Since 1990, the Maui County Department of Water Supply has been counting on wells in the Ha’iku aquifer system to provide as much as 24 million gallons a day of water. The water would not be used to serve residents of Ha’iku. Rather, it would be used to meet growing demands for fresh water created by development in Central Maui, especially in the southern service area of Ma’alaea, Kihei, Wailea, and Makena.
The plan has been on hold since 1992, when two groups – Maui Malama Pono, Inc., and the Coalition to Protect East Maui Water Resources – challenged in state court the adequacy of the environmental impact statement prepared for the project. However, in response to the increased pressure to find new water sources, work on the Ha’iku plan has resumed. Here’s a recap of the situation.
When Maui County prepared its Water Use and Development Plan in 1990, wells in the Ha’iku aquifer system are identified as a source for between 3.4 mgd and 8.4 mgd per day.
1990 Study
In October 1990, shortly after the Water Use and Development Plan was prepared, Belt Collins & Associates submitted to the Maui Department of Water Supply a report summarizing the potential of East Maui to contribute to the water demands of Central Maui projected to the year 2010. In the executive summary, Belt Collins recommended “expansion of the [Central Maui] system to be capable to supply an average daily demand of 48 million gallons per day by the creation of a 24 well field in the East Maui area and the installation of a 36-inch diameter transmission line approximately 60,000 feet in length.” The number of wells that would be needed to feed this demand, the report said (without providing justification), was set at eight, with future wells, if needed, extending in a line marching eastward down the coast.
Total estimated cost of the system was $61.5 million in 1990, one third of which – $20 million- would be spent on the transmission line.
The driving force behind the Belt Collins study was to find a source to supply projects planned by two joint ventures: the Central Maui Joint Venture (consisting of A&B Properties, C. Brewer, Seibu, and the Wailea Resort), with an existing water allocation of 13.5 mgd, of which 10.9 mgd remained unused; and the East Maui Joint Venture (A&B Properties, Baldwin-Pacific Properties, Palauea Bay Partners, and Maui Lani Partners), with a projected average demand of 5.9 mgd. Despite the geographical designations in their titles, the lion’s share of water demand in both joint ventures lies in the Central Maui service area.
In addition, Belt Collins conducted what it described as a “systematic review” of approved community plans for Wailuku-Kalaului, Kihei-Makena, and Pa’ia-Ha’iku. It noted that the supply required to meet the 1,420 acres in which development was allowed by these plans (over and above the acreage contained in projects covered by the joint ventures) might be as high as 8 mgd.
According to Belt Collins, the transmission line needed to accommodate just the 8.8 mgd maximum demand of the East Maui Joint Venture partners would have to be 16 inches in diameter. “Based on the assumption that the Central Maui Joint Venture limits its demand to 13.5 mgd from the Waihe’e wells, the East Maui transmission pipeline to accommodate the remaining projected demand would have to be 36 inches” in diameter, the report said.
“The recommended system consists of a 36-inch transmission line connecting East Maui sources and the Central Maui transmission line,” Belt Collins reported. “The ultimate system has the capacity to supply 24 mgd into the Central Maui water system. This source and transmission system would satisfy the water requirements at the year 2009.
The county would not bear all costs of the improvements. The Belt Collins study analyzed a variety of development and cost-sharing alternatives. “If the county funded the ‘Non-East Maui Joint Venture’ share of the 36 inch transmission line, the Joint Venture Partners’ cost would be substantially lower,” the report notes. “If the county did not participate… the Joint Venture could reduce transmission system costs by approximately $10 million by only installing a 16 inch pipeline. One compromise would be to have the Joint Venture Partners contribute an amount adequate for a 16 inch transmission line and the Department of Water Supply pay the additional cost to increase the pipeline size to 36 inches.”
The Next Stage
In July 1992, the Maui Department of Water Supply released an environmental assessment and environmental impact statement preparation notice for the East Maui Water Development Plan. The plan called for developing some 16 miles of water transmission lines, reservoirs, and wells with a total capacity of 16 million gallons a day. It was intended to “meet the potable water needs of the Central Maui Water District for the next twenty years.”
As described in the environmental assessment, the project would involve drilling at least 11 wells with a maximum pumping capacity of 16 mgd and an average yield of about 10 mgd. That means that the county expects to get roughly 1 mgd from each well, with pumping reaching at times 1.5 mgd each.
When the draft EIS was released, residents of the area where the water was to be drilled reacted with outrage. Richard Lafond Jr., then the executive director of Maui Tomorrow, a group promoting ecologically sound community planning, noted that the current Pa’ia- Ha’iku Community Plan specifically identified “the inferior quality of drinking water and a lack of water pressure as primary concerns of the area.” Lafond also challenged the notion, implicit in the draft EIS, that the water was needed to meet the demands of “planned growth” in Central Maui. “It is historically evident,” he wrote, “that the availability of desirable resources is among the greatest stimulants for growth and development in an area. To make such a vast quantity of East Maui water resource available to Central Maui will very likely encourage development beyond the guidelines of the affected Community Plans and the Maui County General Plan.”
The final EIS, issued in early 1993, called for 10 wells, with a total yield of 14 mgd, which would be built in six phases extending through the year 2004. The total cost was set at $48.5 million. Even at this, the final EIS notes, “two additional wells will be needed to meet the 18.6 mgd projected demand” for new sources. The first two wells would be west of Maliko Gulch in an area called Hamakuapoko. These had already been drilled, as exploratory wells, when the final EIS was published.
Contamination
The EIS gives cursory attention to the matter of the potential impact the wells would have on streams. Elsewhere in Hawai’i, close associations between stream flows and ground-water levels have been documented. The EIS, however, states that the wells would draw from the deep basal lens, which, it claims, has no association with stream flow.
In September 1993, a loose coalition of citizens and environmental groups brought suit in state court against the county Department of Water Supply. The complaint mentioned that the claim of no impact on streams was not supported by any scientific study. In addition, the suit claimed, contrary to state requirements, the EIS did not analyze all alternatives, such as development of a comprehensive water conservation program.
Within the month, the groups had amended their complaint to note the matter of pesticide contamination of groundwater – an issue altogether ignored in the EIS.
Much of the land around the well sites had been in pineapple cultivation during the years when the now-banned pesticides DBCP and EDB were in use. As early as 1992, the county tested water taken from the two Hamakuapoko wells and found them to be contaminated with both chemicals.
The first public mention of the contamination was not made until June 1993, when David Craddick, director of the Department of Water Supply, informed the Board of Water Supply that it would be another 18 months to two years before the two Hamakuapoko wells could be used. Additional testing would be needed to verify the contamination and determine what kind of treatment, if any, would be needed, Craddick told the Board. He stopped short of saying what chemical contaminants had been found.
Those contaminants were identified and discussed, however, in a letter sent two months earlier to Craddick by the consultant on the project, Norman Saito Engineering Consultants, Inc. The letter describes the tests needed to verify or disprove the initial analyses. Attached to it are the results of initial tests, which had begun as early as April 1992. Water from Hamakuapoko well number 1 showed high levels of lead in two of three samples. Water from well number 2 was found to contain levels of DBCP and EDB well in excess of both federal and state maximum contaminant levels.
By August 1993, Craddick acknowledged, in correspondence with Norman Saito, that the state Department of Health would probably not grant approval of any application seeking to place the Hamakuapoko well number 2 into production.
A Court Order
One year later, on August 23, 1994, the county Board of Water Supply was ordered to prepare a supplemental EIS “to address the serious concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding water contamination, impact upon stream flow, and other issues raised by the plaintiffs.”
Rather than prepare a supplemental EIS to cover the entire project, the county has opted for what it calls a phased approach. The supplemental EIS preparation notice covering Phase I was published in April 1997. The phased approach, the document states, was selected for three reasons. The first was the prohibitive expense of exploratory well drilling and testing for all of the wells anticipated in the East Maui plan. Second, development of these first two wells alone does not commit the county to developing all improvements called for in later phases of the East Maui plan. And third, the report says, the phased approach is appropriate when dealing with development of water resources owing to inherent uncertainties. “Since it is difficult to forecast these with great accuracy, an incremental approach makes good sense from the viewpoint of capital budgeting and compliance with state law.”
The segmenting of the project was not anticipated in the court order. On August 13, the county Corporation Counsel’s office filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court, requesting a clarification of the 1994 order on two points. Did the court intend to require the original EIS “to be supplemented with detailed, site-specific information only as to Phase one of the EM Plan, or to the EM Plan as a whole?” the motion asks.
A second question is whether the existing Ha’iku well should be included in the plan. The county contends it should not be, since it serves different customers, draws from a different aquifer than the two Hamakuapoko wells, and “has no relationship to the EM Plan.”
The state’s environmental disclosure act, Chapter 343, generally prohibits the segmenting of projects. Isaac Hall, the attorney for the parties suing the county, told Environment Hawai`i that he had not filed a response to the county’s motion by press time.
Hall did, however comment on the county’s motion in his remarks addressed to the Water Commission at its meeting on August 13. “The biggest problem with the way the county wants to proceed is it seems to be totally in violation of a pretty elementary environmental principle – and that is you don’t segment a project when you’re charged with reviewing its overall cumulative impacts.” The judge’s order for a supplemental environmental impact statement covered the whole project, Hall said.
A hearing on the county’s motion is set for September 29.
Diminished Expectations
In any event, the ability of the East Maui project to provide the quantity and quality of water needed for Central Maui growth is not a sure bet. The staff report given to the Water Commission on August 13 discussed the county’s reliance on East Maui as a source to relieve the draw on the ‘Iao aquifer.
“The only likely long-range source area is East Maui, and the thinness of the lens indicates that each well will yield just 0.5 mgd each,” the report states – far less than the 16 mgd that the long-range plan anticipates from East Maui.
Hall summed up the problems: “You’ve got two lines crossing differently. In other words, there’s been a greater amount of use of DBCP and EDB on areas that are closest to Maliko Gulch. The closer you come to Kahului, the more likely you’ll run into contamination. Conversely, the further you move away from Maliko, the greater the likelihood of stream impact is.”
Volume 8, Number 3 September 1997
Leave a Reply