HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0620.083 2022-2024 f 5.572-25
CORM. 0..0
From: Donald Rudny
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 7:05 AM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Evans, Cynthia F.W.; Lee Loy,
Sue; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Inaba, Holeka; Kagiwada,Jennifer; Galimba, Michelle
M.;Villegas, Rebecca
Cc: Roth, Mitch D
Subject: Comm. 620.1- Reconsideration of Reso 372-23. (Support)
—tom
cD
Aloha Honorable Council Members,
c..,A
I support the reconsideration of Reso 372-23 and thank CM Villegas for bringing this forward. I was strongly opped to i
it's original form. M>_
I became familiar with the SCOTUS decision in Maui v Hawaii Wildlife Fund shortly after it was delivered in April of 2020. My
interest stemmed from the similarity to the Hu Honua injection wells used to avoid meeting the Clean Water Act. Besides
studying Justice Breyer's majority opinion, I had a lengthy discussion with David Henkin of Earth Justice who argued for Hawaii
Wildlife Fund before the Supreme Court.
Not initially having much knowledge about the Kealakehe WWTP situation, I reached out to someone who has been intimately
involved with it over the past decade or more. I also reviewed the time travel analysis performed by Dr. Stephen Colbert of
UHH using the methodology from Dr. Btytne Okuhara at USGS Honolulu. The distance from the dumping point to the harbor is
easily determined from Google Earth and is consistent with the.7 miles stated in the plaintiffs lawsuit. These two
measurements appear to be the main criteria for determining the functional equivalency describe in the SCOTUS decision.
Suffice it to say,the findings support that the Kealakehe WWTP is in violation of the Clean Water Act as established in the
SCOTUS decision in Maui v Hawaii Wildlife Fund and requires an NPDES permit. To think otherwise defies logic and science.
I had considerable discussion with Chair Kimball on this and she addressed it in her talk story last Thursday as well. Her
position on this is puzzling as she claims that the EPA has determined the facility to be in compliance with the CWA. I asked for
documentation verifying their position, but did not received anything until Monday afternoon. This was her exact response:
"I have a response in my in box from Corp counsel that I have not had a chance to review yet. In meetings until 2.Will follow
up after.
So the gist of it is,the DOH and EPA have not cited the county with respect to Kealakehe.This is different from saying the
county is compliant but there is insufficient evidence at this time.There isn't and wouldn't be any documentation to this effect
from DOH/EPA.That is not the practice.
I think that's the discussion about if there is or is not sufficient evidence needs to be discussed in the case.The county is willing
to do the studies needed if further investigation is required."
It's apparent from her response from Corp Counsel that the County intends on challenging this lawsuit. The EPA,as I'm sure
the Council knows, has a guideline document in the public comment stage at this time. It in no way approves any specific
situations,so the EPA suggesting Kealakehe may comply with the CWA after the SCOTUS Maui decision doesn't make sense.
Chair Kimball also suggested that the lawsuit was a good thing. I worked as a consulting engineer giving testimony in hundreds
of lawsuits and I never saw one that was a good thing. It is typically adversarial and contentious. I don't see why the County
wants to go down this path against their own citizens. It is clear from the available scientific evidence that the County will not
prevail in this lawsuit. A finding for the plaintiffs is inevitable. Hiring attorneys and perpetuating it serves no purpose. Please
do not go down the same path that Maui did. Only the attorneys will end up ahead after the dust settles. 'n a
1 Comrrs. �� W .1
Ref. To: p,
Ref. Date EC 1 9 2023
At this point,the Council needs to give a firm message to the administration that the proper course of action is to work with
the citizens to pursue the NPDES permit and develop an acceptable plan to ensure,not only compliance with the CWA, but
also that further degradation of the shoreline is prevented. If it requires recycling of the effluent,then please pursue that
direction. The Mayor and Council members are sworn to uphold the State Constitution. In it is the Public Trust Doctrine that
requires elected officials to conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources including land,water,air,
minerals and energy sources.
I'm not certain what CM Villegas will propose as amendments, but I trust that it will be more reasonable than what was
previously passed. Perhaps it will include some conditions that will avoid prolonging the situation. Without knowing the
specifics of the modified resolution, I cannot take a position on it.
One last comment I have is,where is Mayor Roth? He is the leader of the Big Island and hasn't shown up on this issue. Chair
Kimball gave me the Corp Counsel insistence that it's their request, but the Mayor is the one who has to approve the
expenditure. I suspect he is the one behind the County's strategy on this,as he should be. It should be a condition of approval
that the Mayor explain to the Council and the citizens what his position and intent is going forward.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Don
Don Rudny
P.O. Box 106
Pepeekeo, H1 96783-0106
312-209-5870
•