|
BROCK: It’s a very good question, and all I can do is draw on my own personal past experience.
<br />There are a bunch of ways of looking at it. One way is to go to some of the areas where there is
<br />no development whatsoever; Makalawena, we use that as a controlled site. I used Kūki‘o before
<br />anything was down there for ten years as a controlled site, sampling, doing water sampling and
<br />watching nutrients through time. And what I found like at Kūki‘o – there are seven parameters
<br />that have standards, State standards, that are, you know, that are currently used – and what I found
<br />down there is six of the seven standards over a ten-year period were all out of compliance at
<br />Kūki‘o. At Makalawena it – phosphorus is one – Makalawena, similar sort of thing, 65 percent of
<br />the time that standards were, you know, when I sampled, 65 percent of the time, I had 65 percent
<br />out of compliance over a 15-year period. Okay, so that’s one way to look at it. Another way to
<br />look at it is to look at what do we see on developed property, you know, pre-development,
<br />developed, and going through time. And what we have found – and I’m basing this on more than
<br />20,000 samples collected in West Hawai‘i over, starting in 19, about 1985, 86, so it’s a
<br />considerable period of time and effort – and what we find is that the concentrations of nutrients
<br />bounce and there is no rhythm to it that I can tell. So sometimes when you sample, things are
<br />high; other times when you sample, they are low. And what you are referring to there are two
<br />little sets of samples based on, it was about, six or seven samples in the ocean just right out in
<br />front, because they asked me to just take a quick look, two times, 15 years apart, or 14 years apart,
<br />and one time, the first time, yeah, they were lower, then next time, oh, we had, we went from two
<br />out of compliance to four – I think that’s it, I mean, you probably have it in front of you. And I
<br />can go back tomorrow, and we might have higher, non-compliance, or it might be lower.
<br />
<br />CHURCH: That’s fine, thank you very much. I think what you probably summarized is that
<br />given the violation in some of these areas, it’s kind of a sad state of affairs everywhere. Thank
<br />you.
<br />
<br />CARR SMITH: Sir, on that same topic, what changes have you seen occur if you have done any
<br />tests on the bigger ponds in front of the Marriot or in front of Kōlea area? Do you have any sense
<br />of how those have changed since the development there at Kōlea?
<br />
<br />BROCK: They have changed. They’ve gone some, like I said, sometimes things are up, other
<br />times things are low. Overall, looking at Waikoloa, which I started sampling 1986 something like
<br />that up to present, overall over the years things went high early on because you have a golf course
<br />growing, is one thing, and nutrients go through the roof. Does that impact things in anchialine
<br />ponds? At the concentrations that we have measured and some of them are quite high, no, it has
<br />no impact, and I attribute that to the fact that in a lot of undeveloped areas we get similar,
<br />sometimes high, results in anchialine ponds; it just says to me that the things that have evolved in
<br />those ponds, the little ‘ōpae ‘ula shrimp and things like that, are completely insensitive to it; it
<br />doesn’t make any difference to them. The numbers aren’t impacting them. Now, if you are
<br />talking pesticides, potentially, yeah, you could have a problem. But we sample for pesticides and
<br />we don’t find them. So it’s a big system, and you’ve got a lot of ground water moving beneath
<br />your feet into the ocean, and there is a lot of variability.
<br />
<br />CARR SMITH: Thank you.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Sorry, did you have a comment?
<br />18
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|