanimous.  Motion carried.

F. Discussion on the Appeal Process.

The Chair asked that this item be discussed last.

G. Verbal Update on Upcountry Water System.

Vice Chair Aldridge requested that the schematic also should include the 
elevation of the treatment plants.  

Director Eng stated that he will include that the next time.

Member Haller asked if the Department has the ability to track the Waikamoi 
Stream like the Wailoa Ditch.

Director Eng stated that the Department does not have that.  

H. Discussion regarding the Proposed Budget Workshop for FY 2008.

Holly Perdido, Fiscal Officer, stated that the Budget Office wants the CIP 
program by Friday, October 12th.  At the September 27th meeting they will have 
the CIP presentation.  October 15th is the Budget Workshop where they will go 
over the budget and if the Board has any questions on the CIP program they can 
go over it at that time.  The actual budget is due to the Mayor by Friday, 
October 26th.  So then at the October 25th meeting any final questions on the 
budget can be answered.  

Ms. Perdido noted that the time-table for the budget has been drastically 
pushed up.  

I. Receipt of Board Member request for agenda items to be placed on future 
agendas.

1. Discussion on conservations and how the Board can move this county to think 
more conservation oriented.

F. Discussion on the Appeal Process (continued)

Chair Okamura asked will Corporation Counsel do the Findings of Fact and 
Conclusion of Law for each appeal decision.  

Mr. Kushi stated that his office has internally discussed the procedures.  His 
position will be assigned to the Board.  If need be the Department may request 
another attorney from his office to represent them.  The appellant has the choice 
to be represented by an attorney or not.  Not in all cases will there be attorneys.  
In some cases if the Department staff can handle it then that’s fine too.

Once the Board reaches a decision, the winning side, whether it is the appellant 
or the Department, drafts the findings of facts and conclusion of law and submits 
it to the Board.  The Board at the next meeting votes on it.  

For example, if the appellant wins, his or her attorney would draft findings of 
fact.  In the event they don’t have counsel, then he will do a draft.  

The appellant is entitled to a contested case hearing and it is possible the 
Board could be issuing subpoenas.  A contested case hearing is a mini court 
hearing, a mini trial.  All appeals before this Board are considered a contested 
case hearing because if the party who loses is dissatisfied they can appeal it 
to the circuit court.  So we need to be formal, such as having transcripts, 
witnesses being sworn under oath, examination of witnesses, and cross-examination 
of witnesses.

X. Division Reports

A. Division Reports for May 2007

Member Haller asked regarding the treatment facilities monthly report, is the 
reduction in the actual water treated a reflection of the reduced rainfall?

Director Eng stated that Olinda is a good one.  Because at a certain point 
in time when the reservoirs were quite low, they made the decision to operate 
Olinda to just serve the Olinda community and to pump water up from Lower Kula 
to serve Upper Kula, so that would show a decline there.  Also water quality 
affects the treatment production.  

XII. Adjournment

The August 23, 2007 Board of Water Supply meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.


					Prepared and submitted by:



					__________________________________
					Gaye Hayashida
					Commission Support Clerk


Approved on: _______________________