BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
County of Maui
Regular Meeting
Thursday, October 25, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Conference Room
Department of Liquor Control
2145 Kaohu Street, Room 105
Wailuku, Hawaii  96793




I. Call to Order

Chair Kenneth Okamura called the October 25, 2007 Board of Water Supply meeting 
to order at 9:07 a.m.

II. Attendance

Board Members Present:		Also Present:

Chair Kenneth Okamura		Jeffrey Eng, Director of Water Supply
Vice Chair Lee Aldridge		Edward Kushi, Jr., Corporation Counsel
Marion Haller			Eric Yamashige, Deputy Director
Carl Holmberg			Holly Perdido, Fiscal Officer
Michael Howden			Alva Nakamura, Engineering Program Manager
Kuilauokalani Lester		Jacky Takakura, Administrative Officer
Scott Luck			Paul Seitz, Water Treatment Plant Division Manager 
Kelli Myers			Bobby Vida, Field Operations Division Chief
Phyllis Robinson		Dean Tanimoto, Electronic Technician Supervisor
				Albert Perez, planner (Water Department)
       				Eva Blumenstein, planner (Water Department)
       				Edna Manzano, planner (Water Department)
       				Marti Buckner, planner (Water Department)
       				Tui Anderson, Water Conservation Specialist
       				David Galazin, Deputy Corporation Counsel
       				Jeffrey Dack, planner (Planning Department)
       
III. Announcements

Chair Okamura announced that in September the Department selected David Haddock 
as the department’s Employee of the Year and Cari Sumabat as the department’s 
Manager of the Year.  David went on to become Maui County’s Employee of the 
Year.  On behalf of the Board he congratulated both David and Cari for their 
achievements.

IV. Approval of Minutes

A. September 27, 2007 Meeting

The minutes were approved as circulated.

V. Testimony from the Public

A. David Goode submitted written testimony which was read by the Chair.

Our company’s concern that if mandatory cutbacks are initiated, and also 
restrictions on issuance of water meters, then our Waiolani Pikake buyers will 
be without meters when the subdivision is complete, with all bonding and final 
paper work submitted to the Department of Water Supply as of today, 
with around 10 of them have pulled building permits and are building their 
homes.  This will be a disaster for them.  I would hope that if the Board 
continues to push towards mandatory cutbacks that meter issuance continues 
(the rate of meters going out is slowing as construction is slowing) especially 
for bonded final subdivisions where there is every expectation that meters will 
be installed when the infrastructure has been, or is in the process of being 
installed.  Mahalo for listening to me and taking this into consideration.  
David Goode, President of KSD.   

VI. Appeals

A. None.

VII. Unfinished Business

A. None.

VII. Communications

A. None.

VIII. Director’s Report

A. None.

IX. Other Business

A. Discussion/possible action regarding Approval to Submit Fiscal Year 2009 
Operating Budget to the Mayor.

Chair Okamura apologized to those members who came for the workshop on October 
15th but the meeting was not held.  Since there was no quorum the meeting was 
postponed.  We will try to do better the next time.  

Holly Perdido, DWS Fiscal Officer, gave a slide presentation on the Department’s 
accounting procedures.

During the presentation, Vice Chair Aldridge asked, what does restricted (fund) 
specifically mean?  

Ms. Perdido stated that it means we are restricted on how we are allowed to use 
the fund.  The funds are collected for a specific purpose.  The water system 
development fee is restricted for source, storage and transmission.  Restricted 
funds do not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but are carried over. The 
revenue funds and the capital reserve fund, which will now be known as the 
replacement fund, will lapse after the budget is complete.  But the replacement 
fund is 18 months on the CIP Budget.  When the revenue funds lapse they stay 
with the Department.  They don’t go into county funds; everything lapses and 
basically become what we consider as carryover for the following year.

Vice Chair Aldridge stated if you have a more that 18 months long capital 
improvement project, how do you keep the fund from lapsing? 

Ms. Perdido answered that once it is encumbered then it does not lapse.  If 
additional monies are needed then the Department must either budget again or go 
in for a budget amendment.

Member Holmberg asked, why where there no transfer of funds in ’06 and ’07?

Ms. Perdido replied at that time we didn’t lapse the funds out of that.  It just 
kept carrying forward until the Finance Department said we should lapse the 
funds.  We had quite a bit of lapsed projects so we were able to use what funds 
were available.  So now we have to lapse everything in December so the following 
budget will show what we actually be transferring.

After the presentation, Member Robinson asked what criteria are used for rate 
increases.

Ms. Perdido replied that they figure out what the operation expenses are going 
to be and how much money they will need to cover everything, they then calculate 
how much will be needed for rate increases.

Member Robinson asked if the drought has any impact on the rate increase.

Ms. Perdido stated that it is hard to say but it probably will have an impact.  
They have to project what the consumption will be and if the drought brings in 
less revenue then the rates are going have to balance it.  

Director Eng stated that if you conserve a lot we would have to increase the 
rates to maintain the revenue requirements.  This current fiscal year, effective 
July 1, we had an average 18% rate increase.  The consultants in the fiscal year 
‘08 study projected a 13% increase for fiscal year ‘09.  We were hoping to keep 
it in the single digit.  Right now we are anticipating about a 9% rate increase.  

The next step we will look into is how we want to design new rates.  We may make 
another attempt for the conservation rate.  Perhaps we may not create a new 
class but we may look at a fourth tier.   We still want to focus on the higher 
residential consumers where we believe we still can get conservation.

At this time, Ms. Perdido went on to review the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget.  The 
only change is that the Capital Reserve Fund should now be referred to as the 
Replacement Fund. 

Member Haller stated that the budget annually pays into the replacement fund, 
so where does the $8.5 million feeds into the $37 million CIP Budget?

Ms. Perdido explained that the $8.5 million is the Water System Development Fee 
portion of the budget, $59,000 is the Source portion, $3 million is the Safe 
Drinking Water loan, $22.3 million is the Bond that we will have to fund the 
budget with, and the Replacement Fund is $3.2 million.  If you add all those up, 
that is the CIP budget.  The $22.3 million is a new bond.  We don’t start 
paying debt service until we fund that bond.  You won’t see the actual 
expenditures and debt service until a little bit more in the future. 

Member Haller asked, what does that do to the debt service ratio?  

Ms. Perdido stated that we have to evaluate what our revenues will be less 
expenses to make sure that the ratio is where it should be.  We have to 
increase the revenues to cover future debt.  

Chair Okamura stated that he was looking at the FY08 Water Rate Study and the 
consultant said that the Department should look at how much debt service it can 
carry.  There seems to be some concern as to what the debt service should be.  
Is that correct?

Director Eng stated that recently he spoke to Kalbert Young, Director of 
Finance, and he thought that a reasonable and healthy ratio is 1.5.

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that typically the ratio of net operating revenue 
over debt service is utilized to determine what sort of rating you would have 
for acquiring new bonds.  What impact does it have on your existing debt 
service?  What is the necessity for maintaining that sort of high ratio other 
than having a safety factor?

Ms. Perdido explained that all the bonds go through the County.  The County is 
the determining factor and not the Department.  The Department has always wanted 
to maintain these levels but the county covers us.  They are the ones they look 
at overall not the Department separately.    

Member Haller asked if the Department works with estimated actuals.  It is so 
hard to do this without seeing where you think ’08 is going to end up.  You go 
back to ’07 and you see these vast differences.  We budget for this much in 
payroll because we hope to get that much, but we don’t actually get to fill 
those positions so we keep having to budget it.  Where are we at in ’08 
particularly as it relates to payroll?

Ms. Perdido stated that is where the carryover comes in, because of the 
budgeted positions in payroll and the vacancies we have.  Anything in excess of 
the budget will be like our projected or estimated carryover.  In FY09 she is 
projecting another 4.8 in carryover.

Vice Chair Aldridge in referring to engineering and planning, asked if portions 
of those salaries are part of a capital improvement project, do they get 
capitalized?  

Ms. Perdido stated that in the past we have done that. In the past it would tap 
into your CIP and reimburse the revenue but they told us not to do that.  So it 
is not being capitalized.  It created problems on the budget because we have to 
budget on a cash basis.  

Member Haller pointed out that it should be FY 2009 not 2008 in referring to 
page 13 of the Operations Budget.

Member Haller asked if the environmental impact studies for the wells in Haiku 
are still going on.  Does that get funded here?

Director Eng replied that they are not going on right now.  But as we take 
another look at East Maui we will and that will be under the CIP budget.

Member Howden asked where is the Opana Tunnel?  

Director Eng stated that it is also known as Awalau.  It used to be a surface 
source that served Makawao.  The source is not really plentiful.  It is about a 
half million to a million gallons per day.  The Department’s Engineering 
Division looked at it several years ago as a potential surface water treatment 
source but due to inadequacy of the flow and cost to develop a surface water 
plant they chose to go to Kamole.  We still have the reports.

Member Howden asked if that data is available to the Board.

Director Eng stated he will see what he can get.    

Member Howden asked how do you deal with the flume system with only one 
carpenter and one mason listed?  

Bobby Vida, Field Operations Division Chief, replied that he has a construction 
crew.

Member Haller stated that she would like this Department to try a hydro-electric 
plant, to see if we can generate our own electricity.  Maui Land & Pine 
generates their own power with their ditches.  

Director Eng stated that probably hydro-electric opportunities within our type 
of water system aren’t really a possibility, because you need to drop water from 
elevations on a regular basis.  There are times when we can produce water at 
Piiholo and drop it down, but it is fairly inconsistent.  There might be other 
alternative energy types of systems that might work.

Member Howden stated that the technology is there.  It is simply a matter of us 
availing ourselves of it.  Not too farfetched would be OTEC.  

Chair Okamura asked. regarding the Plant Operations, did you figure out some of 
your priorities and is that reflected in the budget?  

Mr. Tanimoto stated yes.  Basically the priorities are the replacement of 
laboratory equipment and replacement of computers and vehicles.

At the conclusion of the presentation, Chair Okamura thanked Ms. Perdido for the 
budget presentation and stated that the Board’s role in this budget process is 
to review and submit it to the Mayor.

Member Howden asked the Department to consider as an additional item the 
cleaning out and the re-lining of the Waikamoi Reservoirs.  It seems silly if 
we have water and there is no space at Kahakapao to not be able to store water 
at Waikamoi for longer than transient periods.  The Waikamoi Reservoirs have 
tremendous amount of silt at the bottom.

Member Haller stated regarding the Department Overview Increase in Water Services 
in the slide presentation, and Ms. Perdido referencing that it comes to about 
600 new customers a year on  average, that it would be so useful to see how that 
relates to water usage.  What is the growth over time of the actual usage?  What 
do these new customers represent?  Do they represent one building of 150 condos?  

Director Eng replied that they will see what they can do.
 
Motion:	By Member Haller to send the budget to the Mayor with the Board’s 
recommendation for approval.

Second:	By Member Howden.

Discussion:	None.

Chair Okamura stated that it has been moved and seconded that the Board forwards 
this operating budget as presented, to the Mayor with the Board’s approval.

Vote:		Unanimous.  Motion carried.

B. Discussion regarding How Water Resources Are Taken into Account in the 
Planning 
Process and the Permitting Process.

Jeffrey Dack, staff planner gave a presentation on the full range of the 
Planning Department and how they interface with water, though his greatest area 
of knowledge is in the Current Division.  

There are 2 major components to planning, the first is the long range or general 
planning process and the second is implementation such as zoning.  The general 
philosophy of long range planning is to try to plan for the future, anticipate 
what your needs will be, make sure everything works well together.  Another 
philosophy of planning is that it is a continuous process; it never stops.

The county codes on long range planning states that:

1. All agencies shall comply with the general plan.  

2. The general plan shall be developed after input from state and county 
agencies and the general public.  

3. The general plan shall indicate desired population and physical development 
patterns for each island and region within the County.

4. The general plan shall identify objectives to the achieved and priorities, 
policies and implementing actions to be pursued with respect to including water.

5. The general plan shall include a capital improvement element.  Capital 
improvement element shall describe regional infrastructure systems including 
water and regional public facilities and services that will be needed over the 
25-year planning period.  

6. The general plan shall include technical plans and studies.  The infrastructure 
study shall assess the adequacy, limitations and opportunities relating to the 
physical infrastructure including water systems.

7. Each agency shall prepare a status report on its implementation and enforcement 
of the general plan, which shall be transmitted to the planning director at the 
same time the agency submits the 3rd quarter budget implementation report pursuant 
to section 3.04.050 of this code. 

After the studies are done the Planning Department with their consultants will 
be begin to prepare drafts.  The drafts then go to the agencies.  Once the 
agencies review it the drafts get published and then go to the GPAC with public 
input.  After the GPAC comes up with recommendations there will be opportunities 
for the agencies to be involved.  The plans then go to the planning commissions 
with more public input.  The planning commissions then make recommendations to 
the county council and the county council takes public input again.  Then it 
finally ends with county council adoption.

The permitting process includes minor permits or things that don’t involve 
changes to policy which is handled by the Public Works’ Development Services 
Administration.  The Planning Department gets involved with major permits or 
things that involve changes in community plans, general plan or zoning ordinances.  
Though, DSA does handle subdivisions which can be a very big deal.

Zoning regulates land uses by geographic areas.  In a particular area with a 
particular zoning you can do particular kind of uses, ie. permitted uses or by 
special use permit. 

When an application comes in it gets assigned to a planner for a project review.  
It gets sent to the agencies, ie. the water department, health department and 
public works, for review.  Then the comments or concerns from the different 
agencies get written as conditions.  The conditions as well as the analysis go 
on to the planning commissions.  If it is a legislative action, the planning 
commission makes a recommendation to the council.    

Planning is not any good if there is no implementation and the permitting is at 
risk if there is no enforcement.  The Zoning Administration and Enforcement 
Division within the Planning Department reviews zoning and they handle the Board 
of Variances and Appeals.  

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that in terms of long range planning and projection 
of population growth, it seems like there is a chicken and egg issue about what 
comes first.  If you have certain classified zoning such as agricultural and 
that never changes then your population is going to change dramatically, and 
yet he has never seen a long range plan that doesn’t have population increases.  
So how does that process reconcile changes in zoning?

Mr. Dack stated that is a classic planning dilemma.  Do you do constraints based 
planning or do you do opportunities planning?  You can’t do one over of the other.  
You have to do a combination of them.  The way Maui County is looking at this is 
kind of more on the opportunities side.  

In the research context, what information is there on anticipated demand for 
population growth that would occur over the next time frame?  We need to look at 
where it is going to go.  Then you look at the constraints, the infrastructure, 
where’s the water, where’s the traffic problems.  You have to see where in the 
overall canvas of the 3 islands you are going to try and direct those growth areas.  

The way the county does it is to target particular numbers based upon economic 
analysis and then try to plan to accommodate that level of numbers in growth.

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that the input from agencies have not been adequate 
because by judging the present day traffic problems in West Maui and South Maui 
and the potential issues with the inability of supplying water, he would say 
that opportunity has driven this and not constraint.  Because there are a lot 
more building and a lot more planned to be built and the roads are way behind 
and who knows where the water is.  How does that change to be more balanced?  

Mr. Dack replied that the County can in general be more conservative in their 
approvals.  The County could say we will not allow growth to occur unless we 
have better assurances that the infrastructure will be done concurrently as 
opposed to having economic growth booms and then having the infrastructure try 
to follow and catch up.  It is a policy orientation of the county council.

Member Luck stated that even if something is in compliance there are these 
exceptions that allow you to say at this point and time we are not able to 
approve this particular project.  

Mr. Dack stated that there can be.  If there is no water to serve the project 
then it is not going to happen.  It could still be approved but it could just 
sit there not being implemented.  

Member Howden stated that according to the Planning Department’s website there 
are over 50,000 units that have been approved for Central, South and West Maui.  
Are we stuck with that?  Doesn’t Long Range Planning’s approval of these projects 
imply that everything will fall into place?  

Mr. Dack stated that a project shouldn’t get approved unless there is good 
expectation and good reasons to back it up that everything will fall into place.  
If a subdivision got bonded and they are building houses yes, they would expect 
to have some kind of input from the Water Department.  But it could be a private 
water system for example.   

In regards to the 50,000 units that have been approved there different gradations 
of being approved.  There are red, yellow and green on these maps.  Red means 
that there is an application in and there has been no action.  Yellow means that 
it conforms to the plans.  The green means they have been approved.  

Member Howden stated that the 50,000 units are green. 

Member Haller asked Director Eng at what point do you say no, we don’t have the 
resources.  Where does the “show me the water” bill come in?  That comes under 
the DSA agency review process?

Director Eng replied right, right at the beginning. For a subdivision the first 
step is to apply for a preliminary subdivision and at that time they need to 
have verification of water.  

Member Haller asked, what about today?

Director Eng answered, they are allowed in.

Member Haller stated, so your agency review is kind of useless.  You have no 
way of saying no.  

Director Eng stated that the Department has made comments over the past 4 years 
not assuring water and that hasn’t really stopped anyone from going forward.  

Member Haller asked, so when do you assure water?

Director End replied at the time they apply for a meter.  Basically, they can 
apply for a meter once they have all the water system improvements in place.  
For new subdivisions, the developer is doing all the subdivision preparations 
and putting in the water system improvements.  Usually the waterlines are the 
last to be completed in a subdivision.  In the meanwhile the developer gets 
bonded final subdivision approval and starts selling off the lots.  Once it is 
sold the people come for their meter and we could say no to them.  Right now we 
don’t have a moratorium, so we are trying our best to issue meters.  The Mayor 
and the council have not issued a moratorium and he doesn’t know which way they 
will go.  

Member Haller asked, is it written in our laws that the Department doesn’t 
provide assurances for water until they apply for a meter?  

Director Eng stated that the Department makes its comments early at the time the 
Current Planning Division asks for comments from the agencies.  That’s when we 
make the comment that we are giving no assurance for water.  Then it basically 
gets ignored.  

Eva Blumentstein, DWS planner, stated that now the Department is saying “we are 
not making the determination of whether the water is available” until they come 
in with their application, shifting the burden onto Engineering.  But in fact 
the Department has been looking at these numbers for a long time and there is 
nothing available for Central Maui.  We are telling the Planning Department that 
there is nothing available for this area so we may delay the issuance of meters.

Vice Chair Aldridge asked, how many subdivisions have been approved despite the 
Department commenting that they cannot assure water?

Director Eng stated that he doesn’t have an exact number.  When they met with 
the Mayor they did a spreadsheet based on the known subdivisions in some phase 
of construction that will be coming to the Department between now and 12 months 
for a meter and that came up to about 900,000 gallons per day demand in Central 
Maui. It’s going to be about a million gallons per day more next summer. 

We should be at our target of 25.5 mgd based on our permits, our ability to treat 
water at the Iao plant.  The past few weeks we have been at that level but come 
next summer if things don’t change it’s going to be a big problem.  

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that is problematic because nobody wants to think 
that they are conserving in order for new people to come on.  

He stated that Wailea 670 said they could develop an adequate supply for their 
own system.  He is concerned about any private water system especially one of 
that size.  In his experience no private water system lasts for very long before 
the citizens of that area request a public agency to take it over.  Like so 
many take-over’s you find out afterwards that there is not enough storage and 
all sorts of deficiencies. 

Director Eng stated that when he gets the opportunity to go before council he 
makes it clear to them that we will not accept that sort of system. 

Member Lester asked, you do not issue a building permit unless they are guaranteed 
a meter, right?  The Water Department signs off that they have been approved.  

There was a chorus of no’s.

Member Lester asked, so then you can get a building permit, build your house 
and then apply for your meter?

Director Eng stated that right now since there is no moratorium we will still 
issue a meter.  That is why the “show me the water” bill even with all of its 
flaws is good. 

Member Haller asked if there is anything in the planning process to put an 
expiration date on past and future building permits.

Mr. Dack replied that as he understands there are expiration dates on building 
permits, but that is a DSA issue.  Even though there are expiration dates it is 
possible to keep those things alive.  

Member Haller asked, how can we continue to allow water features?  

Director Eng stated that he would like to see a policy made to cut those out.  
But right now there is nothing so we would just evaluate it based on its total 
water demand at the time they come in.  

Mr. Dack stated that there are some plans in the Planning Department and if you 
feel so passionately about it then there could be some really good coordination 
between the two departments in terms of a policy to address that.  

At this time the Chair thanked Mr. Dack for his time.   

C. Discussion/possible action on the Upcountry Water System.

Director Eng stated that since the last meeting things have changed in terms of 
storage.  The reservoirs have declined in capacity.  No one up there has called 
him to complain about the mandatory cut-back.  He has no recommendation to make 
at this time.  Now he is not so passionate about lifting the mandatory restrictions.  

Chair Okamura pointed out that in the criteria they used for the drought warning 
there is also criteria to go back from warning to drought watch.  It is very 
similar and just 3 of the triggers have to be exhibited.  

Member Haller asked, what has been our experience in behavior when we go from a 
warning to a watch?

Jacky Takakura stated that we haven’t had mandatory cut-backs since 1999.  

Director Eng stated he didn’t believe there would a big resurgence of water 
consumption in Upcountry.  

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that there would be no harm in letting it continue 
until the next board meeting.  What’s the prognosis for rain this coming winter?

Director Eng stated that the National Weather Service did indicate that October 
and November would be wetter months.  

Member Howden stated that he believes we are not in the rainy season yet and we 
would do better to hold our course at the same time we would need to renew the 
exemption for agricultural users.  

Motion:	By Member Howden that we continue with the mandatory restrictions and 
at the same time continue the exemptions for agricultural users of the Upper Kula 
system.  

Second:	By Member Haller

Chair Okamura stated that it has been moved and seconded that the Board recommends 
to the Department to continue with the mandatory restrictions and continue with 
the exemptions for agriculture use.

Discussion:	None.

Vote:		Unanimous.  Motion carried.

D. Discussion/possible action on the Central Maui Water System.

Director Eng stated that the last time the Board discussed this item the demand 
was still pretty high in Central Maui.  Due to improved weather conditions the 
demand has gone down.  The period from October 11 – 17, the demand was 25.47 mgd.  
October 4 – 10, it was 24.89 mgd.  September 27 – October 3, the demand was 
25.74 mgd.  Our target was 25.5 mgd which keeps us in compliance with all of our 
permits.  At this time he does not have a recommendation but maybe to continue 
with this voluntary request.  

Member Howden stated that he was kind of shocked by USGS’s presentation at the 
Council Water Resources Committee meeting.  Given that all of our arguments and 
concerns of possible permanent impairment of the West Maui, Iao and Waihee 
aquifers and all the data came from them.  And now they are just saying “Oh, no 
problem, we are just going to drill serial wells going towards Maalaea, we get 
plenty water.”  But you have 44% less re-charge in that system.  That’s a 
tremendous about face on their part.  

He thanked Director Eng for cautioning people from dancing in the streets in 
Kihei.  He feels that we should really consider a mandatory 10% cut-back for 
Central and South Maui.  We may also want to consider a moratorium on meters 
for Central and South Maui.  

Member Haller asked the Chair for a presentation by the USGS because it would 
be mutually useful to have a dialogue with Gordon Tribble.  

Director Eng stated that the USGS is trying to get some kind of presentation 
set-up for this Board, the Planning Commission and the County Council.  If they 
can get around the sunshine law issue and bring everyone together it would be 
great.

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that the only way you can say that there is no crisis 
is if you are thinking in geological terms and that this re-charge will be fine 
in the next million years or so.  None of us will be around but in the meantime 
we need to worry about it.  

Member Holmberg stated that recently the Board received a letter from the 
Phillips,  suggesting that people were doing a good job of conserving water but 
that the difference was an additional 1400 customers over that period of time.  
This just comes back to the whole issue of we have no control over the increasing 
demand.

There is also the issue which was submitted as written testimony of somebody who 
is bonded and got money out on the table and so if we cut him off at the knees 
with no meters then obviously he is going to go broke.  But on the other hand, 
these people are engaging in a speculative activity.  

He would be in favor of at least suggesting a moratorium even though he realizes 
it may create a hue and cry but it is time to get it out there.  

Member Myers stated that she can see where everyone is coming from but as far as 
the public goes they may not be getting the message.  Maybe our education efforts 
should be increased a little bit before we start threatening to cut people off.  

Member Howden stated that we’ve already made it known.

Member Haller disagreed.  Did you write a letter to every consumer on the Central 
system?  Did you do a major pr campaign?  We need to do a little more here.  

Chair Okamura stated that there are 2 issues on the table.  One is the mandatory 
cut-back and the second issue is the moratorium.

Member Howden stated that he would defer on the moratorium if we have a mandatory 
cut-back, with the understanding that the Department will do everything within 
its power to do an intensive outreach over the next 30 days.  We can’t wait on 
the Iao and Waihee aquifers.

Member Myers stated that in addition to the cut-backs there should be education 
and give people options so it won’t be such a shock.

Vice Chair Aldridge stated that he hears some consensus from the Board that 1) 
the mandatory restrictions are necessary and 2) we may end up having to recommend 
a moratorium on issuing meters and 3) it is absolutely vital that we inform the 
public as often as possible about the issues.  Furthermore, he doesn’t believe 
people will be adversarial to conservation if they think it is in their best 
interest.  

We need to get the word out.  Sometimes the threat of a moratorium is as 
effective as a moratorium.  We need to talk about why we are recommending that.  

Director Eng stated that public education is one of the key prongs to this attack.  
The other prong is legislative.  He believes that we need to get some ordinances 
on the books quickly.  

He further stated that Michelle Anderson is trying to do all she can to make the 
proposed “show me the water” bill workable.  There are still flaws but the intent 
is real good.  He would like to do all he can to move it along so we can attack 
other legislation, focus on water conservation and even water meter allocation.  
Who gets the meter when there are only a few to distribute?  Right now it is the 
guy with the biggest checkbook.  Later on we can look at plumbing retro-fit 
ordinances.  

He is more concerned about next summer when the demand hits the fan again.       

Motion:	By Member Howden to propose a 10% mandatory cut-back for Central and 
South Maui.

Second:	By Vice Chair Aldridge.

Chair Okamura stated that it has been moved and seconded that the Board recommend 
to the Department a 10% mandatory cut-back on Central and South Maui water use.

Discussion:	Member Haller asked, what does that mean if it becomes mandatory?  
What is the implication?  Does this then allow the Department to no longer issue 
water meters?  

Director Eng stated that we really don’t have a policy on water meters for 
Central Maui.  We have one for the Upcountry system.  

Vote:		Unanimous.  Motion carried.

Motion:	By Member Haller to recommend to the county council to develop 
policies on the issuance of water meters for Central and South Maui.

Second:	By Member Howden.

Motion:	By Member Holmberg to amend the motion that the policy be extended 
countywide.

Member Holmberg then withdrew his motion.  

Motion:	By Member Holmberg to amend the motion that the Board recommends a 
policy for the issuance of water meters countywide with immediate focus on 
Central and South Maui.

Second:	By Member Howden.

The Chair stated that it has been moved and seconded that the Board recommend 
that the county council develop policies for the issuance of water meters 
countywide with immediate focus on Central and South Maui.

Discussion:	None.

Vote:		Unanimous.  Motion carried.

Motion:	By Member Haller that the Department considers immediate communication 
to the county with immediate focus on Central and South Maui regarding water 
conservation and water source issues.

Second:	By Vice Chair Aldridge

Discussion:	None.

Vote:		Unanimous.  Motion carried.

Motion:	By Member Haller to recommend to the county council to make new 
ordinances to address conservation, landscaping restrictions, retro-fitting and 
the use of water features, etc.

Chair Okamura stated that about a year ago the Water Resource Committee asked 
the Board to submit something and the Board worked with the Department to make 
a list.  Maybe we could look at that first.

Member Haller then withdrew her motion.   

E. Discussion regarding Conservation Measures of the Department of Water Supply.

Due to the time, the Chair stated that this agenda item will be deferred to the 
next meeting.

F. Election of Chair and Vice Chair.

Nominations for Chairman:

Member Howden nominated Lee Aldridge.

There being no other nominations, Lee Aldridge will serve as Chair of the Board 
of Water Supply.

Nominations for Vice Chairman:

Member Haller nominated Carl Holmberg.

Member Lester nominated Kenneth Okamura, but he declined the nomination stating 
that his term expires next year.  

As there were no other nominations, Carl Holmberg will serve as Vice Chair of 
the Board of Water Supply.  

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

Chair Okamura stated that the Board’s first appeal is scheduled for next month.

1. Water Conservation Plan (WR-14)

2. Potential moratorium on water meters.

3. Safe Drinking Water Act Calendar.

4. Update on the Kaupo and Kipahulu water systems.

XI. Division Reports

Member Haller requested a report of water usage over the last 5 years to 
correspond with the number of meters issued.

Director Eng suggested the Department could do a breakdown going back to the 
past 5 years showing the number of meters and the average daily demand, ie.  
average daily demand per year and number of meters per year going back to 2002 
through 2006.

At this time, Chair Okamura thanked the Board for their support in the past 
year and he also thanked the Department’s staff.  

XII. Adjournment

The October 25, 2007 Board of Water Supply meeting was adjourned at 12:31 p.m.


					Prepared and submitted by:


					__________________________________
					Gaye Hayashida
					Commission Support Clerk

Approved on: _______________________
Board of Water Supply