2019-07-24 Meeting Minutes (EMC)

Home

main objection was to the term—it will not be a pond, and it is about more than public relations. It will be a demonstration that nutrients are consciously being taken out rather than dumped into the ocean. Commissioner Burns suggested that Chair Bennett contact the EPA to see if there is a more appropriate term that could be used, and Chair Bennett said the EPA always goes through the DOH first, no matter how egregious things are. Ms. Mellon-Lacey said that unless there is an educational effort put out to inform the public, they will not understand, no matter what it is called. Chair Bennett then said it is not the public he is concerned with but a group of 10 to 15 people who have been doggedly following the project. He would like this core group to understand, and his hope is that the county can send the message that it is going the extra mile to take nutrients out of the wastewater. Director Kucharski pointed out that the goal is to never use the SAT pond. They are looking only for intermittent disposal efforts, and it appears they already have more use for the water than the water itself. However, he would like people to understand the county is doing more than the minimum—they are doing the best they can with the available technologies they have, given the very high cost. Chair Bennett said changing the name is not a drop-dead issue for him, but he would like it to be understood that nutrient removal is being done in the process, and he hopes this message can be conveyed to the special interest group and public at large. Director Kucharski said they could add to the description that the SAT is for phosphorous removal, which would reduce people’s expectation of what the SAT is supposed to do. Chair Bennett indicated he would be satisfied with that. Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Burns moved that they recommend to the director that he ask for specific details or verbiage regarding the SAT ponds so it is clear what they are actually going to do in terms of nutrient removal and what they are not doing based on the design set forth in the EIS plan. Commissioner Gaffney seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. 6. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE a. Chair’s Informational Report. Chair Bennett said he was frustrated when he reviewed a recent The Environmental Notice, which is put out by the Department of Health. The report included a wastewater treatment process on Oahu for a condominium with 300+ units. A new injection well was planned, and the well is within a few hundred feet of the coast. The new well test shows the water is salty, and there is no requirement for nutrient removal at this time. The well works against the goal of protecting the water quality of the ocean, and the state should not be approving injection wells with nutrient rich water. He pointed out Article XI of the Hawaiʻi Constitution, which is about preserving and protecting all of Hawaiʻi’s natural resources. The right thing needs to be done for the public trust. Article XI inspires him to do better, and it is his hope the commission would be able to stand up to the state and say 5