Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN AWESC 2017/09/19 (2016-2018)Committee on Agriculture, Water and Energy Sustainability Stn Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii September 19, 2017 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Water and Energy ORDER: Sustainability was called to order at 11:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member (came in later) STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair. Isaac Harp: Lily Kong: Teresa L. Nakama: Patricia McCarver: Bo Kahui: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. Bill 65 (Comm. 414), comment. Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in support. Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. Bill 65 (Comm. 414), comment. Cherie Griffore: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), comment. AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 Cory Harden: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. Clare Loprinzi: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in support. Ruth Aloua: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. Dr. Joe Kassel: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), comment. Kelly Pomeroy: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), comment. Kimberly Crawford: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. Riley Smith: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in support. (representing Lanihau Properties) Shannon Rudolph: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. Neicy Nelson: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. Pua Case: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. William Freitas: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), comment. Sharon Willeford: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), comment. Cindy Freitas: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. Josephine Keliipio: Bill 65 (Comm. 414), in opposition. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you. That comes to the end of the people registered to speak, is there anybody else in the chambers who would like to make a comment? Okay, seeing none, let me justyou've already spoken so—hang on, let me check around the group and I'll entertain that for a moment. Do we have any other further speakers from any of the other sites? Waimea, Kohala, Ka`u, Pahoa, or Hilo? Seeing none, okay, you'll have one minute. (Note: After everyone gave their testimony, Chair Richards allowed Teresa L. Nakama a second opportunity to testify.) CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you. Okay, I'm going to close public testimony at this time. Okay, it is now 12:15 p.m., we have a communication and a presentation that come before us. Before you come to the table we'll have the Council—should we take a quick recess, lunch? I think we should. Let's take 25 minutes and reconvene at 20 to one. So we stand in recess. Page 2 AWESC-8 Recess: Reconvene: COMMUNI- r A TTnNc September 19, 2017 The Chair called for a recess at 12:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:45 p.m. CHR. RICHARDS: Mr. Clerk, please. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. (There were none.) ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 65: AMENDS THE HAWAII COUNTY WATER USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR THE KEAUHOU AQUIFER SYSTEM, PURSUANT TO SECTION 29-3 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED) Addresses regional water needs and source development strategies of the Keauhou Aquifer System area, accounting for demand projections identified by the Kona Community Development Plan as well as traditional and customary practice considerations. Reference: Comm. 414 Intr. by: Mr. Richards (B/R) ; and Comm. 414.1: From Department of Water Supply's Manager -Chief Engineer Keith Okamoto, dated August 25, 2017, transmitting a PowerPoint presentation. Motion to Approve: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend passage of Bill 65 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Eoff CHR. RICHARDS: Mr. Okamoto, please come. (Note: At this time, the Department of Water Supply's Manager -Chief Engineer Keith Okamoto and Jon Nishimura President of Fukunaga & Associates and consultants to the Department of Water Supply came forward and gave a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of Page 3 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 414.) CHR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. Mr. Okamoto, do you have any follow-up comments, or should I open it up to the Council? MR. OKAMOTO: No, nothing to offer at this time, so we're here for questions. CHR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. Council Members? Council Member Eoff MS. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for the presentation. Before I ask some questions and have some comments, I wanted to thank Mr. Richards, the Chair of this committee for changing the venue and not having this on our agenda at our last scheduled meeting in Hilo, but rather bring it to Kona because I think the people did want to interface in a more intimate way with all of us. So that was—grateful for that. I understand the process that we're in and that it's now at the stage where the County Council looks at this plan and we can either adopt it as is, we may be able to make some recommendations based on what we've heard today, or have determine by reading it ourselves and also maybe factoring in some of the current situation we're in with our water crisis today. And then it will go back to the Water Commission for final adoption, correct? Just one question before I go on is then how often are updates done to the certain regions? MR. NISHIMURA: The intent of the original ordinance though, was written back 2010 or so, was for it to be updated in whole when the land use policies are being formulated, example, General Plan. If the General Plan is being updated, they should be working Planning Department—and we started that process while we were doing this update, but the land use policy and whether you got the resource to sustain it should go hand in hand. And I think that's what one of the things that I think we wanted to accomplish, that land use plans are not formulated on their own, but integrate, not just water, probably other types of resources. But for the case of the Hawaii Water Plan, that was a mandate. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. And that's where you got the 10 -year number, generally? MR. NISHIMURA: Generally. MS. EOFF: Okay, and after the National Park Service had petitioned to have the Keauhou aquifer designated, a lot of information was brought out during the couple of years' worth of hearings and round tables, etc. So this update to the Keauhou aquifer is kind of the result of that, right? It was sort of one of the Page 4 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 factors involved in the Commission making their decision and the County agreeing to step up our look at Keauhou specifically. Is that correct? MR. NISHIMURA: That's correct. Actually, when we first were asked to help out with the update, we were going to just do the update of the demands. But as we presented the demands to the commission, they asked more and more questions so we had to answer them obviously, which brought in a lot more items than just refining the projections and the anticipated demand for the Kona area. MR. OKAMOTO: Right. So the product that you have before you, this Water Use and Development Plan update, is basically based upon all those years of testimony that occurred during the petition to designate, which fed into decisions by the State Water Commission on reviewing and finally approving the scope of this Water Use and Development Plan update. So like Jon said initially, we had our idea of, based on the Code, what this update would include. But because of the petition and all the public testimony, all the inputs, all the hours of meetings and what not, it led the State Water Commission to, like Jon said, add more items to the scope of this plan. So basically, that's what's factored into this final report. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. So one of the recurring statements that was made earlier, and I saw it in the plan, I believe it's Table 2.2, there was an estimated 1,000 gallon per unit number figure for average household uses in one column, and then shortly the next column, it went to 400 gallons. I just wondered why those two numbers are so MR. NISHIMURA: Okay, I believe what happened was that was—the result of the original approach was to—there is a difference I think that we should all understand between a planning number, when you're planning to design infrastructure, versus the actual use you know, how much water you really use. Example is why you make pipes bigger than they have to be in order to carry things like peak demand or fire flow. So a lot of those numbers that we got there are based on planning design numbers so that your system is not under designed. So that being said, we go back to what is a true indicator of how much water you would need to sustain your population. And what we did was we did some kind of exhaustive look at the population growth versus actual pumpage of water, and you come up with a per capita number. So the one, the number that you're referring to, 1,000, that's probably gallons for Kona per residential unit, which assumes—includes other things like landscaping, those kinds of things. And that's where, initially, when we started off the update, I think the Department of Water was aware that a lot of the units that were coming up in that late or middle 2005 or so, were using a lot more water than what the design standard has shown. So we were using that for planning purposes. MS. EOFF: Okay, well that's a big difference between 400 and 1,000. Page 5 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 MR. NISHIMURA: Correct. MS. EOFF: So that's a little bit MR. NISHIMURA: I think the rationale, I mean the number, that 1,000 was some of the numbers that came up from their metering, actual use for some of the units. MR. OKAMOTO: So basically, the first go around with the 2010 Water Use and Development Plan, that was an island -wide thing. It was really a very conservative planning approach to try and guesstimate future water demands. So with that approach, it was almost ultraconservative, what we used as a way to estimate the future water demands. So basically, what that allowed us to see is that in those areas of the island with huge amount of rainfalls, even with this ultraconservative approach, every square inch of real estate developed using this conservative number of whatever amount of gallons per acre or how many gallons per household, there still wasn't a problem on those areas with tremendous amounts of rain. What that assessment allowed us to do was now reveal the areas with that ultraconservative approach that we should take a closer look at, and that's the two areas that Jon mentioned, which were Keauhou and Waimea. So when we take a closer look, we're going to refine the numbers and not take this ultraconservative planning value, but take it down and utilize something that's more realistic or what we see as actual use in the area. So this latest update is really a refinement to use more accurate data than originally in the 2010. MR. NISHIMURA: Let me add a little thing. What we did on the first go around, I don't think was wrong because what it did was it tried to estimate what the Land Use Policy allowed. So the General Plan allowed certain density in certain areas throughout the island. So what we wanted to do was see really if you did develop it to that full amount, how much water it would really take. And there were areas like in Kona, that Keauhou area and Waimea where the water it would take a lot of water to build it fully and what we know was that it wasn't it's not going to be built fully because there are things, there are pockets, there are areas that cannot be developed. So that's how the sensitive areas were identified. MS. EOFF: Okay, well I'm going to leave that for now, but I'm not really satisfied that we're using accurate estimates then because it makes a big difference in the amount that we're withdrawing, or if we're trying to measure in this plan, a way to account for development as well as maintaining a sustainable yield in the aquifer. We have to have an accurate figure for household use. MR. NISHIMURA: Right, so the refinement—that's why this go around is where we did the refinement where we use MS. EOFF: And you believe that to be the 400. Page 6 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 MR. NISHIMURA: Where we use the actual number that was being MS. EOFF: Okay, so I'm going to move on from there but I just wanted to try and clear that up. And I went through the plan and I am grateful that we're updating with a lot of more information. Basically, one of the good things I see is the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plan is going to be able to provide reusable water in the near future. We are putting in those pipes and lines. And a question that came up out of that is, first of all, I know that isn't going to be completed until 2020, approximately, hopefully, but in the future, would the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) who manages that plant, would they then become a partner with the Department of Water Supply to allocate that water? Do you guys have plans for working together for that future? MR. OKAMOTO: Yeah, so basically, they're going to operate and maintain that reuse water system and however their billing system—at this point, our expectation is that they're going to operate, manage, and control that reuse water. We're participating and coordinating with them on the use of the tank at the bottom of Hina Lani. We've turned that over to them for their use, for this Reuse Water Development but beyond that, it's going to really be their deal. MS. EOFF: So that would be separated out from the departments? MR. OKAMOTO: Yeah. MS. EOFF: Okay. And then the Department of Environmental Management is still working to utilize their reuse water from the bottom of the Koloko Project? Do you know? Because in reading your report, you're factoring in reusable water as a means to conserve water from the aquifer, right? So, reusable water does seem to be a way for the future. MR. OKAMOTO: Right, but our plan doesn't really have the specifics on where that reuse water is going, but we all know if they use that instead of our potable water, that's the sensible thing to do, going back to the guiding principles, right? MS. EOFF: Right. That's why it seems like you should be working sort of hand in hand with DEM, but I'm not sure— MR. OKAMOTO: Oh yeah, we're coordinating it, but we're not going to operate their system is what I'm saying. MS. EOFF: Okay. Some of the comments made by testifiers earlier today, I don't want to repeat, but this plan does reference Ka Pa`akai mandates, which you've tried to break down into, or almost pigeon hole to me, into trying to determine whether traditional and customary (T&C) practices and how you're going to find out along the way and who you're going to consult with. I believe Page 7 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 the `Aha Moku was an attempt to bring in that voice, but as we've heard today, that may not be enough. It may not even be the proper entity to consult with, but I would like to see if we can find a way to bring in more of the local residents and the voice of the Native Hawaiians. I don't think it's so difficult, as you've indicated because basically, protecting a public trust and the resources and the protection of the eco systems, that's all included. So once you're looking at all of that, you will automatically be protecting traditional and customary practices as well because you'll maintain the flows of water, the salinity in the ponds at the park, and the balance there, by doing more conservation efforts, and not just continuing to look at it too narrowly is what I'm saying. That's a broader perspective. And as people have said, you're not going to be looking at the development of wells on the basal level, but as we see today, and we're in a crisis, the pumping in the high-level wells is very difficult and there are lots of breakdowns. And unfortunately, they've all—several have happened all at the same time. But even over the years, pumps do break and pumps from high-level wells are going to be taxed heavily. So I'm thinking that there does need to be more effort in protecting the water shed measures to determine how we're going to do that. I don't know how much you can include into this plan. I know you've told me that you can't take anything out of the plan because you were mandated to include—and it is a technical document, and I'm saying that is all good, but would it be something we could request at this point, before we go any further with trying to adopt the update, to include more of a focused discussion on, not only some of the conservation efforts, but the fact that we are experiencing climate change? We do want to look a little bit closer at environmental and cultural impacts and include the public. CHR. RICHARDS: Councilwoman? I just want to be sure everybody gets an opportunity. We can come back on the second round. MS. EOFF: So those are some of the recommendations I've heard today, and then I'm just wondering if you could think of way to either beef up this document, have an addendum to it. Or some of the chapters that do deal with it, maybe get a little bit more public input in there so that the community here today, and that we've heard from, will feel more a part of the future and feel more secure in that we are protecting the aquifer. So I guess I can add to the comments after. I yield. CHR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. Councilman Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, and mahalo for the presentation, and again, mahalo for the community for being here voicing your concerns of what's going on here on the Keauhou aquifer. But I wanted to give you guys the opportunity, I know you heard a lot from the community and you gave your presentation about what you're doing with the plan, but was there any—did you want to follow up on or if Page 8 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 you—with what you heard from everybody that testified this morning, did you want to clear anything up about what that testimony said? Or did you clear it up within the presentation? MR. OKAMOTO: Yeah, I guess we can elaborate on some of the conservation. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of misinformation out there via social media and whatnot, and whether or not that has been included in some of the testimony today, we did hear some of that. But that's always going to happen so I don't think it's worth really going item by item on what we feel might be slightly incorrect or whatnot. But I think what I heard is kind of shocking because we're generally in agreement that water is a precious resource. It's a public trust resource and that's what we try to identify in this report. So it's not that we're in disagreement with a lot of the testimony here, we are in agreement. Maybe it warrants further expansion on some of the things we're doing, so if Kawika can expand on some of our efforts as far as conservation, which I've heard numerous times today. (Note: At this time, the Department of Water Supply's Deputy Kawika Uyehara came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. UYEHARA: Good afternoon, Kawika Uyehara, Deputy at the Water Supply. I just wanted to give a brief update on some of our water conservation efforts. It is—water is our most precious resource and we want to do our part to educate and engage our customers and the overall island on how important it is to use water wisely and efficiently. Some ways we are doing that is—what we started last year actually was our Water Smart Program, specifically for the North Kona, South Kona, and our Lalamilo System, basically in the South Kohala area. Basically, we try to use a consultant service that would—they specialize in reaching out, actually mailing out letters to customers just to inform and educate on the best ways to use water, the most efficient ways to use water, and they've had success on the mainland, in like the southwest, in California. So we tried to employ that and we got a couple of reports out to those three communities on the west side. Unfortunately, we had to kind of put that effort on hold because of the water restriction going on right now in Kona, and there was a lot of just over messaging a little bit, so we put that on hold. Some of our other conservation efforts that we're working on now, and we've actually been working on this probably years -2017, is looking into trying to provide the right resources on xeriscaping or drought tolerant native landscaping. Planting and landscape that's appropriate for the region that it's in. If it's in an arid, dryer climate, you're just trying to find that right ground covers or shrubs that aren't water thirsty, they are the more drought tolerant. We're working on that we have some information, we—customers are interested in that, they can Page 9 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 contact us. We have been talking to some of the people in the industry so we can try and provide those resources. Another effort that we're working on now is our Rain Barrel Rebate Program for our North Kona customers. It's an effort to help promote the use of rain water caught in some kind of catchment system and then used on your landscape in lieu of using our potable water to water the grass kind of thing. Let's see what else. And also, EPA (Environmental Protection Act) Water Sense has a lot of good information on low -flow fixtures for your house, such as your faucets and your shower heads, toilets, type of things. So we have made that available on our website as far as providing links to those types of information, and we want to be able toyou know, if the community, customers, they have questions about that, we're more than happy to point them in the right direction on how what they can do on a household level, indoors and outdoors, on how to conserve their residential water use and to overall protect their resource. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, and really, we do live in a place where we really hold water dear and look to ways of how to conserve as much as possible. And we really need to be advocating on that, especially with what's happening in this world today, climate change and all. Another thing that somebody brought up earlier that was testifying, are we looking at what's happening on the world level and with this climate change, in terms of putting certain things within this plan? I know we have conservation measures within here, but there's nothing mentioned, I don't know if there's anything mentioned. I've read about the possibility of climate change, is our weather getting dryer or is it getting wetter? Is it—how is sea level rise going to affect these basal wells? Is that part of the discussion? Is that something that needs to be put in this plan? I think it should, but is that—was that part of the discussion now or previously? MR. OKAMOTO: It wasn't specifically put in this plan but how it supposed to be integrated overall with this overall state-wide Hawaii Water Plan, is those types of influences and factors really need to go into the State Water Resource Protection Plan, and how it impacts the sustainable yields of the aquifers and things like that. So in short, I think yeah, we could probably do something to add additional information on that. Now going back to as far as drought, those are other things, too, that we could probably incorporate via maybe an addendum or something like Karen mentioned, at this point, because this process has gone through all the years of input and meetings and whatnot. We really cannot dramatically alter it and definitely not remove anything from it, otherwise, it needs to go back to the State Water Commission for reapproval and whatnot. But I think we could supplement it for sure. MR. KANUHA: And I don't think additions to this would hurt it. I think it only adds to the benefit of the plan. So in terms of, also brought up before, one of the Page 10 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 things that I wanted to emphasize further about what Ms. Eoff spoke about. One of the few elements that CWRM (Commission on Water Resources Management) added to this plan or wanted to address, was how the proposed source development strategies needed to meet projected demands may impact, or how these proposed development strategies may impact cultural use and rights or other public trust purposes. And one of the testifiers brought up earlier was, are there measurables on the sustainability conservation efforts that are being met? Are there baseline studies to see those measurables and if we are doing those measurables, how will that be that baseline to know if we are affecting these cultural uses and rights for public trust purposes? Do we have those measurables? I know there wasI forget which part this is, it says that you're currently gathering the information that will be shared with CWRM in the hope that the sustainable yields for aquifers or minimum in stream use values for surface waters can be adjusted to take into account these valuable needs. I just want to make sure—do we have any studies or measurables that can define any of this? MR. OKAMOTO: That's a tough one. So what we're doing right now, we're doing on our own monitoring of the water levels on the high-level aquifer. We're working with—the information that CWRM has available is monitoring closer to I think the national park as far as those monitoring wells and checking salinity or chloride profiles and things like that. So that might be measurable information that we can compare for baseline purposes. The tough part we had throughout this process is determining what is a measurable for a T&C practice. Now, if somebody can help us out with that, we'd gladly take in that information and use it. But that was the challenge throughout this process. MR. KANUHA: And I think that really needs to be emphasized in how to find that measurable and I really don't want to skip it because it is one of your—the top things CWRM asked for. Maybe not the measurable part, but making sure that we are meeting these projected demands on how we impact the cultural uses and rights. So that is a really important component that needs to be part of this plan, I think into make sure that it's there. But sorry, I know I have a little bit of time left. Good thing I get another turn later, yeah? I yield. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Councilman. Council Woman Lee Loy, MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. For me, I went through this plan and I physically and literally went through this plan because I sat on the Water Board during the designation process. So I'm going to actually pick up exactly where Mr. Kanuha left off, which is with the T&C practices. Page 11 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 I completely understand why the department is struggling with that because there's a lot of kapu on those traditional and customary practices, that it's hard to share, so it's hard to quantify, so it's hard to deliver or provide a measurable for that. But what I want to do is I want to back up a little bit because I know when we were going through the designation process, we had to prepare water use and development update and then there was a second part. We were doing something in two phases. So this was part of that phase one—could you share a little bit about that? MR. NISHIMURA: The first phase was actually trying to refine the demands and from the Commission, if you look at the way the Code is written, they were looking for something called Authorized Plan Use and there was some debate as to what that was. So what we agreed with them was what we're calling anticipated demand, because that's not totally authorized, but it was on the books. It included agreements that were not necessarily signed off on, but they know generally, how many units we're going to have at certain locations. So we were using those projects that I'll call "In the Mill" as part of the anticipated demand in the future. Then after we identified that, then we went to phase two because that we could do with available information. Trying to define the cultural impacts, what we saw was that you need to know where these activities were going to take place so that you can find and kind of explain what you're going to do, before you can get any feedback on whether or not you're affecting a cultural practice. And that's why we went—the thought was to go to the `Aha Mokua system. The system, the way it was conceived, was supposed to do that, okay? Whether it's working now or not, it is part of the legislative process direction, and we should do all we can to make sure it works because the concept I think, is sound, that you go ask permission before you do any kind of activity. So the first step that the Water Commission has adopted and they're trying out in this area, west Hawaii, is to actually try the process and try to get feedback from `Aha Moku. So I'm not sure how you get involved in that, but if the practitioners and the local people in the region can get active in that, that would be, I think, what we're hoping to get to. MS. LEE LOY: The other part about this plan that I wish it had is, often as policy makers, we need to legislate things, but we don't know how. And so—and I always point back to the Real Property Tax appraisal that we that was a matrix of all the different policy changes or Code changes that would have to occur, that actually would help. So for example, with the xeriscaping, if we added something, a policy into the Planning Department Rules that required an area with average rainfall of less than 80 inches to implement xeriscaping, that actually would go a long way for the Water Use and Development Plan and getting our arms around the use because now we're not watering our lawns. Page 12 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 Another one is, I think, the rain barrels, incentivizing stuff like that. As the policy making body, that's what we keep looking for and we often have to go through hundreds of pages to try and comb this stuff out. But this is the one opportunity that we have and if you could help make that easy for us, then we would actually accelerate some of this stuff that's going on in these plans because one thing that I truly appreciated, and this is just a comment, for a very long time, the departments worked in silos. Planning Department did their zoning and then they sent out comment letters to Department of Transportation, to the Water Department, to DEM. This Water Use and Development Plan forced everybody to get together and talk about how many entitlements there are and what is the resource necessary to build out what's already entitled. And so if you could help us with that, this is a fabulous document because CWRM and just some of the other input that we got. But I'm also hearing there might be an opportunity to further enhance this. I know the T&C one, it'll be challenging, but even if we just got those policy guidelines or updates because then we could also direct Building Division, when you're building a home, you know, how do we incentivize these conservation things.? So that's just a general comment and I'm going to yield at this time, but going forward, that's the kind of stuff I'd like to see because it makes our job easier and we actually end up getting all of that input that you folks have spent since 2013 getting, and then we actually put it into action. Thank you. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Aloha and mahalo for that presentation. Given the testimonies, and we've been talking about traditional and customary practices, how do you measure that in this plan? What I get from the testimony is that these issues should be a part of this plan. How you address the impact on the resources as opposed to our brackish water andI mean a testifier basically said that the salinity is a lot higher than it was and that in turn affects the ability for the shoreline to grow limu, and then that in turn affects the fish, etc. So that's a chain reaction and I think for me, that's important things to put in a plan like this, because it not only addresses the public trust—how do you intend, as a policy, to engage the public or the Native Hawaiian community to get that piece in a plan like this? I know it's a difficult thing I'm hearing to have measurables, but I think what I heard some of the testifiers say is that the measurables are not something technical. The measurables are old people, our kupuna, who know the area who are familiar with what it should be and somethings happening that's affecting that. So, I know it's hard to put those two things together, but what you have here, definitely, would impact the public trust. Page 13 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 So, in addition to that, I don't know if I have any specific questions, but how would you incorporate the concerns that were raised in testimony to make it part of the State-wide Plan? Because if we're just talking about it on this level, how do we get it up to where it would make a big difference, which is on the State level? And you might not have an answer right now, but I just wanted to make it a point that those things that the people talked about, the impacts, they're serious and I think a lot of people have witnessed that throughout the years, not having an explanation why it's happening. But I think the underlying reason would be our water source and how it affects our way of life. And so tapping into our water source on technical—how much are we able to sustain, development, and that sort of thing, I mean that's fine and good, but when youI'd like to see it brought down to the actual nuts and bolts on how it affects the people and their way of life and their quality of life. It's hard to do that I think, but I believe it has to be included in the State-wide Plan. This is a supplement, but unless it gets to the place where it would have some meaning and some enforcement, it's not going to help us to just talk about it. And that's where I see references to Ka Pa`akai o ka`Aina, that was the land use contested case hearing that did have something to do with traditional and, as part of it, customary practices. But I think the important thing of the Ka Pa`akai case was that agencies cannot delegate their responsibilities to another agency. So I'm looking at this in total, what Ms. Lee Loy brought up. Yes, we should start to do policies, but do we say it should be done at the State level? Do we delegate it to somebody else? I think we have to start here because the impacts are here. So that's just a comment that I'm MR. NISHIMURA: I think it's pretty well understood that everyone should be very much aware of the T&C needs and the Water Commission, the staff that we deal with, they're right in there right now trying to incorporate as much as they can. It was through them that we had discussions about the `Aha Moku and really, `Aha Moku has been what, again, from the State government side, that's what they pushed. MS. DAVID: Exactly. MR. NISHIMURA: So I think as far as the legislative process, we have to make sure that if they're going to put that kind of responsibility on a, basically volunteers, practitioners, that they should be furnished with resources. So yes, I think that's one of the things. What we tried to do in phase two of this plan was to show the general concept of what is being proposed and try to get that to the `Aha Moku. And we did actually, and I don't know if we didn't reach everybody or what, but we were cleared on that. So the general concept of going south to north with the understanding that as specific wells get installed, that permission would be seeked for those individual wells because then you can identify who practitioners are and what kind of concerns they have about, is it the ground -level Page 14 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 water? Is it the salinity? Maybe put more monitor wells so you can see the impact of any well development and if something is going on, then either lessen the pumping or stop it. But if you don't know what the concern is or the needs are by the T&C people, then it's difficult for—to say short or stopping everything, I mean that's the other thing. But keep in mind that the land use policies that we base the demands on have already been adopted, so you got to go back. The hardest thing to do I would think, is if you had zoning and you're going to say we're going to take away your zoning. Is that something that can be done? I know it's a difficult thing for a Council to look at, but that would be the drastic on the other side on what to do. So again, that's why we had it in tiers. We established the water needs for different levels of land use planning policies. And so the General Plan is the furthest out so if you can start crafting the policy in certain broad areas to refine it to say a lower density for example, then you can make a difference in what the projection would be. MS. DAVID: I see. Thank you. And what are your thoughts on the suggestion that aside from the `Aha Moku, that you engage the community in your fact finding processes, aside from a notice that you're having a meeting and that sort of thing. I heard some testifiers say they would have wanted to engage in input because they have some valuable information that may not necessarily be available. How would you see that happening as far as engaging the public more? MR. NISHIMURA: The concept of coming from the bottom up makes sense, totally. No matter who you get, there might be somebody that will say that's not the guy. MS. DAVID: Is that something like the `Aha Moku could implement in their rules? I mean because I know there's tiers so could they, instead of using just the `Aha Moku, have them create a policy that within that district, the `Aha Moku would reach out even further? I don't know how that— MR. NISHIMURA: The way the concept that I saw, when it was being formulated, was supposed to be many people, you know, starting this `Aha Moku and not have it be from top down, but from bottom up. And they choose who to represent them, which seems to make the most sense. MS. DAVID: Right. MR. NISHIMURA: Instead of somebody campaigning to be the one to represent you like we have, maybe in our political system. But from the bottom, the grass roots people choose their leader and then from there, you create the pyramid. Page 15 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 MS. DAVID: And that's my thought, just to put it out there as a suggestion that maybe if that's not working, then consider some of the other suggestions of having that entity do the reaching out as opposed to the Water Board. Because I know you have your levels, and my time is up, so thank you very much. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Councilwoman. I have not heard from a couple of Council People. Anybody want to go on the first lap? Councilwoman O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you all for being here and thank you for the presentation and the plan. I realize that it might be a lot of work to do modifications to the plan and I think that's something I may feel right about asking for. I don't know if an amendment alone will suffice, given the concerns that have been addressed, but let's just discuss a little bit further. Mr. Nishimura, would you please explain how you derived the sustainable yield? How you make that calculation? MR. NISHIMURA: The sustainable yield is actually derived or actually comes from the Water Commission. They have a whole update that's going on right now as modifying the sustainable yields for the entire State, so the sustainable yield is actually given to us. The County is responsible to adjust your land use policies to stay within the sustainable yield. MS. O'HARA: Okay, that's not going to answer my question then because— MR. NISHIMURA: Because we MS. O'HARA: If you don't have— MR. NISHIMURA: But we don't do it, it's given to us based on their accepted procedures. And then individual wells, because that's another thing—because the sustainable yield that we're talking about is for an entire aquifer, technically, every well has its own sustainable yield. Every well that they drill can only take so much water. MS. O'HARA: Right, and I'm a little bit familiar with the standard method of calculating sustainable yield and my concern here is—the concerns that we're hearing and one of the primary one is that by diverting so much of our fresh water flow, groundwater flow from its ultimate destination, the ocean, we are creating problems in terms of managing other resources, our marine resources. And while you know, we can look at through traditional and customary practices, I'm afraid what we're not doing is including that in our calculations of what is truly sustainable. That could happen and without knowing what the algorithm is that you're, not you guys, but whoever's using to make these calculations, I couldn't tell you that determination, but if that is indeed the case and you're using the standard model that doesn't include that additional information, it's not truly sustainable. And so this would lead to future and continuing problems. So I Page 16 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 would like to know that kind of information because if we're planning with inadequate information to begin with, no matter what land use policies we come up with, we're still going to be encountering problems. So that's just what comes to mind here. MR. NISHIMURA: The procedure that's used by the Water Commission has been explained to me several times, but they're thought is that it is very conservative. But the State of Hawaii, Big Island especially, it's probably one of the—well Kauai is also another one, very geologically complex. There are layers on layers and the water stays in those layers and where they are exactly, is very difficult to ascertain. So where the source of water from a well is, maybe generally no, but not specifically no, and that's why they want to do more drilling, to see what the conditions are. MS. O'HARA: And from what—and I don'tI'm not an expert in this area but from what I do know, you're taking the source, you're taking the recharge quantity, and you're anticipating a precipitation and all the other factors. But unless you're also quantifying and adding into that model, the impact on our ocean waters and subsequently the resources that are by there, it isn't really a sustainable calculation. So I would just love to know if that's being considered because standard models of precipitation, topography, soil characteristics, and percolation doesn't take that into account and that's—to me, what I'm hearing here is really one of the key issues in terms of our resource management. Thank you, I'll yield. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Councilwoman. Is there anybody else? Councilwoman Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. First I'd like to say thank you to all of the testifiers for coming, I think it's really important, especially for us here on the Council who are not familiar with Kona. So thank you. And thank you for being here and answering our questions. I think Ms. O'Hara brings up a really good point about the sustainability because really, I believe that is the underlying concern that we're all concerned about at this moment, the public and us. I understand that you received input from OHA, DHHL, and Kamehameha Schools, and I believe that the concerns of the public raised about the `Aha Moku Council are valid. And I wonder if you are considering at all a process for Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practitioners to work directly with the Commission on this plan. MR. OKAMOTO: On this Water Use and Development Plan with the State Water Commission? MS. RUGGLES: With this plan specifically that's before us. Page 17 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 MR. OKAMOTO: I mean I think that's why we're here and getting their input. So as far as the Department of Water Supply and our wells, yeah, we're open to through the EA (Environmental Assessment) process, we're required to send it out there and receive input. I think the other challenge is for the private wells that may not have that particular requirement and what they need to do is basically go through CWRM and go through their Well Construction Permit Application process. And that's where we think further discussions between some of the concerned members of the community and the State Water Commission should have a little more dialogue, and even concerning the sustainable yield. Because really, that's their responsibility as part of that Water Resource Protection Plan to incorporate all of those factors in determining what a valid, sustainable yield number is. We take that number and that's what we use in our evaluation. So what I want to caution this body is we're not going to have a perfect plan out of this effort, and we're already gone way over and beyond what the original intent or scope of a Water Use and Development Plan update is. We want to take into account all the concerns of the community, but at the same time, we cannot be assuming responsibilities that are really with another body to manage and be responsible for. So that's one thing I just want to caution. We can put language and amendments in our documents to suggest things and evenI don't feel comfortable recommending to Council for certain legislation specifically in our document. This document is supposed to be a planning tool to incorporate water use development with land use policies, basically to make sure that we're not developing or have land use policies that are not in line with how much water we have available. Basically, that's the purpose of this plan. There are other plans, and processes, and legislation, and ordinances, and statutes for a whole bunch of other stuff So again, we can incorporate a lot of the concerns that we've heard today into amendments, but we still want to make sure we're operating within the framework of what this Water Use Development Plan is supposed to be and what it's supposed to accomplish. So, I just want to make sure that we share that with you folks. MS. RUGGLES: I'm sorry, so what specifically do you feel is not the responsibility of your department to address? MR. OKAMOTO: Things like what is an appropriate sustainable yield? That's really to be determined by the Water Resource Protection Plan. So how it was envisioned, my understanding of this whole overall Hawaii Water Plan, it's supposed to be an integrated resource plan to take into account that's why there are five components, the water resource protection Plan, the State Water Projects Plan, the Water Quality Plan, Ag, Water Use and Development Plan, and the County's Water Use and Development Plan. So that's supposed to all kind of Page 18 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 work together and come up with an integrated plan for the water resources within the State. We'll do our part, as far as incorporating the local concerns on our local area as far as T&C and things like that, but as far as how that factors into determining the sustainable yield, that responsibility really is with the State Water Commission. MS. RUGGLES: I see. So in the presentation, it was stated that the plan has incorporated environmental and cultural issues. But this isI don't know if it's been enough because this is not true according to the families who have inherited this land and who have this really demonstrated impenetrable duty to take care of it. And according to them, it's not enough and they're concerned about how the pumping impacts fragile and already threatened eco systems and species, and that this is not being addressed. I think that we need to create a public—we need to include a citizen hearing process to create a process for community members to have their voices heard. I understand that there was two public hearings, one held in west Hawaii, one held in east Hawaii, and that there may have been opportunity for the public to participate in the past, but as a part of a public process, this is a part of it. We are a part of it and in a way, we're the last line of defense per se, as representatives of each district that make up this island. And so I do think, I know that you stated this earlier, Mr. Okamoto, that it might not be worth it for you to address each concern point -by -point here, but for us and our position, we're tasked at making a decision here on this and I think it would be worth it for you to address these concerns point -by -point, if not now, at some point because we're accountable to the public. MR. OKAMOTO: Can I clarify something? I did not say that. What I said was there's a lot of misinformation out on social media that wasn'tI can't even begin to address those point -by -point. So if there are all these valid concerns from the community, we'll take that into account and deal with those. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I guess in closing, I'm just going to say that I support the proactive calls for amending this development plan. I also support the adoption of measures that make the existing water use more efficient and plan for the future use, not just for the next 40 years, but for the next 100 years at least. I think that was a really good point that someone brought up. That leaves me with the next question. Do we have any low -flow water standards within this plan? I would support that being included. And in closing, I'm just going to say that I believe the people who live in their community know what's best for their community, and they have concerns. And it's not just concerns but very valid objections that point to very grave implications for the future if this is approved. And the fact that the possibility of drought is not mentioned is very Page 19 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 concerning. And the concerns brought forth by the National Park and the Kaloko Fish Ponds, which are now backed up by people who are managing that, volunteers who have a kuleana for that are supporting those concerns. I think that these all need to be addressed. Thank you. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Chung, you're the only one who hasn't spoken on this first lap. Did you have any input or questions? Okay, thank you very much. Going for a second series of questions, Councilwoman Eoff MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. So this has been a great discussion. I think we've kind of come a long way and we seem to be pretty much consolidated in our request that would you be willing—I'll just ask you, if we could postpone this today, would you be willing to take some more time? I'm not sure how you would identify the appropriate stakeholders to meet with or public hearing to hold, or whatever it would be, but I think you could probably figure out a meaningful dialogue with community people. Would you be willing to do that? And take a look at adding some of the thoughts and concerns that have been raised today, and the recommendations? I was kind of thinking the same thing Ms. Lee Loy was about some of the recommendations could include potential Code amendments, but if that's not something you feel comfortable about, we can do that any ways, and we should, and we will. But I think there are things you could include as recommendations. There are things you've heard today or things that you know as well as we do, need to be emphasized more in this update. And I would really appreciate if you would agree to do that then we can move to postpone this at this point and continue the dialogue. MS. POINDEXTER: Is that a motion? I'll second. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Chair Richards relinquished the Chair to Acting Chair O'Hara. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Eoff moved to postpone Bill 65 to the call of the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. Relinquish Chair: At this time, Acting Chair O'Hara relinquished the Chair to Chair Richards. CHR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Vice Chair. So continue with discussion. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. Just wondering what's the timeline before you need this—there's no timeline? Perfect. No, because if there was a timeline of next Page 20 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 month to get it back to the Water Commission, that would be problematic. Okay, thank you. CHR. RICHARDS: Councilwoman Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. A quick question for the department, I'm not sure how my other colleagues are envisioning it, and my question is, would it be a supplemental report, or an amendment, or an addendum? Because I know however we choose to move this forward, there may be some backing up a little bit. So I just want to be clear. MR. OKAMOTO: Yeah, so that's a question we don't know. A lot of this—so again, it's captured in HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes)—you know all the HRS that established this State Water Plan has all of these framework built into it, so our understanding is ultimately, it falls back to the State Water Commission. So I think what we need to do is probably go back to them and let them know of the discussion here today. And again, I don't think it'll be hard to take anything out of this one because it went through all that prior approvals. So, I'm envisioning more of a supplement or an addendum and that's what we'll ask them if that's cool to do. And if not, we'll bring it back for further discussions. But in the meantime, I think we can still talk story with the members of the public that express concern. And again, I just also want to mention that it wasn't just the two public hearings that we had on this plan. What really we incorporated was the several years of hearings and meetings that went into that CWRM process on the designation that made the State Water Commissioners instruct us really what to put into this plan. So I just wanted to clarify that. We might have just had the two public hearings from our side, but the process included a whole lot more than that. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for that clarification because that's actually what I support. I support this but clearly, we could use one more piece and holding it here at committee level for you folks to go talk story I think is a wise decision. But I support this plan because the T&C and measurable there, that one's going to be real interesting to see how we can quantify that or box that because it's a real, living, breathing practice. And to put that practice on paper, as a Native Hawaiian, that's kapu. It's not for that, it's for the traditional and passing it on through the practice of it. It's not to be documented and this is the area—and so it's a very sensitive place to go. But what I would appreciate is the conversation with the lineal descendants and getting their input, and acknowledging to them that they have a voice in this process. Thank you. CHR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. Comments? Seeing none, just a few comments before—on the postponement. Okay, well if that's the case then call Page 21 AWESC-8 September 19, 2017 for the vote to postpone this to the call of the Chair. Okay, call of the Chair, all signify by saying "aye." Vote on Motion to The motion to postpone Bill 65 to the call of the Chair was Postpone: carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair Richards — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. ADJOURN There being no further business, at 2:15 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair Richards— 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. RICHARDS: We stand adjourned. Approved: OCT 1 0 2017 Mr. Herbert M. ` im" Richards, III, Chair (Date) Agriculture, Water, and Energy Sustainability mmittee HR/jm Page 22