Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-27 Meeting Minutes (EMC) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, February 27, 2019 9:01 a.m. to 11:36 a.m. West Hawaiʻi Civic Center, Building G 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi Commissioners present: Richard Bennett, Ph.D., Chair Jon Olson, Vice Chair James Fritz Dee Fulton Justin Pequeño Staff present: William Kucharski, Director Diane Noda, Deputy Director Diana Mellon-Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary Fujio, Secretary Also present: Jerome Warren, Sandra Demoruelle, Steve Holmes, and several other members of the public. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bennett called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2019 Motion, second, and vote: Vice Chair Olson moved to approve the minutes as drafted, Commissioner Pequeño seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Jerome Warren: There was a community meeting last night at the community center on the proposed Nāālehu sewer. There was a fullʻ house which included their state representative and councilmember, but the commissioner for that district was not there. The questions and answers brought forth doubts and concerns from the residents. Dora Beck, the Wastewater Deputy Chief, was there but did not answer any of the questions, which left Director Kucharski to fill in on what happened in the past. Everyone in the community had an opportunity to reconnect on this issue, and different groups of people who do not associate with each other were uniformly skeptical of the project. Some who did not come to earlier meetings had new grievances that were previously not considered. Mr. Kucharski continues to tell homeowners they must close their cesspools by 2050 and that a sewer line will run down the street for them to connect. This has people upset. There are life-long residents who resist this plan. Regarding abandoned vehicles, in Nāālehu a police officer will not initiate an ʻ abandoned vehicle removal procedure, and neither will the county roads people. These departments turn a blind eye on the most obvious vehicles, even those that have become storage units and sleeping quarters for homeless people. Citizens must suffer in silence or risk retaliation from squatters. Sandra Demoruelle: The Nāālehu Wastewater Treatment Plant is not necessary. ʻ The county came down and once again told the community that their well is failing and the LCC could not be used as septic system. There is no overflow, and there is nothing wrong with the well. The county was originally going to put septic tanks in the area, and they would run to the current well. However, Director Kucharski keeps maintaining that the well is failing, cannot be reused, and a $40 million system needs to be built. It was nothing but a political ploy to begin with, and it is based on lies. Her group will be talking to a lawyer, because the county refuses to do an EIS. There is no need for the wastewater treatment plant. Everyone would be happy with the septic system they were promised and given an FEA on. It could be done tomorrow. There is no need to do an EIS and there is no need to do anything. Steve Holmes: He was a member of the Honolulu City Council, though he is originally from the Big Island. He has been a park ranger and geologist for Hawaiʻi Volcanoes. For most of his years on the Council, he was chair of the Public Works Committee and looked at a lot of wastewater, water, and solid waste issues. He has sympathy for Hawaiʻi County’s challenges. His background was in energy. He worked for the U.S. Department of Energy and was the Energy and Sustainability Coordinator for Honolulu. He also worked for the Harris administration as an executive administrative official, where he also dealt with wastewater issues. He read the draft EIS for the Kealakehe upgrade and finds himself in an awkward position. For years he has been an advocate for a higher level treatment of wastewater. However, he is concerned that the plan is fatally flawed because of segmentation of a portion of the recycling. Some elements are included in the plan, and some are not. Another fatal flaw is that right now the effluent is very salty, and Kona’s drinking water is also very salty. It exceeds the EPA secondary treatment standards by several times, which is very frustrating for him as an environmentalist. He pays water bills and expects to have drinking water supplied to him, but he ends up instead buying bottled water from Costco. There is also a problem with infiltration and inflow. Aliʻi Drive is right next to the coastline, and there are rising sea levels. There will be greater hydrostatic pressure on those sewer lines and a greater amount of infiltration and inflow. (The EMC's 3-minute time limit for public testimony was reached, but the commissioners extended it to hear Mr. Holmes.) Mr. Holmes said that the collection system needs to be fixed, which in turn would reduce the flow and pumping costs. When salt water comes into the system, it is very corrosive and eats the components, so there is a big maintenance cost. Corrosion also reduces the capacity of the plant. The real key is to not have the effluent be too salty. The R-1 treatment does nothing in terms of reducing the salt in effluent, as that would require reverse osmosis. Honolulu took a very different approach than what is proposed here. They created the Honouliuli Water Recycling Facility though a public-private partnership with the Veolia company, and it did not cost the taxpayers of Oahu anything. The facility pays for itself through the sale of reclaimed water. The council helped create the market for the water by mandating it through the development plan process. Hook-ups to the plant were mandated, which instantly created the market. Developers benefit by the reduced irrigation costs, because the money they would normally pay for new water development goes down dramatically since they are incorporating reuse into their projects. Today Honolulu treats less wastewater and uses less water than it did 25 years ago, in spite of all the growth. As an economic model, their system makes more sense. Hawaiʻi County does not have the staff to handle water reuse. Director Kucharski is struggling just to fill positions he has for existing jobs. Mr. Holmes suggested an RFP be done to bring in companies that do R-1 for a living, who have business models and experience. Veolia, for example, does it all over the world. That kind of expertise should be brought here rather than bootstrapping it as an additional responsibility for DEM. In Honolulu, the program was administered by the Board of Water Supply, not the Wastewater Division. This makes sense, because Water Supply has the customer base and already knows where the high users are. They know where all the irrigation goes, and they can match the highest and best use so as to protect potable water. The future of water is going to be in reuse. Honolulu has no choice, because the whole island is virtually a water management designation, and they have a huge amount of growth compared to the Big Island. He does not mean to say that Honolulu’s solutions are best for the Big Island, but it is something that should really be considered. It is necessary to get the attention of our Department of Water Supply, as they are purveyors of water. They maintain the drinking water lines and deal with all of the easements, and for a whole range of reasons it makes a lot of sense for them to be involved and be a part of the solution. This should be brought before the County Council, which has the authority to assign the responsibility. He wants the R-1 system to succeed. There is a way to get it done, but he is concerned that the existing draft EIS has several major flaws. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Chair’s update on water sustainability and water quality white paper and plans. Chair Bennett apologized that a draft is not yet ready for the subcommittee’s review, but he has been making progress. b. Status of subcommittee’s draft recommendations to the legislature on water reuse policy. Chair Bennett said that at the previous meeting, Commissioner Gaffney had proposed to reorganize the subcommittee based upon geography, east and west, rather than issues. Once it is reorganized, they can work on the reuse policy, which will affect West Hawaiʻi more than East Hawaiʻi because of the rain. Vice Chair Olson pointed out that it is very different in his district, because catchment is the immediate source of water rather than the Department of Water Supply. However, reuse is something to keep in mind, as there are some smaller lots that eventually will cross the bar on the amount that can be discharged into a cesspool. c. Commissioner Gaffney report on the interconnection of bills in the legislature on cesspit closure, individual home waste management, and reuse. Chair Bennett said this item would be continued to the March agenda, since Commissioner Gaffney was unable to be present today. d. Review of Commission’s table of Motions, Policy Recommendations, and Various Requests and discuss follow-up. Chair Bennett pointed out that an updated table had been provided, and if there were any items they wanted attention brought to, to bring it up at the March meeting. Commissioner Gaffney is handling this particular effort. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Introduction of Councilmember Tim Richards, Chair of the County Council’s Committee on Agriculture, Water, Energy, and Environmental Management. Chair Bennett introduced Councilmember Tim Richards, who had been invited to speak to the commission. He is now the new chair of the Council’s Agriculture, Water, Energy, and Environmental Management Committee (AWEEMC). Mr. Richards thanked them for the invitation to meet and talk story. He explained that a couple of former committees were consolidated into the AWEEMC in order to function more efficiently. Because he is chair, he and Director Kucharski speak frequently. Looking at environmental management and specifically waste management, there are some things that need to be done differently. At the last Council meeting, the bill to increase sewer fees was discussed. Although only about 18% of the population is on sewer, waste management is an issue for the County of Hawaiʻi as a whole, as everyone benefits from sewering. His vote against the sewer fee increase was not because he is against needed funding for waste management, but because he does not feel the fees are the right way to do it. He will be retooling it coming forward, as there is a need to look long-range and plan for the future. The sewer fee increase is a stop gap method—there needs to be a bigger end game in focus. He wants a long-term game plan to try to solve the problem for the future and not just fix it short-term. The next generation needs to be kept in mind, so he tries to make decisions that will benefit them. He was open to any questions the commissioners may have. Commissioner Fritz said he lives in Puakō, and there was talk about doing a sewer district, as all the towns are segmented. He asked Mr. Richards how he felt about sewering the island. Mr. Richards said a problem is that the island is large and has a relatively low population dispersed over a large piece of land. In addition, different areas of the island have different climates. However, the population has been growing and is approaching a tipping point where what is done makes a difference. A sewer district may an answer for the short term, but the reality is that sewering Puakō would benefit the whole island and the state. The Council members who voted against the sewer fee increase are not against the resources coming forward, but they want everyone to participate, as everyone will benefit. Commissioner Pequeño asked what efficiencies Mr. Richards had seen from combining multiple committees into the AWEEMC. Mr. Richards said it comes down to money and statistics. When the Council is meeting, it costs somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 per hour. It makes sense cost-wise and time-wise to have water, energy, and environmental matters in one committee—it is all resource management. It has been more streamlined and efficient. Commissioner Pequeño said that he hopes that the new structure will allow for greater intersections between DWS and the Wastewater Division, because there is currently a large disconnect. Mr. Richards said he does not disagree, but DWS is semi- autonomous, and it was established that way for a reason. Water needs to be kept out of politics. The reality, however, is that the county is still responsible for all the bonding and financial side of things, and the departments need to have good working relationships. Director Kucharski pointed out that the County Charter limits DWS to dealing only with potable water. There is a gulf between what DWS can do and what DEM can do. Due to the Charter, DWS could not say yes on the R-1 system. Chair Bennett this was one reason why the EMC proposed changes to the Charter Commission, and it was frustrating they were shot down like an invading fighter pilot. The white paper he is working on will address this as well as the state’s disconnection to county departments. Chair Bennett asked Mr. Richards what the EMC could do, as a commission, to further redesign the way our resources are used. Mr. Richards said that for a start, they need to interact and understand where they are and go forward. The integration among departments and the state needs to get better. He understands the glacial pace of government, but having conversations and moving forward is what is needed. He does not have all the answers, but he has ideas. Issues should be vetted out well ahead of time so that conversations aren’t taking place when they get to the policy setting stage. They can do a better job, and it starts with communication. Commissioner Fulton asked whether the Charter Commission being convened only every ten years is an impediment to a more integrated approach. Mr. Richards said that the Council does not have oversight over the Charter Commission, though they can give input. The Charter Commission wades through issues, but ultimately it is the constituency who decides yes or no on proposals at election time. There is no easy way to integrate. It requires tenacity and pushing forward. Vice Chair Olson asked Mr. Richards his thoughts on a disposal fee at the point of purchase, and Mr. Richards said he is still trying to figure it out. Funding is needed to address what they are trying to accomplish. He would like to see what other jurisdictions throughout the nation do to fund their waste management. Commissioner Fulton said she would like Mr. Holmes’ comments on this subject, since he was present and brings a lot of experience. Mr. Holmes said he wanted to comment on the Charter Commission issue, as he has some political insight. The EMC got into trouble because they were proposing to take away DWS’ semi-autonomous status. The real issue is that there is a language change that can be made that would add water reuse as well as potable water and solve the problem. As someone once said, politics is the art of compromise. A language change in the charter could make the whole idea work. Do not take away DWS’ semi-autonomous status, and do not fold them into DEM where they lose their identity. The EMC should reapproach the Charter Commission or the Council and request that language be added to have reuse be a part of DWS’ responsibilities. Mr. Richards said there is still time to do it through the Charter Commission, and that a better group of people could not have been assembled as its members. They have real world experience, are mindful, and look at the county as a whole. He believes the EMC could put forth what Mr. Holmes said and get it through. If it does not go through, he would be happy to champion it going forward. Chair Bennett said they learned their lesson, and the intent now is to submit a formal proposal to the Charter Commission to make it more inclusive rather than exclusive. Mr. Richards suggested he let them know about the proposal beforehand so he can be an advocate, and Chair Bennett thanked Mr. Richards for looking at the EMC as a source that can provide ideas and leadership. Mr. Richards said the point is to talk about the issues, as we all want our county and community to be successful. b. Discussion on the Commission’s monthly meeting schedule and length of meetings. Chair Bennett said there was a proposal to have them meet every other month. He asked for discussion. Motion and second: Commissioner Pequeño moved to maintain the monthly meeting schedule and to extend the scheduled meeting time to two and one-half hours. Vice Chair Olson seconded. Discussion: Deputy Director Noda pointed out that there is no hourly time limit on the meetings, just the specification that they be on the fourth Wednesday of the month. The agendas only show a start time. Motion amended, seconded, and vote: Commissioner Pequeño amended his motion and moved that the EMC maintain its monthly meeting schedule. Vice Chair Olson seconded, and all commissioners voted aye. Vice Chair Olson said that in the past they had also held meetings in other areas of the island, so if there was an issue specific to an area, it might be more appropriate to do so. c. Proposal to change Hawaiʻi County Code Section 2-207, which states that the Commission has a 45-day review period to submit comments and recommendations on legislation relating to the functions and duties of the Department of Environmental Management to the County Council, and that failure to act within the 45-day review period shall be considered as an unfavorable recommendation. Chair Bennett said that if the EMC does not provide a yea or nay to a recommendation within 45 days, the Code as currently structured deems it a negative recommendation, and this is not appropriate. Director Kucharski said that in order to modify the Code, they need to have a councilmember support it and provide the County Clerk a draft modification to be placed on an agenda before the appropriate committee, where it would go through the usual bill cycle. The wording could be made neutral. There were problems in the past with getting a quorum, which made the 45-day deadline a problem. Ms. Noda said that a 60-day deadline may work, as that would cover two EMC meeting dates. Director Kucharski said his opinion is that the 45-day deadline is reasonable, as they have been having quorum, but the unfavorable recommendation if there is no response is unfair and inappropriate. He suggested the commissioners think about it and return to the next meeting with proposed alternate language. The commissioners agreed to come back with alternate language at the next meeting. d. Proposal to form standing committees by county regions, east and west. Chair Bennett explained that Commissioner Gaffney had recommended at the last meeting that they create two standing committees, one for the east and the other for the west. The purpose would be to allow the committee members to meet, in person or by phone, to work on issues. There were questions on how many members could be in a standing committee, and Ms. Noda said they needed a legal opinion. Ms. Mellon-Lacey said she needed to research the issue and would come back with a legal opinion at the next meeting. Commissioner Fulton said she wanted it on the record that the intention of the standing committees is not to accomplish official commission business, but to focus on regional specific issues. If a subcommittee had a meeting of the minds, it would expedite the issue at the general meetings. They would have a better organized presentation which would eliminate some of the discussion. She requested the legal opinion also include the number of members that can be on a standing subcommittee. Chair Bennett said he was requesting that Corporation Counsel do the necessary research and provide them with guidelines on what would constitute acceptable, legal subcommittees, and bring the legal opinion to the next meeting. Mr. Richards pointed out that the County Council struggles with the Sunshine Law as well, and for them to have an ad hoc committee, it has to have a specified job. When the job is completed, the committee reports back and disbands. They cannot have an open book as far as standing committees. After further discussion on the matter, Chair Bennett said they would table it and wait for Corporation Counsel to guide them with a legal opinion. Commissioner Fulton announced that she would need to leave the meeting by 11:30 a.m. e. Discuss strategies and options to develop users of reclaimed water from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. Chair Bennett said his intent on this item is not to hear from the department on strategies, but on what it is doing to develop reclaimed water customers. Director Kucharski said that in Kealakehe, there are some existing projects that have been looked at for a couple of years, including the old airport, the development of QLT lands next to the airport, the regional park, and Kohanaiki. Users will need to be industrial or commercial, as personal use is not currently allowed for R-1 water. Whoever uses the R- 1 must be permitted as a user by the state, and the county has to ensure the user is following the requirements of their permit. The Water Reuse Task Force just finished looking at different reuse options, and one of their recommendations was to streamline and structure the state’s reuse requirements to be friendlier. Director Kucharski said he is hopeful there will be positive modifications. A councilperson has indicated that once the system is up, she would be willing to put forth legislation to require commercial use of wastewater in the same way that people who are newly accessible to a sewer are required to connect. They are going down the road Mr. Holmes discussed, but are still a couple of years away. A part of the recent sewer rate increase was to get additional staff to manage and have oversight over the R-1 system, since DEM is the agency that will have authority over non-potable water. DEM has been approached by Kohanaiki, which originally wanted 500,000 gallons per day. They would like to increase it to a million gallons per day. Regarding the salinity of the water, they are looking at replacing force mains all along Aliʻi Drive and elsewhere in Kona to reduce the in?low and in?iltration. Director Kucharski answered questions from the commissioners on whether the lines would have liners, what type of pipe would be used, and whether the waste would go to Kealakehe. Chair Bennett said an irrigation budget is needed. At some magical date in 2020 the department will be producing 1.8 million gallons of R-1 water. They need to know how much will be used in the short term, in the longer term, and eventually when the park comes on line. Director Kucharski said they have estimates now on what the four users will take, but they don’t have a timeline other than plus or minus ten years. He explained they are looking at how to move it all forward and that it is a moving target. Chair Bennett said he would like a reuse budget developed in an organized form so it can be used as a planning document. Director Kucharski said he could do it, but it would be all estimates. f. Discuss status of Uniform Plumbing Code adoption and making a recommendation to the County Council. Chair Bennett explained that on behalf of the EMC, he had previously testified in front of the County Council’s Environmental Management Committee and advocated for the adoption of the latest UPC codes with the green supplements. The UPC is developed by hundreds of government entities who figured out what makes sense for a plumbing code. The latest versions authorize water conservation devices and also has language that allows for in-home use of reclaimed water. At the conclusion of his comments before the committee, a member of the Department of Public Works told the councilmembers they could not adopt the new code until the state approves it. This was misinformation. He researched the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, and Section 107-28 gives the county authority to amend and adopt the Hawaiʻistate building codes without council approval. “The governing body of each county shall amend, adopt, and update the Hawaiʻi state building codes as they apply within their respective jurisdiction.” The county is therefore free to adopt the more modern UPCs and green supplements if it chooses. He takes great exception to someone from the county telling councilmembers they could not do so, and he would like the EMC to authorize him to send a letter to the County Council indicating that in their view, they are free to adopt. He will cite the state law in the letter. Motion: Vice Chair Olson so moved. Director Kucharski commented that his understanding of what was stated is that the County Code cannot be less restrictive than whatever the state code is. He felt the comment made was that administratively, DPW did not have the staff to show that every new adopted section is more or less restrictive than what is in the current code. This is his understanding of the hesitation by county DPW staff to adopt the new standards in toto. Chair Bennett said that conversation did not occur in front of the council. Director Kucharski suggested the EMC request the DPW make a presentation on the plumbing code and how it is applied, so that people who actually work with it can address the issues. Mr. Holmes said the Council should adopt the more aggressive code, and let the state bureaucrats show what isn’t right. Also, when there is a new code adopted, staff training is needed. The EPA in San Francisco has a sustainable water office, and their funding could be used to do the training. The UPC is a consensus document, and all the industry groups and lobbyists have been working on it a long time. A county bureaucrat should not be allowed to hold them up over a notion that it might be in violation of some state requirement. The savings to the county could be very handsome if a more aggressive code is adopted. Director Kucharski interjected that with all due respect, DEM has no responsibility for the plumbing code. It is not in their purview. Chair Bennett said he wanted a motion to say that the EMC wishes to advise the County Council on their freedom to adopt the later UPC codes if they choose, according to HRS Section 107-28. Vice Chair Olson suggested they send a letter to Councilmember Richards, since he chairs the relevant committee. Director Kucharski said that as a matter of courtesy, it should also be sent to Dave Yamamoto, the Director of the Public Works Department, since the plumbing code is his purview and responsibility, and DPW would be the recipient of the work involved. After further discussion, Chair Bennett said he would draft the letter to be sent to Dave Yamamoto, and provide the EMC with his letter. 6. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE a. Chair’s report on a community presentation to be held on vacuum- operated sewer systems. The presentation will be held on March 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. at the West Hawaiʻi Civic Center, Building G. Chair Bennett said that of his own volition, he has encouraged John Radinoff, the CEO of a Sidney, Australia, company called Flovac, to come to Hawaiʻi and provide an informational seminar about the kind of sewer piping the company provides to coastal communities all over the world. The system uses vacuum to move the liquid, as opposed to positive pressure pumps. It is attractive in concept because for vacuum systems to work, there cannot be a leak. There are built-in sensors, and if a line is broken the system doesn’t work. He asked the commissioners for authorization to list the EMC as the sponsor of the seminar. Motion, second, and vote: Vice Chair Olson moved that the EMC sponsor the informational seminar on March 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Kona. Commissioner Pequeño seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. Chair Bennett said he would circulate a flyer he had created on the seminar. b. Director’s Informational Report. • Status of Bill 210: The sewer increase bill was passed by the Council. It was modified to spread the increases out over five years. DEM will collect $8 to $10 million less than what was originally proposed, but all in all it is a very positive step forward. Chair Bennett said he has heard of people who live along Aliʻi Drive not being connected to the sewer. Director Kucharski said they should be connected, unless there was a variance. DPW was to verify the connections when the sewer went in, as it is a plumbing code issue. Discussion was held on how the EMC could request that the county explore options to distribute sewer costs to all residents and visitors. Chair Bennett instructed that the next agenda have a discussion about a broader allocation of Hawaiʻi County’s waste management costs. • State of the proposed Pāhala and Nāālehu WWTPsʻ: Meetings have been held with Pāhala on the EA that was issued. Due to the recent government shutdown, there has been a delay in responding to comments submitted, so there is not yet a final EA and decision. Last night they had a meeting in Nāālehu, wherʻe they explained that an EA was beginning for the facility there. The meeting was not required by HRS Section 343, but was done to communicate openly with the community on the status. The EA is expected to be completed some time in June, and will be followed by a comment period. A decision should be made by September. The EA is to evaluate the primary proposed location. The site is on 30 acres of land out of 2,000 acres in Waikapuna that is being purchased with PONC and state funds. The land is going to be put into conservation, but the Legacy Land Commission and DLNR are excluding the 30 acres from conservation, so if the EA shows the site is appropriate, a zoning change will not be needed to build a facility there. If the site turns out to be inappropriate, it will be zoned back into conservation land. The site is about 2.5 miles from the ocean and about a mile from where raw sewage is now being dumped into large-capacity cesspools. Motion, second, and vote: As Commissioner Fulton needed to leave the meeting, Commissioner Fritz moved to adjourn the meeting after completion of the Director’s Report, Vice Chair Olson seconded, and all commissioners voted aye. Commissioner Fulton left the meeting at 11:15 a.m. • Polystyrene educational program: The bill was passed last year and becomes effective July 1, 2019. The statute requires that DEM put together an education program and have it available by January 1, 2019. The education program is essentially for food establishments to look at alternatives to polystyrene. It will go out to the businesses and the public at large so people understand what is coming and what material they can and cannot use. DEM’s Recycling Section provided a PowerPoint to the Council, and a copy was provided to the commissioners in their packet. The EMC indicated they wanted the PowerPoint presentation given to them at the next meeting, and Director Kucharski said he would place it in his Director’s Report. • Status of Kealakehe WWTP effluent R-1 upgrade: He has been working closely with Brown & Caldwell on their schedule, and the 2020 date will be met. When the distribution will occur is another issue, but the intent is to have the line and pump stations for Kohanaiki by 2022. The EIS was published on February 23, 2019, and the comment period ends April 5, 2019. The EIS is expected to be finalized in June, depending on the comments that come in. Regarding the earlier discussion on the R-1 being segmented, the EIS was done specifically for the creation of the R-1 water so that it could be timely. It is not certain yet where the distribution will be. Construction is to start in August, and there will be a full pilot test of the SAT at the existing disposal area. Four of the eight SAT units should be ready to go, and the engineered wetlands should be done, in the fourth quarter of 2020. The 90% design of the system is to be available this May. They are looking at a potential modification of the green zone that was planned around the plant, as it appears there may not be enough R-1 water left. Chair Bennett said a detailed discussion of the draft EIS is going to be on the March agenda. Commissioners are to read the document and come prepared with comments and questions, some of which may be very technical. From the discussion, a document will be prepared that will go in as a formal response to the draft EIS. He said Director Kucharski should be prepared to answer the technical questions or have someone present who can. Director Kucharski said the EIS process is formal, and it should be done formally with official comments and response. He did not want to get into technical details in a public forum with an obligatory response outside the EIS process. • Testimony submitted to the State Legislature in support of bills: The commissioners were provided copies of his testimony in support of eight bills. 7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Chair Bennett said if anything comes up, the commissioners can send him an email. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next meeting was not announced. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bennett announced the meeting adjourned at 11:36 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature)