HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0094.001 2022-2024 . ZYOip .
HEATHER L. KIMBALL -J'J .'y'•�� Phone: (808) 961-8828
COUNCIL CHAIR „ �����' (808)961-8912
Council District 1 (North Hilo, : : � r: �: Email:heatherkimball@hawaiicounty.gov
Ham-lima, and portion of Waimea) ,,.t - Mo
HAWAI`I COUNTY COUNCIL
C'
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I -�-,
25 Aupuni Street, Ste. 1402,Hilo,Hawaii 96720 -71
—A
§.
DATE: February 17, 2023
TO: Hawai`i County Council Members
is 41, _w
FROM: Heather Kimball, Council Chair
Council District 1, County of Hawai`i
SUBJECT: Presentation Material relating to Update on the Cesspool Conversion
Working Group Report
Aloha!
We have been presented with a slide deck by the Department of Environmental Management for
the presentation scheduled to be heard by the Communications, Reports, and Council Oversight
Committee on February 21, 2023.
Please process and distribute the attached slide deck which summarizes the findings of the
Cesspool Conversion Working Group.
Should you have any questions or concerns,please do not hesitate to contact Dot Botelho-Kaili
directly.
Mahalo nui!
Comm. No. CM
•�
Ref.To: GRCOG
Ref.Date FEB 2 1 2o23
Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
CESSPOOL CONVERSION WORKING
GROUP INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
suopupuauauaoDall 1Joclall IEU!d
Xpn aDuEuy
uopEzppopd pug ETEd VON3V
Xpn XOOUqDOl
nnainuanp pine puno.a>pe8
• The Cesspool Conversion Working Group (CCWG)
issued their Final Report to the Legislature
recommending ways to facilitate the upgrading of
83,000+ cesspools in Hawaii.
• The Department of Health established the CCWG
as authorized by the Legislature based on Act 132 of
BACKGROUND AND Session Law Hawaii 2018.
OVERVIEW
Purpose of the CCWG was to develop a long-range
comprehensive plan for cesspool conversion
statewide for all cesspools by 2050.
The CCWG spent four (4) years working to tackle
this challenging issue with the first meeting held on
September 3, 2018.
3
CCWG MEMBERS
Dr. Elizabeth Char, Chair Director, Department of Health
2 Edward (Ted) Bohlen Representative of the public
3 Stuart Coleman Formerly Surfrider Foundation,WAI
4 Charlene Lani Fernandez Bank of Hawaii
5 Ken Hiraki Hawai'i REALTORS
6 Troy Tan igawa Wastewater Division, County of Kauai
7 Dr. Roger Babcock Director, City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental
Services
8 Ramzi Mansour Director, County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental
Management
9 Dr. Darren T. Lerner Director, University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program and the
Pacific Islands Climate Science Center
I0 Representative Nicole Lowen State of Hawaii House of Representatives
I Kenneth Wysocki USEPA Region 9
12 Eric Nakagawa Director, County of Maui, Department of Environmental Management
13 Erica Perez Coral Reef Alliance
14 Sina Pruder Wastewater Branch, Department of Health
5 Dr. Kawika Winter Manager, He`eia National Estuarine Research Reserve, Hawaii Institute
for Marine Biology
16 Michael Mezzacapo University of Hawaii Water Resources Research Center 4
Act 132 had 15 objectives that had to be evaluated by
the CCWG.
The CCWG reviewed the objectives and placed them
in three categories: Finance,Technology, and
Data Prioritization.
ACT 132
OBJECTIVES The CCWG contracted Carollo Engineers to study
and provide reports on the Finance and Technology
related to the objectives.
The CCWG contracted the University of Hawaii to
evaluate the 2017 data prioritization report and
develop a new data prioritization method and tool to
prioritize the risk of cesspools to human health and
the environment.
5
OjCJa 2OZ `�Z �anaga�
qese suo�saanuo� Ioodssa
aqi Jol 6u! e!J9 IiaunoO iciunoo !!em H
_m 4
, , .,-.., , 3 • 4* l'- ..2,As tit*.„IFIrr•'•Z.,:li.„14,,t, -:,,, .-..r1,.. ..,
.4., , ,. ...,,i,,,.. ,,,,,,,,r.... . . ‘.. ,„.,
•
*'.' ' .;,,l /14 „ '.,.''. '',,,,,,, r,,,,,.;: ,c,, , ,
7
jar
s
r
r
r <4
+� 31F�xa
s
°
• a
LL.
w�
a e)fii,D r � '*n
a
t
‘ ..'..'''.•.''''''''''' t:''2.41‘;'°'1 )‘1 '.(4'
d
1'i�
4
1 4 1 tY tt.
II Agenda
Conversion Options
02 Findings and Recommendations
-,:.-
.. .
'.1.. .,(l),,
,...„:„.
,.. ..,t
..,..„
.,.
,,,:::,,,-
',-...7,4„.....-- .,......,,,,,„... '
t
-.'.-„-_:„:;--,-,,r;,17:14:•.:-.1,-i.,7,,,_-.-„:„.:],-:.-i.---,,,4,:t...: ,f,f,..flit-,,,', — '
.3„,...„0-,,
. .,..,.2' -,
..„.
-,-':,,44t-.17:;..,•1,--'.-,i,',.:_'-'.1-,'-'-:,::;?4'::' ,ie,,-.....i:
.„.•
--..; ., ..,
,,,, -
.,-;,....-L.,;;;;-!:::,..,,,-.•,-. ,, '. • „' „,,,,.. ...:, ',.,., -,ii„,4,,,,,,,„ —
3I
.1,,,:i,it'',.....,--:::: ...,' 14 . ,,•i -- *. ,, ,,,'„,,L,'...F.'.'.,0,-- ,,,,,..-;.,;-„.:7:,,,,,,,-..:71,„.1::.-,,,,,,,:444' ii
,....-i:4ti:. ,..:_, -,:,.',. .,7,..,:f-:',:.... l:ti ,,,, •.,. - ,,.- ---'+,,,::',..-',0*.',A....,,,;-'-'4",. ..,
. ..,,..
P,--„,
,
,,,,
-10.,...,
'iq
, . , ..
...,„ ,..-
4f.it
.,.,'..,110. '.'--," ',1;'''''''• . ,,I,' '''''''-',. '',.' • '
. ,,...
, -
.,...
...,,, .
„... .
, ..„„
.. , . .
. ..
. , .
.. 4
. ,
.0-
' 4..
...' '. f
(/).„,
=. , .
0
...
„
......
. ,
,' • , , .1.‘ '
1.....L"
0
. .
• -
r ' ,
=
4., = •
• - ,-"/11,.: ' .. ' .;?'.
4„...,
•Ci)
•,,
41.....
CD
......... ,
. ..
V • ' ' ,
C
0
(..)
., ' ' '•.• .
.. ''.;‘.
,
,-)--•:',.,;-11--_,. - ,--ii,),,,,:,,i' ii.-1' k ,„et':''') ,,,,,,-”- '
. , .
47. *
, .4--,'Yii,'' IL*. •'kt..,...;' ,.lirtle....''., ,'". '
A,.,..
ti.
•' 'air-,
// Most likely conversion options for Hawaii County
• Expansion of centralized sewer service
areas
• Evaluated in Facilities Plans
• Decentralized systems
• Potential conversion option for clustered systems
that cannot be feasibly connected to centralized
systems
• Individual wastewater systems
• Conversion technology is dependent onsite
conditions
// Conversion considerations
Centralized sewers
Proximity ® HawaiiCesspoolPrioritizationTool o.�n• to existing A x
® Tnd
collection system 00F0A.o.,
h�7
• Feasibilityof extending the
Gni Traces A ontind
collection i n ste m
s
Y
• Available capacity at the
p Y
wastewater treatment p lant
Don
• Cost of upgrades and sewer
fees
10
// Benefits and challenges of centralized systems
Benefits Challenges
• Increase customer base and revenues
• Reduce use of potable water and increase 10 County would need to expand
recycled water use sewer system
• Meet design requirements of existing WWTPs
• Better environmental protection • Cost to the County could be
• Achieve environmental justice goals ` significant, but can be
• Potential for rapid conversions financed/recovered•
over time
• Homeowners will not have to operate and
maintain an individual system • County requires staff/support to
• Potential to reduce the burden of conversions implement projects
by limiting scope to sewer lateral only
11
// Conversion considerations
Decentralized systems
-am �iCesspool�;onbZ� o�T � , ._ � ,
• Numb r of cesspools and ® � legend
Ctxipots Rwrm:ed_byTractA X
density 00 -
• Feasibilityofconstructinga
Trects_Prwrtt�d
, ,,
0 , ,r
Y
collection system
4.
• Effluent disposal o tions
p .44
-.,
• Biosolids handlingo tions p ono
- , v.-- .
• Cost of upgrades and sewer t
fees
12
// Benefits and challenges of decentralized systems
Benefits Challenges
• Potential for rapid conversions
• Reducing burden on
homeowners to hire engineers
and contractors independently � � " • • neigh _ _
• Ensure proper operations and coordination
ongoing maintenance by
Need for licensed operator
licensed operators and/s •ace requirements
• Broaden range of funding
opportunities -'
/I Conversion considerations
Individual wastewater systems
•
rps Hawaii Cesspool Prioritization Tool Public Results App Link to►spot Data App -
• Type of technologyand Cesspools Priors..by
0
approval l status
pp
• Terrain
fe • Conaus Trects,nootinwi
• Cost to owner can be
significant
• Owner is responsible for
a
ongoing maintenance and
g g
operations
14
•
// Examples of systems
"Temporary systems',
p Y
,. ‘,„ ... , ......„. , . . .. ... ....,. . ... ... . .. , _..,
..
,,.. .,. .
• Lower level of treatment: Septic tank and drain field . _ = w ` .+r
Nonped,ated rx
*
: ' -''''' 4 .- '
.n
• Higher level of treatment: Aerobic treatment unit, H� , ._ . lea
other nutrient removal technologies
a .
-
Perforated 3i r►:'' ----- ..:..
k.,„...,,,,,,,, �` ,.40 ;'.
moi �< top s. .a r,
`i+ '�, ( Vent p x
OR i
IM4i1C1CliFiti _ ° . .
a
GRO-ts:-
FIGURE 4.Trench Absorption System.
x- ��: --; Absorptions systems are a common,cost-effective disposal option for onsite
L--- ' ' systems but do have a minimum space requirement.
..tt.51Et1Z4rER r ;__ ..int%.:., I fl R,,,,,v_
YO)---v-, mar
Dt tZ DIM&
$GUM `QR OCE R FTLTEIR !J<1'btE1M
SLUDGE
PRE.Wr" AERAtEC SECOCARt'
8t1TL s.6 0.4.10157R 5E ttL*wG
eAeN BASIN
FIGURE 3.Schematic at Suspended-Growth Flew-Tk.ugh MU..
Aerobic treatm®nt units can remove ammonia(nitriticanon i and nitrate
Idenitrificationi providing better nitrogen treatment than a septic tank.
15
// Benefits and challenges of individual wastewater systems
Benefits Challenges
• Owner must hire licensed engineer and
contractor
• Cost must be borne by homeowner and
• Potentially a relatively simple inancial support is required for many
• If higher level of treatment is needed, a
conversion if a high level of more complex system is required
treatment isn't required (e.g. , • ner must operate and maintain their
septic tank + drain field) tem
• Property constraints relative to effluent
disposal options
• May not achieve environmental justice
goals
w
0 .$ a in
E .
.:
��' � � 'fi �'
- (
d
0
.4;s,4',p[ �. of
t ; 411,,,,„',,
,t f
'1.1......z a
,„. ,,,, -*
�--�
CT:$
"t3
.t
. ,
,,,
.,
,,, ,
G r a)
E
„., E..
i , x
, .
41 '. a
! �- .* 0
,i4(‘..''
«.,
. ,
.4, ,
% A.' ::. 4,,,, ;siv*..,,., ..,.. 4,,
cit
e a)
a
illia0.,', ' * ,.„-. 4,,, .h
fi
Co
' '''''i#t'''''‘
k s .r✓.
kF r
17Z:3
Ll..,
r t
■
C
/I Summaryfindingsof and recommendations
• Develop better understanding of onsite treatment
40i al
options Septic System
• Allowable "density" of septic tank systems or numeric limits
for total nitrogen
• Develop a coordinated strategy for methods
of conversions
ate'wwf
• What cesspools can be easily connected to existing sewers?
• What cesspools can be connected to extended or new H�., I.
.****.A.11.0.fPMww veru Dwirs..mow..
sewer systems?
• Feasibility of decentralized treatment for high-density, high-
priority cesspool areas.
18
II Summary f fidn id n n rec mmendations t,d )
o sao g
• Staffing/training/workforce development
• Professional staff
• Contractors
• Operators � � RULES ARE CHANGING FOR YOUR
u N.
HOME CESSPOOL
• Public outreach, education, and CESSPOOLS NEED TQGO! •
homeowner tools t„apootaarrranAer�rarndtrraNalrnedtoAlapoa.o/twtsareholdwaata,rrratt�tntothegroernawarrrtabi+
�� In 2017,the ttawan State Leh*isiature pasxrf 11ct 1 T5 requhrng the rvpla:enaent of ail•-
prevent envimnmentat rryntao atian Cotspotrlo p0sr ,au hrgh n.k to dr�nkrn�watrr u,,ir,,.AI,t,.:.t:71
ecosystems.I000 r,you don't{than on being rn yenrt hearse rn Arra has.,d ressper,with negatrvety offer
the resale value rhe your home
• Develop educational resources HOW DO I KNOW IFI OK,SO HOW DO I FIX IT? CAN I AFFORD THIS?
HAVE A CESSPOOL? ! Check out our tdtattinatrnmgoptlor�.,
,r"„c dort"t have, iF I Typical replacement c.Atc rant,from S°,
• Educate on conversion options et.t. '�` � etlrantf° nrra�rrentflna°"°
p You pay a sewer bell or server
charge on,I1 water Intl 1 t
0
Your home was bud, bite a hren.civic Suomi your plan to the
recently. engrneer to help yen Department of Health Stang or County Support
• Facilitate access to engineers, contractors, system other thana MAIM splen for apprtrva{ p� l't=r
An alternative wastewater l0
resspoot rs stow at your •a
and operators with applicable experience m ,..0,00.4411114114. o "cm."°tinanrin,
inquire with the Department of 3
Health it you re unsure of whether Hina lkensect En{tteet submits fe•eral Grants ane Loans
• Provide guidance on financial support or ot not have a resspnoli contras build inspeetP n rsrynxt 11&) ..t aya,tahiot
news em fora approval
funding options haalth.hawaii.toviwastewater
19
TheHawai' i
Hazard
Assessment & Tool
Chris Shuler & Michael Mezzacapo
University of Hawaii at Manoa SeaGrant College Program &
Water Resources Research center
tv�w•+Guo•o►p.orNMMMw boe:+MM.aw -__ �•••�`��*,�.•�.,"..��>
.t.i..r
a .
Sea1llt . 4.,...„-,
University of Hawaii `9. 0 t
t d-
021 1:.- if' 00 c\C)
• 3 -
# 11-'`
0120
20
Objectives
i. Identify a comprehensive list of factors to inform the new
prioritization assessment;
2. Categorize previously uncategorized (Priority Level 4)
cesspools;
3. Provide DoH/CCWG recommendations based on new
findings where appropriate;
4. Develop a scientifically unbiased and objective framework to
rank all cesspools on the 4 main islands
5. Present results through a web-based tool to view
prioritization levels and input data
21
Process 1. Distance to coastline;
2. Distance to streams and
1) Updated statewide cesspool wetlands;
inventory 3. Distance to drinking water wells;
4. Well capture zones;
2) Curated statewide risk-factor data s. Sea level rise zones;
6. Precipitation;
3) Developed reproducible, scientifically 7. Depth to groundwater;
objective code-based calculation 8. Cesspool density;
framework 9. Soil characteristics;
4) Quantified `risk' through geospatial io. Groundwater flow paths;
association with each factor ii. Coral cover;
12. Fish biomass/recovery potential;
5) Workshops with a panel of experts to 13. Beach user-days;
help weight factors 14. Proximity to lifeguarded beach;
is. Coastal ocean circulation
6) Synthesized all data into single
prioritization score for each cesspool 22
Prioritization Results
,,„„,
s tiiaj `f�,,
d
3
•
�F yj
Threshold based binningof all census tracts. . , . ,,, . ,. -,,. .,.. ‘ , , .. ‘... ., ,...., .
f../...T.,,,,
. . \ f ,. l
into three simple categories ` ,
rs . 4r .,
(1 ) Hughest (2) Medium (3) Lower ,_ ,,, -v-\ ', ,:,, . , -,,,„,,,,,,, ,..,- ..i_._. k -, - ' ,,,- ,,,1, , W.
� } � �� � y� ,� �, �'�Priority Priority Priority , _ w
Akt,..,‘ ,
:,,,,,,,.._.,, sa-_, ,
Cesspools Cesspools Cesspools , , ,, ,I! - A** ,,,,,- 'Pr' . .. ' 47:1161, Y.. 14'
• t1Y
.. - - • - A */"J::-
• tit
,„,, itri.
75 to 50Y0 1 Bottom 50%
.UA
ha,,.d
I • ,,
13,821 12 367 55,237
units units units
',3
Web Application Tools
cra
Hawaii Cesspool Pnontization Tool.Input Data . $ 0tt
Hawali Cesspool Priontuation Tool Public Results
III i
, '
', 41s
- ,
.,,,
.,
a • ,,
+11104.,......... „, ...
CI
:1: -,,..- .1–
At
6..........4f., .,
fo,
— „..
. ,
' ' ' "r-- ,
...
\ . ;. ':-.,. •
..i
...
, _ • ,
...
,f.,..•-", ..., . CAne ROM.^.., ...
...
C3 CI D 111 c+3 .-- ... n i:iCiri El)
WM
DOH Input Data Tool Public Results Map
http://hawaiicesspooltool.org/ 24
,
Hawaii Island
..,,, „.......
. ,4
Results ...,
.. ..,,...,:. _
Priority 1 :
5,119 (11 %)
Priority 2:
2,619 (6%)
Priority 3:
40,858 (84%)
I
Hawaii Island
„�:tiW �.
Resultsire 4;~-:
Priority 1 :
Kawaihae/Waikoloa
C)
Holualoa 011
Priority 2:
Hilo
Kaumalumalu/Keahou
26
.
- .-,•••,-
•-- ,,,,„.,,,,,...:„
Ill
...,
...__C)
.,,,,,,.,•-•
,„,:•,••
' • ,,,,•-",' •. ' •'''','li .,'il
„. ' • , ..,
....„.
...mai
-,,..-4,-,,,,.,„!•i'-,i''.-?..,!;4,••.,,,.,.,
..,--''-..s.:;;',-'.7-,5:-,..:.•.-- .:: ,,,....'-,',, '. -•t--.- '
%ill ;T:i
-..:;,.:•.1,',,if.f;',,,,,,,,,,,•-..,„:-..7,:t,;
- .
• - .,
. .
. .. .
:.--..., - •,-•.i
‘.. ,•!„
- . ...
..: ....,,..
'.'",,,-...,,..n.••,,,,,.,......
,.,,,....,1,,,,.•-•-N..,..
,(1
J.,
,j.
,..
.,..
.,.,
,,, ...„......:. ..,....„..„., ..,....„,..,.,,
,;'.,:.,!-::„.1::•,-- ' -• -..:i.:::.,,,.' .131:cf,,,,,.., ' -... '.
.„..„..,.... „. .•......,... „ ,,
,,..-::''.;',-,7;-1,4,,-,, 4,',.4.7 ,•1 '.,,'
,:,-'.',,,,,,,,,,i,:.'1,-'• ..-,,,,,-.''.., i't,tr::,'' . ,'
=
0, ...,
CZ.,,
(1)
=_._,,,,,•••
f' 4
0
.--
c:7)
I .'
=
::-
.,... .,:.
.. --
- _ 0
fa,,--,
,,,,
„,
• , ct3
...,:,-
0• ,,,,,,
=
•.,0€
— =
, . 0
...4.,
1'
,.•
. :
" . •, . L— (I)
••ii,
i•' ' •;'' ". * 0 L...
••:'•,1-,':,
, •, •:, •., .„
. , r
c OCD
,-.;:' •
..,,
•....
0
. .
. ,••
' -0.
.„.,,,:.
'1.'''
. .
. 4?.. .
,
. .„,„- .. ,.....
.. ..4,,,,:
= 0
,...
,.
. . . .,
. ,.
CO
' — .*.
-, ..,
-,)--
'
. . C\J
., ,.., '•
''H :n' -''',k.-) a) 0 cp
,,...,0
CN
#'' " . '%414 >
".
' '''4,
...,
(-:
(Ni
•'''''''t
, ..„,•,,,--
. .
•,,,.,„
L'
,..,,,,,,, ,,-A- . -, ,•,,„
, . -.'t, -..74; t•4, - Cn
CK3
•''',0-C::'
' ' I
, 0*.: ...4,,,,,, • 4
.... ,,
=
,..<
- -•,
t, . p-,, 0 (/)
., .. .., 4
4.. .
..4... .. -1.,..
. „.....,
,.... ,.. ....
.,.,,,.
-•-,.. ,
, ,
.. :,-,. ,,,••.,.
. ,,,,,, ,
lid 0
/i
• ,,,,,,
k 441,11.-t-,
.• . .
, .
•
. '
'•,•,,, ,
pv4- :,1:
,.
., ,.. _.._
...
tP. 4,
: ,..,4 . ..
1
. i ...,
..., .,.:
,,,. .
,....
,,...
,,.
, . ..
:1:. , •::::'''
..,
.,, ,......_,,-;•:,..,2
--- -*: '
.1„,,,
Agenda
01 Affordability Analysis
02 Funding Options
Factors ThatAffect Cesspool
03 Conversion Programs
04 Findings and Recommendations
28
'" w
',...„„;,,-:::41,;...,:.:',.!,11 if
tt
4-,,...,:-..:,
. d
t-,.,y-,,,,:ti,,,,,::
2 $
s"'.�
/1" J''
41
' ,`,.-,..:'` -,'S,...,47,7,7,, ;,-.1,,,,,,4:::',,,,,,,,,,..v *:,.
/' 4
"s
4-.
so,. ,.,
ec
a
' .' ',' : '..4' 4'141'1'4' cn
ii, :
: ,
k
aft
"ci)
,,,-,:. , ,,,
Is '', '. '
xs A � S„
(13
' ,_.. r , f
=v
.y,
. .i> 1
K
# 10' , ,,, ),-,::'1 "tt. a'r. ..k. '„
`'' s f '
x t ¢ '*sem
C13r a'.0.,. -I, t +' i .
33
14
*,„ 0
x.,,,,„ 0 1, is
oto. � e
....,,,.,:,*. 44 41
J..'
Y- F°
// Affordability Analysis
Methodology • Geographic Information System
Data (GIS)/Cesspool locations
Sources • Median Household Income (MHI)
for Census Block Groups (CBG)
• Priority Areas
Costs • Installation Costs
• Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs
Affordability • Comparison to Average Sewer Bill
• Percent of MHI
Measures • Federal Poverty Levels (FPL)
30
// Financial Impact of Cesspool Conversions
Cost Description Low Average High
Cesspool Conversion Construction Cost (total)(1) $10,000 $23,000 $38,000
Interest rate (percent)(2) 4.0
Loan Term (years)(2) 20
Cesspool Conversion Construction Cost (monthly)(2) $61 $139 $230
Estimated O&M Cost (monthly) (3) $33 $71 $108
Estimated Monthly Cost $94 $210 $339
Notes:
1. Installation costs are based on historical installation costs for septic tank and ATU treatment and disposal systems from DOH. The low-end cost represents
the 10th percentile, and the high-end cost represents the 90th percentile.All conversion costs are site specific and these installation costs may not be
representative for more complex sites/installations.
2. Installation costs are assumed to be financed over 20 years at 4 percent based on market rates for home equity loans as of July 2020.
3. Monthly operating costs are estimated with the low end representing septic tank operations costs. The high end represents a higher level of treatment with
ATU + UV disinfection + seepage pit. The median operations cost is the median of the low- and high-end operations costs.
31
// Affordability Measures
• Federal Poverty Level
• Annual income < $30,718
• Percent of Median Household Income
• Financially burdened if conversion cost is greater than 2% of MHI
• Annual income < $126, 125
// Statewide Cesspool Conversion AffordabilityResu is
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
0
0
6,000
5,000
-0 4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 kal [ 11.1
ti
N.
ti t2titi
Annual Household Income
•County of Hawaii •City and County of Honolulu •County of Kaua'i •County of Maui
33
// Statewide Results : FPL
10,000
9,000 Below Federal
Poverty Level
8,000
7,000
O
4,263
6,000 Cesspools
0
5,000 (-5%)
4,000
z
3,000
2,000
1,000
IN I
0
o`- o`, o`, o`- o`- o`, o� o` 6, o`- 6, o`, „X
ti ti n , 4, ° 4\ ticb t2c) NN"
t° tion ,y0\V 30 �O how �6 16 god' p`t-' °`�' p`F' °�F=
Annual Household Income
■County of Hawaii ■City and County of Honolulu NI County of Kaua'i ■County of Maui
_z.
34
// Statewide Results : FPL MHI
10,000 Cesspool upgrade costs
9,000 Below Federal fa exceed 2% of income
1 i
8,000 Poverty Level I $2,424
7 00o Cools
(�essp94%)
TD
o
6,000
u,
U
O 5,000
- 4,000
z 3,000
2,000
1,000
0 LA
111 ill IL L
O� 1Off" Off" Off' O� 4�` Off` 4�' Off" Off' Off` Off" Off"
,,
�O- e
10� e
�O� hOC toO� 10' e
O`�� O`�� p`�� O`�� ��
Annual Household Income
•County of Hawaii •City and County of Honolulu •County of Kaua'i ■County of Maui
35
// Statewide Results : FPL MHI , 10K Rebate
5
10,000 71 ,799
ICesspool upgrade costs
9,000 Below Federal Cesspools exceed 2% of income
Poverty Level (^-82%)
8,000
, 7,000 PI I
0
06,000 Cesspool upgrade costs
N exceed 2% of income after
v
u $10 000 rebate I
o 5,000
Cr)
-0 4,000 t r
E
•
z 3,000
2,000 i
1,000
0 L I 11_ a I_ [ i A 16 iii... L
6, ek 6, 6., ,- s,
.,ti ti ,,/b , t`' ,p t� t6,- 6,- 6, w,&., o ,,,�ok- o t,,�64- ti Nti t1N.64- r$)'
tlo X64 �6k. �6&" �# h6(- �() �6� c Off-. Off, off, ��,,
,,,,i),
Annual Household Income
■County of Hawai'i ■City and County of Honolulu ON County of Kaua'i ■County of Maui
a
2 36
II Typical Monthly Sewer Bill Compared to Monthly
CesspoolConversion Costsfor Avera e Scenario
$350
High Cost Scenario-$339
$300
$250
Average Cost Scenario -$210
STA' 200
V
C
0
$150
$ �. r i i ' !=+r = ._ ,w Low Cost Scenario-$94 Monthly sewer
100 _ �. _ � ,
bills are not
$111 representative
of total cost to
$40 $60 Counties of
$0 sewer
County of Hawaii City and County of County of Kaua'i County of Maui
Honolulu
// F-I a wa i ` I ri t AFFORDABILITY EVALUATION FOR CESSPOOL CONVERSIONS,CESSPOOL CONVERSION FINAERESEARCH I HAWAII DEPARTMENTouy rT
1 Census Tract Priority Rankings
li
-'-'' "Iv' .
• ,,,,,,, ii,4" , , ,
- i
• Greatest affordability
10 ill 3
Ka ikoloa Median Household Income
Wa,koloa
challenges (98% Prrontyt ., '"" • 50.510k
g " ..,
T 1 ♦ $10k520k
financiallyburdened) << Hilo-Villa
- . tie , Franca Kaiko'o $20k$30k
Kealakehe- -Priority 2
Priority 2 • , tr I,�It Hilo-Keaukaha 530k 540k
• l\/lost cesspools of all • ljlTz=� ---, Panaewa
`h kUt` p tit' Priority 2 540k$SOk
1 t lni
Kadua• At.m., $50k$6ok
counties Pnonty t
1 t '*Vet,N a.Tt-€k, • $60k$70k
Holualoa• ft.a�*-rt>.� t;;-rfa:wr
Priority 1 t+ ,F,,,,,,,.I Nib•University „.4114)
570k$80k
• Least access to N�S L�
.* Pnority 2 A,
centralized _ �� • 5801,590k
sewers, cfla
Kaumalumalu . ��'� ��� �`�x����”°��'is' * $411k-5100k
_Keahou �z, gg
.
71 % without sewers Priority 2 • Bloat 511Ok
.t»n,LLF AA
• 5110k-5120k
• Oahu: 3% have • >5120k
cesspools `.}, I..oMils
p
o S 10
, • I . Data Sources U S Census Bureau American
• Maur. 22% have Affordability Income Benchmarks Ca,+.run,tyStx,rtysox8,
♦ Hawaii Statewide GIS Pr n
, „ •Federal poverty level:$3O 718 O1¢ h
cesspools "`Department�Heahh
t o •Replacement costs less than 2 percent Disclaimer Features shown in this
of income:$126,12
$ Figure are for planning purposes and
• Kauai: 54% have •Replacement costs with Siok tax credit represent approximate locations
less than percent of income s$g,cre Engineering andlasurvey accuracy
n not implied
cesspools
38
P4-.101t'..,::.'''.,'-',.,;I',',',1i, ,,.,.,,,, , . . ''.'i'
4
r :1 ^r Y4 ;?-^, om^
s
.,,,ri„,,,,,i,i?i?:::':•,,,,,,,„t:;.,--,,,...,,,--;4::::-,:- , ':,.:::::::-:;.„.'.:',/ isi.li..•.:: --: „.- ,,,i.,-,-...:i'
m r
a
sV
#X
Ctti
�y (
E
5
C`✓
i
~ 11;;*
F,
Pi 4
ar ^'
O
0
i
s X
0)C.
{ 5 6t 4 •
"
• _
a
7,3
i
4.1 t t
rim > �. ~ ,;. ; i;,,s r.e !�
,,i, : ,.,. ..... ..., , ....,...,...„.. ....,.. .
„.....__,. ..... .,
4,..-., .,,,,,,,, , .,.
-,--, ,, 4,..,,,;
„.....„......„.. , .
..,... ., .
., . t ....., s t ,
I
.' '' it. 3
F
t
// Cesspool conversion : Funding program challenges
fity
4.�411111111
� Magnitude of the affordability issue
Homeowners need incentives to convert cesspools
r. • Identification/quantification of benefits (e.g., environmental, water
quality, etc.)
• Need for an extensive, sustainable public outreach program
Provide funding for upfront costs
A
�0 • Program funding
• Homeowner funding
40
II Cesspool conversion : Funding program challenges (cont'd)
ORA Consider the funding recipient—Homeowner or other
, .;. entity
<3.1111 �otentialfi fund a variety of conversion options
vrj,
i
�• Legislation/Governance Structure
41
// Funding sources
Private
Funding Gap
Financing
Other:
Nonprofits, Federal
Rebate Grants
Program, On- and Loans
bill, etc.
Property State CWSRF
Assessments
42
Funding options :
Hypothetical scenario
What are the pieces of the Private Financing,,
funding "pie"? 33°%
Assumptions:
• Total conversion cost: $2B
• State CWSRF: $150M
(@$5M/yr * 30 yrs)
Funding Gap,
• Federal grants/loans: $30M o
(@$1M/yr * 30 yrs) 56/0
Rebate Program,
• Rebate program: $43M 2%
($10K rebate for those below FPL)
• Private financing: $661 M State CWSRF,j/
• Funding gap: $1 .IB
8% Federal Grants &
Loans, 2%
43
...., ,
,,,, , .,..„:„..,.. ... , . . ,
.,,, , _,:.
,-
it ...,.
111 .. 4 �„ _
", ;fib ;" .$...:�`
It
. t
sdi saau aed saioua6� in uo '
sueoI TsaaaTu! mol
SUO!SJanuoo J04 � ed d�au o� sua�a�oad a���s n �` °•4 W � r
a gra' _*- ^1 - i a-. '�I� •"40:. x
F
0 •
uoilaon pa •. Y :4.
pue yoeei no oivgnd anisualxe pue /C�aa3 .
suoiido 6uipun4 4o oiio4paod/alms s # _
a swea6oad n sseoons inn saes as •
:peq I � u�. � � u�0 � ` �.
slsoo Jet..n.o pue uoilaaisiuiwpa waa6oad aanoo
oT swsiuegoew 6uioueui4 algauialsns J04 paaN •
spun4 algaliana
"SA papeau 6uipun4 eiAT Jo apnp6e'
... y t'A
ses JeL110 woij sAMBe AGN
,,±,. ,,,:,...,,,,,----' ,,.,
' r,,,,..„,„.,,,t;„:„--,,,,=„_.:,:.
,.
: 6uipun ..., -.. -,,,,,,,-„,,,,::.,..
,_,;,,,,..„,..
,,,,:s„,,,,„,,,
..,. ,„ .
._:„._.. ....:
4„.„,
!%
40,0- , --,_ ,. . „,.i.„.„,,,,,,,,,.
. . „,.,.,,,,,,
4,..,,,, ,,,„,„;,,,,,-.,,g,„,„
,,,, ,„
....,, „.:.„...,,,,. !., ,
,,..
...,,,,„,__.
_:,,..::
„,
. ,.. ;,,„,,,..,
,, • ,,,,•••
_ 4 (1)
,,...t..,.,,,,,,,,,- a..$
': p
...,..
E
F r+
0
w
,,,,,.,:.1=,1-i:::..': .4.”,Ot l• '' . .
�
FA. d .+ ..
p,
I
m
0rtj '
�
' d
0
0
0
1,' s . , . l'11.-11"'i' StiAl''.,,I, ',,''',.,'.:'
: , '
0
g CL
Cyt* � `.,
0
/''' ' L4 ', 1 ' - • '' ''':!:,',,,.'.,,,,-..4 e Cl)"_ ',
} 7 0v
W
Cam)
'RR 'q' Y
,,,,..,
s„,.4!
i' , r as��.
,..,. A.:'
Y+ ° ' ,. C)
0a)
.fir Y ,�� .
* 4
"<(
CO
, .:!';,:, ',:': il ',,,,
H.-
. '.,,,::-', *t';':iliti::-''''
6. d �,,,,, 4i i y y,
:;
.,:„,...,--,,,,,,...tt,p.„,
.. ►ate '
0
0'iiite ',,:':, . ' '-k . ., --.4, t" #
ry `-' ,_., -.,i,-, ',.„, • , k,,,, , -.4 LI-
�
CO
:--',,,•.:;',,r,;.},,r,,,,„H„.,.':iti'
,F � e � • Via, �g , 4
• r 4
/% Factors that affect cesspool conversion programs
. r • Environmental benefits
*Itoa' ubIiCc ' pta11C
• Methods of conversions
nail and education � • Technical & financial resources
A 1 A Perception of • Site-specific costs
',I , inequity • Conversion costs compared to sewer fees
1' Near-tAggressive pace of conversions to meet
- deadline(s)
incentives to convert • Focus on priority areas
Available workforce • Professionals
'
• Contractors/materials
and resources • O&M
e Responsible • Single management entity
management entity '. • Long-term
�� Stable source of • Support funding program
�.� revenue • Administrative costs
46
- - --!i--- .-'-'7.,.1-f':'e''.?'''"c'-',-'-- ?
.„,-,. !: -,,,,,,,,,,,,,-..4,5,,,-,, ,...,. • ,_ ,. ::
.1'::-';';';'-ir. -_-*1•1 -' : ,':
-7,2.-4,-;,::,,E--„,- - —•-,s'.,,t.' ' „,...'
. ,..,
',',7i-„.',::. ' .:,'-:-..',. -„, ,'', '-,';',,,.:-;;:,•:-., I. - ':
411
.:
'•.',.3 ' :;'..... .
,
.,‘ .,. ,..
, :...
,....
1:*
1
.., CI)
C
0
-.1-..,
.,..
...
C3
.:.-4).:
CL)
..,::
E
. . E
.-4 0, .
4 ,-
0
.. P 0
. • ., P
C)
: '''..411.'1''' ' , i CO
Ci)
..,,,,.. - ,,,.4,,,, ;,,,„,:*4''''.:., , *. 4.•
01)
-,, ' ,- . - • --, ---,4„.., . ,":„4., c
.,
..".,.,, , ,,,.4
'.14.;,
:k '
L) 3..1
1-,, , • . . , ,.:-,
, .,.
// Summary of Findings & Recommended Next Steps:
Finance & Program Development
\ -
Burden of affordability
The funding gap
Coordination of legislative efforts
•
i
Identify viable financing mechanisms
I
Identify and fund administrative resources
Coordinate with and leverage federal, state, and local entities
40
- • Determine distribution of financial aid
� 48
Prioritization and Timing
Financial Support
Technology Considerations
Planning/Program
FINAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS Administration
Workforce Development
Outreach
49
FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Prioritization and Timing
Replace the 2050 deadline, from Act 125 Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 2017, for
cesspool conversion as follows:
• Priority 1 (13,821 cesspools) converted by 2030, and
• Priority 2 (12,367 cesspools) converted by 2035.
• Priority 3 (55,237 cesspools) would continue to be converted by 2050.
Require a seller's disclosure form for any property sold that has a cesspool.
50
FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Financial Support
Maximize federal funding options where available to offset the cost of conversion:
• Including grants, tax credits, and low interest loans, funds under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds,
Inflation Reduction Act, and American Rescue Plan Act.
Reallocate State and county resources or generate new revenue to supplement other financing programs
and homeowners' dollars.
Facilitate financing options to assist low- and moderate-income homeowners in converting, as well as
incentives for cesspool conversion for all homeowners.
Enable nonprofits and community development financial institutions to help cesspool owners access
available funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Funds.
51
FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning/Program Administration
• Require each County to develop a comprehensive integrated wastewater management plan to include
where connections to centralized (public and private) treatment systems are planned, where individual
treatment systems will continue to be needed, and where smaller-scale "cluster" treatment systems
might be utilized. Include financial strategies.
• Establish a cesspool section within the Hawaii Department of Health's Wastewater Branch to include at
least three to four staff to work on cesspool conversions planning, implementation, permitting, and
regulatory framework.
• Increase administrative capacity as needed for cesspool conversion on State lands.
• Prioritize environmental justice principles for disadvantaged community needs to promote equitable
outcomes related to the entire cesspool conversion process.
52
FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Outreach
• Fund the development of a comprehensive outreach strategy for
cesspool conversions that educates homeowners on conversion
options and resources.
rt ,.. .
„r� g fig'
`c ,r din -` >
x
1,-'
,,,,,,,,,-",„..,:,,,,i,!ii?lii-,,,,,''';',..,,,,,,.:.' A,..„1.! '',,,,'
'ip
4
3
f5rd
C
0
111
l Co
. „„,,..
, .
. ..4
Y,
la.,)
, .„
s t ,...,,,,. „,.4a < 4i, r
CI."'
w ........,..... ,
a)
•
Iota
Yee 1
73t
.., i
, k, it** *Alt
C
LLI) ,
' .ii i
0.
IT'