In August, the Commission on Water Resource Management decided against designating the ‘Iao aquifer on Maui as a water management area. The decision, taken at the commission’s August 13 meeting in Kahului was made on a five-to-one vote, with Department of Health director Lawrence Miike the lone dissenter.
In addition, the commission’s vote was over the objection of its own staff which has been considering designation of the aquifer since 1990.
The vote left Maui County water director David Craddick delighted, along with the chairman of the county Board of Water Supply, the Maui County Visitors Bureau, a representative of the County Council, and the Maui Hotel Association. Everyone else speaking at the commission’s meeting -including representatives of the Sierra Club and two groups suing the county over plans to drill wells in East Maui, and ordinary homeowners and residents from all over the island – indicated they supported the position of the commission staff that without designation, Maui County agencies could not be counted on to reduce water consumption levels to the point that ‘Iao aquifer would no longer be jeopardized.
Although Commissioner Miike made a strong argument that the law establishing the Water Commission required designation, the motion that was approved by the other commissioners – Land Board chairman Mike Wilson, Buddy Nobriga (himself a former member and chairman of the Maui Board of Water Supply), Dick Cox (a retired supervisor with A&B, Maui’s major water user), Big Island rancher Monty Richards, and Robert Girald of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union – called for the commission to designate as soon as Maui County’s withdrawals from the ‘Iao aquifer exceed the sustainable yield, as calculated on the basis of a 12-month rolling average.
Can Maui County live within those constraints? On the basis of information presented during the Water Commission’s August 13 meeting, it would seem highly unlikely.
Moreover, the overuse of the ‘Iao aquifer is merely one of the most visible problems in a long list of Maui water woes. Other areas of the island where water use has been, is now, or threatens to become an embattled issue include East Maui, Upcountry, the Central Plain (served mostly by the ‘Iao aquifer), South Maui (Ma’alaea, Kihei, Wailea, and Makena) and nearly every part of West Maui, from Honokohau to Olowalu. The range of problems is almost as vast.
Quantities of developed water and forecasts of what might likely be developed fall short of that needed to support developments that have already been zoned in Central and South Maui. Supplies of irrigation water are inadequate to serve farmers in Upcountry Maui, especially in times of drought. Diversions of water from streams in East Maui and at Honokohau have taro farmers complaining of a lack of water for their fields. And contamination of groundwater by some of the most potent pesticides ever developed may place some promising groundwater sources beyond the economic reach of the county to develop.
Living on the Float
On December 19, 1990, Bill Paty, then the chairman of the Commission on Water Resource Management, initiated the process of designating the ‘Iao aquifer as a water management area. Triggering the move was the fact that planned authorized use was greater than 80 percent of the aquifer’s sustainable yield (a trigger established in the state Water Code).
The Water Code gives the Water Commission ultimate responsibility for ensuring the long-term productivity of water resources, and designation of water management areas is the ultimate legal goal that the Water Commission has to carry out that responsibility. The code also sets forth a list of seven criteria, any one of which is deemed in the law to be sufficient cause for the commission to designate. In the case of ‘Iao aquifer, the criterion of greatest concern is the one that calls for designation if the existing or anticipated withdrawals from an aquifer reach 90 percent of the aquifer’s sustainable yield.
The sustainable yield is the best guess of hydrologists of the amount of water that can be withdrawn from an aquifer within a given period of time without the aquifer suffering long-term damage. Any time withdrawals exceed the sustainable yield (whether or not the sustainable yield has been determined with any precision), slow deterioration of the water source is a certainty. The lag – years or even decades – between the time excessive withdrawals occur and the time damage is observed is called “the float.” Meeting current needs by drawing water out at a rate that exceeds the sustainable yield is known as “living on the float.” If Maui County continued to withdraw water from the ‘Iao aquifer at the rate established in July 1997, the staff of the Water Commission estimates the county would be living on the float no more than about 30 years before the aquifer would be unusable because of high chloride content. Already, chloride levels in water drawn from ‘Iao wells have at times reached 400 parts per million, well over the recommended maximum of 250 ppm for drinking water.
Turnaround
When the commission began the designation process back in 1990, withdrawals from ‘Iao aquifer averaged about 17 million gallons a day (or “mgd”). Commitments to permitted developments amounted to 2 mgd, placing the demand on the aquifer at 19 mgd, a level in excess of the 90 percent mark that the Water Code sets as a criterion for designation. In addition, the county’s own Water Use and Development Plan, which, when adopted by the Water Commission became a part of the state’s Water Plan, estimated that by the year 2010, water demand in the region served by the aquifer would reach or exceed 30 mgd. (An ordinance adopting the Maui County plan was approved by the County Council on October 5, 1990, on a six to one vote. Casting the dissenting vote was then-Council member Linda Lingle.)
In 1991, the commission interrupted its progress toward designation when the county water director, Rae Shikuma, promised that withdrawals would not exceed 20 mgd and that the county would work at once to develop new sources within three years to meet additional short term needs.
(Rae Shikuma is now Rae Loui, deputy director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the chief of staff for the Water Commission. She left the county Department of Water Supply in January 1992 and David Craddick, then a deputy director for the county, was appointed her successor. He remains in that position, despite several well publicized rows with the county Board of Water Supply, at whose pleasure he serves.)
From 1992 to 1995, the county Board of Water Supply undertook several courses of action in an effort to develop new water sources and simultaneously reduce consumption. One of the first responses of the BWS to the Water Commission’s proposed designation of ‘Iao aquifer was to call for development of 10 wells in East Maui. Initially, this was to yield up to 15 million gallons a day (1.5 mgd from each well). The first well has yet to be drilled. In any case, the Water Commission now reports that at most, these wells will yield just 0.5 mgd – assuming that they are developed at all. (The East Maui well proposal is the subject of a separate article in this issue.)
In 1994, the Board of Water Supply proposed a rule allowing it to restrict issuance of new water meters in areas where water was unavailable (with an exception for single- family houses for which approvals had already been obtained at the time the rule went into effect). Mayor Linda Lingle, whose approval of the rule is necessary under the Maui County Charter, vetoed it, saying that the proposal appeared “to place the Department of Water Supply in the central role of land use planner for the County of Maui.”
And on it went. Negotiations between the Department of Water Supply and C. Brewer for use of water from ‘Iao Ditch proceeded at a pace much slower than that anticipated by the county. Installation of new wells in the ‘Iao aquifer (intended to spread the pumping out and thereby reduce stress on the aquifer) stalled. And efforts by the Department of Water Supply to discourage water-hungry development in Central and South Maui were unavailing.
An Ultimatum
Toward the end of 1995, the state Water Commission was ready to move ahead on its proposed designation of the ‘Iao aquifer, given that the county had made such little progress toward protection of the resource. On November 30, Michael Wilson, chair of the Water Commission, warned the BWS, “Pumping from ‘Iao aquifer cannot be increased any farther without evidence that the additional withdrawals will not harm the aquifer.” For the five months preceding Wilson’s letter June through October, more than 22 mgd a day, on average, had been pumped from the aquifer an amount equal to 110 percent of its sustainable yield.
To address the issue, the Water Commission scheduled a meeting in late January 1996 to review county plans to reduce the stress on the aquifer.
On December 12, 1995, Lingle lectured the Board of Water Supply. “Maui has plenty of water,” The Maui News quoted her as telling the board. “There is no water shortage.” Craddick, director of the Department of Water Supply, “has not provided you with the information you’ve needed,” Lingle said, admonishing the board to “take control of this department.”
Talk of scarce water has discouraged “those who are investing in Maui and those contemplating investing on Maui,” Lingle said.
In the face of imminent Water Commission action, Craddick pulled together a list of more than two dozen short- and long-term actions that the BWS could take to increase the water supply and reduce the demand. Included was everything from building a desalination plant to using shallow, contaminated wells in Kahului, to ratcheting up negotiations (ongoing since 1984) with C. Brewer for land in North Waihe’e, where the county was hoping to drill new wells.
At its January 1996, meeting, the Water Commission held off designating the ‘Iao aquifer as a water management area. Instead, it established a set of milestones that were intended to put the county on track in its efforts to develop new water sources.
Last Chances
In December 1996, the county escaped designation once more. Although the Water Commission staff was recommending this, the county was able to show it had been making good faith efforts toward meeting commission established deadlines.
In February, the commission revisited the designation issue. Mayor Lingle acknowledged she had withheld money the previous year that the Department of Water Supply said was needed to speed development of new water sources, but now, she said, she had inserted $400,000 in the county’s new budget to assist projects intended to reduce pumpage from ‘Iao aquifer. In addition, although Lingle had vetoed a water rate increase the previous year, now, she told the commission, she might regard such a proposal more favorably.
Craddick told the Water Commission that by July or August 1997, an additional 3 mgd would be available from the North Waihe’e wells and ‘Iao ditch. The department’s giveaway of low-flow shower heads to households in Central Maui would reap 100,000 to 200,000 gallons a day, he said, while the East Maui wells were still viewed as a 10 mgd long-term source.
In mid-April, the Board of Water Supply approved the basic framework of a ground-water shortage plan, partly satisfying one of the milestones and again giving the Water Commission a reason to defer a decision on designation.
However, the water shortage plan required approval of the County Council, and when it came before the council’s Public Works and Water Committee in June, Rae Loui of the Water Commission provided testimony that the plan would not achieve its purpose of protecting ‘Iao aquifer. Among other things, the plan provided that the groundwater levels would have to drop even further before setting off a “caution,” the mildest of three conditions for action. But, Loui noted, the aquifer “is already below safe levels.”
Other parties objected to the penalties, ranging from two to 20 times the normal water use rates, proposed for customers who overuse water when levels in the aquifer were “critically low.” On July 28, the full council voted to reject the plan on a seven-to-one vote.
Last Chance, For Real
By August, the Water Commission was again asked to consider by its staff a proposal to designate ‘Iao aquifer. The groundwater shortage plan had been rejected. The county had yet to obtain a permit from the Department of Health to use water from ‘Iao Stream (held up because of the county’s unwillingness to curtail swimming upstream of the intake). In other respects, too, the county had fallen behind the milestone markers set by the commission in lieu of designation. (Sections of the staff report are reprinted elsewhere in this issue. This provides a more complete list of the problems.)
Seventeen people testified at the meeting. Of those, six opposed designation. Four of the opponents are employed by or represent county agencies: Craddick; Dorvin Leis, chairman of the Board of Water Supply; Council member Kimo Apana; and Gary Zakian with the Corporation Counsel’s office. The two other opponents represented the Maui Visitors Bureau (Lynne Woods, who submitted written testimony) and the Maui Hotel Association (Terryl Vend).
Nine of the remaining to individuals testifying were strongly in favor of designation. (No clearly discernible position could be ascribed to the tenth.)
A Problem of Perception?
Craddick objected at length to the staff’s report and recommendation. The county was six months ahead of schedule in meeting its December 1997 goal of withdrawing less than 20 mgd from ‘Iao aquifer, he said. Moreover, he claimed, the staff’s dire predictions of minimal yields from North Waihe’e wells were off base. A study produced last April by John Mink, a hydrologist and consultant, suggested the yields could be much higher. “There are differences in opinion between John Mink and Bill Meyer,” Craddick said, referring to the head of the U.S. Geological Survey’s office in Honolulu. “We do need full and factual information before a fundamental decision is made that could affect the day-to-day lives of one half of the population of Maui.”
Craddick referred to his department’s conservation efforts. Commissioner Miike challenged him on this: “You said your conservation practices were reducing demand. By how much, and what’s your proof?”
Craddick pointed to the drop in consumption noted on the most recent pumpage figures – although Miike noted that the weather had cooperated. In addition, Craddick said about 6,000 low-flow shower heads had been passed out in Central Maui, while a wastewater re-use plan would provide an additional 5 mgd for irrigation in the area by the year 2007.
The problem with overpumping of the Mokuhau wells – running at 8 or 9 mgd -would soon be cut back to 3 or 4 mgd when the Wailuku Shaft was back on line, he promised.
When pressed to describe what the impact of designation would be on his operation, Craddick answered that his “biggest problem” would be “the assumption or presumption that somehow the Water Department is doing something wrong because you designate…. When people read this and don’t know what designation is about, there is concern in the community that, hey, this place is short of water; are we going to go over there and develop there? And I don’t want to minimize that concern. I think that is a very big concern of the business community here on Maui.”
At one point, Commission Chair Mike Wilson attempted to find out how much of the water pumped from ‘Iao aquifer was used for irrigation and landscaping purposes. In response, Craddick mentioned that is percent of what was pumped was unaccounted for – that is, lost to leaks in the system. The national average was 9 percent, he said, and the county was trying to work toward that goal. (Should the county reach the national average, it would still be losing nearly 2 million gallons a day to system losses.) Craddick was not pressed on the matter of losses. He went on to note that in Kihei, customers used about a third of their water for household uses, whereas in Wailuku and Kahului, about half went to household uses.
Council member Kimo Apana also testified against designation. Once more, the commission heard concerns over the perception designation might create. Although the commission might claim that, “by designation of the aquifer, there’s no real harm for the economy or anything,” Apana said, “our side is, the biggest harm is the perception of people coming here and potential investors as well as home users here.” Further, Apana said, the commission should take into account the fact that in the last year alone, the County Council had granted a water rate increase. And, he noted, “the Council just passed a reuse ordinance for Kihei. If people live within 100 meters of a pipeline [carrying polished effluent], they must use the water unless it is financially unfeasible.”
A Contrary view
Attorney Isaac Hall, representing the Coalition to Protect East Maui Resources and Maui Malama Pono, provided the commission with a less optimistic assessment. “The record will not support statements that you have got the attention of decision-making entities here that create the water demand. The Maui Planning Commission and Maui County Council regularly approve projects with great water demands, even though Mr. Craddick will send in a letter saying we don’t know where the water is coming from.” He continued:
“I have not attended a meeting of the council or the Planning Commission where anybody has stood up and said, ‘Hey, there’s a petition to designate pending, we’d better start acting more responsibly about our water resources.’ They say, ‘Eh, we’ll worry about where we’re going to find this water later.’ So I don’t think you can say you have the attention of decision-making entities here.”
Hall noted that the commission “has bent over backwards to give the county an opportunity to act responsibly here… You’ve never allowed anyone to pump more than the sustainable yield of an aquifer for two years without designating.”
But in the end, Hall’s testimony and that of the other supporters of designation carried little weight. As the commission entered its decision-making phase, Commissioner Cox observed, “We obviously have a serious problem with ‘Iao aquifer, which we’ve had lot a number of years. And we have set out a number of milestones. The county hasn’t quite met each one of them but they’ve come fairly close. So I think there’s a certain firmness along in here of not designating immediately. One of the issues that has come up, certainly today, is the necessity for an IRP,” an integrated rate plan, which would attempt to match demand with supply.
Nobriga made the motion to deny designation at this time, but to designate at once if and when the 12-month rolling average for pumpage from ‘Iao aquifer hit 20 mgd. This, he said, would place the onus on the county – or, as he phrased it, would “put the horse right there in their ball field.”
According to Rae Loui, this could occur as early as November if the county’s withdrawals exceeded 20 mgd in August, September, and October.
Commissioner Miike alone indicated his objection to the motion. “For two years the sustainable yield has been exceeded and it has only been two months ago that they’re under, and they’re under by just several thousand…. I worry that we set the precedent that only when we exceed [sustainable yield] do we even consider designation. If that’s the case, then we’re not here to prevent deterioration, but we step in only when actual corrective action is needed. I don’t think that’s the charge to the commission.”
In the end, the commission approved Nobriga’s motion.
And if the county exceeds the 20 mgd limit, on a 12-month average, what then? According to Deputy Attorney General Bill Tam, because of possible ambiguities in interpreting what counts as excess pumpage or other questions of interpretation, the commission would still have to reconvene and vote to designate.
Coda
Since the Water Commission meeting, County Council Chairman Pat Kawano has introduced a resolution urging the Department of Water Supply to impose a moratorium on issuance of new water meters in Central Maui. According to an article in The Honolulu Advertiser of August 19, Kawano criticized Craddick for not doing enough to encourage residents to curb their water use.
The resolution was sent to the Public Works and Water Committee for further consideration. In addition to the moratorium, the resolution calls for increased efforts to educate the public about water and the need to conserve, and development of a water allocation plan.
Volume 8, Number 3 September 1997
Leave a Reply