Upcountry Meter List Association  © | Privacy Policy

              Blue lines denote 10% and 20% conservation from full usage

              9.7 MG/D baseline+1.2% growth/year implies 194 new meters/year or 30 names/year

Explanation of “Smoking Gun” Chart

The Maui Island Plan (MIP) is used for planning growth for all Maui
The MIP defines average expected Upcountry population to 2030 at 1.2% per
DWS assumes same consumption increase from current baseline (Bottom Red Line)
30 year Demand backlog of Upcountry Meter List is totally ignored (Top MIP Quote)
X axis is time in years from 2013 to 2030. Y axis is water consumption MG/D
DWS plans Source Capacity acquisition (new wells) to just satisfy demand
Next new well after H'Poko is planned to be operational in 2023 (Green Stepped Line)
DWS says total water demand for 100% meter list is 17.2 MG/D (Top Red Line)
Each meter uses 600 G/D: 1887 names on Meter List implies 6.6 meters/name
Blue lines denote 10% and 20% conservation from full usage
9.7 MG/D baseline+1.2% growth/year implies 194 new meters/year or 30 names/year


Smoking Gun     5/28/14: From Richard Pohle, PhD, Founder of UMLA 
Here is the email I received from David Taylor, DWS Director. I received it on 4/30/14 and published it on www.umla.ws the next day. I was waiting for website responses. Hence the delay in this newsletter publication.

I think you are misinterpreting my presentation and the Maui Island Plan information. The MIP simply provides growth projections. It does not set quotas on growth or meters. The DWS analysis simply took the 2030 population estimates, assumed a linear increase and assumed water demand increased at the same rate as growth. We used an identical analysis for other areas. A "step" growth projection showing the same growth over a short time period would lead to the same overall water demand. DWS is not "rationing" meters to match any sort of "growth limiting criteria." DWS is issuing the meters as quickly as possible.
The "supply vs. demand" projections were built to show what could be accomplished County-wide based on a specific, integrated strategy. This includes rates, fees, projects and County-wide growth and revenue projections. It was developed to indicate what to expect County-wide if certain decisions were made and to show what resources would be required to achieve different results. This was presented shortly before the Council began budget proceedings so they and the public could better understand our proposed budget, rates and fees and understand the choices before them.
Your characterization that this is some sort of "smoking gun" is simply untrue. The County Council approves the DWS budget and approves our infrastructure expenditures on a year-by-year basis. There is no mechanism to "pre-approve"or "limit" future actions. The presentation you refer to was simply a "what to expect if certain decisions are made" baseline. Actual implementation may be very different depending on future policy and budget decisions.
Feel free to print this response on your website along with your commentary.
Dave (4/30/14)
Dave, (5/28/14)
It does not matter where the 2030 Upcountry population estimates are located in the MIP. What matters is that you have interpreted them as shown on the Smoking Gun Chart to be an average growth rate of 1.15% from the baseline of 9.7 Mg/d as of January 2013. This chart was presented on 3/14/14 to the Council as part of the "Detailed Water Supply/Demand Forecasts" for Upcountry in your "Water Department Management Update” presentation. As far as Council is concerned, your chart defines DWS current policy and requirements. Sure, the Council can change its policy, but why should they? Your policy and your recommendations are entirely consistent with their policy as shown in the MIP passed 12/28/14 and the Makawao - Pukalani - Kula Community Plan updated in July 1996. These, as you say, "Certain Decisions" have already been made by the County Council.
You have made it very clear in your 11/13/13 testimony before WRC that the only reason meters are not issued is that there is insufficient water during drought conditions and that more ground water (new wells) are needed to remedy that situation. You have asked for a Conservation Rate Bill. You have told the Council what would happen to the Upcountry water system during an extended drought. You have told them that no new wells are planned. Still, the Council has taken no action.
Responsibility for the policy outlined in the SG chart rests completely with the County Council. It is not your "Smoking Gun", it is theirs. True, you could have strongly advocated for the 1.7 Mg/d Piiholo South Well when it was available. But why should you? On 1/16/12, Member Victorino introduced a resolution to the County Council entitled "Urging the Administration to Purchase the Piiholo South Well to Serve as a Water Source for Upcountry Maui". But instead of going to the WRC for discussion where it belonged, the Full Council sent the resolution to the Budget and Finance Committee where it quietly died. This event was faithfully recorded on my website in real time. Why should you stick your neck out? The bureaucracy always follows the lead of the policy makers. Your fault, if any, is that you have presented the data so clearly that Council policy is unmistakeable. Your predecessor would not have shown it.
(Before I retired, I had a job similar to yours - to present all options, pros and cons, to my employer. I had no further responsibility once they made the choice. Especially, I had no responsibility to an apathetic public. In my job, we had a motto: "Never show the chart that raises the question that you can't answer.")
Of course, DWS is rationing meters! If not your department, then which one? Furthermore, even if DWS finally offers a meter, the Council has ordained other conditions (Fire Flow) that make it nearly impossible to accept. And if you do foolishly accept, you risk losing thousands of dollars. The only reason there has been no Upcountry housing development is that it is impossible to get a meter for a building permit for a house. There is no lack of people wanting to build but the “Directed Growth” MIP Policy does not include them. The time stamped Priority List makes it impossible for needed, shovel ready, projects to get meters before those parcels that are merely placeholders on the List. And the List even stops those projects explicitly encouraged by the Makawao Community Plan which says --
"Encourage the use of tools such as low-rise planned unit development or rural cluster housing approaches which will allow housing projects to be more compatible with the natural setting and preserve open space." Makawao Community Plan (Pg. 40)
I was at the Kula Comunity Association meeting just after such a development, the Kula Ridge Subdivision, was finally approved. When asked by the KCA members if the despised Kula Ridge Project would actually be built, a Council Member present (Baisa) said "Don't worry, they will never get their meters". That is rationing, Dave.
Finally, how could the Council approve MIP and Community Plans that make no mention of the backlog demand of water meter applications except for a single comment: “It should be noted that this [Upcountry] Demand is far in excess of the demand projected in the MIP”? Council approved the MIP all the while listening to the pleas of those wanting Upcountry meters, jobs, and affordable housing. The needs of agriculture and Hawaiian Homelands are frequently mentioned and they are being adequately served. The desire for a rural Upcountry is often mentioned. That desire for a peaceful, bucolic Upcountry did not have to exclude housing development of the hundreds of parcels held by County residents and their decendents who were a part of the Maui community long before those who have molded the future of Maui with their self serving MIP. The Council should be ashamed of their unctuous hypocrisy. I don't understand how the Council can ask for our vote.
Richard. (5/28/14).
© 2014 UMLA.

The "Smoking Gun" Chart and Explanation are below.