Letters

Praise and an Update from Wahiawa Dam Owner

To the Editor:

I want to compliment you on the accuracy and balance in Teresa Dawson’s article on the Wahiawa Dam and Reservoir in your August issue. Good journalism will play an important part in unwinding the various problems involved because it helps create informed community involvement.

An update: Dole has already started the process of contracting for restoration of two or more of the existing upper gates. DOH has told me that the upper gates in the tower are likely to release much higher quality water. So getting this upgrade done will be a big step forward.

The City and County of Honolulu has told me that it has received $29 million plus from the Feds to build the holding tanks at Wahiawa, which would solve the problem of the releases of untreated effluent and allow the effluent to be classified as R-1 water, and the design of those improvements is in process. The County told me the schedule is to complete actual construction by the end of 2011. I hope this is true. I have no way to confirm it.

The county’s decision to solve the effluent problem by simply putting in a deeper outfall has created a lot of concern. To me it is just hiding a problem. Some at DOH are concerned there will be a bottom level river through the reservoir, right from the outfall
to the outlet tower making matters even worse than now. And, of course there are other water quality issues, but it is my hope to work through them one by one until we can all view the Dam and Reservoir as a blessing to the community.

Howard Green
Sustainable Hawaii, LLC

Article Misrepresents Kilauea Irrigation System Report

To the Editor:

Sustainable Resources Group Intn’l Inc. (SRGII) felt compelled to respond to your August 2009 newsletter article titled “Kilauea Water System Report Confirms Illegal Diversion into Ka Loko Reservoir.” SRGII prepared the report referenced in this article (Kilauea Irrigation Water Engineering Design and Monitoring Study) for the Kaua`i County Office of Economic Development, and made it available for public review and comment.

As you are likely aware, issues surrounding Ka Loko Reservoir are very sensitive and accurate and balanced reporting is necessary to provide the public with factual information. We have identified several errors in your article that we feel need to be clarified and corrected, and take exception to the fact that your reporters did not contact us during their preparation of the article to answer, refute, or clarify identified issues. Further, the article seems to be based on a cursory review by your reporter of our report, interpretations of our report by residents of Moloa`a watershed, and on statements made by Ms. Hope Kallai, a resident of the Moloa`a watershed. We respectfully request that you address the inaccuracies that we have identified in your article as described below and prepare an errata statement addressing the errors in your next publication.

Paragraph 3 on page 3 of the article implies that the SRGII report revealed that the disruptions to the Moloa`a Stream hydrology, as discussed in paragraph 2 on page 3, were attributed to the stream diversion at Kaluaa Stream. Our report clearly states, in at least two sections (Section 3.7, page 11; Section 7.6, page 61), that we did not assess the potential impacts of the stream diversion on the Moloa`a watershed. To state that our report revealed the diversion of water from Kaluaa Stream, which is a tributary of Moloa`a Stream, as the reason for observed changes to the flow regime in Moloa`a Stream is an interpretation made by your reporter and is not supported by any text or analysis contained in our report.

Paragraph 4 on page 3 of the article discusses the Moloa`a Ditch. Our report (Section 5.2, page 21) discusses two Moloa`a ditches, the “old Moloa`a Ditch and the second Moloa`a Ditch.” We did not discuss the ditch alignment, amount of water it conveyed, or the uses of the water in the old Moloa`a Ditch. Your discussion in paragraph 4 is not accurate. It states the “original Moloa`a Ditch was part of the Kilauea Irrigation System…” Our report does not state this, but rather it states, “The second Moloa`a Ditch was used historically to convey water diverted from Kaluaa Stream to Ka Loko Reservoir and was the one inspected as part of this project.” The article confuses the two ditches discussed in our paragraphs 4 and 5. We did not provide any discussion in our report on the old Moloa`a Ditch. For the record, the old Moloa`a Ditch was believed to be used to provide water to what was known as the Waipake Camp, and the water was used for domestic purposes and livestock, not for irrigation.

Paragraph 8 on page 3 of the article incorrectly describes Moloa`a Ditch flow as carrying 1.3 million gallons per day. Our report does not state this, but rather states the following with respect to flow in Kaluaa Stream upstream of the ditch diversion (Section 5.2.2, page 22): “During the site visit flow in this section of the stream was measured to be 2 cfs or 1.29 million gallons per day (MGD).” Regarding the estimated amount of water being diverted into Moloa`a Ditch, the report then states “that approximately one-third to one-half of the total stream flow above the point of diversion was actually flowing into the opening of the Moloa`a Ditch, with the rest returned to the natural stream channel.” One third to one half of the total flow equates to 0.425-0.645 MGD, not the 1.29 MGD your article states. This error grossly mis-states the amount of water by a significant amount. Either the reporter did not conduct due diligence and reported the 1.29 MGD values from a source other than our report, or was careless when they read our report.

Paragraph 2 on page 3 of the article states that residents of Moloa`a watershed have experienced two summers when the stream went dry since the late 1990s. We do not dispute the apparent observation that the stream went dry, and can verify that Kaluaa Stream is a tributary to the larger Moloa`a Stream and that water diverted from Kaluaa Stream would result in a proportional decrease of flow into Moloa`a Stream. However, it is important to note that during the period from 1998-2001, rainfall gages in the area of Moloa`a watershed recorded below average annual rainfall amounts. In addition there has been no hydrologic study of the Moloa`a watershed to estimate the contribution of flow into Moloa`a Stream from the subwatersheds that drain into it. Based on the above two points, we do not feel there is sufficient data and information to draw the conclusion that your article implies, that the sole reason for diminished stream flow in Moloa`a Stream is the stream diversion on Kaluaa Stream.

If we can be of any assistance or if there are questions regarding this letter please contact us.

Sincerely,

Andy Hood
Principal, SRGII

Editor’s note: The online edition of the August 2009 article has been corrected and reference made to this letter as well.

Volume 20, Number 4 October 2009