DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
   
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 1999


   
Taken at the HGEA Conference Room, David K. Trask, Jr.
Office Building, Room 207, 2145 Kaohu Street, Wailuku,
Maui, Hawai'i, 96793, on Tuesday, November 12, 1999,
pursuant to Notice.
   
Taken by:  Susan Carol Soderberg, CSR 214
   
ATTENDEES:
Board Members:    
Robert Takitani, Board Chairman
Clark Hashimoto
Howard Nakamura
Jonathan Starr
Orlando Tagorda

Staff Members:    
David Craddick, Director
George Tengan, Deputy Director
Michael Quinn, Fiscal Officer
Howard Fukushima, Deputy Corp Counsel
Herb Chang, Engineering
Fran Nago, Board Secretary
   
Ex-officio        
Brian Miskae
   
Others:           
Warren Watanabe
Harry Eager
Susan Olmstead
Tom Pierce
Jean Gebb
Eva McKinney

Transcript of Proceedings
Board of Water Supply, Regular Meeting
November 12, 1999, 9 a.m.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Good morning.  I want to
call the Board of Water Supply regular meeting to
order.  Today is Friday, November 12, 1999, and it is
9:00 o'clock a.m.  We are meeting in the HGEA
conference room, David K. Trask, Jr. Office Building,
Room 207.

In attendance we have Board members Howard
Nakamura, Orlando Tagorda, Clark Hashimoto, Mike
Nobriga, Jonathan Starr and myself, Bob Takitani.

We have Corporation Counsel Howard Fukushima,
Director David Craddick, Board Secretary Fran Nago,
Recording Secretary Susan Soderberg.  We have Fiscal
Officer Mike Quinn; Engineering, Herb Chang; Deputy
Director George Tengan; Farm Bureau Chief, Warren
Watanabe, and Harry Eager.

We will go to approval of minutes, Item III.
We have regular and executive session minutes from
October 14, 1999.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to
move that we accept the minutes presented of October
14, 1999, that they are accepted and subject to review.
And if no objections are noted in the next 30 days,
they will stand approved as presented.

MR. STARR:  Second.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved by Mr. Nobriga,
seconded by Mr. Starr that the regular and executive
session minutes of October 14, 1999, be accepted with a
30-day review/approval period, subsequent to which they
will be accepted.

All in those in favor signify by saying "aye."

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Opposed "nay."

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The ayes have it.  The
minutes are accepted subject to a 30-day approval
period.

The agenda has been properly filed and noticed,
which will constitute the agenda for the day.

Do we have any testimony from the public for
items not on the agenda?

Ms. Olmstead.

MS. OLMSTEAD:  I just wanted to ask -- at the
last meeting I thought that it was assigned that my
water meter be installed, and as of this morning it's
still not there.  I thought it was based on the idea
that, No. 1, my meter was issued to me when there
wasn't no emergency drought, and I did pay for it
immediately, and that that first emergency drought ban
was -- had no restriction or stipulation on it so that
there was no real reason not to have it put in on the
normal ten-day-basis waiting period.

And then also I thought that maybe it was even
decided that maybe it shouldn't have come out in the
first place, that there wasn't really a reason to keep
a certain restriction on it.  And my understanding
right before the moment of adjournment of the last
meeting was that the Board again instructed David to
make sure that that got put in right away.
And it still is kind of an incredible
inconvenience not to have water for a long, long time.
So I was just wondering if I could get that really
firmly decided and functioned on.  And that's why I am here.
Thank you.

MR. CRADDICK:  I believe the meter has been
approved, and it's a matter of getting the proper
documentation, i.e., easement --

MS. OLMSTEAD:  Oh, well, that's there.  All
that has been there for years.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Do you have --

MS. OLMSTEAD:  I don't think --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  -- the easements, David?

MR. CRADDICK:  Right now, Bob, I am not
positive.
But the issue with her meter is that there is a
review going on by Corporation Counsel.  And that --
other things aside, I have told staff to process this
as normal, make sure all the requirements are met.
But, in addition to that, there is a review
going on by Corporation Counsel.  And we have notified
her of that.

MS. OLMSTEAD:  I thought at the last meeting,
though, the whole Board again unanimously agreed that
that meter was to go in and that they heard what corp
counsel has to say.  And so it was a finished deal, not
a continuing problem.
And when I had the temporary, my lawyer did do
all the necessary easement, and all that has been
there.  And I paid a lot of insurance, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera, for all that.  I walked through all
the legal doors, and that is done.
And I was notified before the last meeting that
Corporation Counsel had some issues.  And although it
didn't go into executive session, my understanding is
that it was a finished and decided deal.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Ms. Olmstead, because this
is not an agenda-listed item, we are not able to
discuss it.  You can offer your testimony; we thank you
for it and will try to find out the exact status of it
and confer with you.
But it's not an item on the agenda, so we
accept your testimony.  We will try to get a resolution
as soon as we can.

MS. OLMSTEAD:  So should I then put it on the
agenda for next time or what?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Well, hopefully --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  There is another alternative in
that the Board, with a simple majority, may amend its
agenda to include another item as it wishes.
If the -- the Board has the discretion to amend
agenda items when the matter before the Board is not of
any great public concern or doesn't affect a
substantial number of people.  It has the discretion,
again, to amend its agenda to include other items.  So
this is an option for the Board.
Otherwise, we would recommend that the Chairman
consider placing Ms. Olmstead's matter on the next
agenda for perhaps a status us report from the
Department.

MR. STARR:  Can we have a short recess to --
until other Board members are back and present?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I guess we can take a
five-minute recess.  We will come back at 9:15.

MS. OLMSTEAD:  I have all my waterline
easements and stuff like that from years ago.  I have
all that.  It is on record with the Water Department as well.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes.  Thank you.

   (A short recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We will reconvene the
regular Board of Water Supply meeting.
You have heard corporation counsel's
stipulation for an agenda.  We have been advised that
in order to discuss it, even in executive session, we
would need to go and have an amended agenda.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I would like to move that, pursuant
to the information received from corporation counsel,
that we amend the agenda, which would be subject to
vote by a supermajority of the Board, to include the
idea of the issuance of Ms. Olmstead's meter in this
matter.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman, there
should also be perhaps a statement relating that the
matter be included for your -- included in the agenda
is not of reasonably major importance and would not
affect a significant number of persons, which are the
standards set forth in the statute.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Are you sure that's the
case?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, there must be a finding
that -- that finding essentially would be a question of
fact by the Board.  If it believes that its discussion
is not of reasonably significant importance and does
not impact a significant number of people if the Board
makes any finding, then an amendment to the agenda
would be appropriate.

MR. STARR:  I moved.  I don't know if there's a
second.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I second that motion.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  It's been moved by
Mr. Starr and seconded by Mr. Nobriga that the agenda
be amended to include Ms. Olmstead's item of the
unissued meter.
Discussion?

MR. CRADDICK:  This matter, since it involves
converting a temporary meter to a permanent meter,
would affect all of the temporary meters that have been
in for an equivalent amount of time.  And there's quite
a number of them, whether the Board knows that or not.
That could have some financial repercussions of many
thousands of dollars for the Board.

MR. NOBRIGA:  That being the case, did
everybody else's temporary meter got (sic) removed?

MR. CRADDICK:  No.  You are talking about --

MR. NOBRIGA:  So how did this one temporary
meter was removed?  If you going go blanket, and then
-- so every other blanket should cover the same
instance.

MR. CRADDICK:  Because this is under review by
Corporation Counsel, I don't feel it is appropriate to
discuss the action that was taken by the Board
previously.

MR. STARR:  I am -- as a Board member, I am
alarmed.  I have not been informed that there's any
review on this officially.  And the Director -- I am
happy to hear the Director's comments, but he is not a
a member of the Board.  He should not argue with Board
members.
May I request a call for the question, please?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  All those in favor of an
amended agenda to include Ms. Olmstead's item --

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, can I ask for a
roll call vote, please?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.  Ms. Nago, would you?

MS. NAGO:  Clark Hashimoto.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Nay.

MS. NAGO:  Michael Nobriga.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Nay.

MS. NAGO:  Jonathan Starr.

MR. STARR:  Aye.

MS. NAGO:  Orlando Tagorda.

MR. TAGORDA:  Nay.

MS. NAGO:  Howard Nakamura.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Nay.

MS. NAGO:  Robert Takitani.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Nay.

The nays have it.  The item will not be
included on the agenda.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, may I request that it be
put on a subsequent agenda?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes.  The item will be put
on a subsequent agenda.
O.K.  We will move on to Director's Report
99-52, request approval of partial cancellation of
easement, Maui Lani Subdivision, TMK:3-8-7:129.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I move that we
approve this request in Director's Report 99-52.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved Mr. Nobriga, seconded
by Mr. Nakamura to approve Director's Report 99-52,
cancellation of easement, partial cancellation of
easement, Maui Lani Subdivision.
Any discussion?

 (No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  If not, all those in favor
signify by saying "aye."

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Opposed "nay."

 (No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The ayes have it.
Director's Report 99-52 is approved.
We will go to Director's Report 99-53, request
approval of resolution providing for acquisition of
property by eminent domain over portions of Wailuku,
Maui, Hawai'i, TMK 2-3-4-35:038.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I move that we
accept the request in Director's Report 99-53.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved by Mr. Nobriga,
seconded by Mr. Hashimoto to accept Director's Report
99-53.

MR. NAKAMURA:  I have a quick question for the
Director.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Sure.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Is this project fully funded?

MR. CRADDICK:  It is, yes.
Well, you mean for the condemnation, if we have
to pay a lot of money?

MR. NAKAMURA:  Yeah.

MR. CRADDICK:  We have in our budget $200,000
for these land-acquisition things.  And we have not --
we have used some of that but not very much of it.  And
we don't really expect that we would have to pay
anything.
We expect it will be like a dollar and love
because nobody is claiming ownership of this street.
And we are just getting an underground nonexclusive
easement for it, so --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Fukushima.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Mr. Chairman, with respect to a
resolution for condemnation or an action in eminent
domain, that takes two readings for the resolution.

Before the second hearing, there must be a
notice placed in the newspaper to inform the public of
the Board's action.  Subsequent to that, a second
hearing is required before eminent domain proceedings
may actually begin, just as a point of information.

MR. NOBRIGA:  So may I enter into the records,
Mr. Chairman, an amendment adding that this is the
first reading of this request?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And thereafter there must be a
notice placed in the paper, pursuant to the statutes,
and the second reading following that.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I would ask to make
Mr. Fukushima's comments part of my amendment.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Hashimoto agrees with
that amendment.  Any other discussion?

(No response.)

MR. CRADDICK:  What statutes are these, Howard,
that you are talking about?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  This is, I believe, in Chapter
103 relating to eminent domain or maybe 101, HRS.  I
believe it's 101.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  All in those in favor of
Director's Report 99-53, with the first reading being
held today and a subsequent hearing being held in the
future, according to corp counsel's advice -- all those
in favor signify by saying "aye."

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Opposed "nay."

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The ayes have it; 99-53 is
approved.
We will go to Director's Report 99-54, request
for approval of a $100 donation to Mayor Apana's
promotion of the Christmas Tree Lane at Maui Mall, on
Page 10.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I move that we
accept Director's Report 99-54.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  It's been moved by
Mr. Nobriga and seconded by Mr. Hashimoto to approve
Director's Report 99-54.
Any other discussion?

MR. CRADDICK:  I guess I should let the Board
know, for their information, what the rest of the
County is doing.  I don't know if they are trying to
get up a collection from private parties or just like
passing the plate amongst the employees.  But from what
I understand, the rest of the County is not using
County funds to pay for this.
I put this on here because I -- as procurement
officer, to preclude us from going around trying to get
donations from outside the Water Department.  And I
have a hard time asking my employees to fund something
like this when they are getting no recognition for it
whatsoever.
And it is -- the theme that we were going to
use is a conservation theme on the tree.  And I think
it is Board -- somewhat Board-related.  And I myself
feel it would be appropriate for the Board to
appropriate the money for that.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So it would come from the
conservation budget?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, although my motion
is worded positively, I had no intention of voting for
this motion.  I didn't believe $100 should be used from
our budget, Water Board budget.
I would pledge at least $10 to get a hundred to
give to these guys.  But I don't think this was an
appropriate request.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Thank you, Mr. Nobriga.

MR. STARR:  I will voting for it.  But if it
fails, I will also contribute personally to it.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, I didn't
understand why this was on our agenda to begin with.
Is this for an appropriation?  Or -- it would seem like
if it's a conservation issue, it could be expended.  I
don't know what the reason for it is.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Craddick, can you
explain it further?

MR. CRADDICK:  It was not something that we had
planned for.  And I believe if the Board is going to
spend the money that, you know, they should get the
credit for it and have it noticed that -- what they did
do.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Can you explain further
what happened as to why this came down and what this is
all about?

MR. CRADDICK:  Normally there's some
competition between each floor of the County Building
with decorating the floor and stuff like that.  And
usually we will pass the hat amongst ourselves to get a
Christmas tree.  And the employees have brought
decorations and stuff like that out of their own funds
to do that.
And for doing, that nobody really had a
problem.  But going out to Maui Mall where we didn't
know if anything was ever going to come back, I had a
hard time -- well, that's another issue.  I won't bring
that one up.
What I am trying to say is that the employees
have to do it on their own time, too.  But that's
something that I think can be worked out if we can find
enough employees to spend their own time on it.
But I had a hard time asking employees to give
their own money for it.  I don't think it's appropriate
to be doing that.  And, like I say, the procurement law
prevents us from going out and soliciting from private
people for donations.  And that's why.
And we have -- that's why it's on here.  That's
all.

MR. NAKAMURA:  So, not wanting to take up a lot
of time about $100, but is this a request to amend the
budget or --

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, if we are taking it out of
the conservation section, I know -- I am not certain it
needs to be a budget amendment.  It's just to make the
Board aware that this expenditure will be made out of
that.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I guess the reason it's on
there, Mr. Nakamura, is that it's something that was
unusual and something that is not normally happening.
And that's why; it's out of the ordinary.  That's why
it was brought up, because it's not in the budget that
was set out for that kind of an efforts.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Personally, I will agree with
Mr. Nobriga.  I will be voting no, also, but I am
willing to donate whatever funds Mr. Nobriga is going
to donate.
But I shouldn't say that.  He's got more money
than I do.

 (Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  All those in favor of 99-54
for approval of a $100 donation signify by saying aye.

A VOICE:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Opposed "nay."

VOICES:  Nay.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The nays have it.  Item
99-54 for approval of a $100 donation is not approved.
Any donations outside may be handled on your own time.
We will go to Roman Numeral VI, Old Business,
Item A, discussion and possible action on East Maui
development projects.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Fukushima.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Mr. Zakian, who is continuing
to handle the East Maui Development Project, has
informed me that there has been no movement regarding
this particular item.

MR. STARR:  Can I get some clarification?
Are we talking about the permanent easement for
H-poko?  Or are we talking about the new EIS?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I think we are talking about
the EIS and the sufficiency or insufficiency of that.

MR. STARR:  Well, I know that we are working on
a brand new EIS --

MR. CRADDICK:  No, we are not.

MR. STARR:  What are we working on?  We are
working on the new --

MR. CRADDICK:  We are not doing anything since
the Board motion to stop the work on that project and
incorporate the ditch and what have you.  So we have
sent a letter to the preparer of the EIS to stop all
work --

MR. STARR:  Uhm-huhm.

MR. CRADDICK:  -- until that matter is resolved
with the Board as to exactly what it is that they want
done.

MR. STARR:  I think I would like to request
that the preparer at some point attend one of our
meetings so we can --

MR. CRADDICK:  Right now they won't be able to
bill for anything.  We have told them to stop all work,
so --

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  But I think if the Board
wants they can request that they attend a meeting and
we can pay them for their time in attending the
meeting.  I don't see a problem in doing that.
But, you know, it's my feeling that along with
our strategic planning and everything else, this is an
area that we should keep moving ahead with.  And if we
are, you know -- we are certainly gathering
information, perhaps, whether it's the full Board or
perhaps it's -- the strategic planning committee might
want to talk with the preparers, and I would certainly
defer to Mr. Nakamura on that.

MR. NAKAMURA:  I think it would be appropriate
to have a presentation made to the Board.  I think one
of the items that we talked about in the process of
developing a strategic plan is to be sure that there
was adequate orientation on all major issues to the
Board members.
So I think it would be appropriate.

MR. STARR:  And we know that that's our future.
And I don't think the intent is to really put that off
but to just make sure that we are doing it the right
way, with full knowledge.
So I would like to request that the Director
arrange that.

MR. CRADDICK:  O.K.  Like at the next meeting
you would like that?  Or --

MR. STARR:  Well, yeah.

MR. CRADDICK:  O.K.

MR. STARR:  In fact, I think that that would
tie in very well with USGS, who are going to be
presenting at the next meeting as well.  So -- USGS
also has some figures, some booklet that they are
coming out with on that, East Maui water resources.
So I think that next meeting will be basically
water resources.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.  I think there is a
consensus on that, that we include the EIS preparers to
come.

Any other discussion?

MR. STARR:  Yes, I --

(Discussion off the record.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Fukushima is telling me
that he will not be here.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Along with some other Board
members.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  At the next meeting.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Board members Bob Takitani and
Elmer Carvalho will not be here, as I understand.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Who else will not be here
next time?

MS. NAGO:  Bob won't be here and Mr. Carvalho
-- I am sorry.  I don't know if Mr. Rice will be able
to make it.  I don't know how long he is out of town.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So could we then maybe
schedule it for the following meeting of the Board?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Yeah.  I think we should
schedule them, both of them --

MR. CRADDICK:  Bob, that next Board meeting in
December we were trying to schedule for Lahaina because
we have a groundbreaking.
We expect the Ka'anapali issues will be on the
Board then, and the Honolua Ditch issue will possibly
be on the Board's agenda then.  So we were thinking
about having a meeting in Lahaina.
It doesn't matter.  I mean, they can still come
there and --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Come to Lahaina to make the
presentation?

MR. CRADDICK:  But you have got a pretty full
plate at that meeting.

MR. STARR:  Can I request that we look into a
special -- look into a special meeting and review water
resources, educate -- basically an educational meeting
on water resources, possibly a little bit of workshop
and we, you know, invite the public into that as well?

MR. CRADDICK:.  Bob, the Planning Commission
has also asked for a joint meeting with the Board on
that issue also.  So --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Why don't we look at
scheduling a meeting according to Mr. Starr's --

MR. CRADDICK:  But they are talking like
January time frame.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Well, let's see what we can
do to try to accommodate as many people as we can, to
be inclusive of all the stakeholders involved.

MR. STARR:  So we will leave that to the Chair
to try to do as soon as possible, have a meeting when
everyone can come and learn about this.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Now that I have the Board
Secretary keeping me a To-Do list of all the things I
have to do, I am able to keep track of that.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Mr. Chair, I didn't want to
imply that my presence was necessary.  I was just
worried about the other Board members.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We understand.
MR. STARR:  I would hope you could attend that
because I think that's very important for the future.
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I believe it would be.

MR. STARR:  I have one other thing about East
Maui.  And this about the Hamakuapoko permanent
easement or right of entry.  And I don't think that
there's another item regarding that, so I think that's
under the East Maui.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Sure.

MR. STARR:  I know I was reading some minutes,
as I occasionally do, and I noticed that several
meetings ago there was a motion passed by this Board
that if there was no progress on the permanent right of
entry in a reasonable length of time forthcoming from
the landowners that we proceed with eminent domain.
And I really was hoping that we wouldn't have to go
that route.
So I am wondering:  Has there been any contact
or any communication?

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, you had the item on your
agenda last Board meeting to deal with it and to go to
eminent domain if you didn't agree with the items in
that letter.
And I believe the motion was that there was a
committee that had been formed.  And I -- quite
frankly, I went back to July, and I find no such
evidence of any committee being formed.  But in July
there was a meeting with the Mayor, Bob Takitani, A&B,
regarding, in quotes, getting the Hamakua wells going.
And I felt that whether there was or wasn't a
committee formed, I believe it was a consensus or at
least everybody's understanding that Bob and Elmer
would be sitting in on the meetings when the permanent
easement was being discussed.
We are currently in the process of getting a
survey done.  The easements have been extended through
the middle of December to get those surveys completed.
That's, you know, the update on it.

MR. STARR:  Have we received a document from
them that puts out the basic terms?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's the letter that you had
in your Board packets last Board meeting.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We had one meeting with
Mr. Carvalho, myself and people from A&B and the
Director, and I think we made significant progress.
There was a much more open attitude, and things appear
to be moving forward positively.
So from what the Director has been telling me,
they are close to sending us a -- some kind of a
document.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, I think we have the letter
that they sent last month.  And other than the survey
itself, the big open issue is how much you are going to
pay.  And I can't really go get an appraisal without
the surveys.  So you need that survey done.
And that is what is going on right now is
trying to get that survey done.

MR. STARR:  O.K.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I think the --

MR. STARR:  So it's in process?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  But there's not a
resolution?

MR. CRADDICK:  They are not putting any
obstacles in the way.  It's just work that needs to be
done.

MR. STARR:  O.K.  Go get it.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We will move on to Item B,
discussion regarding legal issues and negotiations
relating to the Central Maui Source Joint Venture
mediation.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I believe there's nothing to
present.

MR. STARR:  Yes, there is.  And I just --

MR. CRADDICK:  Bob, it's right on your
left-hand side.

MR. STARR:  We were just given it at this
meeting, that apparently there was some correspondence
back from the mediator.  And apparently there's some
draft of a letter that relates to --

MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, that letter -- keep in
mind, you have that letter simply because you are on
the negotiating team.  All the other Board members do
not have it.  I only handed it to you because you are
on the negotiating team.
So we shouldn't be discussing off of that
letter.  I think it's just that there have been
communications and an exchange of information on water
use that has been exchanged.  And I think if we leave
it at that, that's --

MR. STARR:  Well, I can't discuss it because I
haven't read it anyway.  So we will review this.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So there is some
correspondence.

MR. STARR:  Can I?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I know that we had lost Mr. Leis
from the negotiating committee.  And I was wondering if
possibly one of the other Board members would like to
join that team?
I think Mr. Nakamura or Mr. Nobriga or one of
the other --

MR. NAKAMURA:  I would love to join.

MR. STARR:  I am sorry.  Right.  He can't --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  He was intimately involved.

MR. NOBRIGA:  What is this?  I was sleeping.  I
am sorry.

MR. STARR:  Talking about the Central Maui
Source Joint Venture negotiation committee.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Let me sleep on it, and maybe I
will.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Because I think, Mr. Starr,
there has been two new members.  And the only reason
why Mr. Leis had been included is because he had been
the one that had been there from the beginning, even
when he left the Board.  So --

MR. STARR:  I did want to leave it open, though.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I'm sure.
The only thing is, every time we add new
members it kind of sends a message to the other side
about some new person that is involved in some -- and
they don't know where he is coming from, and they have
some anxiety.
I don't think they would have with Mr. Nobriga.
But still --

MR. NOBRIGA:  O.K.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Anyway, we will move on.
We will move on to Item C, Old Business,
Communication 99-24, request from Michael A. Rocco to
allow a tie-in during drought emergency for Pi'iholo
Farm Subdivision I, Subdivision 92-111.
This item has been resolved.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, it's not resolved.  I
think he just withdrew it.
Herb, do we know if they have tied in yet?

MR. CHANG:  No, they are planning to, though.

MR. CRADDICK:  Just waiting until the drought
emergency is over with.

MR. CHANG:  Well, they are going to truck the
water in, so they are not going to take any water from
Upcountry.

MR. CRADDICK:  The way -- and we stopped the
tie-ins.  I think if you read the things that the Board
approved last month, it says no tie-ins using water
from the Upcountry system.
So what some contractors will do, they will
haul the water up and do their work with water from
Kahului and still complete the work that they need to
do without using Upcountry water.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So, anyway, he has
withdrawn his request.
We will move on to Item VII, Communications.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman -- no, no.  Go
ahead.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  99-25.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I am jumping the gun.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Request from attorney Tom
Pierce on behalf of Peter Stolle for waiver of the
water system development fee.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I move we deny this
request.

MR. STARR:  Second.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  It has been moved by
Mr. Nobriga and seconded by Mr. Starr --

MR. PIERCE:  Can we give a presentation first?

MR. CRADDICK:.  Bob, I think, you know, the
normal -- what we do in these communications is that
they are deferred.  And I don't know if the applicant
is ready to do something, but they were told that it
was going to be deferred until the next meeting.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Normally these are deferred
to staff for a report to give us the magnitude of what
is being proposed and the alternatives.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Well, I respectfully withdraw my
motion, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STARR:  I will withdraw the second.  I
thought there was paper here, so I assumed there was a
staff report.
MR. NOBRIGA:  I was just trying to finish by
12:30, yeah, in my --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Overzealousness.

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, would there be some
changes on the request next meeting?  Or why we cannot
act now on this request?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The idea has always been
for communications, that we get a staff report to tell
us -- apprise us of all the situations that exist --

MR. NOBRIGA:  No, no.  I just, da kine --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  -- and some of the problems
that approval or disapproval might create, et cetera,
et cetera.  And that's why we try to do that, so we
will be fully apprised when we make the decision.

MR. TAGORDA:  So the request is going to remain
like that even if we go to the next meeting,
Mr. Chairman.  I don't think that there will be no
other information to be given to the Board.  So why can
we not --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Well, I think there will be
a report given that tells us how many requests like
this there have been, how many have been granted, what
the verifications are for waiver of water system
development fees, et cetera.  That's the reason it
was --

MR. CRADDICK:  I think it's just that if the
applicant was told that the normal process is to defer
these to the next meeting, you know -- I mean, if Tom
says they are ready to go and if the Board wants to
deal with it without the staff report --

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, before we do anything,
does Tom want to make a presentation?  And if so --

MR. PIERCE:  At this point, if the matter is
going to be deferred, I don't want to make the
presentation, because we did attach written testimony
for the -- you know, for the purpose of streamlining
for the Board.
And the only thing that I would ask is that, if
you do refer it, I would just ask that you direct the
Department to try -- I mean, I understand that they
have other things that they have to do -- but if they
could try to have it done so that it could be hear on
the November 24 meeting.

MR. STARR:  Can I?

 CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  Would you prefer that it be dealt
with today? -- because, you know, there's a chance we
could deal with it today if that is --

MR. PIERCE:  Well, if the Board is prepared to
go forward.  It was just our understanding that the
Board was likely to refer these.
So I am going to defer to the Board in terms of
what each of the Board members would like.  If you want
a staff report, then we are willing to wait.  But if
the Board feels that they have enough information from
our written testimony, then we are prepared to argue it
today.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, I think we are competent
to deal with it today.  And I would be happy to do so.
But I don't know how the other Board members might
feel.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  Just so we get our two cents in,
then:  The staff would recommend against this for a
couple of reasons.  One, if it's ag, they go to the
State Ag Department.

MR. STARR:  Wait, wait.  We are not discussing
the issue.  We are discussing whether we going to deal
with it today.  So --

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, yeah.  And you don't want
any information to help you decide that?  I mean, if
you are going to just make a decision with no input
from the staff, I guess you can, but --

MR. STARR:  Well, no.

MR. CRADDICK:  I am trying to give you some
information to --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  What is the preference of
the Board?

MR. TAGORDA:  Like I said, I would like to --
there to be -- to have Mr. Stolle put this behind,
because the more he is coming back and forth with the
Board hoping to get his meter, it will be costing more
time, too, and so on and so forth.
I think we did the best thing we can for him.
We even crossed over the line unanimously to correct a
wrong.  And I am ready to, based on what I have read,
go ahead and render a decision on this request.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Nakamura.

Well, I agree with Commissioner Tagorda.  I
would prefer to move ahead if the applicant is
agreeable.

MR. STARR:  Can we ask Mr. Nobriga whether he
is willing to put the motion back on?

MR. NOBRIGA:  (Person nods head up and down.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Hashimoto, are you --

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Yeah.  I mean, you know, if
Mr. Stolle is ready for the decision, yeah, sure.  Go
ahead.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Why don't we have
Mr. Pierce make his presentation, based upon a
unanimous consensus.

MR. PIERCE:  My understanding is:  Right now we
have a motion on the floor to deny.  Is that --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yeah, to deny.

MR. STARR:  But you are able to give
presentations, and we will deal with it.

MR. PIERCE:  Right.
I am just going -- Mr. Chair, I am just going
to assume that the Board members have had an
opportunity to read the written testimony.  I do think
that the argument is fully laid out in there.
And the gist of that argument is that there are
certain -- it's very clear that the Board intends, has
intended in the past, to give itself the discretion to
exempt certain persons from the water system
development fee.  And this is just the kind of
situation where this exemption makes sense because you
have a person here who has clearly gone through a whole
lot and to an enormous expense to basically come out
where he should have been back in 1994.
And I can just tell you that that Mr. Stolle
has spent a lot of money in order to get his water
meter or at least to get where he is right now.  We
don't have the water meter yet.  We are working that
with the Department.
So I think that this is exactly the kind of
situation.  And I don't think that the Board has to be
concerned that you would have to give the same
exception to a lot of other people.  And the reason for
that is very simple:  that there are very few people
that can sit it exactly Mr. Stolle's position, someone
who had his name at the top of the priority list at
least since 1994 and possibly since as early as 1989.
And you also have that during that period of
time there were other water meters given out in that
area.  So it's a very, very unique situation, which is
exactly what the rules ask the Board to consider, if
it -- is it unique?  Is it exceptional?  And in those
circumstances, the Board has the power to exempt
someone from the water system development fee.
And we think this is just such a situation.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:.  First of all, the water system
development fee was passed in 1993, not 1994.  So
whether he got his meter in 1994 or not, he would have
had to pay the fees in 1994.  So just the fact that he
maybe should have got it in 1994 is almost irrelevant.
We have sent Mr. Stolle a letter suggesting to
him to get State credits the same way Meiling did.  And
you get them through the Department of Ag, if he in
fact is doing ag out there.
And the State process is that they will send an
inspector out there to see whether he is, in fact,
doing ag out there and make that determination.  He can
go that route.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Quinn, do you have
anything regarding the precedent that this would set
with regard to water system development fee waivers?

MR. QUINN:  Well, the only issue, I guess, is
the fee does -- I mean, the rule, I believe, does have
a paragraph there about uniqueness of the situation.
And that would be the only thing that might apply
there.

MR. STARR:  Did Mr. Pierce finish?

MR. PIERCE:  I am finished, unless the Board
has any questions of me.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  For the record, the Mayor's
representative, Brian Miskae, is now present.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to
restate my motion to deny the request of applicant in
Communication 99-25.

MR. STARR:  Second.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved by Mr. Nobriga and
seconded by Mr. Starr to deny the request in
Communication 99-25 from Mr. Pierce on behalf
Mr. Stolle for a waiver of the water system development
fee.
Any other discussion?

 MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chair, the fees that will be
collected from Mr. Stolle is going to be used for water
improvements, water system improvements up in Kanaio?
I believe we have some project that will come up to
change those inadequate, undersized storage tanks and
transmission lines.  And I believe there is one that
will be changed on this 9,000 -- on this CIP Year 2000.
And there is also one under the design process above
Ulupalakua transmission line through Kanaio and will be
also included in place.
So tell Mr. Stolle that the Board is doing
everything -- every possible thing to make those
inadequacy to be up to standard.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  I really want to see
Mr. Stolle get access to water.  My heart goes out to
him for having waited so long, as it has for some other
people as well.
But I really feel that it's the duty and moral
obligation of this Board to collect those proper fees
there to enable us to improve this system.  So I, for
one, feel very strongly that we must collect the fees
unless there's a very, very compelling need or it's
really in the public interest not to.
And I don't see that case here.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman, there
are three criteria that the Board uses when it gets a
request such as this.  The first is:  A strict
application of the rule would be result in absurd,
unfair or unreasonably harsh result; and the
applicant's circumstance or condition is unique or
exceptional; and the Board would grant the same request
if made by every similarly situated applicant; and in
cases of exemption from or reduction of the fee, the
resulting financial impact upon the Department and
future customers is acceptable to the Board.
I would believe that, for purposes of keeping
the record clear, that the Board would find that these
criteria have not been met by the applicant, and it is
therefore basing its denial upon the criteria set forth
in the rule.

MR. PIERCE:  Mr. Chair, also, after reading our
written testimony, if the Board has any questions about
those three criteria, that's exactly how we have laid
out the written testimony is to address each one of
those three criteria.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.  All those in favor of
denial of Communication 99-25, Mr. Pierce's request on
behalf of Peter Stolle for waiver of the water system
development fee, signify by saying "aye."

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Opposed "nay."

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The ayes have it.  The item
is -- Communication 99-25 is denied.

MR. PIERCE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Thank you.
We will move on to Communication 99-26, request
from Charles Jencks from the Department of Public Works
for a deferral of water improvements for Pa'ia parking
lot subdivision, Lot A, TMK 2-5-05:18, Page 21.

MR. CRADDICK:  Bob, on that one there, they
have been informed the same thing, that it would be
deferred until there was a staff report to the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.

MR. CRADDICK:  We will try and move quick on
this one because I think the parking lot is moving
along.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So this item will be
deferred for a staff report and recommendation.
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We will move to Roman
Numeral VIII, Other Business, discussion and possible
action regarding the following rule amendments and
changes.
One, amendment to Chapter 2 relating to
compliance with HRS, Act 164, on identification of
timely decision making; two, amendment to Rule Section
3-1; three, a proposed new section regarding appeals to
the Board.
We thank Mr. Nobriga and his ad hoc committee,
Mr. Nakamura and Mr. Carvalho, for their prompt and
fine work done.  But I think it has been pointed out
previously, HRS requires that we give a waiting period
before action is taken on ad hoc committee reports and
recommendations.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Does it require a public
hearing?
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  HRS does not require a public
hearing, but it states that action after the
recommendations from the committee have been received
-- any action must be at a subsequent meeting.
MR. NAKAMURA:  O.K.

MR. CRADDICK:  Howard, and at that meeting,
then it would go to public hearing? -- because rule
changes do have to --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  You know, I am sorry.  Your
memory is correct.
There is a public hearing necessary for the
rule changes.  A 30-day notice is required.  And I am
sure, as all Board members know, because this is a rule
of the Board, it must thereafter go to the Mayor for
the Mayor's approval and thereafter to the Council.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I assume, though, that we can have
this discussion about it today, as long as we are not
going to take any action.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Certainly.

MR. STARR:  And I certainly -- after reading
through these, I really appreciate the work that was
done.  They look good.
I did have a question on one of the rules,
though, which is regarding --

MR. NOBRIGA:  May I enter into the record our
action?

MR. STARR:  Excuse me.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Will you allow me to make a
motion to start action going on these things?  Then we
will take your questions up.  I prefer to take them up
individually, yeah.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes, I think we should go
down the line.

MR. STARR:  Yeah, can we make a motion, though,
because I think they have to --

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah, yeah.  Cool.
Mr. Chairman, your ad hoc committee on rules,
although we still have a lot of work left before us, at
this time I would like to ask the Board on first
reading to accept our proposals for amendment to
Chapter 2.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Second the motion.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved by Mr. Nobriga,
seconded by Mr. Nakamura to accept the Amendment No. 1
on Chapter 2 on first reading.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Just for clarification, to
accept is not taking action on the rule itself, just
to --

MR. NOBRIGA:  No.  Otherwise, I would have used
the word "adopt."

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Yes.

MR. NOBRIGA:  That's a different word than
"accept."

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's just for clarification.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Then my computer -- I don't know
how to make the double squiggly-lined S, so everything
is still S.  If you want to make squiggly, squiggly, I
don't know which key that is.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  All those in favor of
acceptance of No. 1, amendment to Chapter 2, signify by
saying "aye."

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Opposed "nay."

(No response.)

 CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The ayes have it.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, can we, again, get corp
counsel to check this?  It's supposed to be Chapter 5,
and it was a misprint from the get-go.
MR. NOBRIGA:  Oh.

MR. CRADDICK:  It deleted our Section 5 of our
rules.  And Howard said that there is some master list
of forming things.  And we either need to know what
that master list of making things up is or should
conform to the section that we deleted out of our
rules, which is Chapter 5.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, there is a certain
protocol in the numbering of rules in the County.
Again, the final form of these rules will -- we will
make sure that such numbers are appropriate for the
Department or -- excuse me, for the Board of Water
Supply.
But I can't answer as to what the number is
exactly today.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.  We will check for
correctness on that.

MR. STARR:  My understanding is what we are
doing is just opening the process for our discussion.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  That's correct.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Right.
MR. NOBRIGA:  Right.

 MR. STARR:  Is now the correct time for
discussion on this?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Well, I don't think we
voted on this.  All those in favor -- no, we did that.
I am sorry.
So now is the appropriate time for the
discussion.

MR. STARR:  I have little bit of concern
regarding the number of days with this.  And I followed
this movement through the Legislature, and the time
requirements were taken out of the bill before it was
passed through the Legislature, you know, the State
legislation that we are trying to comply with.
And I, for one, would prefer it, if we can, to
extend the 45 days to 60 days, because this Board is
having two full meetings a month.  But in the future
there's a chance that other Boards, if some of the
issues get resolved and things are running a little
more smoothly, that they may go back to one meeting a
month.  And with 45 days, in the event that a meeting
gets canceled because of lack of quorum or there isn't
room on the agenda or something like that, then it
could put that Board into a precarious situation.
So I would prefer it to go to two full months
to make sure that there's two full Board-meeting cycles
before something would automatically get approved.

MR. NOBRIGA:  That's why we added a Subsection
D, to provide for such an example as you are outlining.
I think we tried to -- the best interests of the public
and trying to target a really good time lapse.
But I understand where you coming from, and
that's expressly why we added that subsection D.  But
that's cool.

MR. STARR:  I would prefer it to be 60 days.
But that other wording, I did notice that.  And I would
wonder if that would mean they would have to go into a
special case situation.
But I would prefer 60 days, if the other Board
members could see it.  And, if not, I think it would
still be quite workable.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Perhaps we should, Mr. Chairman,
see what the comments are that we get from the public
and other agencies, if any, during the hearing process
at the time we adopt or consider the adoption so that
the Board members' and public's thoughts and findings
can be taken into account.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes, I think that's a very
good point.  But it really depends on the Board --

MR. CRADDICK:  Bob, can I -- I don't know
whether it's a concern or not.  But, technically
speaking, this is all supposed to be done by December
31st of this year.  And I am not sure which is the
chicken and the egg here.  I mean, we have no hope of
that right now because it's between us and the Mayor
and Council.  It's at least a 90-day process.
So that takes us to the end of February, I
guess, at the earliest.  So I guess if it's end of
March, it's not going to make much difference.  But
just for everybody's information.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I think it will be O.K., because
we were demonstrating our full attention and talents
being placed to channel this through as fast as our
system will allow.  So I am sure the State -- I don't
think the State is going to fine us because we don't
have this in place.  They will fine us for all kind
other things, but --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  No, I don't think so.
Any other comments on Section 2 or Section 5,
whatever, Chapter 2 or 5?

MR. NOBRIGA:  That one, yeah.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Well, that second line, it
says prevent such authority to/from doing.

MR. NOBRIGA:  What "if"?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  On that Page 23.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Oh, that "if."  O.K.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  That "to," should that be
deleted or what?

MR. NOBRIGA:  It says "to/from."

 CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  It should be "gets its
authority from."

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah, O.K.  Thank you.
So strike the word "to," t-o, not t-w-o.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  From 1(f).

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah.  Thank you.
Why don't we take a ten-minute break.  I think
there's some that that would like to comment on the
amendment to Rule Section 3-1.

(A short recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We will reconvene the Board
of Water Supply regular meeting and go to Other
Business A.2, amendment to Rule Section 3-1.
MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to
move that this body accept on first reading the
amendment proposed to amend Rule 3-1(f).

MR. NAKAMURA:  Second.

MR. CRADDICK:  Bob.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved by Mr. Nobriga,
seconded by Mr. Nakamura to accept Item 2 to amend
Rules Section 3-1 on first reading.
Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  I am getting a little bit
unclear on the first and second reading.  To my
knowledge there's no requirement for first and second
reading.
All Howard was saying was when these committee
reports come to the Board, there are supposed to come
to the Board and -- other than accepting them for the
record, I don't know what action is taken.  And then at
the next meeting is when supposedly the public is
noticed and here is what the committee report was.  And
we are going to go to public hearing, I guess would be
the action at the next meeting.
But there's no -- as far as I know, Howard, if
there's some requirement for a first and second
reading --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  No, there isn't.

MR. CRADDICK:  O.K.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And the action that the Board
would be taking at the next meeting would be approval
of the rules to go out to public hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  This is just a more
formalized way of doing that, that's all.

MR. CRADDICK:  So basically what you are doing
right now is accepting the committee report?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes.

MR. CRADDICK:  And, I don't know.  I guess you
seem to be -- I don't know if we amended that last one
putting in 60 days or what.  But --

MR. STARR:  No.  I don't think we are taking
any action.  All we are doing is discussing it.  I know
I, for one, would want to take a moment to think about
them before taking any action.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Mr. Chairman, may I suggest --
and I am sorry to be backtracking to the time
limitation.
I believe it would be appropriate in Section
1D, where the Board has the discretion to waive the
rule, that some language be placed in there that the
waiver of the rules should be for a reasonable period,
just include the word "reasonable" in there so perhaps
it would read, "The time may be extended for a
reasonable period by a majority vote of the Board of
Water Supply," so that it is in keeping with the spirit
of Act 164.

MR. TAGORDA:  Where are you?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  On Page 23.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We are back on Rule --

MR. NOBRIGA:  Back on Chapter 2/5 or whatever
number it is.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And under D where the Board has
the discretion to extend the time, that it may extend
 it for a reasonable period, again keeping with the
spirit of Act 164.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.

MR. STARR:  As a function of process, I think
we should do this at the next -- we should actually
suggest changes and do that at the next meeting.
But I would certainly support that at that
time.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah, O.K.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Any other --

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chair, I am in favor of the
amendment to the Rule Section 3-1.  But I have some
concerns, especially when the word "first come, first
served" method or procedure was not included.  And I
believe that word "first come, first served" was -- we
very strongly --

MR. CRADDICK:  Are we talking about that one
right now?

MR. TAGORDA:  The Rule 3.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We have gone back to --

MR. TAGORDA:  And that's the reason why I
notice was removed.  And I firmly believe when you put
this word into that provision of Rule 3-1, there's a
strong connotation to the public, to the laymans, that
it's a first come, first serve basis based on the date
of application.
Now it was removed on the amendment, and that
sentence was juggled up.  And it started as whenever.
And I really like to see that word goes back in, the
first come, first served basis, because my question is:
What will happen to those applicants that the
Department have in the past that still waiting for
meters?  Are they going to be removed from the priority
list?  Are we going to make a new list?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  It does say that they shall be put
on in the order which they are received.  So isn't that
the same thing?

MR. TAGORDA:  Yeah, it is the same thing.
MR. STARR:  So I think it's -- if I am correct,
they are -- it's still there.  Mike, right?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah, it's still there.

MR. TAGORDA:  Again, that is what my question is.

MR. NOBRIGA:  What is missing right now is our
system.  When we create the system, via resolution or
whatever mechanism that may be, we will make sure,
Mr. Tagorda, that the first come, first served will be
inserted in that system.
But as far as the rule itself, we felt that
this took care of the objections that we were having in
getting this section passed.

MR. STARR:  I think that the time when this is
going to become very open to public concern is when we
do go to create the system, because we are going to
have to establish a system of priority.  And whether
-- it does say that that system of priority should take
into account the order they have been received.  But
exactly what that mechanism should be, we are going to
have to discuss that.
And, you know, it will be probably
controversial.  And also, whether we try to take the
Director's existing Upcountry priority list or not, you
know, and make that a part of our new system or not,
that's something we are going to have to decide.  But
that's not actually part of the -- I don't think that
should actually be part of the rule.
The rule should be that the Board itself create
the system.  And this is different from the way it was
before where the Director and staff were creating the
system.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes.
Will the record indicate that Tom Leuteneker,
representing Marianna Knottenbelt, has submitted
written testimony on Rule Section 3-1.  The Board of
Realtors is another very interested party in this
discussion, and I think they will be present at the
next hearing.

MR. CRADDICK:  Bob, I think, you know,
listening to what Orlando said and what Jonathan is now
saying, even though the rule said last time that the
Director will establish a system, the deleted sentence
that Orlando was talking about was the system.
So the Director had no discretion in
establishing a system.  And I think that is maybe what
was confusing the last time.  It shouldn't have said
"the Director shall establish a system."  It should
have said "the Director shall follow the system
established up above in approving applications for
meters."
And, you know, I, for one, you know, if it's
going to be wide open that after you pass the rule that
the system will then be established, I think that's
what Orlando is talking about.  And that is certainly
something that we would be concerned about.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I feel that, on a parallel course,
we should also be looking ahead to developing that
system so that perhaps when the rule gets passed
through that the system is in place.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Right.

MR. STARR:  And I would also request the rules
committee to look at this system as well since
operationally that's the heart of the matter.
MR. NOBRIGA:  Yes.

MR. CRADDICK:  One other thing that is very
much a problem area for us is this idea that just
because you have an empty lot that you are owed a
meter.  And we probably should have covered that when
this rule first went out.  It was an oversight, really,
on our part.  And that is still an open area, an open
wound, if you will, where, you know, people think that
just because they have an empty lot they are due a
meter.
And if this list is going to be formed, you
know -- like I told you before, the priority list never
had anybody on it that, in quotes, could get a meter.
And the past practice had been to give meters to these
empty lots provided they went to the point of adequacy.
And a system is being established to form a list, but
we are not really addressing these, in quotes, empty
lots where there are a lot of people out there that
think they are owed a meter.
There is nothing in the rules that say they are
owed a meter simply because they have an empty lot.

MR. STARR:  Are you talking about lots that are
beyond the point of adequacy?

MR. CRADDICK:  No.  They may be right adjacent
to the water system.  I mean, we -- Herb, who is the
one here right now?
I mean, we have got one here complaining right
now.  They are right next to an 8-inch line.  And we
have basically stopped processing all these until the
Board addresses the issue because I know there is
reference made to meters being given out to people
Upcounty while this shortage was on.  And it's always
been a concern of mine.  I mean, that was the whole
issue with Jim Smith.
We tried to address it by saying that if there
was an empty lot out there and nobody had ever done
anything in reliance on using the water, that after, I
think it was, seven years, that whatever right they
thought they had, it lapsed.  And that was said because
the State statute of limitations -- if there is some
implied contract or something out there, after -- I
think the State statute of limitations was six years
when nobody can anymore rely on that if they never did
anything in reliance on an agreement.
And even though there is no agreement out
there, we were still going on the assumption there was
some agreement, whatever it is out there, that because
you have an empty lot, you are therefore entitled to
that meter.
And it's a big, big, big problem area for us.
And I think with very minor adjustments to this that
could be addressed.
MR. STARR:  To me, this wouldn't be the place.
The place in 3-1 wouldn't be the place for it.
Now, what you are talking about are the general
rules regarding the issuance of meters.

MR. CRADDICK:  This is Section 3, and that's
exactly what Section 3 is.

MR. STARR:  But this is -- I think what we are
talking about -- what are the -- can I ask you to read
what the requirements are for obtaining a meter?

MR. CRADDICK:  Any prospective customer (sic)
whose premises are within service limits established by
the Department and adjacent to a distributing main,
where pressure conditions permit, may obtain" --

MR. NOBRIGA:  Page 26.

MR. CRADDICK:  -- "where pressure conditions
permit, may obtain water service provided that the
Department has a sufficient water supply developed for
domestic use and for fire protection to take on new or
additional service without detriment to those already
served and the consumer agrees to abide by the
provisions of these rules and regulations."
But what you are doing is you are now adding in
a rule that is going to establish a priority list.  And
these people, you know, that have these empty lots, you
know -- and people use everything under the sun as to
why they should get them, and -- it's because I live
off-island and I don't know what is going on, and when
I come back 30 years later after I bought the lot, I
should therefore be able to get a meter, move merrily
along my way.
And, you know, like I said, there's nothing in
the rules that gives a person a meter simply because 
they have an empty lot.  But it's been the practice of
the Department for many, many years to do that.
So if we are going to make this priority list,
we are taking care of everybody -- well, it doesn't
even talk about since the shortage was started.  It
just says when an area is inadequate, a list will be
started.  And, you know, if the system is inadequate,
meters should not have been being given to these empty
lots.  And the only reason that was done is because
corp counsel wrote a memo saying that we should
continue doing that.
And it was partly because of the Jim Smith
court case and partly because of -- I am not sure what,
you know.  I think back in the '70s Paul Mancini had
written some kind of a reliance memo.  And I myself
have never seen it, but people keep referring to it.

MR. STARR:  I know that in other communities I
have lived in you can only get a water meter if you
have some kind of permitted structure or the permit to
build one or can show some kind of ag use or some other
legal use of these properties.
And perhaps that is what you are saying that we
should have, that -- and I don't think that it should
only -- if we are going to do it, it shouldn't deal
with the shortage areas only, but it should be an
overall rule that says that we would only issue meters
to a property that has some sort of use.
I would go along with doing that if it's an
overall rule and not just being applied for shortage
areas.

MR. CRADDICK:  But when you say "shortage," you
are talking about source shortage?

MR. STARR:  Any kind.

MR. CRADDICK:  Because this one here is just
dealing with the water -- sufficient water.  This is
only dealing with source, this one here, because
anybody, even on an empty lot, if the line is
inadequate, if the storage is inadequate, they can fix
it up.  I mean, it costs money to fix it up.
And why people take the attitude that they
can't fix up source, I don't know, and they prefer to
be on a waiting list.  I mean, that's just the nature
of things.
But, again, if you are going to make a list, I
don't think you can leave out the empty lots off of
 this thing here because it's going to be an unaddressed
problem that's a huge problem for us right now.  And it
is even probably a liability type of problem because of
so many years of having gone by where people with empty
lots think that they can get a meter.
You have probably got real-estate people out
there telling people that, oh, yeah, here is this empty
lot and you can a meter any time.  I had a real-estate
agent call me up, as a matter of fact, within the last
couple of days complaining about this.

MR. NOBRIGA:  With this added information, I
would like to recommend, Mr. Chairman, that your
committee re- -- take this off the table and go back
into committee for further study.  And we will report
back out at the next meeting.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I think that's a wise
suggestion.  This is a can of worms here; it really is.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Termites, yeah.
So if there is no objection, we will take this
back into committee.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I think you have a
consensus.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I would to ask the
Board to accept the proposed rule section regarding
appeals to the Board at this time, which is on Page 29
through 34.
And I would like to enter that on Page 33,
Subsection Standards of Appeal, on Section 2 where it
says "arbitrary, capricious," the committee had
inserted the word "or inconsistent" in its application,
semicolor, or.

MR. NAKAMURA:  I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  It's been moved by
Mr. Nobriga and seconded by Mr. Nakamura to accept the
proposed new section regarding appeals to the Board.
Any discussion?

MR. STARR:  This sounded good to me the first
time I read it.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may make a couple of
comments.
No. 1 -- not as an excuse but as an
explanation, when I drafted these rules, I just had a
couple days to do it.  And on further reflection, after
drafting them and attending the meeting, I thought
there were some areas that should be cleaned up and
delete some areas that were unnecessary.
First of all, I believe a definition for
"applicant" is contained in the standards for appeal to
be defined.  And my purpose for including the word
"applicant" was so that not anybody could come in and
appeal.  But if we could further define "applicant" as
being someone who is coming in for water service or is
developing a subdivision, I believe those would be --
those were the only two that I could think of.  And
perhaps the Board --

MR. NOBRIGA:  Waiver?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Waiver of subdivision
requirements?
That can be handled as a waiver or that can be
handled as an appeal if the subdivider or the developer
felt that the Department was improperly applying the
rule.
But I couldn't think of any other circumstances
where an appeal would be appropriate from a Director's
decision, and it would just be in a limited number of
cases.  So I wanted to make that clear as to who could
actually make an appeal to those two instances.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So would you be defining that?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I will be defining "appeal."
And, secondly, upon further review and
reflection and discussions with other attorneys in the
office, it was felt that denying intervention in an
appeal would be a little inappropriate.  However, in
most cases we do not believe there would be anybody
intervening in an appeal because it would be a denial
from -- presumably, a denial from the Director.  And so
we thought that interventions would be relatively rare.
No. 2, the particular rule that was proposed
adopts a number of provisions relating to contested
cases.  We believe that an appeal could be
characterized as a contested case.  And because the
rule -- the Department's rules already provide for
contested cases, a lot of these procedural matters
could be referred to as in the procedures already
adopted by the rule.
Therefore, a major portion, again, of the
proposal related to procedure.  And we believe that the
procedures already adopted by the Department -- excuse
me -- by the Board are sufficient.  We would leave in
the standing to appeal, the filing of the appeal, and
the standards of appeal and simply refer to that
section of the Board's rules that relate to contested
cases.  And we believe that that would be sufficient.
MR. NOBRIGA:  Again, then, I would recommend
that we withdraw that motion on the floor and take this
back to committee and have Howard draw up a more
concise -- help us with that.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  It can be done that way, or I
could have it prepared by the next meeting.

MR. STARR:  I would rather it goes to the
committee.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  O.K.  Fine.

MR. NAKAMURA:  I was going to suggest what
Howard said because if -- it doesn't seem like there's
any real conceptual issue here, as compared to the
issue of the vacant lot that David raised.
My thought was that Howard could just draft it,
the appropriate provisions, since it's not a conceptual
issue.  It's a language issue that's been presented.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I am cool with that.

MR. MISKAE:  Mr. Chairman, if it's going to be
provided that other parties can be admitted, then there
has to be a notice procedure as well, I would assume.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Miskae, this is going to be
reput on the agenda for next meeting --

MR. MISKAE:  I just thought I would throw that in.

MR. NOBRIGA:  -- on notice about being in
writing.

MR. MISKAE:  He's got to do some more writing.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah, yeah.  Oh, O.K.

MR. STARR:  Inside the rule.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah, right.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Did you catch that?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Regarding notice?

MR. MISKAE:  If other parties can be admitted,
then there probably should be some kind of notice
procedure, is what I said, or some way of noticing what
is going on.  Otherwise, you are going to keep it just
to the applicant.
I mean, you can have one or the other.  I don't
think you can have a little bit of both.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I understand what you are
saying -- whether --

MR. MISKAE:  Just something to think about,
Mr. Chairman, that's all.  No need to --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  In other instances such as
appeals to -- I am making or I am giving an example
such as appeals to, say, perhaps the EPA --

MR. MISKAE:  Well, I don't know.  The Director
makes a decision; will it or will it not affect someone
else?  It may.  And if that's the case, then there
should be some notice process that other parties should
be admitted.  If there is no chance that his decision
would affect any other party, you can probably keep it
very isolated.
Just something to think about; that's all.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  At this point, we are not --
you know, I don't want to obviate other parties in the
event that it's appropriate to become parties to an
appeal.
I don't know how to resolve that because I
don't believe every decision of the Director should be
noticed to the general public or is required to be
noticed to the general public.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  That was my concern with
this, that we need to be balanced again, because we are
now moving from being a corporate body to a legislative
assembly.  And now we are becoming a lobbying entity.
And pretty soon we are going to be spending so much
time on these affairs that we can't be dealing with the
policy issues that we need to be.
So we need to be very careful about utilizing
our time here.

MR. STARR:  My feeling is that if we are going
to move into a process, an appeal process, it's like in
a contested case and there should be a notice, a public
notice involved.  But really I suggest that
Commissioner Fukushima (sic) go back to the committee
and discuss it in that venue.  And then they can get it
forward to us.  I think that the committee has heard
our concerns.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And perhaps, just as an idea,
if there is appeal, that appeal be noticed and any
parties wishing to intervene would be required to file
a petition to intervene within a certain period after
the appeal has been noticed.  That could be one way to
take it up.
But perhaps it should go back to committee.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Could you meet with the ad
hoc committee on that section?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Next week?  Certainly.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I think that would be the
best way to resolve it.
Mr. Miskae.

MR. MISKAE:  I believe there is an appeal
provision in the new -- in the rule for the Iao
Shortage.  There is a short provision for appeal in
that which I think is rather an isolated situation that
specifically says what you can appeal against.  Maybe
you want to be more specific in this, what kinds of
things can be appealed.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I was thinking the specificity
would be in the definition of "applicant".  And the
rule provides that only applicants can appeal.  And so
a definition of "applicant" --

MR. MISKAE:  And what decisions, basically,
too.  You can narrow it down, and it will relieve you
of, I think, what you are not looking forward to.
MR. STARR:  I can see there would be some
concern if the members of the public wanted to block
some development project, you know.  One of the
mechanisms could be if they were allowed to appeal as a
third party to try to become a -- you know, make a
public issue where, you know, to me it's -- this is not
really the best process for that.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, yeah.  And if the Board
wishes to open the door to that sort of process, the
Board may.  But perhaps a word of caution to proceed in
that vein a little more slowly so --

MR. STARR:  I think that's why we --

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  -- so that we don't become
another Planning Commission.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  No, no.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  I think that's why we have
the planning process and the planning entity.
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  Just for your information, going
back to this public hearing notice thing, I will stand
corrected here if the record shows me to be wrong.  But
I believe when we did the contested with Haggai, there
was a notice to the public of what was going on in the
newspaper so if other people wanted to enter in --
which I believe Jim Smith did -- and I believe he was
already trying to get in even though the notice hadn't
gone out.
But when he tried to get in, then corp
corporation brought up the process of notifying the
public if there was any others.  And we just went
through that process.

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Again, that would be in the
context of a contested case.  And, yes, a contested
case requires notice.  But this is a little different
procedure in that it's an appeal.
But let me try and work on something for the ad
hoc committee to bring back.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.  We will leave that
for the ad hoc committee.
Any further discussion?

MR. CRADDICK:  You know, since Howard says
that, what about on the other side of that?
Supposing I approved something, and the
applicant themselves isn't grumbling but somebody else
is grumbling because I have approved it?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Let's not go there.

MR. STARR:  Well, that's why we are talking
about limiting the appeal to the applicant.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  To the applicant.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Your ad hoc committee will
reconvene on Tuesday, 11/16, at 1:30 p.m. at Maui Soda
& Ice Works.

MS. NAGO:  When was that again?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Tuesday, the 16th of November.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Thank you.

MR. CRADDICK:  We can try and get some
suggested language about that meter.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Yeah, that would be helpful.  The
empty lot provision, the check-off one, the blocks.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.  O.K.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Ice cream this time.  We will
serve ice cream.

 CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We will move on, then, to
Item B, discussion and possible action regarding the
Upcountry Kula line.
Does Mr. Watanabe care to testify?

MR. CRADDICK:  I just wanted to let the Board
know that we had a meeting with a number of
stakeholders, the NRCS, the Farm Bureau, Kula Community
Association, I think Maui Land & Pine was there, a
representative from the Mayor's office, Brian Miskae
was there, Clark was trying to attend but couldn't make
it.
And anyways, the general consensus there was
that, you know -- that we would try our best to get the
Governor to release the funds for the project.  And I
think subsequent to that the Mayor either prepared or
has sent a letter to the Governor.  And I believe Brian
might have some more information to update us on that,
if Brian could.

MR. MISKAE:  Mr. Chair, following the meeting
in Mr. Craddick's office with the individuals that he
has just indicated, I did have an opportunity to speak
to Mayor Apana.  He told me that he has spoken with the
Governor's office, and the Governor's office has
essentially assured him that the funds will be released
for this dual line Upcountry to the Department of
Agriculture.
The Mayor has drafted a letter to confirm that
understanding, which should go out in today's mail.
But, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, the
Governor is planning on releasing those funds for the
Upcountry dual line.

MR. CRADDICK:.  Part of the reason I put this
on the agenda is because the federal funds can lapse on
the 10th of December if the match isn't there.  And I
think the language in the agreement says if the actual
job isn't awarded -- I think they are saying if we
actually get out to bid at that time it's sufficient
for the federal government.
We will get a letter out to confirm that.  But
that was why I put this on here, just to make the Board
aware of all these things, because last month we had
gotten that letter from the Governor basically saying
that it's under review and there was some question
whether the money would be coming or not.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Warren.

 MR. WATANABE:  My name is Warren Watanabe, and
I am president of the Maui County Farm Bureau.  And I
also attended that meeting.
And at that time I had talked to representative
Joe Abinsay, who is the House Agriculture Committee
chairman.  And he had stated that on Monday he had met
with Jimmy Nakatani, Chairman of the Department of Ag.
And Jimmy did assure Representative Abinsay that the
$3 million is available and we just needed to Governor
to release the funds.
So Representative Abinsay was also to meet with
the Governor to try to get him to release the money.
And I am trying to get all the farm organizations to
submit letters to the Governor asking for the release.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So as of now it looks pretty --

MR. CRADDICK:  It looks good.
I don't know if you remember there a few
 meetings ago I was telling you about the ditches over
in Lahaina, whether that's -- you know, I think we are
probably going to have to discuss that at a future
meeting.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

 MR. STARR:  I am really glad to hear that
there's hope that that money will be released.
However, I am somewhat upset that the Board wasn't
informed about that meeting, that meeting being held.
I know there has been numerous requests that
Board members be informed about meetings such as this,
and --

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, I did inform Bob, and we
had hoped that Clark would be able to go.  And Clark
tried to get there.  He was on vacation, so it was a
little tricky for him to go.
But, believe me, he --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We thought that you had
been notified through the Upcountry Advisory Committee,
so --

MR. STARR:  No, I hadn't, nor -- was there an
Upcountry Advisory meeting?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  No.  But we thought that
the members of the Upcountry Advisory Committee had
been notified.

MR. CRADDICK:  For the record, Jonathan, we
have these meetings three or four times a day, and I do
not inform Board member of every single meeting we have
with people.
This particular one, you know, Bob felt that
the farmers were involved and that -- and that's why we
contacted Clark.  But --

MR. STARR:  I would have liked to know, and I
would like to know about further meetings of this sort.
I have been working trying to help get that money
released.  I would like to know so that I can be as
helpful there as I can.

MR. CRADDICK:  O.K.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Thanks.
Any other discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Thank you, Mr. Watanabe.
We will move on, then, to Item C, discussion
and possible action regarding Upcountry drought.

MR. STARR:  Does anybody know what the system
status is right now?  I haven't gotten an update for
two days, so -- I would like to get an update.

MR. SEITZ:  O.K.  Currently, right now the
Wailoa is flowing at just a little over 30 percent, in
the 60-million-gallon range.  Waikamoi, we have a flow
coming in of a little less than a million gallons a day
out of the flume.  Kahakapao is about 30-percent full,
and --

MR. STARR:  How much is flowing out of there?

MR. SEITZ:  O.K.  Right now out of the
Kakakapao we are pulling a little bit less than a
million gallons a day.  So we are positive.

MR. STARR:  Barely.

MR. SEITZ:  We are just about holding our own
there.  The Pi'iholo Reservoir is full, and we are not
pumping Phase 10.
So that's where the system stands right now.

MR. CRADDICK:  And we are not pumping the
Hamakuapoko well.  I think maybe Wednesday we did run
it for awhile just to keep --

MR. SEITZ:  That was to flush the contactors.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.  What we are finding out
is an operational issue.  It appears that we are going
to have to be flushing that at least once a week for
about ten or so tank volumes in there just to prevent
any biological growth inside the filter.
And so we are doing that as a regular course of
business right now.
MR. STARR:  I, for one, don't feel that
conditions warrant staying in a situation that we call
an emergency.  I would prefer to downgrade it.  I feel
that we should be in either a watch or a warning
condition so that the public will hopefully keep the
demands reasonable.
But I would like to go away from the emergency,
seeing as we do not need the Hamakuapoko wells to keep
the lower part of the system functional and that the
upper part of the system seems to be holding its own.

MR. NAKAMURA:  What is the recommendation of
the Director as it relates to this issue?

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, you know, I know everybody
has been a little bit concerned about Kahakapao not
filling up.  And I got this study here, Water Supply
Study for the Kula Area, prepared by Austin & Towill
Associates back in 1962.
And the flow duration curve for that system --
we had always expected it would take on the order of
one to two years to fill that reservoir.  And we -- the
very first time it was filled up back in 1994, it was
filled by forced pumping and we had good rainfall at
the same time.  Since that time we have gone this low
in the reservoir, I believe, twice, and it was followed
the first time by a very heavy rainfall time.  So it
filled back up in a relatively short period of time.
But I don't expect that without forced pumping
-- that we should expect to see it fill up over one or
two months' time.  And I think what we are seeing right
now is just the normal rainfall inflow because the --
in order to fill that reservoir, theoretically we are
dewatering the streams approximately 98 percent of the
time in order to keep that reservoir full on the upper
line.  So that last two percent are six days out of the
year that will -- well, first of all, the transmission
line isn't designed to take those flows.
Anyways, the point I am getting at is you
shouldn't -- I don't think the Board should view that
as being unusual that it doesn't just fill right up.
And my recommendation would be to simply downgrade the
emergency.  At this point we certainly meet enough of
the criteria to do that.  Whether you want to keep it
in some other level is a decision that is possibly
appropriate there, having a drought watch.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  What are the forecasts for
the near term?

MR. CRADDICK:  I don't have a projection going
on through the winter.  But, I mean, if we get normal
rainfalls through the winter, we should expect to see
that the reservoir levels are staying the same or
increasing through the winter.

MR. STARR:  Well, there's a pretty good-looking
Kona type of event that is about four or five days
away, it looks like, that will -- it may give us some
good rain on the satellite.  The one that that was
supposed to materialize this weekend has weakened.  But
the one next week looks like it's quite strong, still
might get some good rain out of that.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So in answer to
Mr. Nakamura's question:  Are you advocating for a
watch or --

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, I think we are always kind
of in a watch status up there.  Whether the Board wants
to formally state that, we do that in any case.  We are
constantly sending out notices about conservation and
stuff like that.
Whether you just want to go right out of it
right now without going through some step of watching
for awhile longer -- it probably would be appropriate
to have it in a drought watch for a little while
longer.

 CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The other thing is that,
you know, we can't be jumping back and forth
willy-nilly.  So we need to be sure that -- as
reasonably as we can be assured of that in the future.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Do we have verification of
triggers as outlined in the resolution 98-18?

MR. CRADDICK:  This is going from what to what, now?

MR. STARR:  Going to a watch.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I guess, since we don't have one
page, we going skip over to two, two pages.  We got to
go drought watch to drought warning and then drought
warning to drought watch, I think.

MR. CRADDICK:  These are guidelines.  And they
are -- after the last meeting, I think, whether you
follow these guidelines or not, is -- I think it was
found at the last meeting, we don't necessarily have to
follow them.
But I can -- I will go here, drought emergency
to drought warning, go over that one first.  Average
daily inflow greater than system demand, and that right
now is about equal there.  We are neither going up nor
going down.
 Kahakapao water inventory is greater than 40.
I believe we are at 30 -- what did Paul say there? --
33 or 34.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Thirty percent.

MR. CRADDICK:  So 30 percent would be about 30
million gallons out of 100 million gallons.
Lower Kula raw water reservoir is full, so
that's well over 20 million.  The flows at Wailoa Ditch
have been greater than 15 million gallons; they have
been running in the 50 to 60 million for over a month.
Kamaole pumping is less than 5 million; we meet
that.  And continued dry weather, I am not even certain
we are meeting that.  But we are not getting rain at
the intake, but we are getting rain on the south side,
which is reducing demand on the system.
So out of this we meet one, two, three for
sure.  We are about equal on one and debatable whether
we are having continued dry weather.
So we do meet at least three of the triggers to
go from a drought emergency to a drought warning.

MR. NAKAMURA:  And if we were to do that,
David, what would be the specific courses of action
that you would recommend as part of that warning, that
warning status?
When we decided to stay in an emergency, we
identified a number of things that we would do.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.
My recommendation is that we just continue on
letting the community know to voluntarily conserve
water and probably not even put an amount in on it now.
We were saying 25 percent before, but we probably
shouldn't even put in an amount right now.  And if we
are going to -- this is just a drought warning, so we
still wouldn't be issuing meters.
And do you have the list there of the ones that
we had last time?
No temporary meters issued.  We would continue
to postpone mainline tie-ins and service tie-ins and
continue the public service regarding conservation.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I would like the Director to go
through the guidelines, the old guidelines regarding
from warning to watch, as Mr. Nobriga had requested,
because my feeling is we might want to go to a watch.
So if you could, let us know if these are --

MR. CRADDICK:  O.K.
The one, average daily inflow greater than
system demand, again, Paul said about equal.  The Board
Of Water Supply raw water reservoir greater than 20
million at Lower Kula or 55 million in Upper Kula, we
do meet the -- we are greater than 20 million at Lower Kula.
Total EMI/Maliko ditch flows greater than 55
million, and we said that was at 60 million right now.
We meet that one.
For Kamole, pumping is less than 5 million; we
meet that one.  The continued dry weather,
questionable.  Number 6, Lower Kula demand is less than
4 million.  And what are we putting out of there, Paul,
on a regular basis?
MR. SEITZ:  About three and a half.

MR. CRADDICK:  So we meet that.  So we are
meeting one, two, three, four of these from a drought
warning to a drought watch.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  My feeling is we should be going to
a drought watch.  And I would like to ask the Director
to give us some recommendations.  And I feel that we
should go back to issuing meters as part of this, and
we should just request conservation Upcountry.

MR. CRADDICK:  You want to see if there is a
consensus on going to drought watch first, then to the
recommendation, like last time, since -- and get that
out of the way?

MR. STARR:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Well, we appear to have met
how many of the triggers?
MR. STARR:  Four.

MR. CRADDICK:  Four.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Is there any disagreement
about going to a watch?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chair, I would like to move
at this time that the Board reduce the Upcountry
drought emergency to a drought watch status based on
four of the triggers being met.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved by Mr. Nobriga to go
from a drought warning to a drought watch.

MR. STARR:  I will second that.  But I would
like the Board to also approve the recommendations as
far as what actions are going to continue to be taken,
which I guess will be in the form of an amendment.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Could be amendment or just
another motion.  Move on this first, then we can put on
another motion.

MR. STARR:  O.K.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved by Mr. Nobriga,
seconded by Mr. Starr to go from a drought emergency to
a drought watch because four triggers have been
exceeded.
All those in favor signify by saying "aye."

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Opposed "nay."

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The ayes have it.  We will
move from drought emergency to a drought watch.
Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  As far as implementing action,
our recommendation would be to, one, monitor the
weather forecast, continue monitoring the source flows.
We would allow service tie-ins.  We would continue
postponing mainline tie-ins using Upcountry water.  But
we would open the temporary meters and continue not
issuing temporary meters.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt
the Director's recommendations.  And it's also based on
us receiving those recommendations in writing along
with a certification from the Director that the
triggers that we are using for reference purposes have
been met.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second the motion.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Moved by Mr. Starr and
seconded by Mr. Nobriga to go into a drought watch with
the actions as recommended by the Director.
Any discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  If not, all those in favor
signify by saying "aye."

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Opposed "nay."

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The ayes have it.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, may I make a
comment?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes.

MR. NAKAMURA:  I think this whole issue of the
drought is of extreme importance and concern to the
people of our community, especially Upcountry, and
certainly to the members of the Board.  And I have a
little bit of a problem in coming to the meeting and
having this dealt with on a seat-of-the-pants basis.
And I think that it's on the agenda at every
meeting.  And I really would ask that the Director come
prepared to address the criteria at each meeting and
with a recommendation as to what he feels the Board
should be doing and what the implementing actions
should be.
I think that would be of great help to us as
Board members.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:.  I recognize that would be a
good thing to have.  But when this agenda if filed,
it's a week before today.  And during that week's time,
things could real bad or it could get much better.
So --

MR. NAKAMURA:  I think you are missing the
point.  I am not saying that you should include it in
the agenda.  But I think you should come prepared at
the meeting to address it.

MR. CRADDICK:  Oh, no.  I --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  A recommendation is what he
had been asking you to be prepared that tells us where
you would like to see us go.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, I --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  What actions.

MR. CRADDICK:  No.  I thought I was prepared.
That's why I had Paul come.

MR. STARR:  No.  I have been asking for
certification, written certification of triggers when
they occur for -- since I have gotten on this Board.
And there was only one time where we actually received
a piece of paper from you saying that these triggers
have been met.
And you should have those for us when we come
to a meeting.

MR. CRADDICK:  O.K.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Barring a tremendous deluge
that threw you off from what you had proposed an hour
or so ago, you should be prepared to come to the
meeting with your recommendation.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, again, the situation is
what it is.  And --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Anyway, suffice it to say
that that is what we would like to have.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, I can --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I think the Board has
spoken loud and clear, so --

MR. CRADDICK:  I can try and certify the
conditions that are --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  -- it all goes together in
a --

MR. CRADDICK:  -- there and see if I can --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes, Mr. Seitz.

MR. SEITZ:  For clarification purposes, I want
To make sure that the Board understands that,
irrespective of a drought status, we will be running
the H-poko wells approximately once a week for a short
period for the flushing of the contactors.  O.K.?
This is normal operation and maintenance.  The
water will not be going into production.  O.K.?  But
the wells will be operating for that short period every
week so we can maintain the equipment.

MR. STARR:  Can I just get some clarification
from counsel that that is permitted under the court's
ruling?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:.  Thank you, Mr. Starr.
If I could respond, I really don't know.  I
would have to consult with the attorney that is
handling that particular matter.
My first-blush impression would be, yes, that
it would be O.K.  But let me verify that.  And if there
are any problems, I will inform the Board at the next
meeting.

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  I would think you could take
that to the Chair and the Chair can deal with it.  I
know I, for one, have no problem in maintaining the
equipment.  I just want to be sure that we are not
exceeding --

MR. SEITZ:  I just wanted it to be real clear
so that everybody knows that those wells will be turned
on occasionally for --

MR. STARR:  Before you do it, wait to hear from
the Chair with legal advice, please.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  Just for the Board's information
here, back in 1993 when the shortage was put in, the
Board had asked that the -- that this drought item and
the changes from drought to shortage, that this issue
be on every single Board agenda until the shortage
ends.  And that is the main reason this is on every
single agenda that you see coming to you.
So that was a Board request back from 1993.

MR. STARR:  Well, I think that the Director as
well as the Board should have to wear little signs that
say "drought problems," you know.  And --

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, you know --

MR. STARR:  I mean, it should be on the agenda
until it's solved.

MR. CRADDICK:  That's up to the Board.  I just
wanted to make the Board aware of why it is there.
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I don't think the Board has
changed its wanting to review that matter at a Board
meeting duly noticed.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Any other discussion?

  (No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  If not, we will go to Item
D, review and possible action on Resolution No. 5,
1997, resolution instructing the Director to
administratively deny requests for waivers of water
service charges where the customer's equipment for
receiving water service is improperly installed and
maintained by the customer.

MR. CRADDICK:  Bob, on this particular item,
the reason I put it there is because -- I forget if it
was the last meeting or the meeting before, but one of
the Board members had a concern that the staff was
telling people that they can go to court if they don't
like this decision by the Board.  And I wanted the
Board, you know, to be fully aware of this resolution.
And if they want to change it or something like that,
that is certainly their option.
I notice in reviewing it here we probably have
not been following this Rule No. 3 here.  It says,
"Director shall submit a monthly report to the Board
regarding denials of such requests and payment plans
arranged with consumers."  And we will be doing that
forthwith if this motion stays in place.
I guess the way it has been going is probably
90 percent of these are told over the phone by the
customer service people, and nobody contests it.  But
every now and again somebody will contest it.  And
those are typically people in some kind of a hardship
case or ones that don't live on-island or have tenants
that don't pay the water bills.
And I guess another issue that's kind of come
to light is normally we will post a notice at people's
house when we see some unusual consumption.  And with
the radio-read meter right now, to stop and do that, it
-- let's put it this way:  It is not always getting
done, and some slip through the cracks.
I believe we are looking at ones like that.
And whether we should be making some adjustments simply
because of that -- there's nothing in the rules that
says we have to do that.  That's just been the customer
service that we have provided for a long time.
And I think there's one letter in here from
somebody there, similar to that sort of a situation,
where normally on the meter book there's written in
there when the notice is hanged that a notice was
hanged at the person's house.  And this particular
person didn't have that.
Mike has been talking with the person there.
And maybe if -- that person currently is here.  So if
she wants to speak, I guess she can speak on that.
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Would Ms. Gebb or --

MR. CRADDICK:  Gebb.

MS. GEBB:  I have been trying to --

THE REPORTER:  Could you come up here, please?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Would you like to come
forward and --

MS. NAGO:  Ms. Gebb, it's all right.  She is
going to try and move back there for you.

MS. GEBB:  (Unintelligible.)

THE REPORTER:  Wait.  I will come back to you.

MS. GEBB:  Thank you very much.
O.K.  You want me to tell my story?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Yes, ma'am.

MS. GEBB:  O.K.
For three years I have saved all my money and
my Delta things to get free mileage, and I got free
mileage to go see my four children on the Mainland and
my sisters and my nieces.  And I went, and I left a
dear friend in charge.  I paid all my bills; they were
paid through the bank, except for a couple of bills,
and one was the water bill.
And I said to my dear friend, who is very
honest and very sweet and wonderful, I said, "Now, when
the water bills comes, you pay it, because if there is
anything wrong or something, they will notify you."
So the first bill I paid just before I left in
May.  I paid $250, which was a little high, but I have
had them that high but never over that.  So then the
next bill that came --

MS. McKINNEY:  Here.  I will read it.
It went up to $426 the next month, $586 the
next month and $786 the next month.

MS. GEBB:  Well, that's from the other month.

MS. McKINNEY:  So there was an underground leak
that my mom hadn't seen because it was underground.
And the way it was coming out, it was --

MS. GEBB:  It was a big --

(Extended discussion at the same time.)

THE REPORTER:  I can only take one of you
speaking at a time, please.

 MS. GEBB:  Well, I know what is going on.
It's -- when I got home and found this bill for
 -- this huge bill, this $789, $786.49, I said, "What is
this?"  And then I walked down my driveway, which is
very hard for me to do because I am handicapped, and I
saw water coming through my front wall, which meant the
front wall was ruined and there must have been a leak
somewhere.
So I called my gardener, and he came up
immediately.  And he said, "Your main line is broken,"
and he fixed it.  So you got the (unintelligible)
coconut trees strangled it.  And it cost me $250 to
have that done, which I was -- it was well-spent.  Then
they told me, "Take out the coconut trees.  They are
killing your main line."
And I called to find out if I could get any of
this money back, which if I had known when the $426
bill came, I would have saved $176.54 there if I had
had it fixed then.  But I didn't know it.
The next bill at $586, I would have saved
$336.55, which would have been nice.  But the third
one, which I haven't paid yet and can't because I was
out of money when I got home, was $786.49.
So I called, and I got a very nice man named
Mr. Quinn.  And he said, well, there's a rule right now
that they don't pay for the recompense.  You now have
to -- this happened to me about five years ago.  I
can't remember how many.  And they put a notice --
called me up and said something must be wrong.  There's
a leak.  So I got my gardener and he fixed it, and they
took some back off my bill.
But at this point, if I pay that final bill, I
will have spent $1,049.57.

MS. McKINNEY:  And that's for beyond the normal
monthly amount --

 MS. GEBB:  Among -- above the monthly one.
Now, I live on Social Security, plus I rent my
cottage and a studio.  But I don't have that kind of
money.  I am going to get it any day now because I am
now on a poverty level, so I am getting some free meals
from the church and somebody to help me with the house
because I can't do anything.
But I am still -- I owe this bill.  And I think
it was wrong because I was not notified, because if you
look over my records for 20 years in that one house, I
have always paid my bill on time and I have always been
good about it, even when I was away.  I left checks
made out, signed by me, so that somebody could put the
number in.  And they happily did.
I said, "Didn't you think it was funny it was
$586?"
And she said, "Well, someone told me water went
up."
I said, "If the price of water went up that
far, nobody would live on Maui."  I mean, this is
ridiculous.  So that's when I talked to Mr. Quinn, and
he said I can't do anything about it because they
passed a law that they don't give any money back now.
So would you consider giving me back some of
that money?  I haven't even spent some of it.  When I
get it back, I will pay the bill for $786 if you can
give me back the money I lost on the first two things,
which is $1076.54 and $250 -- no, $336.  So I might be
able to pay the final bill.  But I sure can't pay it
now.
I think that's all.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Thank you.
Perhaps there needs to be a little background
of why this resolution was passed.

MR. CRADDICK:  You want me to give it, Bob?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.  You can give it.

MR. CRADDICK:  What happened was, the rules,
when they were passed in 1977, basically say what is in
the resolution here, that -- in the very first whereas
here, Rule Section 3-16-A.  And in 1979 the Director
and the Fiscal Officer decided that they were going to
write a memo and waive the rules.  And from 1979 on,
that's what happened.  The -- and I am not certain if
the Board may have been informed of that.  I don't
 know.
But anyways, between those two, they basically
said they would start giving rebates to people from
1979.  And when I came in as Director, quite frankly, I
didn't know it said in the rules that you couldn't be
reimbursed for that.
And every year in the budget, believe it or
not, the Board was approving an amount in the budget
for these adjustments.  There's actually an item in the
budget for bill adjustments.  And I think in 1996 we
had gone over that amount by a very substantial margin
within one or two months of the budget being approved.
And what -- and it's the same people that were
coming in all the time, only they would come in -- it
seemed like the frequency was picking up on the time
that they would come in.  Of course, staff got
 concerned, hey, we were going way over the budget.
And I -- you know, when we started really
digging into it, I found out that there wasn't even --
the rules didn't even allow this and brought it to the
Board.  And I think at that time there were a number of
requests to the Board for waiving the bill.  And I
believe the Board said at that time they not only
weren't going to approve the ones that were before the
Board, but they wanted a resolution made up.
So I prepared a resolution, and this resolution
was passed.  And we even discussed whether putting a
fourth item on here, be it resolved that these people
have to go to court.  And I think corp counsel just
said, "Hey, that is the process if somebody doesn't
want to comply with the rules or people feel that the
rules are improper or something like that, anybody has
has that chance to go to court."
And I would say in the harder cases that the
staff can't deal with that come to either Mike, myself
or possibly even George, I know I am guilty at least on
one occasion of telling the people that that is an
option open to them, going to small claims court on the
matter, even though it doesn't say it here in the
resolution.  But that is an option open to people,
whether we tell them or not.
As far as the payment plans go, I know Mike has
worked with people on getting a payment plan available.
And typically we will tell the people, hey, you know,
if you really did have this leak, obviously it didn't
go in the sewer system.  So if they happen to be on the
sewer system, they may get some rebate from Wastewater.
This particular one is at Maui Meadows, so they
are not on the sewer system.  And I don't think they
would get any reduction in the bill from Wastewater on
that account.
But be that as it may, we are fairly flexible
in making payments available to people to pay their
bill down.

 CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I am a little bit confused over
what the issue is that's before us here.
                                               
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The situation basically is
that the rule says that anything on the customer's side
is their responsibility.  And apparently in the past,
Ms. Gebb has been notified by the meter reader --

MR. CRADDICK:  No, Bob, no.
This one here was put on as an example.  We get
others of these; this was just totally coincidental
that these things up at one time.  We put this on for
the sole reason that one Board member was questioning
why people were -- staff were telling people to go to
court if you don't like the fact that we won't adjust
the bill because of leakage.

 MR. STARR:  In other words, this is not -- we
are not looking at this specific case here.  I want to
be -- we are looking at a resolution.
And I would like to ask counsel, first of all,
is this a rule, this resolution?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  The resolution is a statement
of the policy.  But what this resolution essentially
does is that it recognizes that there is an existing
rule, and that rule should be enforced.

MR. STARR:  Does this resolution -- I guess,
does this resolution have any force?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Like I said, it doesn't have
the force and effect of law.  But it does indicate that
the Department should be enforcing its existing rule.
And that is -- the existing rule is there are no
refunds, essentially.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  And that was the policy
that the Board had tried to enforce.  But we found that
the Department had gone beyond the rules in giving
people rebates when the rule clearly stated that there
would be no rebates because anything on their side of
the line was their responsibility.

MR. STARR:  You know, I syMpathize with
Ms. Gebb.  But, you know, I do feel that the customer
has to be responsible for the water that is flowing
through the meter and into their system.
And, you know, she was away.  And so I do
sympathize with her.  But frankly, it sounds like her
gardener is the culprit here because the gardener, if
he was there working, should realize there was water
running out through the wall.

MS. GEBB:  (Unintelligible) -- two of the boys
that come up and poison and cut my hedge.  And I pay
for it.  So they don't work there.  He doesn't come to
work there.  He is working on other projects in Kahului
or something, landscaping.
But the point is -- that I am making is that it
happened before, and they told me about it.  They made
it apparent that this was happening.  This time I got
no notice.  If I had had a notice, I would have had my
gardener up there sooner turning it off.  But I didn't
get any notice saying you must have a leak.
This -- I said, don't worry.  The water company
is wonderful.  They tell you if they think you have a
leak.  Well, nobody told the girl who was staying in my
house.  Now, that's what I am objecting to.  I don't
object to paying the first one because you didn't know
it was going to happen.  I didn't know it was going to
happen.  But if I had been told then, I wouldn't have
had the next two bills because I would have immediately
gotten somebody out to fix it even though it cost me a
thousand dollars, which it did.
So -- but it's the other two ones after that,
if I had been notified I should have been stopped after
that June bill, whenever it was, June or July, I don't
even know.  That's what I am saying.
I am a little deaf, so I can hardly hear you
folks, hear what is going on.
But that's the thing that I want to make, that
if you are notified and don't do anything, that's fine.
You should pay it.  But I paid the last time, and I
didn't have to pay the rest.  And this time I have to
supposedly -- I am going to pay things I didn't even
know about.  And that's what I am saying.

MS. McKINNEY:  I would just like to say, one
aspect of notifying --

 MS. NAGO:  I'm sorry.  You need to identify
yourself for --

MS. McKINNEY:  Well, I am just here --

MS. GEBB:  This is my daughter.

MS. McKINNEY:  Eva McKinney, Mrs. Gebb's
daughter.
One aspect of notifying people would be to save
water.  I mean, that part would be good if you see a
huge $800 bill, what you are realizing as the water
company is that you are wasting water somewhere in the
ground.  It couldn't possibly be the use.
I know it's probably a lot of trouble to notify
people, but in a sense it is saving water.  But that
could be good in the general overview, if everyone on
Maui who has got a leak was made aware of it.  And
maybe that is too much trouble for the Department;
 maybe it isn't.  But that's one side of it that could
be beneficial to let them know.  We are trying to worry
about water and washing the car, and all of a sudden
$800 of water went under her curb.

MS. GEBB:  And also, you see, when they told me
before it was fixed right away.  But this time it
wasn't fixed right away, and it destroyed a stone wall
that cost me a lot of money to put up, and I can't
possibly replace it because it was coming right through
the stone wall at the end.
So my beautiful stone wall is now -- and they
want $2,000 to fix it, and I can't fix it the way it
is.  But I would have gotten that done early and it
never would have messed up our stone wall.  And nobody
would have known unless they walked on this that it was
a bog.  And I -- I can't walk up and down anymore, so
there I am.
I just feel it should have been brought to my
notice, and I would have done something about it on the
first big bill that went out.  I know I don't use that
kind of water.  Then I would have said, O.K., it's
done, then.  It's finished.  But I wouldn't have a
$2,000 water bill (unintelligible) -- instead of $800
and everybody would have been happy.
But now all I have got is a big water bill that
I can't pay.  So what do I do now?

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  You recognize that we now
have an electronic system where we don't go and read
every meter?  We have an electronic thing whereby you
just drive by --

MS. GEBB:  Well, I was never notified of the
law being changed that --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  But the law does not
require the Department to notify you, madam.

MS. GEBB:  Well, from all the --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  The law does not require us
to notify you of any --

MS. GEBB:  -- (unintelligible) -- happen to
read the meter.  I said, relax, they will let you know.
And if I had known there was a law passed that you
didn't have to tell me, I would have had somebody up
there to check it.  One of my kids would have come up
while I was away to look at it if I had known that it
might happen like that.  But I didn't even know it
because I was never notified.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Thank you.

MS. GEBB:  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Quinn.

MR. QUINN:  I have been talking with Ms. Gebb
for quite a bit here.  And it's a very unusual
circumstance.  But it appears to me that the Board --
 this isn't an item on the Board's agenda.  So we can
listen, but we can't, in my opinion, take action on
Ms. Gebb unless she wants to bring this up
subsequently.
But for purposes of the handouts that you have
in front of you, this is to let you know that all the
other water boards do make adjustments for leakage on
the consumer side to various degrees.  And there are
certain limitations on that.
And I guess it's on the agenda here to -- for a
preliminary discussion to see if the Board would like
to pursue this further, make adjustments to our rules
maybe or an amendment whereby we might consider this in
the future.
So that's just to let you know that.  In that
 handout you will see I have given you the other boards
of water supply --

MR. CRADDICK:  That's this right there.

MR. QUINN:  --- rules and regulations regarding
adjustments on the consumer side.  And the other three
boards do allow for that; there's a process that takes
place.  We do not.  So I --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  I, for one -- although I am very
sympathetic with people who have problems like this
-- feel that we need to continue to send a message out
that people must be vigilant about leaks.  We cannot
afford to have water wasted.
And that -- to go and say that if water is
leaking on someone's property, that we would make an
adjustment for that, to me it would be sending -- in
general sending the wrong message.
So that's my feeling in the general sense.  And
in a specific sense, there is nothing we can do for
Ms. Gebb under -- there is no way we can at this point
hear this and make any kind of action for her.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I think it's a referral to
Mr. Nobriga's rules committee with input from Mr. Quinn
and from the other islands and their policies as to how
they handle this situation.

MR. QUINN:  One final note to give the Board
some idea of the magnitude of this:  In 1996 our
adjustments were about $197,000.  And in 1997, after
the Board disallowed them, our adjustments decreased to
$67,000 and then in 1998 to $40,000.  So we did see a
significant impact in the adjustments because of this
resolution.

MR. NAKAMURA:  I note the resolution does
provide that the Director may work with the consumer in
establishing a reasonable repayment schedule or plan.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, and we do that.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Is that being done?
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.  That is being done.
The one thing is not being done is I am not
reporting back to you.  And that will commence
forthwith.

MR. NOBRIGA:  The only thing really -- the
current resolution doesn't take into account the very
strange and unusual circumstances.  I think this is
that case of the letter that we have before us.  So if
there was some way you could add in a strange and
compelling and --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:.  There are reasons why we would
adjust a customer's bill.  I notice Howard kind of
frowning over there, how come we are still making
adjustments of $40,000.
Now, let's say a line is broken or something
and the line goes empty.  When we are filling the line
back up, we try our best to get air out of the line.
But if we are not able to do that and the air goes
through somebody's house and we can confirm that a line
was broken -- work had been done on the line and air
went through the line -- or let's say they even come to
us and say that, hey, my meter was spouting or air was
coming through it or whatever, you know.
We had a case where there is an air relief
valve on -- forgive me for putting out a name here, but
Ty Yoshimura's father's house.  The air relief valve
was jammed.  And apparently for many years his house
had been the air relief for the system because he was
on the hill of this system.  And he is an old gentleman
and just thought it was normal to have air going spft,
spft, spft out of the line.
And when we found that out, we did -- I mean,
we went back a number of years and adjusted his bill.
We also corrected the air relief valve.  And so we --
there still are situations where somebody could have a
high bill not related to leakage that we make
adjustments for.  But when they come to us and say,
hey, yeah, I know I had a leak and, you know, if it
very surely was a leak, I mean, the resolution is clear
and the rules are clear.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Hashimoto.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  I know it's policy that we
don't require that they be notified.  But in this case,
I mean, or in cases like this, are there any methods
that we can, you know, get where there's a leak and you
notify the customer?

MR. QUINN:  We do.  And this is one of the
issues I think Ms. Gebb has is that apparently -- and I
am not -- I haven't seen the property, but apparently
the cottage on this property is up front.

MS. GEBB:  Yes.

MR. QUINN:  And typically our people will put a
notice on the doorknob letting people know.  This is a
courtesy we have done for years.  And I don't believe
the other boards of water supply do it.
And most of our customers do appreciate it
because it lets them know right away, as soon as we
read the meter, that there could be a problem and
please check for leaks and that kind of stuff.
Now, whether or not our person put the notice
on the cottage and -- this is an unusual set of
circumstances because Ms. Gebb wasn't there.
Obviously, if she was there, she would have seen the
bill and she probably would have taken action right
away.  This is what most of our customers do.
But she had a woman apparently watching --
paying the bill.

MS. GEBB:  She was very honest, and --

MR. QUINN:  And she didn't realize --

MS. GEBB:  -- she thought this was normal.

MR. QUINN:  -- so she paid us without
contacting Ms. Gebb about that, that they were double.
So this is a little bit of an unusual kind of thing.
But to answer your question, we do.  It's our
practice to notify customers whenever there is high
consumption.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Thank you.

MR. QUINN:  And we do -- we get many people
catching their leaks that way.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Is it possible to have the
computer generate a notice automatically when one
month's bill exceeds the prior month's bill by X
percentage?

MR. QUINN:  I can check on that.  We don't do
it now, but that's a possibility, yeah.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Ms. Gebb.

MS. GEBB:  I want to know when the notice was
sent out that this law was passed that -- whatever you
 said, we were responsible for and we have not been
notified, because I want -- I never got a notice like
that (unintelligible).
As I say, I thought I would be notified.  Now,
maybe I was but it blew away.  I mean, it is windy up
there.  I don't know.  I wasn't home.  But I was
sitting happily with my children saying, oh, well,
nothing is going to wrong with the water because they
always notify me if it is going out of bounds.
So when did that law pass?  Was it -- when the
law passed, was a notice sent to everybody saying we
have now passed a new law that we are not responsible
for anything anymore?

MR. CRADDICK:.  If I can, the law was passed in
1977.

MS. GEBB:  That's what I heard.  But I didn't
ever get it.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, I don't think -- was Maui
Meadows even there in 1977?  It was?

MS. GEBB:  Was it there?  I have been living
there for 20 years.

MR. CRADDICK:  But that wouldn't --

MS. GEBB:  I bought my house in 1980.

MR. CRADDICK:  O.K.  So the rules were passed
in 1977.

MS. GEBB:  Well, then, maybe I didn't get a
notice.  That could happen, because I never was
notified that they weren't going to help me because
they did notify me when it happened before.  And I
immediately paid my bills up to then, and then I had it
fixed.

MR. CRADDICK:  There is no rule to notify
people.  That is just done as a customer service.

MS. GEBB:  Well, it was done as a customer
service, and I appreciate it very much because I
immediately got it fixed.  But I couldn't immediately
get it fixed when I wasn't notified, as far as I know.
I mean, I wasn't there, so --

MR. CRADDICK:  There is no law that says we
have to notify people.  So that hasn't changed.

MS. GEBB:  I didn't know that.  I thought it
was.  I thought it was so because I got it back in
1998, whatever it was, three or four or something -- I
don't know when it was.
But it was wonderful, and I had it fixed.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  O.K.  Thank you.

Any other discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  So we will leave it with
Mr. Nobriga's ad hoc committee to review the rule.

We will also take a five-minute break.

 (A short recess was taken.)

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We will reconvene the
regular Board of Water Supply meeting and move down to
Other Business, E, review and possible action on water
agreements with East Maui Irrigation.
Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:.  This item here is mainly for
the Board's information.  This normally would come up
in December sometime.
And I have been listening to what the new Board
members have said here since -- and, you know, we have
six new Board members on here.  I wanted to give them
more time than the last two or three weeks of the year
to try and decide this.
And I think that probably the biggest issue --
if you look at the 1973 MOU, Section 3 there, it says,
"Waters collected by EMI in the Wailoa Ditch system EMI
will make available to the Board of Water Supply up to
12 million gallons of water per 24-hour period."
And as we have heard on the record, that there
are supposedly other reasons why this item was put in
here, you see on the fourth amendment that that number
was changed to 8.5 million total, 7 million from Kamole
Weir and 1.5 million for the ag park.  And then in the
fifth amendment it adds a little bit more.  And what
that was for was Ha'iku Mauka.
And the understanding there was that EMI was
going to adjust the ditch flow to make it so that they
would back the ditch water level up in order to force
that water through the plant.  And we are finding out
now that that is not possible for them to do, because
if they were to do it, what will happen is when you get
a big rain and the ditch level is up, the water just
sees that high ditch level and the ditch is already
full of water, even though it may not be flowing, and
they -- you know, when it's low they obviously don't
want to artificially keep the ditch level high.
And so for these reasons here, I would expect
in the next Memorandum Of Understanding maybe we would
just go back to the language that was in the original
one in 1973.  But we will leave that for another Board
meeting.  I just wanted to give you all this
information so you have it.  And hopefully we will have
some recommendation to go to them here by the next
meeting.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR:  Mr. Craddick, do you know when the
annual lease or license renewal occurs with the Board
of Land and Natural Resources for the EMI ditch?

MR. CRADDICK:  I have sent a letter in to them
asking for that information, and I haven't got anything
back yet.  But I have sent a letter in.

MR. STARR:  I assume you will make the Board
aware of that.
But I know that in the last year they --the
license was for an average of 163 million gallons a day
that is received from water on State lands, primarily,
and that for that, EMI is paying about $160,000 per
year.
And with -- even with them receiving that very
large amount of water at very low rates, they did
manage to reduce the quantity that the community,
through the Board, has been able to get from 12 million
down to the 7-million-gallon range.
And we are starving for water.  We know that.
And although our treatment plant is only able to
process a certain amount of water and there's a problem
with the heads and elevations, if we could get more
water out of the ditch, I am sure that there's a way
that could be found to enable us to process more water
and put it into the system even if it requires some
expense and possibly, you know, some means of adjusting
the height of it.
So I would really like to examine whether we
can increase this number.  And if that's not something
that EMI is desirous of doing because of community
spirit -- and I would think that they would, just being
community spirited, they would want to help us get some
more water.
But if they didn't, then I would think that we
should participate in the discussions regarding the
licensing of the water from the State to EMI and make
sure that this increase in water becomes part of the
license agreement with the State and EMI or else
somehow -- find some other mechanism to get involved
with this.
We need the water; the community needs the
water, and the water is there.
                                             
CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, I -- you know, as far as
reducing this number down, that is a physical
limitation that we have in our plant.  And when it was
done I think everybody knew that.
And I am not certain that A&B, you know, cares
what the number is.  I mean, I don't expect to
encounter resistance if the Board wants to move it back
to that, those 1973 numbers.  Just, you know, we
physically -- even it we had that at 12, we couldn't do it.

MR. STARR:  Well, I am sure that with the
talents that we have in our engineering side we could
find a way if we had a long-term commitment for the
water to process it.
You know, I, for one, wouldn't support spending
more money on water treatment or, you know, a way to
change the elevation of water unless we had a long-term
commitment for it.  But if we did have a commitment for
another 4 million gallons a day, I am sure Paul and his
people would be able to find us a way in the future to
deal with it.  It's just money.
But we have consumers who want the water, and
they are willing to pay to develop it.  And, you know,
this is one way for us to get more water into the
system.

MR. CRADDICK:  Anyways, if that's the Board's
direction, to get these numbers back in there, then
that's the direction I will move in.
The other item on here, somewhat big item that
may be an issue, is the $60,000 that we normally
appropriate every year for repairing the flumes.  We
have been putting that in there.  My understanding is
that one of the main people that work on this will be
retiring at the beginning of next year.  We may end up
having to start doing this ourselves.
And, as far as I know, there are only about
1,900 feet along the flume bringing it back to its
original grade, and the flume is over a mile long.  So
that means there's another 3,000-plus feet there left
to do.  But this item is in the budget, and we would
 expect that -- well, we are going to have to talk with
them anyways.
If they can't do the work, if they don't have
the people to do the work anymore, then we are going to
have to step in and do it ourselves.

MR. STARR:  I know I, for one, want to see that
flume retained as well as it can be.  And I would like
to ask you:  Is there any way, through improvements of
the flume and the collection system up there, that we
can increase the amount of water we get into the top
system or decrease the amount that we lose through
leakage and other operational factors?

 MR. CRADDICK:  That's what we are doing by
spending this $60,000.  We have been spending this
money, I think, for about the past three years since we
bought the lumber up there to fix that up.  And --

MR. STARR:  What I am saying, beyond this, is
there any way -- if we spend $200,000, can we get more
water into the upper system?

MR. CRADDICK:  I doubt if you would get more water.
But keep in mind, the foundation of this flume
is 1920s vintage.  And what is being done is basically
to bring the flume up to grade.  Right now we have got
these humps in it, and the thing is leaning over off to
one side.  You get on it; it's wet, and you slide off
the thing.  And we are just trying to get it up to
grade.  And then some of the big gulches that it goes
over, I mean, the trestle that it's on has actually
collapsed and has got temporary stands holding the
ditch upright now.
 So there's no question that the whole flume
probably needs to be changed because the whole
foundation of it is gone.  And for the long haul, if
the Board wants to do that, it would be a good idea.
But I am not certain that $200,000 is going to cut it.

MR. STARR:  I would really like to request some
kind of report be done on the maintenance and possible
improvement of that flume, because all of the upper
elevations, you know, lives and dies on the water
coming out of that flume.  It's really critical that
 -- and if we need to do some more preventive work over
there or there's any way we can improve it, it's money
well spent.  If it fails, then we are really in a very
bad situation.
So please look into preparing some kind of a
report for us.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  I think, as a general
policy statement, we can see the Board moving more and
more towards control of water systems, whether they be
Upcountry, East Maui, West Maui, whatever.  With the
 demise of agriculture and other problems in those
areas, it's incumbent upon us, I think, to seize
control of some of those systems as we see this
happening throughout.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  We need to be in control.
Otherwise, we don't know what is going to happen --

MR. CRADDICK:  We do --

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  -- and what other factors
may be in control.
MR. CRADDICK:  We are paying -- even these
systems of ours, we are paying the same 6 cents per
thousand for the repair and operation of the intakes
and flumes on both the upper and the lower lines.
So if -- I mean, if we -- well, we will include
that as part of the report, you know, if staff were to
take over that function, what the extra expense might
be.

CHAIRMAN TAKITANI:  Mr. Miskae.

Mr. MISKAE:  Just as a follow-up, for
clarification:  Are you able to harvest all of the
water from the intakes?  Or are you restrained by the
capacity of the flume?
MR. CRADDICK:  When you say "all of the water,"
the flume basically takes water from one stream,
Haipuena, I believe it is is the last stream.  And
that's what feeds the basic flume.
Now, along the way there's some small like 2-
or 3-inch things that dump water in th