Draft Environmental Statement

Wailuku - Kahului Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal System
County of Maui, Hawaii

Prepared by: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco CA 94111




Draft Environmental Statement

Wailuku - Kahului Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal System
County of Maui, Hawaii



The proposed treatment plant site is on land
controlled by the Hawaii Department of Trans-
portation. Its transfer to the County of Maui
requires the approval of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Environmental Protection
Agency assumes the role of "Lead Agency" as
described in the guidelines for the preparation
of environmental impact statements prepared by
the Council on Environmental Quality, April 23,
1971. As "Lead Agency" the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency is responsible for the evaluation
of the impact of both Agency's actions.


Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
San Francisco, California

1.	Administrative Action

2.	The proposed project involves the construction of a new
wastewater treatment and disposal system to serve the
neighboring communities of Wailuku and Kahului on the
Island of Maui, Maui County, Hawaii. EPA made a grant
offer of $4,801,260 in May 1971 to fund 50% of the eli-
gible project cost. The project has been delayed due to
engineering studies, public controversy and the ongoing
environmental review.

Eligible work includes a 6 MGD activated sludge treatment
plant with sand filtration, 16,000 feet of force main,
2 pump stations and 4 deep wells for gravity injection

3.	The project will result in the substantial improvement
of water quality in Kahului Bay and Kahului Harbor by
the elimination of the existing discharge of 4.1 MGD of
untreated municipal and industrial wastes.

Project construction will result in short-term noise,
dust and inconvenience to local residences along the
force main right-of-way. The proposed treatment plant
site is adjacent to Kanaha Pond, a National Natural
Landmark, a Wildlife Preserve, and the habitat of a large
number of waterbirds including several rare and endangered
species. Construction activities may be a source of dis-
turbance to the birds. The pond, however, is surrounded
on three sides by industrial facilities including Kahului
Airport, and in this context, construction impact is
expected to be minor. The disposal of effluent by deep
well injection is not expected to affect Kanaha Pond.


The plant will accommodate and, to some extent, may
encourage, population growth in the area during its
design period. It is likely that this growth will have
an adverse impact on water quality and some forms of
wildlife (excluding Kanaha Pond which will be protected).
Increased noise levels are also expected along with a
continuation of existing patterns of socio-economic
change in Wailuku-Kahului.

4.	The following alternatives were considered:

A.	General alternatives

1.	No project.

2.	Alternate treatment processes and disposal

a.	Primary treatment

b.	Variations in secondary treatment with
marine outfall disposal.

c.	Tertiary treatment with immediate irrigation

3.	Alternate plant sizing (4.5 MGD)

B.	Site Alternatives

1.	Quonset Hut Site

2.	National Guard Site

3.	Kaa Site

4.	"Modified" Kaa Site

5.	Attached is the list of agencies, groups, and individuals
receiving copies of this statement for comment:

6.	The proposed date for the submittal of this draft state-
ment to the Council on Environmental Quality is May 4,



Council on Environmental Quality

(10 copies)

722 Jackson Place N.W.

Washington DC 20206

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Pacific Southwest Division
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102

Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
1100 Ward Avenue
Honolulu HI 96814

National Park Service
Suite 512, 677 Ala Moana
Honolulu HI 96813

Assistant Secretary-Program

Attn: Office of Environmental

Project Review
U. S. Department of Interior
Washington DC 20240
(20 copies)

Department of Housing and

Urban Development
Hawaii Area Office
1000 Bishop Street
Honolulu HI 96813

Bureau of Sport Fisheries

and Wildlife
337 Uluniu
Honolulu HI 96815

Department,of Housing and

Urban Development
Office of the Regional

Administrator, Region IX
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San_Francisco CA 94111

Army Corps of Engineers
Pacific Ocean Division
Building 96, Fort Armstrong
Honolulu HI 96813

Bureau of Sport Fisheries

and Wildlife
1500 N.E. Irving Street
Portland OR 97208

State Conservationist

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Honolulu HI 96813

National Park Service

U. S. Department of Interior

450 Golden Gate Avenue

P. 0. Box 36061

San Francisco CA 94102

Department of Housing and

Urban Development
Federal Housing
Room 55, 333 Queen Street
Honolulu HI 96813

Federal Aviation Administration
Chief, Airports Division,

Pacific Division
P. 0. Box 4009
Honolulu HI 96813

Federal Highway Administration
Attn: Mitchel Tanner
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102

Soil Conservation Service
U. S Department of Agriculture
440 Alexander Young Building
Honolulu HI 96813

Assistant Secretary for Fish,

Wildlife and Parks
U. S. Department of Interior
Washington DC 20240
Attn: James B. Ruch



Richard Marland (3 copies)
Office of Environmental

Quality Control
State Capitol Building
Room 436

Honolulu HI 96813

State of Hawaii
Department of Land and

Natural Resources
Division of Water and Land

P. 0. Box 373
Honolulu HI 96809

State of Hawaii
Department of Transportation
Highways Division
869 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu HI 96813

State of Hawaii
Department of Defense
Office of the Adjutant General
Fort Ruger
Honolulu HI 96816

Department of Public Works

(15 copies)

County of Maui
County Administration Bldg.
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Chairman, Maui Redevelopment

673 Kaae Road
Wailuku, Maui HI 96753

State of Hawaii
Department of Land and

Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 621
Honolulu HI 96809

State of Hawaii
Department of Health
P. 0. Box 3378
Honolulu HI 96801

State of Hawaii
Department of Land and

Natural Resources
Division of Fish & Game
530 South King Street
Honolulu HI 96814

University of Hawaii (5 copies)
Environmental Center
2540 Maile Way
Honolulu HI 96822

State of Hawaii
Department of Planning and

Economic Development
1010 Richards
Honolulu HI 96813

Mayor, County of Maui
County Administration Bldg.
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793



The Outdoor Circle
200 North Vineyard
Honolulu HI 96817

Hawaii Audubon Society

(5 copies)

P. 0. Box 5032
Honolulu HI 96814

Life of the Land (3 copies)
899 Waimanu Street
Honolulu HI 96813

The Conservation Council for

Hawaii (5 copies)

Maui Chapter, RR. 1, Box 481
Haiku, Maui HI 96732

National Wildlife Federation

(3 copies)

1412 - 16th Street N.E.
Washington DC 20036
Attn: Robert Kennan, Jr.

Mr. Sam Hew

Paia Businessmen's Association
Paia, Maui HI 96799

Mr. Edwin T. Silva
421 Oahu Street
Kahului, Maui HI 96732

Mr. Frank Doyle
4815 Matsonia Drive
Honolulu HI 96816

Mr. Norman S. Hondo
Maui Palms Hotel
Kahului, Maui HI 96732

Mr. William H. Leisk

RR. 1, Box 16

Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. Webb Beggs, Manager
Maui Chamber of Commerce
Kahului Shopping Center
Kahului, Maui HI 96732

Hawaii League of Conservation

3140 Hueaani Place
Honolulu HI 96819

Hawaii Chapter, Sierra Club
3059 Lanikaula Street
Honolulu HI 96822

Save Our Surf
91-0524 Huleia Place
Ewa Beach HI 96706

County of Maui Citizen's
Committee. for the Development
of Kanaha Pond (3 copies)
P. 0. Box 3
Paia, Maui HI 96779

Maui News

P. 0. Box 550

Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. & Mrs. Walter Cameron
Haliimaile, Maui HI 96787

Mr. John M. Fernandez
Pukalani Community Association
Pukalani, Maui HI 96788

Mr. M. Dean Parsons
555 East Walnut Street
Pasadena CA 91101

Mr. William Thompson
Box 621

Honolulu HI 96809

Ms. Elizabeth Young

P. O. Box 497

Makawao, Maui HI 96768

Mr. Alvin K. Fukunaga
President, Hawaiian Society
for Professional Engineers,
Maui Chapter
573 Pio Drive
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793


Mr. Donald Ferrell
Amelco Corporation
645 Halekauwila Street
Honolulu HI 96813

Mr. Meyer M. Ugoka
2103 Wells Street
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. Alvin T. Amaral

P. 0. Box 393

Kahului, Maui HI 96732

Mr. Gene H. Grounds
1668 Alaniu PI.

Kihei, Maui HI 96753

Mr. Norman M. Saito
2609 Main Street
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. Charles Iwata
2137 Hewahewa PI.

Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. William Wilmore, President
Maui Contractors Association
Haliimaile, Maui HI- 96787

Mr. James S. Ushijima
County Clerk

County Administration Building
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Ms. Gloria Foster
RR. 1, Box 296
Kula, Maui HI 96790

Mr, Colin G. Lennox
RR. 1, Box 431
Kula, Maui HI 96790

Mr. & Mrs. William P. Mull
3202 Woodlawn Drive
Honolulu HI 96822

Mr. Ronald M. K. Lau
Kuiaha, Maui HI 96708

Mr. C. G. Street, Jr.
Wailuku Sugar Co.
P. 0. Box 1157
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. Douglas R. Sodetani
100 Wells Kanoa
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. Hannibal Tavares
P. 0. Box 1176
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. Rodney Graybeal
194 Alalani Street
Pukalani, Maui HI 96788

Ms. Leslie Skillings
55-A Keala PI.

Kihei, Maui HI 96753

Mr. James M. Sconyers
P. 0. Box 497
Makawao, Maui HI 96768

Mr. William Martin
Apt. 205 Kihei Villa
Hihei, Maui HI 96753

Keichi Kobayashi
287 Leleihoku Street
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. William Neilson
448 N. Wakea Avenue
Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Ms. Dorothy Pyle
Box 345

Puunene, Maui HI 96784

Mr. George Milne
44-116 Kauinohea PI.
Kaneohe, Maui HI 96744

Mr. D. K. Tokunga
Maui Realty Company
100 Wells

Wailuku, Maui HI 96793


Ms. Helen C. Twitchell
2 Lih Kai

Kihei, Maui HI 96753

Mr. Donald E. Dietrich, M.D.
1656 Halama

Kihei, Maui HI 96753

Mr. Allen Barr

P. 0. Box 456

Makawao, Maui HI 96768

Mr. Howard A. Powers

P. 0. Box 478

Kula, Maui HI 96790

Noboru Koito

P. 0. Box 1174

Wailuku, Maui HI 96793

Mr. Robert P. Bruce

P. 0. Box 3

Paia, Maui HI 96779


Tables of Contents


I. Description of the Proposed Action

A.	Description of the Proposed Project	1

B.	Environmental Setting	6

1.	Geography - Climate - History	6

2.	Socio-Economic Conditions	9

3.	Land Use in the Project Area	12

4.	Water Quality in Kahului Bay and	14
Kahului Harbor

5.	Existing Wastewater Situation	17

6.	Description of Kanaha Pond	18

7.	Description of the Immediate Project	22

II. Probable Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

A.	Primary Impact	23

1.	Plant and Force Main Construction	23

2.	Plant Operation	25
a. Impact on Kahului Bay	25

B.	Secondary Impact

1.	Impact on Shore Erosion and Tsunami	29

2.	Impact Due to the Accommodation of	30
Growth and Development

III. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided Should the

Proposed Action be Implemented	36

IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Action

A.	General Alternatives	37

1.	No Project	38

2.	Alternate Treatment Processes and	38
Disposal Methods

a.	Primary Treatment	39

b.	Secondary Treatment with Marine	41
Outfall Disposal

c.	Tertiary Treatment with Reclamation 42

3.	Alternate Plant Sizing	44

B.	Site Alternatives	48

1.	Quonset Hut Site	48

2.	National Guard Site	52

3.	Kaa Site	53

4.	"Modified" Kaa Site	54

V. The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity	55

VI. Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of

Resources Which Would be Involved Should the Proposed
Action be Implemented	56

VII. A Discussion of Problems and Objections Raised by
Other Federal, State and Local Agencies and by
Interested Persons in this Review Process	57


Appendix A - A Geo-hydrological Analysis of Wastewater
Disposal by Deep Well Injection

Appendix B - Transcript, Public Hearing of February 23,

Appendix C - Engineering Analysis of Project Costs

Costs for Various Alternatives

Appendix D - Unpublished References Cited in the

List of Figures

Figure One
Figure Two
Figure Three

Figure Four
Figure Five

Figure A-l
Figure A-2
Figure A-3
Figure A-4
Figure A-5

Figure A-6
Figure A-7

Map of Major Project Elements	2

Layout of Treatment Plant	4

The Project Area in Relation to Major
Geographic Features	7

Comparative Population Projections	32

Location of Alternate Sites	49

Median Annual Rainfall

Water Level Contours

Diagramatic Cross Section

Recommendation for Construction

Circulation of Salt Water from Sea to Zone

Salinity Profiles

NE-SW Cross Section

List of Tables

Table One Anticipated Plant Efficiency	3

Table Two Employment in Wailuku-Kahului	10

Table Three Family Income	10

Table Four Current Land Use in the Project	13


Table Five	Existing Wasteflow in Project Area

Table Six Projected Growth of Economic	34


Table Seven Efficiency of Primary Treatment	39

Table Eight Comparative Costs of Alternatives	46-47


Description of the Proposed Project

The proposed project is the construction of a 6 MGD waste-
water treatment and disposal system to serve the Wailuku-
Kahului area of Maui, State of Hawaii. The project will pro-
vide secondary treatment by the activated sludge process,
final clarification by sand filtration, and subsurface dis-
posal by gravity injection wells. It will serve a 1982
design year population in the service area of 26,832 as well
as commercial and industrial dischargers.

Sewerage will be collected by the County of Maui's existing
sewer system. Two pump stations and 16,000 feet of force
main will be constructed to convey wastes to the treatment
plant. The two existing raw sewerage outfalls, located at
either side of Kahului Harbor, will be abandoned. Figure 1
illustrates the configuration of major project elements.

Wastes collected in the Wailuku area will be intercepted near
the existing Wailuku outfall. A pump station and a 20-inch
force main will convey flows south along Kahului Beach Road
to Kaahumanu Avenue. The pipe then follows Kaahumanu Avenue
east to a second pump station near the junction with Hana
Highway. At this point flows from the Kahului area are inter-
cepted and the combined flows are pumped to the plant.

The proposed treatment plant and disposal site lie within a
19.4-acre parcel between an existing roadway north of Kanaha
Pond and the beach. The plant layout is shown in Figure 2.

The activated sludge process provides secondary treatment.
Sludge (biologically active solids which are removed by
settling during the primary treatment stage) is re-introduced
to the process to intensify the bacteriological breakdown of
organic materials. Also, to maximize the removal of sus-
pended solids, effluent will be filtered through a bed of
sand prior to discharge. This step, along with final chlori-
nation, should minimize clogging problems in the injection
wells. An indication of the expected efficiency of the
process is given below.



Table One - Anticipated Plant Efficiency

Influent Effluent(average) % Removal

Suspended solids 235 mg/1	10 mg/1	96%

Biochemical Oxygen 258 mg/1	10 mg/1	95%

Demand (BOD)

Taken from Fig. 5A, "Study of Wastewater Treatment for
Wailuku/Kahului", April 1971, Chung Dho Ahn & Associates,
Consulting Engineers.




Source: Chung Dho Ahn and Associates, 1971, Study of

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for Wailuku-Kahului
Consulting & -'iT'c:-'!.," IVrort Tor the County of Maul
Modified by the Environmental Protection Agency



Sludge that is not re-introduced to the process will be
aerobically digested, dewatered by centrifuge and either
reused as a soil conditioner or disposed of at a landfill

The major elements of the treatment facility are listed

3	Aerated Grit Chambers (20' x 10' x 8')

2 Aeration Tanks (170' x 60' x 15')

2 Secondary Clarifiers (125' x 60' x 10')

2 Aerobic Digestion Tanks (170' x 30' x 15')

2 Filters for Sand Filtration (90' x 16')

1 Centrifuge for Solids Concentration
1 Chlorine Contact Tank (94' x 46' x 5.3')

An Irregularly Shaped Holding Pond (it will have a sur-
face area of 123,000 sq. ft. and a capacity of 5.0 MG)

4	Gravity Injection Wells for final effluent disposal.

Effluent disposal will occur by gravity injection into the
basalt aquifer. One well has already been drilled as a test
well and up to 3 additional wells will be drilled as needed.
Each well has a capacity of 2 MGD at designed operating head.

Additional information on these wells and other aspects of
the proposed project will be provided in other sections of
the statement.

The plant is located in a tsunami zone. The facility has
been designed to minimize the effects of plant inundation.
(It should be noted that protective measures are not designed
to prevent inundation, but, merely to mitigate its adverse
impact). All control panels will be at least 15' above
ground level. An existing 16' sand dune will be retained
seaward of the plant as a protective berm. Finally, the
road areas on the plant site will be designed to serve as
drainage channels during flood conditions.


Environmental Setting

Geography - Climate - History

The Island of Maui, with an area of 728 square miles, is the
second largest island in the State of Hawaii and the largest
of a group of four that make up the County of Maui (the
others are Molokai, Lanai and Kahoolawe).

The island is geologically youthful, composed of two large
volcanic domes lying along an east-west axis. The eastern
and larger portion of the island is dominated by Haleakala
with an elevation of 10,025 feet. The western volcano is
Puu Kukui with a height of 5,788 feet, connected to Haleakala
by a narrow isthmus. Figure 3 shows the project area in rela-
tion to major geographic features.

Coral sand beaches occur irregularly around the island with
the widest and most extensive being along the southern or
leeward shore. Beaches on the windward side, including those
in the project area, tend to be comparatively narrow and are
subjected to both high winds and heavy surf.

The trade winds originate from a nearly stationary high pres-
sure area northwest of the Hawaiian Archipelago. These winds
produce a substantial moderating effect on weather in the
State, reducing the range of daily temperatures and generally^,
making the climate far cooler than equatorial regions on
larger land masses.



Rainfall, except for winter storms, is almost exclusively a
function of topography with windward areas of high elevation
receiving extremely heavy precipitation and low-lying leeward
areas very little. While most areas receive at least some
precipitation year-round, the heaviest rains occur during the
November to March "winter" season.

Historically, the Hawaiian Islands are thought to have been
settled by Polynesians about a thousand years before Captain
James Cook "discovered" them for the western world in 1778.
King Kamehameha I, who forged all the Hawaiian peoples into
a single Kingdom during this period, brought Maui under his
rule the same year.

Maui was important to the white man first as a whaling sta-
tion and trading post with most of the activity centering
around the protected port town of Lahaina on the leeward
coast. As the influence of North Americans grew into eco-
nomic dominance, the isthmus on Maui became heavily cultivated
in sugar cane and, to a much lesser extent, pineapple. The
agricultural economy demanded inexpensive labor and planta-
tion owners, throughout the nineteenth century, brought
large numbers of "immigrants" to the Islands from China,

Japan, the Philippines and Southern Europe.

The Wailuku-Kahului area gradually eclipsed Lahaina as the
commercial center of Maui. The deep water port at Kahului
was the key to development. Today the two communities com-
bine to form the urban center of all of Maui County.


Socio-Economic Conditions

Between 1930 and 1970 the population of the Island of Maui
experienced a net decline, dropping from 48,800 people to
less than 39,000. The nadir was reached in 1960 when the
number of people fell to 35,700. Since that time, the trend
has reversed and, in 1970, the census population reached
38,700. Over 93% of that increase occurred in the Wailuku
District. (Note: This is a census district and includes
nearly all the isthmus shown in Figure 3.) In terms of the
percentage of the island's population living in the Wailuku
District, however, Wailuku's share has increased between each
census period; from 41% in 1920 to approximately 57% in 1970.
These figures reflect a shift in population patterns in con-
cert with changes in the island's economic base.

Approximately 60% of the increase between 1960 and 1970 were
"in-migrants," of whom 62% came from outside the State. Most
of the "in-migrants" were people in the 30-54 age bracket
with their dependents, while "out-migrants" tended to be
people in the 15-24 age group.

The multi-racial heritage of Maui County is reflected in the
composition of its population. As of June 1969, persons of
Hawaiian ethnic stock made up 28% of the population. Philip-
pines, other Orientals, and Caucasions comprised 23, 27 and
19% respectively. All others made up the remaining 3%.

On Maui, as elsewhere in Hawaii, agriculture and the proces-
sing of agricultural products - primarily those associated
with sugar and pineapple - have been undergoing a period of
transition, declining from the completely dominant position
they once occupied in comparison with other economic activi-
ties. At the same time, they have shifted from highly
labor-intensive operations to those involving fewer people
and increased mechanization.

Both in terms of the percentage of total employment and the
number of people working, employment in sugar and pineapple
industries reflect the downward trend. According to 1960
U. S. census figures, of slightly more than 13,500 total
island employment in 1960, a little over 4,000 (29.6%) worked
in manufacturing (predominantly sugar mills and pineapple
canning) while almost 3,100 (22.9%) worked in agriculture or
related activities. The 1970 census showed an increase in
total employment to almost 15,500, yet employment in manu-
facturing and agriculture dropped to less than 2,300 (14.8%)


and a little over 2,000 (14.9%) respectively. In 1971, data
from the Hawaiian State Department of Labor indicated that
the portion of the island's work force devoted specifically
to sugar and pineapple (both agricultural and manufacturing
activities) was. only 18% of total employment, with service
industries, trade, and government following closely with 17,
16, and 14% respectively.

Within the Wailuku-Kahului area, employment figures are
indicative of the urbanized character of this portion of the
island. Of the 7,807 persons employed within the area in
1970, the rank of employment categories was as follows:

Table Two - Employment in Wailuku-Kahului


1	Government	1,550

2	Wholesale and Retail	1,542

3	Manufacturing	1,215

4	Services	901

5	Agriculture	703

6	Contract Construction	638

7	Transportation, Commercial

and Utility	637

8	Others	621

(Source: Information provided in proposed General Plan ,
Eckbo, Dean, Austin & Williams, Table IV, p. 10)

Family income within the Wailuku-Kahului area tends to be
slightly higher than the island as a whole. Reported family
income during 1969 (1970 U. S. census figures) showed the
following pattern:

Table Three: Family Income


Number Percent

Number Percent

Less than $5,000
$5,000 to $7,999
$8,000 to $9,999
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $49,999
$50,000 or more












9,186 100.0

4,529 100.0


(Source: Information provided in proposed General Plan,
Eckbo, Dean, Austin & Williams, p. 101(g), p 104).

In summary, the picture presented for Wailuku-Kahului differs
from the island as a whole and is largely one of balance
and diversity in both the economic and social sectors.


Land Use in the Project Area

Land use in Hawaii is regulated at the State level by the
Land Use Commission in accordance with the State Land Use
Law passed in 1961. The law established four categories of
land use:

1.	Urban

2.	Agriculture

3.	Conservation

4.	Rural

Within these categories County governments have varying
degrees of jurisdiction and responsibility over planning and
zoning functions. The greatest latitude is provided within
those districts classified as Urban. Jurisdiction for plan-
ning and zoning within the Agricultural and Rural classifica-
tions are restricted by limitations imposed by the Land Use
Commission. Land uses within Conservation Districts are
determined and administered by the State Department of Land
and Natural Resources.

Land use classifications within the area to be serviced by
th^ proposed project include Urban, Agricultural and Conserva-
tion Districts. While the bulk of the service area is within
an Urban District, the surrounding lands, which are largely
in sugar cane cultivation, are designated Agricultural. The
proposed treatment plant site adjacent to Kanaha Pond, and
the adjacent beach shoreline extending eastward to the
Kahului Airport, fall within the only Conservation District
in the project service area. In the immediate vicinity of
the proposed plant site, adjacent to the Conservation Dis-
trict noted above, are Urban areas in industrial and commer-
cial use.

Following a public hearing in July of 1972 the State Depart-
ment of Land and Natural Resources approved the placement
of the proposed treatment plant within the Conservation
District as compatible with the policies of the State Land
Use Law. Although the proposed site is State owned, it has


been under a joint system of administration by the Department
of Land and Natural Resources and, owing to the constraints
imposed upon it when title was transferred to the State from
the Federal Government following World War II, by the State
Department of Transportation in accordance with conditions
stipulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. This
complicated situation was made necessary by the need to
regulate uses compatible with the operation of nearby Kahului

1970 urban land uses in the project area were estimated by
the Chung Dho Ahn report cited earlier (Table 7, II-8). They
are as follows:

Table Four - 1970 Land Use Acreages

Land Use











Water Quality in Kahului Bay and Kahului Harbor

Information on the water quality and beneficial uses of
Kahului Bay and Kahului Harbor can be found in three

1.	"Study of Pollution in Kahului Bay, Maui, Hawaii"
prepared by Herschler and Randolph, Consulting
Engineers, as a report to the Department of
Health, State of Hawaii, December 1962.

2.	"Water Quality Study - Near Shore Waters of the
Island of Maui" prepared for the State Department
of Health by Ultramar Chemical Water Laboratory,
Honolulu, Hawaii, October 1968.

3.	"Interim Plan Sub-basin, Waihee - Paia, County of
Maui, State of Hawaii," prepared for the County
of Maui by R. M. Towill, April 1971.

The Herschler and Randolph report defines the sources and
extent of pollution in Kahului Bay, describes the movement of
pollution through the Bay and recommends corrective measures.
The Ultramar report presents basic physical, chemical and
biological data gathered in the latter part of October 1968.
The Towill report, while it contains no new specific informa-
tion relative to water quality in the study area, updates the
previous report with respect to sources of existing pollution
and status of Bay waters as they relate to current Federal-
State water quality standards. The most recent study avail-
able is "Study of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for
Wailuku-Kahului" prepared for the County of Maui by Chung Dho
Ahn and Associates, April 1971. The objective of this report
was to identify and quantify wastewater flows for the Wailuku-
Kahului area and to set forth alternative methods of treat-
ment and disposal. The report estimated the 1970 wastewater
flow for the study area to be 4.1 MGD including infiltration
into the existing sewer system (Table 10, II-9). This is an
increase from the 3.6 MGD estimate of the 1970 Towill report
and the 2.7 MGD estimate of the earlier Herschler and Randolph

According to the Herschler and Randolph report there were
eleven sources (or potential sources) of pollution to the
Bay in 1962:

1.	Surface drainage from storm culverts and ditches

2.	Surface "wash"


3.	Kanaha Pond

4.	Iao and Kalialinui streams

5.	Bathers and boaters

6.	Nonsewage pollution from harbor activity

7.	Sanitary sewage from ships in the harbor

8.	Sanitary sewage from Piers No. 1 and No. 2

9.	Cesspools in the harbor area

10.	The Kahului outfall

11.	The Wailuku outfall

The industrial discharge from the Maui Electric Plant,
approximately 29 MGD of thermal (heated water) effluent,
should be added to the above list. Oxidation ponds serving
Kahului Airport add an additional discharge to nearshore
waters of approximately 20,000 gallons per day.

The review of the relative importance of the sources above
by various consultants between 1962 and 1971 indicates that
the two sewer outfalls are by far the most significant. The
other sources are of minimal significance or are under a
planned abatement control program.

The Herschler and Randolph report and the Ultramar report
allow the formulation of several conclusions about present
water quality conditions in the Harbor and the Bay. They are:

1.	That currents, both surface and subsurface, follow
a path westerly and northerly along the coast
because of prevailing northeasterly winds.

2.	That the water quality of Kahului Harbor is signi-
ficantly influenced by the Kahului outfall.

3.	That there is a layer of less saline water "floating"
on the surface of the Harbor. This layer of water is
probably created by ground-water seepage.

4.	That fecal coliform concentrations are highest
near the Kahului outfall but are apparently not
a problem in Kahului Harbor.


5. Nutrient levels in the Bay exceed State water

quality criteria (standards) for Class A waters as

Mean Concentrations	Standards

Total Nitrogen	.2540 mg/1 (15 stations)	.15 mg/1

Total Phosphorous .1404 mg/1 (15 stations)	.025 mg/1

(Most of the waters in Kahului Bay are designated as Class A.
The discharges interfere with the beneficial uses prescribed
by this classification. Public health hazards have reportedly
caused some areas to be closed to water contact recreational

6. While receiving water sampling data are quite

limited, there does not appear to be any serious
problem with regard to dissolved oxygen in the
bay itself. Presumably heavy wave action and
nearly constant winds tend to maintain a satis-
factory level of aeration in most areas.

National, State and local policies call for the elimination
of raw sewage discharges to public waters. In response to
this policy a minimum of secondary treatment is required by
the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. This Act is administered by the Environmental Protection


Existing Wastewater Situation

There is currently no municipal wastewater treatment facility
serving the area. Sewage is collected and discharged un-
treated through two ocean outfalls located on either side of
Kahului Harbor.

The Wailuku outfall consists of a 24-inch cast iron force
main, 800 feet in length, discharging into 24 feet of water.
It is in reasonably good operational condition.

The outfall from Kahului is an 18-inch main, 400 feet in
length, discharging at a depth of 14 feet. It is in very poor
condition and leaks badly along its underwater length. Since
meters are not installed in either case, flows-must be esti-
mated. The flows for the service area in 1970 were estimated
as follows:

Table Five - 1970 Estimated Waste Flows



Residential Population

1.98 mgd

for 16,500 people

(U.S. census

Hotels 350 rooms

.09 mgd

Airport - 1.3 million


.02 mgd

commercial - 54 acres

.08 mgd

industrial - dry type

.22 mgd


2.39 mgd


1.70 mgd


4.09 mgd

Source: "Study of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for
Wailuku-Kahului", Chung Dho Ahn & Associates, Table 10, I1-9.


Description of Kanaha Pond

(The Pond is described in some detail in several of the
testimonies in the attached appendix of the public hearing.
Particularly notable are the testimonies of Mr. Colin Lennox
and Mrs. Dorothy Pyle.)

Kanaha Pond has been described as "the most important water-
bird area in Hawaii. Its preservation...is essential for
survival of the Hawaiian Stilt." (Hawaii's Endangered Water-
life, USDI, BSFW, 1968) and as "probably... the best area in
the entire State for waterbirds" (Hawaii's Endangered Water-
birds, USDI and DLNR, 1970). It encompasses 140 acres of
shallow pond and brackish marsh. Irregular in shape, it
includes some 80 surface acres of water with an average depth
of 1.7 feet. It is situated approximately mid-way between
the town of Kahului on the west and Kahului Airport on the
east. On its north side, it is bounded by an old railroad
right-of-way and the sand dunes which border Kahului Bay.
Its southern perimeter is the angle formed by the intersec-
tion of the Hana Highway and Keoloni Place.

Its origins and a detailed description of its associated vege-
tation are described in "A Plan for Development of a Wildlife
Sanctuary and Public Park in Kanaha Pond, Kahului-Maui",
Division of Public Works, Department of Accounting and
General Services, State of Hawaii, 1963.

The preceding report indicates that Kanaha Pond was built
more than 200 years ago by King Kihapiilani as two fish
ponds. The ponds were used to retain fish for food during
periods when ocean fishing was not allowed under Hawaiian law.

The pond has undergone a major series of changes in this
century. These include the filling of the western portion
of the pond with dredge spoil, elimination of a rock wall
which divided the pond, blockage of a connecting channel to
the ocean and, of course, discontinuation of its use as a
fish pond. Of greatest importance, however, is the encroach-
ment of urbanization and industrial activities on adjacent

The Maui Electric Power Plant and a group of storage tanks
lie immediately to the northwest. To the east is Kahului Air-
port with a flight pattern almost directly over the pond.
Commercial and industrial facilities line Hana Highway and the
airport access road to the southwest and south respectively.


But, despite the many changes, it has retained much of its
natural character at a time when similar natural areas are
being engulfed by industrial developments, subdivisions, high-
ways and airports. It has assumed an increasing importance
both as a remnant of old Hawaii and as a wildlife sanctuary
of considerable value. Kanaha Pond has been designated a
National Natural Landmark and is also being considered for
registration as a State Historical Site.

Its principle value as a wildlife refuge stems from its
provision of a nearly optimum year-round habitat to a large
number of waterbirds. These include the endangered Hawaiian
Stilt and Hawaiian Coot as well as the threatened Hawaiian
Black-crowned Night Heron. In recent years, over half of the
population of migratory Shoveiers and Pintails wintering in
Hawaii have been found here. In late summer and early fall,
it holds species of both Asian and North American shorebirds.

The booklet "Hawaii's Endangered Waterbirds", referred to
earlier, provides limited information relative to the feeding
and nesting requirements of the stilt and coot, but it is
known that insects and small aquatic and marine invertebrates
comprise most of the diet of both species. Both birds nest
in pond environs and both suffer predation of their nests by
the Mongoose.

Because of the many questions raised concerning the compati-
bility of the operation of the proposed wastewater treatment
plant with the preservation of water quality within the pond,
it is of interest to examine the information available on
past and present water quality.


The 1963 study cited earlier ("A Plan for the Development of
a Wildlife Sanctuary and Public Park in Kanaha Pond") des-
cribed the condition of the pond at least as late as the
early 1900's in the following terms:

The water was clear as natural springs filled the
pond and overflowed continuously through an open
ditch to Kahului Harbor. People swam in the ponds
and there was no offensive odor..."

It is probable that over the past 30 to 40 years
there has been a gradual decrease in the flow of
fresh spring water into the ponds. Apparently,
this was due to breakdown of the drainage and
plugging of the springs by continuous silting
in the pond. Silting must be the result of
combined action of the hydraulic fill from
harbor dredging, natural erosion from adjoining
lands, grading and construction by the military
during World War II, and deposits from tsunami.

With the loss of importance of the fish ponds to
Kahului, there was little need to maintain the

On pages 12 to 14 of the same report, the results of a very
limited August 1961 survey by the Department of Health are
discussed. That study indicated the deposit of an organic
sludge up to 18 inches thick in some areas. Overlying
pond waters contained levels of dissolved oxygen varying
from 37 to 87% of saturation. Chloride measurements in
shallow water areas were found to be very high, in excess of
21,000 parts per million (ppm). This exceeds the chlorinity
of sea water from Kahului Bay which varied from 13,000 to
19,000 ppm. It was concluded by the Department of Health
that, from the stagnant condition of the pond and the
apparent lack of permanent surface connections, the water in
the pond originated from surface runoff and ground water

Since it is generally acknowledged that the rate of inflow
can sometimes prove insufficient to maintain a water level
satisfactory for the adequate maintenance of the pond's
ecological system, the State has taken action to make it
possible to augment natural sources of water. The Department
of Land and Natural Resources has installed a well south of
the pond to provide a supplemental source of water when
required. While it has not been used to date for this pur-
pose, an irrigation well located south of the D.L.N.R. well
was used on at least one occasion.


In summary, Kanaha Pond has remained a viable habitat despite
man's intrusions. Yet, great care must be taken to analyze
the impact of any new activity that may affect the pond.


Description of the Immediate Project Site

The proposed 19.4-acre plant site is heavily vegetated with
tangled growths of Keawe and associated shrubs and grasses.
The Keawe-shrub-grass plant association found here is not
unique to this site and is, in fact, common to many areas
in Maui which are in a similar "unimproved" condition.

The soil in the area is predominantly coral sand. Makai, or
seaward of the plant site, low sand dunes rise to front a
relatively steep beach facing Kahului Bay. Promiscuous dump-
ing has occurred in the area damaging natural values.

Like most similar areas in a relatively undistturbed state,
the site provides habitat for a variety of animal and plant
life. Mammals which could be expected to be found would
include feral and domestic cats and dogs, rats and mice, and
the particularly predatory Indian Mongoose.

Although 47 species of birds have reportedly been observed at
nearby Kanaha Pond, the majority of these are classified as
"waterbirds" and are associated with the pond itself or its
immediate shoreline. According to Berger (see pages 8-9 of
the "Kanaha Pond Bird Study, Final Report", 9-20-72, by
Andrew J. Berger, extracted portions of which are included
in Appendix D), a number of introduced species of land birds
are found in the Keawe thickets adjacent to Kanaha Pond.

These include the Lack-necked Dove, Barred Dove, common Mynah,
and others.

Human use of the project site is primarily for casual recrea-
tion such as strolling on the beach and observing wildlife
in Kanaha Pond. As noted, however, there are also those who
come to dump trash. A rough map of the immediate project
area was included as Figure 2.



This discussion of probable environmental effects has been
divided into two general categories. First, are the expected
primary, or direct, impacts of the construction and operation
of the proposed wastewater treatment system. Second, is an
analysis of the secondary or indirect impact of the project.
The context is rather general in the second section, focus-
ing on the role of the treatment system in accommodating
expected long-term community change.

Primary Impact
Plant and Force Main Construction

The proposed project and the existing condition of the pro-
ject site have been described in some detail in earlier
sections. The construction of treatment and disposal facili-
ties will fundamentally alter current conditions.

Site clearing operations will remove existing vegetation and
alter the terrestrial habitat it provides. Like most urban
encroachment on undeveloped areas, this forces displacement
of resident animals. Disruption is certain and some mortality
is likely, until the ecological system reaches a new level
of relative equilibrium.

No rare, endangered or unique flora or fauna are known to
exist on the immediate plant site. The small number of
rats, mice, mongooses, feral dogs and cats, birds, and
reptiles that currently range the proposed plant site would
probably attempt to relocate to similar habitat areas east
of the site.

Site clearance will not remove the sand dunes makai (seaward)
of the site. Landscaping will include trees and other
vegetation which may replace part of the habitat initially
lost. Casual human use of the site will be restricted,
although it will still be possible to walk along the beach
seaward of the plant.


Aesthetically, the plant should not prove nearly as obtrusive
as many other nearby facilities. The maximum height of
buildings will be approximately 20 feet. The low profile
and other landscaping techniques will almost completely con-
ceal the plant from Kanaha Pond and all roads or streets
except the actual limited access street leading to the plant.

Odors are always a possibility with a biological treatment
process. There are no residences nearby, however, and any
odor-causing equipment malfunction or process upset should
have little effect. Under normal operating conditions, the
plant will be virtually odor free.

The holding pond will store only treated, filtered, and
chlorinated effluent and will not be a source of odors.
Because of its dimensions, approximately 300 by 400 feet,
waterbirds may land there occasionally. Should this occur,
it will not adversely affect either the birds or the opera-
tion of the facility.

Consideration must be given to the effect of construction
activities in the vicinity of the proposed plant as well
as on the site itself. While these activities will be
temporary (approximately 18 months) they nonetheless may
prove disruptive. Aside from site clearance, these activi-
ties will include; construction of buildings, excavation for
plant foundations, drilling of injection wells, vehicular
traffic, and other related human activity. While this activ-
ity will be largely confined to the entry roadway to the
plant site, the noise, dust, vehicle emissions and traffic
created will radiate out from the site and impinge on the
Kanaha Pond area. To judge the significance of this impinge-
ment, it is necessary to review existing conditions in the
pond area.

Kanaha Pond has, and continues to be, subjected to transitory
high-intensive noise from overflying aircraft and, to a les-
ser extent, noise from vehicle traffic south of the pond.
Aircraft and vehicles, of course, are also sources of air
pollutants. Industrial facilities near the pond also serve
to create an aura of disruption. Thus, though construction
related impacts are additive, they are temporary and are not
expected to produce serious or enduring consequences for the


pond or its wildlife. In fact, these disturbances are likely
to be more objectionable to persons visiting the pond to
observe birdlife than to the birds themselves.

The construction of the force main along Kahului Beach Road
and Kaahumanu Avenue can be expected to disrupt traffic and
inconvenience local residence during part of the 18-month
construction period. On completion of the project, trenches
will be backfilled and the area restored to pre-construction

Proper construction practices will serve to mitigate dis-
ruptive noise and dust, both along the force main route and
at the plant site. Work will be scheduled for regular day-
light hours and sources of dust will be watered. The rela-
tively low volume of vehicle traffic involved means that
emissions will not produce sufficient concentrations to
create a hazard to wildlife or residents.

Plant Operation

The impact of the operation of the plant and disposal system
has been studied extensively by the Environmental Protection
Agency. There will be a substantial beneficial effect on
water quality in Kahului Bay. While the issues are techni-
cally complex, and are discussed at length in Appendix A;
it is EPA's conclusion that the operation of the proposed
disposal system will not damage Kanaha Pond or its wildlife.

Impact on Kahului Bay

By way of review, under existing conditions approximately 4.1
MGD of untreated wastes are discharged into Kahului Bay.
The identifiable effects on marine water quality are as

1.	Localized areas of undesirable bacterial concen-
tration creating public health hazards.

2.	Depressions of dissolved oxygen levels in the
immediate vicinity of the outfalls.

3.	Floating and shoreline accumulations of sewage

The proposed project will eliminate these problems.


The effect of the nitrogen and phosphorous components of
present discharges, however, are more difficult to assess.
Presumably, heavy nuisance level growths of undesirable
attached algae shoreward of the outfalls and within the
harbor and along the breakwater are, in fact, a response
to sewage-provided nutrients. It should be recognized,
however, that nutrient supply is but one factor among many
that control the kinds and abundance of vegetation whether
in the terrestrial or marine environment. Other important
factors in the marine environment are temperature, salinity,
current, turbidity (as it affects light penetration) sub-
strate (mud, sand, rock, etc.), and grazing by marine animals
(fish, sea urchins, etc.). Assuming these other factors are
not limiting in Kahului Bay, there is little question that
high nutrient concentrations can lead to conditions of
excessive growths of "undesirable" plant forms such as Ulva
or sea lettuce.

It is because of this potential to stimulate plant growth
that the fate of nutrients in sewage deserves special consid-
eration. As a consequence of secondary treatment, only a
small portion of the nitrogen and phosphorous components are
removed from the wastewater flow. They are, however, largely
oxidized to an inorganic state and pass into the discharge
in a dissolved form.

The concentrations of nutrients which will result in objec-
tionable plant growth in any given environment in which other
limiting variables (a few which were noted above) interact,
are usually difficult, if not impossible, to precisely define.
Effluent disposal techniques in marine waters are normally
designed to minimize plant growth problems by providing maxi-
mum dilution (to reduce nutrient-water concentrations) and
dispersion (to minimize effects of total loading).

In the proposed project, effluent will be injected into the
brackish basalt aquifer below a layer of caprock that under-
lies the project area. It will be incorporated into ground
water flow and "leak" into Kahului Bay in a highly diluted
form at an undetermined distance offshore. In the process
of its movement through the injection zone, it is expected
that a significant percentage of the inorganic phosphorous
present will be sorbed out by the basalt.


Effluent can therefore be described as a highly diluted, well
treated non-point discharge. While some nutrients, primarily
inorganic nitrogen, will find their way into the bay, it is
very doubtful that they will contribute a source of signifi-
cant biostimulation.

The most controversial aspect of the proposed project is
the potential effect of effluent disposal on Kanaha Pond.
Based on the analyses of the National Wildlife Federation,
the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife (see Appendix D)
and others, the nutrients contained in the effluent could,
if they found their way into the pond in sufficient con-
centrations, set off a complex series of events that could
upset the pond's ecological system.

Pond waters are very brackish and eutrophic conditions
periodically exist in some areas. While water quality varies
considerably and is hardly good by conventional standards,
the pond nevertheless supports a food chain that includes,
endangered water birds like the Hawaiian Coot and the
Hawaiian Stilt. Many environmentalists are anxious to see
existing water quality conditions maintained and the pond's
viable ecological system left undisturbed. After a thorough
analysis of geo-hydrological conditions in the area, it is
EPA's conclusion that this goal can be met by the proposed
method of disposal at the proposed project site. In short,
injected effluent will not find its way into Kanaha Pond.

Owing to the complexity of the subject matter and the
importance of the issue, a complete discussion of effluent
disposal is necessarily both detailed and technical. Since
the Council on Environmental Quality has recommended that
such analyses be avoided in the body of environmental impact
statements, the fate of injected effluent is thoroughly
discussed in Appendix A of this document (Those concerned
with this aspect of the project would be advised to read
Appendix A before proceeding. What follows is only a
rudimentary discussion of what will occur).

Injection wells will be drilled to a terminal depth of
approximately 385 feet. The wells will be cased to a depth
of approximately 180 feet and cemented to the caprock to
protect its integrity. The zone of injection is the uncased
hole below 180 feet.


The upper (or sedimentary) layers are comprised of unconsoli-
dated, weathered sediments. They are separated from the lower
(basalt) layers by a thin layer of nearly impermeable clay
caprock. The impermeability of the caprock is proven by
the sharp difference in the salinity of ground waters imme-
diately above and immediately below this layer and by the
immunity of water levels in observation piezometers to
effects from operation of the test well.

Effluent will be injected below the caprock. While a complex
variety of forces influence its movement, it will tend to
disperse into, and move with, the basic ground-water flow
horizontally in a northeasterly direction.

Although effluent will be fresher than the ground water into
which it is being injected (and therefore lighter) any tendency
to "float" or rise toward Kanaha pond will be thwarted by the
caprock barrier.

Injected effluent, heavily diluted by diffusion into the
saturated basalt aquifer, will move seaward and emerge
only when the caprock pinches out at the submerged edge of
the island. Although the distance from shore and the actual
depth of discharge cannot be accurately predicted, it is EPA's
judgement that both parameters will be more than sufficient
to ensure the protection of water quality in Kahului Bay. It
is doubtful that measureable concentrations of effluent will
emerge at all. For all practical purposes it will have been
totally diluted and dispersed, probably before reaching marine
waters. Under these circumstances, effluent disposal will
not affect Kanaha pond and in all likelihood, will not have
a discernible impact on Kahului Bay.


Secondary Impact of the Proposed Project

Shore Erosion and Tsunami Danger

The coast line in the proposed project area is generally low
with a narrow beach averaging forty feet in width along much
of its length. Northeast winds and along-shore currents are
rapidly eroding the beach in many sections. The most specta-
cular example is a pill box (fortified gun emplacement) con-
structed on the beach by the military in 1940 which is now
reported to be some 100 feet from shore. During World War II,
the military constructed a number of groins slightly east of
the proposed plant site to retard the erosion process. But,
persistent tradewinds have continued to push back the sand
dunes backing the beach while wave action and currents carry
beach material away.

The exact rate of erosion is not known, although recent
surveys indicate that it constitutes a long-term threat to
proposed project facilities and ultimately to Kanaha Pond.
(See references below):

"Erosion and Accretion of Selected Hawaiian Beaches;
1962-1972" by J. F. Campbell for University of Hawaii.
Sea Grant Program (Rpt. H.I.G.-72-20, Institute of
Geophysics, Univ. of Hawaii) 1972.

Statement submitted at Public Hearing on the proposed
project by R. P. Bruce, February 23, 1973. (See
attached transcript, Appendix B)

Letter submitted to EPA as part of the Public Record
on the February 23, 1973 Public Hearing by J. M. Johnson
Ass't. Director of the Environmental Center, University
of Hawaii. (See Appendix D)

The inability to measure the rate of erosion accurately, or
to determine whetner it is accelerating or declining, makes
precise analysis of the erosion threat difficult. Since the
treatment plant is more than 300 feet from the beach at its
closet point, it would appear that there is no short-term

Eventually, however, protective measures may be necessary.
If this proves to be the case, the cost of these measures
might be legitimately considered a long-term project cost.
If an action is taken, such as the extension of the riprap
wall currently protecting the Maui Electric Plant, it will,
of course, also serve to protect the pond.


The impact of tsunami flooding will also be affected by the
existence of the treatm* it facility at the proposed site.
First, plant structures and berms will afford some protection
to Kanaha Pond. In the period since 1837 few tsunami have
hit the Wailuku-Kahului area which would have been capable of
topping the sixteen-foot natural berm (sand dune) protecting
the plant. (The height of several very damaging waves is not
precisely known). Clearly, however, the possibility exists
that a tsunami could flood the site and release raw sewage
into flood flows and ultimately into the pond. Still, it
is likely that Kanaha Pond would be more disturbed by the
salt water flood than by the sewage.

A salt water flood, even without damaging pumps and other
electrical equipment, could upset the biological treatment
process. This could also occur without plant inundation
(and regardless of plant location) if the flooding of other
areas of the community led to massive infiltration of salt
water to the sewer system.

Overall, it is likely that tsunami flooding would cause
serious environmental damage regardless of the existence of
the facility. It seems unlikely that the release of untreated
sewage from the plant would constitute more than a small part
of that problem.

Secondary Impact Due to the Accommodation of Growth and

The Wailuku-Kahului area is currently guided by a General
Plan prepared for and adopted by the County of Maui. In
October of 1972, an updated plan was prepared and submitted
to the County Planning Commission by the consulting firm
Eckbo, Dean, Austin & Williams. Although this plan has not
as of this writing been adopted, it provides some of the most
current information available on the direction of community
development. It has been relied upon heavily for this

The role of public wastewater treatment facilities in overall
community development is a complex issue that must be judged
on a case-by-case basis. There are situations where it has
no bearing and others where it is a crucial factor.


It does not appear that the proposed project will directly
cause growth in the Wailuku-Kahului area. Complex socio-
economic forces at work over the past decade have led to
increased urbanization. Kahului Harbor is the island's best
deep-water port and Kahului Airport is the largest air trans-
portation facility. Agriculture, primarily sugar cane
cultivation and processing, continues to be a viable economic
force. The area is also the seat of County government and
the industrial center of the island. It has grown and
developed to date without a wastewater treatment facility.

This is not to say that wastewater treatment will have no
effect. Public awareness of the need for environmental
protection has grown and is reflected in new State and Federal
legislation. This legislation will play an increasingly
larger role in such local decisions as the location of new
industrial facilities. Industries with liquid wastes to
dispose of which are not able to connect to public treatment
systems will have to construct their own facilities, usually
at additional cost to them. We can say then that the exist-
ence of the proposed treatment facility, as a minimum, will
accommodate, and possibly encourage, growth and development in
Wailuku-Kahului. Having made this determination, it is
necessary to look briefly at some current trends, and very
generally, discuss what these may mean in terms of environ-
mental impact.

The proposed General Plan stresses retention of cane culti-
vation on prime agricultural lands. It concludes that, with
few exceptions, growth projected through 1992 can be accommo-
dated within existing Urban District boundaries. This is
a strong indication that lands designated for parks and
recreation will not be disturbed and that agriculture will
not be threatened by urbanization. It is also evidence that
while the community will be larger, its character, in terms
of the balance of land uses, will not change appreciably.

Figure 4 compares several population projections that have
been made for Wailuku-Kahului. The differences are due to
variations in basic assumptions and methodology as well as
slight differences in study area boundaries. The proposed
project is designed to accommodate the highest growth rate
shown through 1982. Obviously, if actual growth is less, the
plant will reach design capacity at a later date. It should
also be noted that the real-world growth that occurs will be
determined by the sum of many influences and that the waste-
water treatment facility is but one of them.

Assuming the actual population in 1982 will be somewhere
between 21,000 and 26,000, and that proposed land uses will
emerge, some generalizations can be made concerning the
effect on environmental parameters.


Figure A - Comparative Population Projections













Proposed General Plafi
—	 Minimum	



Water Quality

While elimination of the raw sewage discharge should sub-
stantially improve water quality and protect beneficial uses
of bay waters, an increase in discharges from non-point
sources can be expected to occur. Development covers perme-
able soils with houses, apartments, streets and highways,
shopping centers, factories and parking lots, thereby increas-
ing the amount of surface runoff. Increased quantities of
debris, petroleum residues, pesticides and fertilizers will
drain into the bay. Construction activities and careless
erosion control practices can be a major contributor to silta-
tion of the bay. On the other hand, large and potentially
damaging industrial discharges, whether they are untreated
organic wastes or toxic substances, should come under the
effective control of provisions of the 1972 Amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

In combination, the sources described at?ove will add to the
pollutant load entering coastal waters but should not exceed
assimilative capacity if reasonable care is exercised. The
Master Drainage Plan for Maui, prepared by R. M. Towill in
October of 1971, will serve as a guide to local control of
many problems.

Air Quality

Air quality is good on Maui and is expected to remain so.
As the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 is implemented, source
control of the emissions of new automobiles and new industrial
facilities, plus improvements to the < ntrol systems of exist-
ing facilities, in combination with favorable local meteorol-
ogical conditions, should preserve air quality.


Noise pollution will probably increase as airport traffic
grows the number of roads and highways multiplies, and the
amount of construction activity increases Improved noise
control technology, particularly as applied to jet aircraft,
will be of considerable benefit. Noise control has tradi-
tionally been left to local regulations and unless firm
measures are adopted, it is probably valid to expect the
problem to increase with population growth.



If public vigilance is maintained and the General Plan is
implemented, Kanaha Pond should be preserved as a wildlife
sanctuary. Urbanization, however, can be expected to destroy
the habitat of many small animals such as mice, rats and


The impact here is difficult to predict, particularly since
it is dependent on the values of the individual. Any
change will be unpleasant to some while others, viewing the
same developments, may be pleased. In general terms, the
aesthetic impact of growth is a function of the day-to-day
regulation of individual projects to ensure that they attempt
to enhance, rather than degrade, their environment.


Several major parks are planned which, if developed, should
increase community enjoyment of open space. Overall improve-
ment of water quality in the bay should enhance its enjoyment
by many local residents.

Socio-Economic Conditions

Projections from various sources were used to draw up the
following table showing proportional increases in several
economic sections from a 1970 base:

Table Six

The Growth of Economic Parameters
(comparisons with 1970 base)





Numerical base





16,500 people





350 rooms





1.3 million pass.





54 acres





150 acres

Table constructed from data presented in Tables 9 and 12,
pp II 9 and II 10, of "Study of Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal for Wailuku-Kahului" Chung Dho Ahn & Associates,
April 1971.


This indicates a generally stable relative balance among the
various sectors of the local economy, a situation that por-
tends little fundamental change in community character. The
increase in airport traffic indicates a high rate of growth
for tourism on Maui, but this is expected to be felt primar-
ily along the leeward coast. The very moderate anticipated
increase in the number of hotel rooms in Wailuku-Kahului is
further evidence that it is unlikely to become a major tour-
ist center. Agriculture, particularly agriculturally-related
manufacturing, may decline in relative importance. The
pineapple processing industry may follow a distinct State-
wide trend towards consolidation of operations and eventual

In terms of employment, one would expect an expansion of the
number of construction, service and government jobs coupled
with a continued decline in the number of agriculturally-
related jobs.

Socially, existing trends in shifting ethnic balance would
probably continue with "immigrant" Caucasians increasing in
number in relation to other groups. The "rural to urban"
shift due in a large part to the phasing out of small planta-
tion communities, should also continue. The standard of
living, as measured in terms of material goods, should



Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided
Should the Proposal be Implemented

Most known adverse effects are short-term and are associated
with construction activities. Noise, vehicle emissions, dust,
traffic congestion and the possible impacts they will have
on residents and wildlife have been discussed in the previous

Use of the immediate .project site is likely to displace a
number of small animals and replace native vegetation with
an artificial landscape and man-made structures. Some casual
recreational activities may also be curtailed.

In terms of secondary impact, the provision of the waste
treatment facility for a larger population than now exists
is at least part of a broader commitment to the increased
urbanization of Wailuku-Kahului. Urbanization nearly always
has adverse impacts on the natural environment. In this
instance, it can be expected to damage water quality by
increasing urban runoff and to destroy some forms of wildlife
by encroaching on their habitat. Increased human activity
can also be expected to result in greater noise pollution.

Construction activities will follow standard mitigatory
practices such as watering to reduce dust. Interceptor con-
struction along city streets will be coordinated with
responsible County Departments to minimize inconvenience to
motorists. Unless unforeseen time problems develop, con-
struction will occur only during standard daylight working
hours. While this will reduce the effect on local residents
somewhat, it will, of course, do little for wildlife.

If the General Plan discussed is adopted and carefully imple-
mented, the community will take a big step toward avoiding
many of the environmental pitfalls of urban development.

While this cannot eliminate all damage, it can lessen that
which inevitably occurs.



Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The discussion of alternatives is a fundamental part of an
Environmental Impact Statement. In accordance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's interim regulations of
January 17, 1973, our purpose is to "develop, describe, and
objectively weigh alternatives to any proposed action which
involves significant trade-offs among the uses of available
environmental resources."

For purposes of discussion, we are dividing alternatives into
two classes. General alternatives include those options theo-
retically available when approaching any wastewater treatment
system. Site alternatives are those that have been studied
and discussed in relation to the Wailuku-Kahului system.

The focus of our discussion is the environmental impact of
each alternative. We will also present, but not dwell on,
comparative costs and engineering considerations which affect
the desirability of each alternative. The following outline
summarizes the organization of this section:

General Alternatives

1.	No Project

2.	Alternate Treatment Processes anJ Disposal Methods

3.	Alternate Plant Sizing

Site Alternatives

1.	Quonset Hut Site

2.	National Guard Site

3.	Kaa Site

4.	Modified Kaa Site


General Alternatives

1.	No Project

Overall, this alternative would be extremely damaging
from an environmental viewpoint. Raw sewage would con-
tinue to be discharged into Kahului Bay. As the population
grew, the already unacceptable conditions described earlier
would worsen. Health hazards and violations of State
water quality standards would preclude full public use
of bay waters. Floating sewage debris would continue
to be an aesthetic insult to most citizens and visitors.

There are those who may find benefits in the No Project
alternative. In the short run, taxpayers would avoid
the local share of project, costs. At a later date,
however, Federal and State funds may not be available and
the entire cost of building a treatment system would fall
on local citizens.

The continuing existence of water quality problems could
conceivably serve to restrain growth and development in
the area although, as we will see later, this is argumen-
tative. To the extent that it did, however, this
alternative could indirectly help to avert some of the
environmentally damaging aspects of urban development.

In summary, there are clear-cut environmental and social
benefits to treating sanitary wastes in Wailuku-Kahului.

2.	Alternate Treatment Processes and Disposal Methods

There are three major classifications of wastewater treat-
ment: primary, secondary and tertiary. While there are
a number of processes that fall within each of these
classifications, they have substantially the same
environmental impact and therefore will not be differ-
entiated here. The cost figures on each of the alterna-
tive processes dicussed below are based on location at
the proposed site. Any differences in costs at alter-
nate sites are assumed to be proportional.


Primary Treatment

Primary treatment involves the removal of settleable and
floatable solids from the waste stream by physical and
mechanical means. Large debris and grit are removed as
the waste flow enters the treatment facility. Sewage is
then retained in a series of tanks to allow suspended
materials to settle out. Floatables are removed from
the liquid surface with a skimming device. After the
addition of chlorine gas to kill residual disease caus-
ing bacteria, effluent is discharged from the plant.

Biologically active material removed by settling is
called sludge. Sludge requires digestion to reduce its
volume and to stablize the organic matter it contains.

Digested sludge is a virtually odorless heavy liquid,
rich in inorganic nutrients. It is usually dewatered
to facilitate disposal.

The average expected efficiency of a well-run primary
facility is indicated below.

Table Seven
Efficiency of Primary Treatment

Parameter	% Removal Expected

Biochemical Oxygen Demand	30-35

Suspended Solids	55-60

Settleable Solids	85-90

While primary treatment provides a considerably greater
degree of environmental protection than no treatment,
it is not considered adequate by modern standards.
Depending on the method of discharge and the character-
istics of the receiving water, primary effluent may
still be a source of water quality problems. The signi-
ficant amount of suspended organic material remaining
can lead to discoloration and depressed levels of dis-
solved oxygen.


The issues governing the use of reclamation as a disposal
method will be discussed later, but it should be noted
here that primary treated effluent would not be suitable.

Primary treatment would also eliminate ground water
injection as a method of disposal. Residual solids and
organic growth would result in periodic clogging of the
injection wells.

The only reliable method of disposing of primary treated
effluent in this instance would appear to be by ocean
outfall. This would be more expensive than the proposed
project, despite the lesser degree of treatment (see
Table 8) and would probably result in a continued viola-
tion of State water quality standards. Some of the
additional problems of marine discharge into Kahului Bay
will be discussed in the following section.

In summary, primary treatment is not a reasonable alter-
native for Wailuku-Kahului. It would be more expensive,
inconsistent with the goal of reclamation, preclude
injection disposal of effluent, and, finally, provide
a lesser degree of environmental protection than the
proposed project.


Secondary Treatment and Ocean Outfall Disposal

The activated sludge process discussed earlier in describing
the proposed project is ne method of secondary treatment,

Sand filtration is not usually a part of that process, however,
and since it adds approximately $200,000 to proposed project
costs, we will briefly discuss the effects of its exclusion.

Rapid sand filtration will help assure the efficiency of
suspended solids removal. It is needed to minimize injection
well clogging, particularly during periods of peak loading.
Therefore, the alternative of the conventional activated
sludge secondary process would almost surely necessitate a
switch to ocean outfall disposal.

As shown earlier, an outfall would be considerably more expen-
sive than ground-water injection. The County's consultants
concluded that a 6,000 foot outfall with a 500-foot diffuser
would be required to achieve desired dilutions (1,000 to 1).
The discharge depth, despite this length, would be only
60 feet.

Prevailing winds and currents would tend to push the effluent
plume toward Kahului Harbor if the outfall were located east
of the harbor. It is possible that this could result in
excessive nutrient concentrations in the confined waters of
the harbor. While this problem could be partially averted
by moving the outfall north of the harbor, there would be
large operational costs involved in pumping effluent to the
point of discharge.

In general terms an ocean outfall is a satisfactory method
of effluent disposal. There is nearly always, however,
a trade-off between environmental safety and economic costs.
The situation in Kahului Harbor illustrates this principal.
A "safe" outfall, that is one that results in a discharge into
deep water with current conditions that promote high levels of
dispersal, would be very costly. (See Table 8) A short
"inexpensive" outfall would involve risks to the marine

The most clear-cut environmental cost of outfall disposal
is the impact of construction. Depending on bottom and shore-
line conditions,- a trench must be dredged and/or blasted.

This results in the inevitable disruption of benthic and
pelagic marine communities. This can be especially signifi-
cant if a living coral reef must be crossed. While some


destruction can be averted by carefully controlled construc-
tion practices, there is always an adverse impact which cannot
be avoided.

Tertiary Treatment

Strictly speaking, tertiary treatment is virtually any
improvement made in effluent quality after secondary treat-
ment. In this instance, however, we are defining it more
specifically as a process that removes a substantial portion
of total nutrients from the waste stream.

Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) are an important consid-
eration in effluent disposal for the several reasons discussed
earlier. If they are removed, the environmental impact of
any of the disposal methods is of less concern. Tertiary
effluent can be discharged to the ground water system, most
ocean and estuarine areas, or the land for irrigation with a
high degree of safety. For these reasons, it is an extremely
attractive alternative from a purely environmental viewpoint.

Perhaps the most attractive aspect of tertiary treatment
is its compatibility with the most viable application of
reclamation in the Wailuku-Kahului area; namely sugar cane
irrigation. Other applications of reclaimed wastewater are
extremely limited.

Reuse as municipal water supply is restrained by the possible
public health dangers that stem from the presence of viruses
in the effluent. While the extent of these dangers is the
subject of extensive debate, where public health is concerned,
it is only prudent, where any doubt exists, to err on the
side of caution. For this reason EPA does not support the
direct introduction of treated wastes to potable water sup-
plies. This policy has the support of state and local public
health officials nationwide.

Essentially, this limits the potential for reuse to augmenta-
tion of surface or ground-water surface flows, or irrigation
of nonedible root crops, pasture lands or public recreation


areas. The two golf courses in the Wailuku-Kahului area are
four and six miles from the proposed project site respec-
tively, have sufficient and economical water supplies, and
even in combination with other greenbelt areas, do not have
sufficient capacities to use all the wastewater available.

There is also a large additional expense involved in construct-
ing distribution systems, particularly since they must be
totally isolated from potable water systems. Since augmenta-
tion has not been proposed, it is apparent then, that the
most viable method of reuse is irrigation of the extensive
acreage planted in sugar cane south of the two communities.

Cane growers throughout Hawaii have been reluctant to use
secondary effluent without extensive dilution. Their concern
stems from the luxury uptake of nitrogen by cane in the
latter stages of its two-year growing cycle. The presence of
excessive nitrogen appears to increase the production of cane
tissue at the expense of lower sucrose (sugar) content. This
means a lower percentage of sucrose in the crusher juice and,
essentially, a lower crop yield. For this reason, growers
report that they can not make a commitment to accept water
containing more than 5 mg/1 nitrate (secondary treated sewage
usually contains 35 mg/1) for irrigation. ("Study of Waste-
water Treatment and Disposal for Wailuku/Kahului", April
1971, Chung Dho Ahn and Associates, p. IV-3)

There are still many questions to be answered about luxury
nitrogen uptake. Research may show that secondary treated
effluent is acceptable under certain conditions. Clearly,
blending with water from other sources offers one solution
but, as of this writing, the hard fact remains that growers
are reluctant to accept secondary effluent because of the
nitrogen problem.

To the extent that tertiary treatment can eliminate this
source of concern, reclamation is that much more of a feasible
disposal method. The problems of the distribution of effluent,
particularly the question of who pays what costs, would of
course, continue to be a factor.

The major detriment to tertiary treatment remains its
economic cost. Tertiary treatment at the proposed project
site would cost $12,795,000 including injection disposal. It
is felt that the potential benefits derived, though environ-
mentally significant, do not justify this additional cost at
this time. The proposed system does not, however, preclude
the option of adding tertiary treatment at a later date.


3. Alternate Plant Sizing

The third category of general alternatives is plant
sizing. Treatment plants are usually designed for a
service life of 20 years. Waste loads are projected
primarily on the basis of population and industrial
growth over that period. Infiltration of ground-water
or storm water runoff into the collection system is
another major factor which must be considered.

There is always a significant element of doubt involved
in long-term population projections. The complex array
of social, economic and political factors that govern the
growth of a particular area are subject to abrupt realign-
ment. Since there are major economies of scale involved
in the construction of most components of wastewater
treatment systems, it has long been standard engineering
practice to build for the highest reasonable growth rate.
This philosophy is not unique to wastewater engineering
but, has been applied to other public facilities as well.

We concluded in an earlier section that any capacity in
the proposed plant in excess of current needs might serve
as an encouragement to continued growth in the area.

Since concern has been expressed that any further growth
in Wailuku-Kahului might prove environmentally damaging,
the alternative being considered here is a "no growth"
(or limited growth) sizing. A capacity of 4.5 MGD has
been chosen.

There are advantages to this sizing aside from any indi-
rect effects it may have on the rate of growth. First,
it is, in the short run, less expensive. At the proposed
site the smaller facility would cost $845,000 less than a
6 MGD plant. Proportional savings could be made at other
sites. (See Table 8.) Second, because existing flows
are very close to 4.5 MGD there would be some encourage-
ment to the County to conserve plant capacity by correct-
ing infiltration.


The relationship between capacity and growth remains
speculative and problematic. While the existence of
adequate capacity may help to encourage growth, the con-
verse may not be true. The area has, after all, grown
at an unprecedented rate in the past ten years without
any sewage treatment capability. Clearly a smaller plant
will not, by itself, halt development.

While this issue can not be definitively resolved, it is
useful to discuss the risks inherent in a smaller plant
so comparison can be made to the effects discussed earl-
ier for the 6 MGD plant. If flows are allowed to
increase beyond the plant's capacity to adequately treat
them, major problems could develop.

Inadequately treated effluent would periodically result
in clogged injection wells. Maintenance costs would be
high and corrective measures would have to be taken.

Since the wells are the only available method of disposal
it i^ possible that additional wells would have to be
drilled to supplement clogged wells. The probability of
a use being found for reclaimed wastes would be reduced
in proportion to their decline in quality. Odor problems
would occur with increasing frequency. Plant expansion
would eventually be necessary unless the treatment facil-
ities were bypassed and raw or partially treated wastes
were once again allowed to enter Kahului Bay. The
environmental and economic costs of these developments
would be very high.

It is not EPA's policy to encourage uncontrolled and
environmentally destructive development of an area by
providing unneeded capacity. At the same time, it is
not responsible, from an economic or environmental point
of view, to provide only stop-gap solutions to water
pollution problems. Other methods exist; methods pro-
perly under local jurisdiction, to directly control the
environmental consequences of growth and development.
Control of land use in Wailuku-Kahului is the most
important tool available to State and local officials.

It seems likely that, in this instance, the sizing down
of proposed plant capacity is a weak and possibly in-
effective tool.





Basic Assumptions of Table Eight

Delays caused by further engineering needs. All delay times
begin after a decision is made as to chosen alternative.

(1)	No delay except for bidding and award time, 3 months.

(2)	No delay on pump stations and force mains, 6 months

on treatment plant, 1 year on effluent disposal system.

(3)	No delay on pump stations and force mains, 1 year on
treatment and disposal systems, 1 year on any new pump
stations and force mains.

(4)	l\ to 2 years on entire project.

The cost estimates, summarized on Table 8, are based primar-
ily upon earlier estimates made by Chung Dho Ahn and Asso-
ciates and James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. An
inflation rate of 14.5% per year is used to bring all
alternative's cost to a single base date for comparison.
The September 1973 base is used as it is assumed no construc-
tion will preceed this date. The single base date comparison
does not account for the additional cost attributable to in-
flation due to designed delays which would be required for
most of the alternatives. The basis for differences in costs
between alternatives and sites is given in more detail in
the Appendix C.

Engineering costs were estimated as a percentage of construc-
tion cost by using ASCE Manual No. 45's "A" and "B" as a

As soil tests have not been conducted at sites other than
the present one, cost estimates have been given for plants
both with and without piles. Piling should not be thought of
as a "real" alternative as foundation requirements would be
dictated by the results of soil test.

The cost estimates, as presented, for smaller treatment
capacity still utilize the 6 mgd capacity system's intercep-
tors, pump stations, force mains, and outfall (where applica-
ble). It was felt that the potential cost savings was not
substantial enough to over-balance the environmental dis-
ruption caused by return to these facilities in a few years
with parallel construction.


Site Alternatives

The site alternatives listed below have all been
studied as potential locations for the Wailuku-Kahului
Wastewater Treatment Plant during public consideration
of the project:

1.	"Quonset Hut" site near Baldwin High School.

2.	The "National Guard" site, north of Wailuku in an
area controlled by the Hawaii State Department of
Civil Defense.

3.	Kaa site, approximately 4,000 feet east of the
proposed Kanaha Pond site.

4.	The "modified" Kaa site which involves construction
of the treatment plant at Kanaha Pond and placement
of the injection wells at Kaa.

Figure 5 shows their location in relation to the area
to be serviced. Table 8 summarizes the economic cost at
each location for each type of treatment process with
alternate sizing and with alternate methods of disposal.
All of these sites are on public (or public-controlled)
land and none would require physical displacement of

1. Quonset Hut Site

The Quonset Hut site is so-called because of a row
of quonset huts that lie along the eastern edge of
this triangular parcel of land. It is bordered
on the west and north by Kanaloa Avenue, the east
and north by Kahului Beach Road, and the south by
Kaahumanu Avenue. Maui Community College, formerly
Maui Vocational School, lies inside the southeast
corner of the triangle.

The site offers few substantive advantages from
either an engineering or an environmental point of
view. Economically its cost is very close to that
of the proposed site. (The difference represented in
Table 8 is due to the soil studies, added odor con-
trol measures and test well needed at this site.
If piles were needed for structural support the
differences would be more dramatic.) It could,
however, prove somewhat less expensive to operate.



Figure 5



Relative Location of Alternative Sites

The site is not as suitable for deep well injection
as the proposed site. Due to the direction of
ground-water flow in the area, it is quite possible
that injected effluent would emerge inside Kahului
Harbor where it could cause water quality problems.

The limitations of deep well injection point to a
marine outfall as the most reasonable means of dis-
posal from this site. Since an outfall could not
be constructed adjacent to the site (that is inside
the harbor), effluent would have to be pumped a
greater distance to reach the outfall point. This
involves significantly greater operating expense
as well as a larger initial capital outlay. Out-
fall disposal at this site would cost $12,800,000
at proposed plant capacity.

Compatibility with future regionalization of waste-
water treatment is another consideration. The Paia
area to the east will, according to County long-
range plans, be connected to an expanded VJailuku-
Kahului facility by interceptor. The Quonset Hut
site is farther from this area and would require
a longer interceptor at increased cost. (This cost
is not considered in the figures presented in
Table 8).

Some of the additional costs of this site could be
recovered if irrigation of cane fields was available
as a disposal method. This site is somewhat closer
to the most likely focal point of irrigation dis-
tribution near HC&S Reservoir No. 73. In summary,
while this site is acceptable on an engineering
basis, it is slightly more expensive in both the
short and long-term.

Its main disadvantages are environmental. The key
issue is land use compatibility. The site is planned
for park use in the proposed Wailuku-Kahului General
Plan. Some potential park land would be consumed
by the plant, and while parks and treatment plants
can be compatible neighbors (parks can, for example,
use effluent for irrigation), the ever-present possi-
bility of odors must be considered. Odors are also
of concern because of the proximity of Baldwin High
School and Maui Community College. Residential areas
located nearby and downwind could also be affected.


Despite the low probability of odor problems in
a well-run secondary facility, residents are con-
cerned. The Environmental Protection Agency has
received over 2500 signatures on petitions sup-
porting the proposed project and specifically
opposing location at the Quonset Hut site. While
this does not, by itself, constitute proof of a
major environmental problem, public opinion must
be heavily considered in determining the reason-
ableness of a project site.

The disadvantages of the Quonset Hut site are:

1.	It is not suitable for injection disposal.

2.	It is slightly more expensive than the proposed
project at this time.

3.	It is of questionable compatibility with
existing land use.

4.	It is opposed by a substantial number of local

Points that can be raised in its support are:

1.	It is an acceptable alternative in engineering

2.	It is not vastly more expensive.

3.	Regardless of the method or location of dis-
charge there is no possibility of directly
affecting Kanaha Pond.


2 . National Guard Site

The National Guard Site is located on land controlled
by the State Department of Civil Defense. Lying just
north of Iao Stream, it is the least studied of the
alternative locations. It was one of three sites con-
sidered in the "Interim Plan, Sub-basin Area, Waihee-
Paia," prepared by the R. M. Towill Corporation for
the County of Maui in April 1971. It was dropped by
local decision-makers as being prohibitively expensive
compared with the Quonset Hut site and the Kanaha Pond
site. Table 8 shows that a 6 MGD secondary treatment
facility with injection disposal would cost approxi-
mately $12,390,000. The additional cost is primarily
due to the additional force mains and pump stations
required to convey wastes to the plant. This would
also increase the cost of operation.

Geologically, the site is not well suited for deep well
injection. The orientation of ground-water flows in the
area is primarily east-northeast. As with the Quonset
Hut site, this could well mean the emergence of injected
effluent inside Kahului Harbor. The potential for water
quality problems would, as we have seen, be present.

Outfall disposal would, of course, be more expensive.
Also, were it constructed near the plant site, winds
and currents would tend to push the effluent plume toward
shore; a situation that could also lead to water quality

This site is farther from the probable irrigation areas
than any of the other locations, hence, the reclamation
distribution system would be more expensive. It is also
farther from Paia and, thereby, less consistent with
future regionalization.

At the same time the primary advantage of this site in
terms of environmental impact is also its location. It
is remote from both residential areas and critical wild-
life habitats; i.e., Kanaha Pond.


The cost of the National Guard	site precluded its consid-
eration beyond the preliminary	planning stage. It would
not appear that its advantages	are great enough to out-
weigh these cost.

3. The Kaa Site

This site, also occasionally referred to as the "airport"
site, is approximately 4,000 feet east of the proposed
Kanaha Pond site. It is similar to the Kanaha Pond
location in terms of vegetation and soil type. The
proposed General Plan has designated it as an area for
park development.

Its primary disadvantage is its cost. At this time, it
is estimated that moving the plant and injection wells
to this site would add more than $2.5 million to project
cost. The major factors in this cost difference are:

1.	Design engineering, soil studies, and injection
well testing have already been completed at the
Kanaha site at 1971/72 prices.

2.	Despite apparent similarities in the locations,
additional soil studies and design work would be

3.	The County engineering consultant's judgement that
drilling and physical testing of injection capacity
is required at this site despite its proximity to
the completed Kanaha test well.

4.	The additional 4,000 feet of force main needed to
convey wastes to the plant.

The suitability of the Kaa site for injection is uncer-
tain. It is known that the crucial layer of caprock
pinches out to the east and is absent near Spreckelsville,
about two miles from Kanaha Pond. If the caprock is also
absent at Kaa, the site may not be suitable for injec-
tion and an alternative method of disposal would be
required. This, of course, would result in additional
cost beyond the figure quoted earlier (see Table 8).


If the caprock is present, however, there are certain
advantages to this site. There would be virtually no
question of injection disposal posing a threat to Kanaha
Pond. Most of the short-term effects of plant construc-
tion and operation would also be avoided. Vulnerability
to tsunami inundation and shoreline erosion would,
however, continue to be of concern.

The suitability of the Kaa site is dependent on the
existence of the caprock layer. Even if it is present,
however, the advantage it has over the proposed project
site (distance from Kanaha Pond) seems more psychological
than substantial. While this does not belie the impor-
tance of the concerns of conscientious environmentalists,
it makes it more difficult to justify the additional
expenditures required.

4. Modified Kaa Site - Plant at Kanaha Pond with Disposal
Wells at Kaa

This alternative is a compromise solution that would
reduce the cost differential between the two sites (not
counting inflation factors due to any delays in construc-
tion). Relocation of the injection wells would add a
more modest $700,000 to project cost. Some of this would
be the cost of a new test well but, the major share would
be the additional 4000 feet of pipe needed. Again,
however, the crucial factor would be the existence of
the caprock layer at Kaa.

The discussion of the environmental impact of this site
is the same as that of the previous alternative with two
exceptions. First, the impacts on Kanaha Pond from plant
construction would remain. Second, less park-designated
land at Kaa would be consumed.

In summary, the available evidence suggests that the Kaa
site and the Modified Kaa site are as acceptable, from
an environmental viewpoint, as the proposed Kanaha site.
Except for the minor short-term impact of construction
activities, however, there is no substantive reason for
judging either location superior to the proposed project
site. In this situation the Kanaha site must be favored
because it is least expensive.



Relationship Between the Local Short-term Uses of the Environ-
ment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

The proposed project will eliminate the existing abuse of
coastal waters for raw sewaee disposal. While these waters
will continue to receive wastes, they will be in a form that
will protect rather than damage long-term productive uses.

The immediate project site will be committed to a use that
is incompatible with some other productive uses. It cannot,
for example, become part of a park area as once proposed,
or an industrial area like the land around it. It also
represents man's physical intrusion onto the only side of
Kanaha Pond not yet developed. While landscaping will
minimize this impingement, there is no doubt that the
character of the pond setting will be changed as a result of
this project.

The decision to take action now to halt the raw sewage dis-
charge to Kahului Bay seems justified on its face. There is
broad public consensus on this point. The decision to build
at the proposed site also appears to be warranted despite
public controversy. The sections of this statement dealing
with the anticipated impact of project construction and
operation at the Kanaha site indicate that sufficient infor-
mation is available to make a rational decision. In the
absence of evidence that additional delay would provide
significant additions to the body of knowledge surrounding
this project, we believe the choice of the Kanaha site is




Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which
Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Imple-

Aside from the energy and materials consumed during construc-
tion, the project's primary irreversible commitments are the
consumptive use of land at the project site and its role in
accommodating population growth. The immediate project area
will no longer be accessible to casual public use and cannot
of course, be turned into a recreational area or industrial
site. By accommodating population growth, the project may
give additional impetus to urbanization in the Wailuku-Kahului
area. Urbanization of course, precludes other general uses
of the areas involved.



A Discussion of Problems and Objections Raised by Other Federal,
State, and Local Agencies and by Interested Persons in this
Review Process

The proposed project has generated significant public con-
troversy. Because this is a draft environmental impact state-
ment, we will not specifically address those concerns in this
section trusting that the text of this statement has answered
many of the questions asked.

On February 23, 1973 a public hearing was held in Wailuku-Kahului
to invite public discussion. The transcript of that hearing
and several other documents submitted as part of the public
record on that hearing are appended to this statement.




Geohydrology of the Injection Well Sites


The most comprehensive geologic and hydrologic description
of the island of Maui was published by Sterns & McDonald
(1942). Maui essentially was constructed from 2 volcanic
centers, East Maui (Haleakala) and west Maui (Puu Kukui),
that were united when westward flowing lavas from Haleakala
overlapped and banked against the east slopes of the West
Maui volcanic dome forming the isthmus. The bedrock under-
lying the isthmus of central Maui is a thick sequence of flows
of the Honomanu volcanic series, abutting and overlying older
volcanic rocks from West Maui and intercalated with consolidated
sedimentary rocks also derived from West Maui. Overlying
the Honomanu flows is the Kula Volcanic Series, also from
Haleakala. These are thin flows and may extend under the
isthmus near Kahului according to the geologic cross-section
of Sterns & McDonald (1942, PI. 1) which shows the flows
terminating near the center of the isthmus against younger
dune sands. The Kula flows would not be an important aquifer
in this area but if present could provide some confining of
water in the lower Honomanu flows. The Kula rocks represent
the last impacement of volcanic flows in the Wailuku-Kahului
area and this activity was followed by a long period of
quiescence with low rainfall, little erosion, and thus, little
transport of detrital material. This may have been the time
that the clay caprock, a weathering by-product, was formed.
The northern isthmus area is immediately underlain by sedi-
mentary rocks, some consolidated or partly consolidated ranging
from gravels to clays to alluvium that are in places overlain
and intercalated with unconsolidated deposits of beach sand,
both quartzos and coral types.


The basal fresh ground water underlying the island of Maui
occurs essentially as two lenses under both East and West Maui
respectively. Almost all recharge takes place at the higher
elevations of Haleakala and the West Maui mountains where pre-
cipatation is greatest (Fig. A-l). Natural discharge, other
than evaprotranspiration, commonly occurs near the shoreline
as springs and seeps. The two lenses coalesce under the isth-
mus and in a trans-isthmus cross section, this water body too,
would be typically lens-shaped. The principal of a lense of
fresh water floating on a salt water substratum has been named





Pauwelc Pt.





i?i	Active Rain Go58

>t<	Discontinued Rain Gaga

—	***>—	Contour Line
ปo—.	Isohyetal Linซ

—	20— Estimated IsohyfitOl Line

r O

Source: Hawaii Water Authority, 1959, Water Resources In
Hawaii: Hawaii Water Authority,'Territory of Hawaii.

NOTES Isohyets based on values from

<00 guges for period 1933-1957





. N O IU H_f


after work by W. Badon Ghyben and Baurat Herzberg who made
independent studies of the lens hydronamics in Europe at the
close of the last century. This is the Ghyben-Herzberg
theory. At about the same time, sugar plantation pioneers in
Hawaii had gained a practical understanding of the lens con-
cept without benefit of communication with the European
scientists, and made use of the theory in developing their
ground-water resources.

A simple uniform Ghyben-Herzberg lens probably does not exist
anywhere in Maui. Both the East and West Maui massifs contain
central core areas intruded by dike swarms. These dike
complexes underlie the areas receiving the most rainfall
and hence receive the most ground-water recharge. The dikes
commonly are relatively impermeable and tend to act as subsur-
face dam. Thus, the basal fresh ground-water lenses are dis-
torted in the center of both East and West Maui (Watson, 1964,
Fig. 2) where the dike complexes store much water at eleva-
tions above the top of the lenses. Because all dikes probably
leak trapped water, the higher heads behind the dikes are
responsible for much recharge to the peripheral basal ground-
water reservoir. On the isthmus, man has caused some modifi-
cation of the original ground-water lens. This has been by
withdrawal of ground-water supplies from wells and by
irrigation of crop land which provides recharge to the basal
ground water from unconsumed irrigation water.

Further modification of the natural ground-water body may
be attributed to artificial recharge practices in central
Maui. In the agricultural areas this has been in the form
of induced leakage from ditches and reservoirs and delib-
erate spreading of irrigation waters. Other important
artificial recharge in urban areas is by storm drainage
disposal and diversion of steam flow into pits and injection
wells. A good discussion of effects of artificial recharge
on the Ghyben-Herzberg lens of Maui and other parts of Hawaii
is in the report by Peterson and Hargis (1971). They also
report (p. 8) that the first of four wells for the injection
of industrial wastes from the Maui Land and Pineapple Company
in Kahului was drilled in 1948. These wells are used for
injection of a mixture of salt and fresh waters from the
company's cooling and washing operations into the basalt
aquifer beneath the caprock. The caprock in this area accord-
ing to the well logs (Peterson and Hargis, 1971, p. 11) is
clay and gravel. Analysis of the wastewater is not available
but it is treated with ammonia to neutralize the sulphuric
acid. The maximum injection rate recorded for the four wells
(Peterson and Hargis, 1971, p. 10) is 3700 gpm with a head
build-up of almost 7 feet.


According to Peterson and Hargus (1971) 17 recharge wells are
used in the Wailuku-Kahului area for the disposal of storm
run-off and to eliminate standing water in poorly drained areas
after heavy rains. In addition, two 100 foot diameter disposal
pits, 20 feet deep for drainage control have been constructed
in Kahului. These are shallow injections and all are into
the sedimentary rocks overlying the caprock. This recharge
may be a source of contamination to the fresh basal ground-
water body in an area up-gradient from the Kanaha Pond area.
In June 1970 testing was done by the Kahului Development
Company for injection well sites for four storm run-off
disposal wells in the basalt aquifers. These tests indicated
that highly permeable zones were available in the basalt
and construction of the wells preceeded (Peterson & Hargis,
1971, page 17). Recharge to the basalts under the Wailuku-
Kahului area is added to the ground water flowing toward
the area under Kanaha Pond. The source of much of the water
in the Honomanu lavas under the norther isthmus is ground
water from west Maui. According to flow lines superimposed
on the ground-water contours of Takasaki (see figure A-2) the
flow of ground water in the basalts under the Kanaha Pond area
is from the west to a convergent area of flow lines north of
the airport. Also according to the water-table contours shown
on figure A-2 the ground-water head on the isthmus is low,
2 to 5 feet above sea level and according to Peterson and
Hargis (1971, p. 18) it is little affected by daily or weekly
sea level changes except in the large drawdown cones in some
wells. However, near the shore, tidal fluctuations may
imposed an effect of 1 foot or more in some wells.

Across the isthmus to the south and east of Kahului are large
acreages of sugar cane that are irrigated from surface and
ground-water supplies. Basal water, however, is the source
most extensively developed and utilized for irrigation through-
out most of the growing season at lower elevations (Tenorio,
Young, and Whitehead, 1969, page 18). The Hawaii Commercial
and Sugar Company, during the winter months, when the planta-
tion's demand for irrigation water is not as great as in other
months, is permitted by the State to use the excess water free
of charge for artificial recharge on plantation lands. Arti-
ficial recharge began in the winter of 1950 and has continued
every year since. However, the effect of this recharge on
ground-water elevations and water quality of the basal fresh-
water lens is not known (Hargis & Peterson, 1970, p. 18).

North of the ground-water divide (fig. A-2) it is obvious from
the flow-net that much of this artificial recharge is uncon-
sumed irrigation water from the sugar cane fields and flows


Explanat i on
o Drilled Water-1
Well	Shaft

Stream lineJ
of ground water
flow net

Figure A-2 Central Maui Showing Stream Lines of Flow Net and
Water Level Contours Based on Near-Simultaneous
Measurements Made on December 5, 1970

Source:	Takasaki, K. J., 1972, Preliminary Report on the Water

Resources of Central Maui:. Division of Water and Land
Development, Circ. C62, State of Hawaii, p.. 36.
Modified by the Environmental Protection Agency .

toward Kahului Bay. Interpretation of reports in Lau (1967,
p. 261 & 266) on work done by D. C. Cox on Maui including the
supervision of the drilling of an experimental at Spreckels-
ville leads to the conclusion that the caprock is missing
or pinches out near Spreckelsville. Hence, with the pinching
out of the caprock and defining its eastern edge, under the
northern part of the irrigated sugar cane areas, much
recharge from the cane fields can be tributary to ground
water both above and below the caprock. Recharge, in the cane
field areas underlain by caprock, will become part of the
ground water in the surficial sediments and will be isolated
from ground water in the basalt below the caprock.

The contact between the fresh water of the Ghyben-Herzberg
lenses and the underlying sea water is not a sharp distinct
interface such as would occur between two immiscible liquids,
but a graditional third dimension of increasing salinity
with depth. This zone is often referred to as the transi-
tion zone or mixing zone. It is thickened by tidal action,
variations in recharge, and seasonal withdrawals of ground-
water resources. Kleinecke (1971, p. 2) has attributed
a thickening of the original transition zone (50% to
less than 5% salt-water) from about 200 feet in 1881 to
500 feet in 1953 in area I of the Honolulu aquifer to
overdraft by excessive pumping from this aquifer. The
original dynamic balance between the fresh water in the
lens and the seawater base has been disturbed by pumpage
from the lens in the Maui isthmus. Thus there probably
has been an increase in the thickness of the transition zone
on this island also. An arbitrarily selected base for fresh
water is to the level where the mixture contains 5% seawater
(about 1725 ppm TDS). It would appear that the interface
between the fresh-water lens and its transition zone will
lie between the test well at the disposal site and the
State well south of Kanaha Pond (see fig. A-3).

Injection Well - Kanaha Pond Site

Injection wells constructed with an outer conductor casing
no deeper than the top of the caprock and containing an inner
injection casing seated into at least the first dense basalt
flow, cemented top to bottom, will function properly (fig. A-4).
That is: injected fluids will be confined to the basalt
aquifer beneath the caprock. The integrity of the caprock


Dairy Road

Above or

Sea Level


State Highway Test
Well	Kanaha Well Barrier Dunes

Mean High Water

-400 r


Feet X 10

Sea Water

Figure A-3 Diagrammatic North-South Cross Section 800 Feet West of 156ฐ 27' 30" Longitude

Sounding Tube

Figure A-4 Environmental Protection Agency's Recommendation

for Injection Well Construction - Kanaha Pond Site

is supported by conductivity measurements and piezometer
readings made during drilling of a test well and its subsequent
test pumping by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers
Incorporated (1972, p. 3, fig. 5). Observations were made of
water levels during pump tests in four piezometers installed
in the area near the test hole and terminating in the sedi-
ments above the caprock. All fluctuations of water levels at
these observation points can be attributed to tidal forces
and no effects from pumping the test hole were noted in any
piezometer. This is strong evidence of a hydraulic dis-
continuity between the sediment aquifer and the basalt
aquifer. Above the caprock, water in the overlying sediments
had a dissolved solids content (TDS) of about 2,275 ppm (con-
version of specific conductants by S. C. x 0.75 = average TDS
See Hem, 1970, page 99). Although the caprock position from
the log and salinity measurements at 60 and 65 feet, respec-
tively appear off by 5 feet when related to each other, this is
not unusual nor unexpected when drilling, as such observations
are not always precise. Beneath the caprock, the salinity
jumps to approximately 3,445 ppm and increases to 10,400 ppm
at 130 feet. The Montgomery report also states that from
110 feet downward the formation water has seawater charac-
teristics, this is an error, as seawater has an average
dissolve solid content to 34,500 ppm and a specific con-
ductance of 50,000 to 55,000 micromhos per centimeter at
25ฐ celsius. Hence, it is apparent that the formation water
in the injection zone is less than 1/3 of the salinity of sea-
water. This is important in interpreting the injection test
made by Montgomery (1972, p.5). Using properly prepared in-
jection fluid (i.e. without suspended sediment and intrained
gases) an injection rate of 5,900 gpm was obtained during a
9-hour test with a head of 0.23 feet. The 180 feet of casing
installed with a surface elevation estimated to be 8 feet
above land surface means that approximately 172 feet of the
bore hole is cased below sea level. The total weight of
seawater for 172.23 feet in the well to the top of the injec-
tion zone is 23,369 pounds. To provide the same weight to
the same depth with fresh water an additional 655 pounds are
needed or 5 more feet of head. Thus, injection of sewage
effluent in the test well at the rate of 5,900 gpm can
be accomplished with a five foot injection head. Since this
is three times the design requirement then an operational
head of 1.7 feet should be adequate. The EPA recommendation
that injection heads be limited to 3 feet would not restrict
the desired operation of the injection wells to less than the


design capacity and at the same time would ensure that no
head pressure would build up under the caprock that would
exceed the hydrostatic pressure on the top of the caprock
in the area underlying the pond. The pumping test by
Montgomery (1972, p. 4), indicates that high permeabilities,
transmissibilities, and specific capacities are to be expected
in the basalt aquifer beneath the Kanaha Pond area. Although
the water level measurements made during the pumping test
were not corrected for tidal effects and which may have
resulted in some apparently anomalous specific capacity data;
the hydraulic characteristics that the Montgomery report
attributes to the basalt aquifer are of the right order of
magnitude. This is confirmed by more sophisticated pump and
injection tests made in 1970 and 1971 at the injection well
site of the Kahului Developing Company (Peterson & Hargis,
1971, p. 29-38). Therefore, it is concluded that a properly
designed, installed, and operated injection well can accept
up to 2000 gpm with an injection head of less than 3 feet
above mean sea level in many areas along the northern isthmus
in the Honomanu Basalt.

The exact ratio of fresh water above and below sea level in
the lens depends on the relative densities of the two liquids.
A ratio of 40 to 1 is close enough for most interpretations
(Peterson, 1972, p. 22). Hence, a three-foot head of fresh
water would balance 120 feet could not be improved by drilling
deeper without a corresponding increase of 1 foot injection
head for each 40-foot interval of deepening. The test well
was bottomed out at 385 feet and in an aquifer containing
water at a little less than 1/3 the salinity of sea water
this is probably about the maximum depth of injection of
sewage effluent at this site.

After injection, the fate of the effluent must be considered.
Injected effluent will move down gradient towards the dis-
charge point northeasterly and out into Kahului Bay. But
between injection well site and discharge in the bay many
forces affect the behavior of the fluid. These must be
considered. When water of a different density is injected
into an aquifer between two confining beds a vertical front
will move out in all directions from the well bore. However,
a symmetrical cylinder of injected fluid is not obtained owing

to the inhomogeneity of the aquifer material and its non-
isotropic hydraulic characteristics. When the interface
between the injection fluid and the formation fluid stops
moving or slows appreciably owing to cessation of injection,
or part of the interface slows or stops because of hydraulic
distortion of the injected body from movement in one direction
on side of the cylinder, tilting of the interface will
occur. The injected body beneath the Kanaha Pond site will be
distorted and will send a plume of injected fluid down gra-
dient from the well and hence have a stationary interface
upgradient. The slowed or immobilized interface of two fluids
of different density in an aquifer will start to tilt (some-
times called upwelling). This is a manifestation of the
buoyancy force. Beneath the Kanaha Pond site the tilt of
the interface will put the less dense effluent on top of
the formation fluid. The rate of tilt and horizontal extent
of the injected fluid cannot be predicted but both are
expected to be small. The significance of this phenomenon
may be determined by conversion of the State well to an
observation well. This well is believed to be in the direc-
tion from the injection site towards the nearest pinch-out of
the caprock.

During an injection test at the Kahului Development Company
site, a recording conductivity bridge was placed in the Maui
Land and Pineapple Company shaft 13, located 1200 feet away.
Even though the shaft was pumped at a rate 2,800 gpm for
16 hours no salinity changes attributable to the injection
test were observed (Peterson & Hargis, 1971, p. 33). The
angle between the direction of ground-water flow and the
direction to the State well from the Kanaha Pond test site
is about the same as that prevailing in the above described
test. Work done by Kumar and Kimbler (1970) on the problem
of temporary storage of fresh water in saline aquifer indi-
cates that any injection into aquifers that tends to cause the
stratification or layering of the water into thin zones,
nullifies the importance of tilt. Injection in the basalt
will tend to cause injected fluid to be stratified in the
most permeable clinker zones between dense lava flows. The
thickest clinker zone identifiable from the log in the
Montgomery report (1972, table IB) is 26 feet (90-118 feet
below land surface). Considering aquifers and aquifer
hydraulics generally, this can be considered a thin zone.


A study by Gelhar and others (1972) indicates man hydrodynamic
dispersion across the boundary of two fluids (i.e. the forma-
tion of a transition zone) in confined aquifer systems will
retard the rate of tilting of the interface. Thus, though
there is abundant information to indicate that a tilt of
injected effluent-sailing water interface sufficient to by-
pass the interior edge of the caprock and permit effluent to
seep into the upper sedimentary aquifers will not occur, it
will be prudent to use the State well for continuous obser-
vations .

Other buoyancy forces at work will tend to cause the injected
fluid in the injection zone (clinker zone) to move from the
clinker zone and any succeeding clinker zones through
shrinkage cracks in each overlying layer of dense basalt
to an upper clinker zone or some other permeable zone under-
lying the caprock. The well construction recommended would
seat the injection casing in at least the first dense basalt
layer, and with the cementing recommended, any upper clinker
zone would be isolated from direct intrusion by the injected
effluent. In a saturated zone, as exists below the caprock,
effluent movement upward must not only displace fluid, but do
so with the weak buoyancy forces resulting from the associa-
tion of fresh water and formation water having a density less
than 1/3 sea water. There will be little movement up to the
base of the caprock and the rate will be slow. Even if,
injected effluent moves to beneath the caprock, the prevailing
direction of ground-water movement is horizontal, and the rate
of movement of any effluent away from the Kanaha Pond area is
expected to be rapid. This expectation is based on the esti-
mation of Peterson and Hargis (1971, p. 37), from the tests
made in the basalt aquifer at the Kahului Development Company's
injection, that the horizontal rate of ground-water movement
is about 1 foot per minute, a high rate.

Even though buoyance forces may cause the emplacement of some
effluent fluids beneath the bottom of the caprock, there will
be no increase in hydraulic pressure on the bottom of the
caprock. There is no evidence that the effluent will move
through the caprock into the sediments underneath Kanaha


In a marine water environment there is considerable co-
precipitation of the phosphate ion along with the positive
colloid ferric hydroxide in marine sediments. Contaminated
recharge to that part of the lens lying above the caprock
may also come from leaking sewer systems and from fertilizers
used on lawns and gardens in the urbanized parts of the
northern isthmus. Northwest of Kanaha Pond, Maui Electric
Company disposes its blow-down from their cooling towers
into an unlined pond on sand dunes. Much of this water may
percolate down in the permeable sands to the top of the older
sedimentary rocks. If a ground-water divide exists under the
dunes, then not all of this seepage will go to the ocean.
Any seepage moving away from the ocean will move in part
toward Kanaha Pond. There are no data to support the fate
of the blow-down waste with respect to Kanaha Pond, but any
monitoring program design for the pond area should take this
possibility into consideration.

Alternative Disposal Well Sites

Three other sites have been proposed as alternative sites
for disposal wells. All would be drilled into the Honomanu
basalts and considering their more or less general uniformity,
adequate disposal capacity and injection rates would be
found. Of the three sites, the one near Kaa, north of the air-
port would be the most satisfactory, providing the caprock is
present. As discussed earlier, there is evidence that the
caprock pinches out between Kanaha Pond and Spreckelsville.
Since the only way the sewage effluent can get into Kanaha
Pond is by its incorporation into that part of the fresh-
water lense that lies above the caprock, the fate of sewage
effluent disposal where no caprock is present or near its
terminal edge is a complex hydrologic question that would
require investigation to determine its fate in the near-
surface sedimentary rocks. Augering or some other form of
test drilling would be an easy and economical way to search
the subsurface for the presence of the caprock. Test drilling
and pumping are not recommended for the basalt aquifer as Kaa
lies in the zone of the convergence of the flow lines drawn
on the water-table contour map for the basalt aquifer (see
fig. A-2). The two sites west of Kanaha Pond, one at the
National Guard Barracks and the other at the quanset huts near
the high school cannot be recommended. They, or a major part
of their effluent plumes lie in the flow-line net that streams
directly to Kahului harbor. The caprock position under the


harbor is not known but the information presented in McCoy
(See Moberly, 1963, fig. 62) indicates that there is a pro-
bability that the caprock terminates in the harbor. Release
of nutrients inside Kahului Harbor would permit them to
become concentrated there because of the poor flushing
action available within the break-waters.


Although EPA recommends that the injection casing be seated
and cemented no higher than the first dense basalt flow
encountered below the caprock, the test well was seated
at a depth of 180 feet which is below several dense basalt
layers. Therefore, if construction of the additional injec-
tion wells is in a manner similar to the test well then the
operation of the well field will have several barriers
provided to restrict the movement of effluent upward to the
bottom of the caprock. Dense basalt layers identifiable from
the log of the test well for the interval between the caprock
and the 180-foot basalt layer serving as the foundation for
the injection casing are at 65-70 feet, 90-118 feet, and
165-175 feet. Peterson and Hargis (1971, p. 37) quote from
an unpublished report by Bowels that in the vicinity of the
Kahaluli Development Company's test wells the horizontal
permeability might be as great as ten times the vertical
permeability. This presumably refers to horizontal flow
through the clinker zones as compared to vertical flow
through joints in dense lava stratum. With such ratios of
flow rates prevailing for each dense basalt layer and the
intervening clinker zones and with a gross horizontal velocity
of one foot per minute or more within each clinker zone,
it is obvious that any effluent moving upward will be
diluted as it passes from one clinker zone to the next
through dense basalt layers.

Total nitrogen content of the sewage effluent expected is
not more than 30 ppm. Chung Dho Ahn & Associates (1971,
p. II-5) report 9.6 and 24 ppm total nitrate in analyses of
outfall sewage for Kahului and Wailuku, respectively. Dilu-
tion should reduce nitrogen concentrations to near back-ground
before any effluent reaches either the confining bottom of
the caprock or the ocean.

As the effluent moves away from the well, and down gradient
in the general direction of Kaa according to the flow lines
shown on Figure A-2, a plume of effluent will develop in
the basalt aquifer. This plume, and other mixing effects,
will be brought about by three mechanisms. First, hydrodynamic
dispersion, the process by which two miscible liquids will
interfuse when hydrologic flow causes their boundary to move,
is dependent in a large part on the effects of variable velo-
cities along flow paths in the clinker zone. This is laminar
flow and the dispersion actually results from combined effects
of convection attributable to the velocity differences and
to molecular diffusion. Molecular diffusivity of dissolved
components across an interface of two liquids is a mixing
mechanism that can go in both directions at the same time
providing the concentration gradients for two components are
in opposite directions such as chloride in formational water


and nitrates in the injected effluent. Thus, there would tend
to be mutual dilution by the two fluids. However, this is
not a rapid method of transport and probably is not a very
important solute transport factor. A third force may be very
important to the proposed injection of effluent into the
transition zone. After and during mixing of both fluids
they will be transported away from the injection site by
the forces that cause cyclic flow of sea water from the
ocean into the transition zone and back to the ocean. This
principal has been described by Cooper (1964, p. C8) who
attributes the mixing of sea water and fresh water into the
zone of diffusion (transition zone) to the mechanism that he
believes creates this zone. His thesis is that the effect of
this is the same as if some of the salt ions were extracted
from the sea water and injected into the flowing fresh water.
The diluted sea water, becomes less dense than native sea
water and rises up along a seaward path (fig. A-5). The
resulting circulation is analgous to the circulation in thermal
convection, differing only in that changes in density are
produced by changes in concentration rather than by changes
in temperature. Meanwhile, the salts that are introduced into
the fresh-water environment are carried back to the sea by the
flow of fresh-water system in the transition zone. The circu-
lation, therefore, is induced by the transfer of salt out of
the salt-water environment. The forces that effect this
transfer must be powerful enough to recreate the zone of
diffusion continuously as it is dissapated by the flow of
mixed water to the sea. Molecular diffusion is much to feeble
for this. A mechanism that appears powerful enough to cause
sufficient mixing is the reciprocative motive of the salt-
water fresh-water front resulting from ocean tides and from
the rise and fall of the water table due to variations in
recharge and other forces, including pumping. During the move-
ment of a fresh-salt-water front in either direction, the con-
vection component of dispersion causes elements of each fluid
to be transferred into the opposite environment, wherein to a
large extent they may become inseparably blended with the other
fluid by the mixing action of molecular diffusion. The impor-
tance of this mixing mechanism is related to the amplitude of
a tide-produced displacement of water which may be related to
the tidal amplitude and the distance from the shoreline. The
amplitude of the oscillation of water is attenuated as the
distance inland from the shoreline increases. Hence, the
thickness of the mixing zone decreases with distance from
shoreline. This is brought out by comparing the slopes
of the salinity profiles of the Kanaha Pond test well with


FIGURE A-5 Circulation of salt water from the sea to the zone of
diffusion and back to the sea.

Source: Cooper, H.H., Jr., 1964, A Hypothesis Concerning the Dynamic Balance of Fresh Water and Salt
Water in a Coastal Aquifer: In Sea Water in Coastal Aquifers, U. S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 1613-C, p. C1-C12.

that of the test well at the Kahalui fairgrounds (see
figure A-6). The steeper slope for the Kanaha Pond test we
indicates a much thicker transition zone than at the fair-
grounds where the salinity profile from fresh to sea water
salinity is less steep.



Assuming steady state conditions have now obtained with res-
pect to the tidal cycles and thickness of the transition zone,
the average rate at which salts are carried into the transition
zone by dispersion is balanced by the rate they are carried out
by hydraulic flow. According to Cooper (1964, p. Cll), the rate
of dispersion produced by this process would doubtless be
greater in an aquifer of cavernous limestone or basalt than
in one of laminated sand. The efficiency of this hydraulic
flow mechanism in a multiple aquifer such as is present here
with layered volcanic rocks is not known, but the mechanism
undoubtly has some effect and it may be most important.

Emergence of the sewage effluent with the natural discharge
of ground water out on the ocean floor cannot be described
in detail. It is obvious that it will be released much
diluted. Quantities of outflow of basal ground water to
the ocean have not been estimated, but quality in the imme-
diate vicinity of Kanaha Pond may be changed in quantifiable
amounts. The discharge will be of the quality of the transi-
tion zone water found under the caprock, plus modifications
by the injected effluent. Takasaki (1972, p. 35) was able
to estimate the quantities of underflow from beneath the
sugar cane area, part of which he believed to be tributary
to the transition zone of the basalt and incorporated in
the deeper part of the fresh-water lens. Part would also be
tributary to that part of the lens overlying the caprock.
Ground-water discharge sites offshore in Kahului Bay are not
known as the submarine edge of the caprock has not been
mapped. McCoy (1963, p. 98) made a survey of the beaches
at Kahului Harbor and the area eastward from the harbor to
Paia. East of the harbor, he found sand deposits at the
mean lower low-water mark greater than four feet in thickness
but reported a rocky bottom from there out to the beginning
of Spartan Reef. He does not indicate whether the rocky inter-
lude may be a window in the caprock and that the caprock also
underlies the reef or that the caprock terminates here.

Takasaki (1972, p. 35) believes that the high ground-water
levels near the coast as indicated by his water-table contour
map, are evidence that ground-water discharge to the sea
occurs some distance offshore. Although the exact discharge
zone is not known, the flow-net for the ground-water movement
(figure A-2) does indicate that effluent injected in the
Kanaha Pond area will be carried out into Kahului Bay and not
discharged into Kahului Harbor.


Kanaha Pond Hydrology

Kanaha Pond is a small saline body of water perched and con-
tained above the water table of the ground-water reservoir
in the sedimentary beds on the northern part of the Maui
isthmus. Average water level in the pond is about three feet
above sea level, and the average depth is about 1.7 feet.
Average height of the water table is about two feet above mean
sea level, thus the pond bottom depresses into the underlying
water table on an average of 0.7 foot (Fig. A-7). The bottom
is believed to be impervious or nearly so, otherwise the water
in the pond would leak out to the water-table aquifer. It
has been reported that fresh water springs have been observed
on the bottom of the pond. In order for upward leakage of
fresh water into the pond to be possible, the ground-water
reservoir in the sediments in this area must be confined.

That is, an impervious layer from the pond bottom must extend
inland and up the hydraulic gradient sufficient distance above
sea level to cause the fresh water under the pond to have a
head of three feet or more. If water table conditions exist,
water cannot flow from a body with a two-foot head into a body
of water with a three-foot head. There is no readily identi-
fiable confining bed in the logs of the test well, the State
well, or the County test well at the fairgrounds, but it is
possible the drillers could have missed a thin clay stratum.
The ground water in the sediments under the pond, if indeed
confined under the pressure of three feet or more, would
have a higher head than that reported for the ground water
in the basalt aquifer beneath the caprock. Hence, any
penetration of the caprock, when these conditions prevail,
would cause water to flow from the sediments to the basalt
aquifer. Artesian pressure above the caprock then would be
a secondary line of defense above the caprock to isolate
the pond and insulate it against transfer of any fluid to
the pond from the basalt aquifer.

Water tributary to the pond can be expected from direct
rainfall, slope wash from rain falling on the drainage basin
tributary to the pond, probably irrigation tail water, and
ground water.


Figure A-7 NE-SW Cross-Section through Center of Kanaha Pond and County Test Hole at
Kahului Fair Grounds

Ground-water, issuing from seeps and streams at or above the
pond level, has been reported and it may be supported by un-
consumed irrigation water either from direct application to
the fields or from aritificial recharge from ditches, spreading
practices, and reservoir leakage in the sugar cane area.

According to Miura (1972) rainfall at the Kahului Airport (1/2
mile from the pond) averages 18.85" annually and most of this
falls during the winter months. He also reports that median
annual potential evaporation is greater than 90" from pan
evaporation data obtained 2 miles south of the pond. Pond
salinity will vary not only seasonally but also the average
will vary from year to year. Some measurements reported and
converted to equivalent total dissolved solid units:

24	Nov '71	17,000 ppm	(Miura, 1972)

23 Nov '62	15,400 ppm	(Davis, 1962)

25	Feb '71	4,300 ppm	(Lum, 1971)

Salinity in the ground-water reservoir in the sediments beneath
the pond has been reported to be as much as 900 ppm at the
State well in February 1971 (Lum, 1971) and in the test well as
about 2,275 ppm (Montgomery, 1972, p. 3). Hence the test well
is shown to have been drilled into the transition zone above
the cap rock as well as into the transition zone below the cap-
rock (fig. A-3). The inland or upgradient interface between the
transition zone and the freshwater lens in the sediment is
shown on fig. A-3 as occurring between the test well and the
site on Kanaha Pond because all reviewed reports on the pond
insist that only freshwater underlies the pond and is tributary
to it. However, it is possible that the pond is underlain all
or in part by this transition zone. If so, the salinity dif-
ferences could result in osmotic transfer of water through the
impermeable-semipermeable pond bottom acting as a semiperme-
able membrane. Such a mechanism of hydraulic transfer has been
shown in the literature to be theoretically possible to ex-
plain many complex fresh-saline ground-water relationships.

Much intense field work would be needed to prove that this
is occurring here but because the position of the transition
zone above the cap rock is not important to the safety of
the pond from injected effluent contamination, such a study
cannot be recommended in this report.

Possible sources of nutrients to the pond other than the
injected effluent must be considered in order that false accu-
sations are not made from erroneous interpretation of monitor-
ing data. About 1/2 to 1 mile southwest of the pond 17 injec-
tion wells for storm drainage are operated. In addition to
the wells two disposal pits about 100 feet in diameter and 20


feet deep are used in Kahului (Peterson and Hargis, 1971,
p. 13). All subsurface disposal of storm water in this area
southwest of Kanaha Pond is into the sedimentary beds overlying
the caprock. This recharge carries nitrates into that part
of the lens that flows toward the Kanaha Pond area. Concen-
trations of nitrates ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 ppm were found
in one well (Peterson and Hargis, 1971, p. 15). In the same
area are four industrial waste disposal wells but as these
are all using that part of the lens lying below the caprock,
i.e. the basalt aquifer, this waste will not be tributary to
Kanaha Pond. Artificial recharge in the sugar cane areas
south of Kanaha Pond can contribute much water carrying
nitrates and phosphates to the sedimentary rocks overlying
the caprock. Nitrate has been widely used in Hawaii to
indicate the presence of return irrigation water in the
subsurface (Peterson and Hargis, 1971, p. 38) and nitrates
are expected to persist in the ground-water areas here that
receive recharge from unconsumed irrigation waters. Phos-
phorous enrichment of ground-water bodies in Hawaii by per-
colating irrigation water has not been demonstrated as it
is probably sorbed and fixed by most Hawaiian soils (Peter-
son and Hargis, 1971, p. 38). Phosphate can be removed
by forming the mineral apatite with calcium which is readily
available from the type of feldspar that is an essential
constituent of basalt. Also phosphate can be removed rapidly
by absorption of metal oxides, especially ferric hydroxide,
which is a major factor in preventing concentrations of greater
than a few tenths or hundredths of a ppm of phosphate from
being present in solution in most waters (Hem, 1970, p. 185).



1.	Chung Dho Ahn and Associates, 1971, Study of wastewater
treatment and disposal for Wailuku-Kahului: Consulting
Engineering Report for the County of Maui.

2.	Cooper, H. H., Jr., 1964, A hypothesis concerning the
dynamic balance of fresh water and salt water in a coastal
aquifer: In sea water in coastal aquifers, U.S. Geol.
Survey Water Supply Paper 1613-C, p. C1-C12.

3.	Gelhar, L. W., Wilson, J. L., Miller, J. S., and Hamrick,
J. M., 1972, Density induced mixing in confined aquifers:
U.S. EPA Water Pollution Control Research Series project
report 16060 ELJ 03/72

4.	Hargis, D. R. and Peterson, F. W., 1970, Artificial
recharge practices in Hawaii: Water Resources Research
Center Tech. Report No. 43, University of Hawaii.

5.	Hawaii Water Authority, 1959, Water resources in Hawaii:
Hawaii Water Authority, Territory of Hawaii.

6.	Heizer, J. M., 1936, Log of diamond drill hole No. 1 and
salt determinations, Kahului fairgrounds, May 7-10, 1936:
Report in "open files" of Div. Water and Land Develop.,
Department of Land and National Resources, State of

7.	Hem, J. D., 1970, Study and interpretation of chemical
characteristics of natural water (second edition): U.S.
Geol. Survey, Water Supply Paper 1473.

8.	Kleinecke, David, 1971, Mathematical modeling of fresh-
water aquifers having salt-water bottoms: General
Electric Co. - TEMPO Center for Advanced Studies, Santa
Barbara, California, Report No. 71TMP-47.

9.	Kumar, Anil and Kimbler, 0. K., 1970, Effect of dispersion,
gravitational segregation, and formation stratification on
the recovery of fresh-water stored in saline aquifers:

Water Resources Research, Vol. 6, No. 6, p. 1689-1700.

10.	Lau, L. S., 1967, Seawater enroachment in Hawaiian Ghyben-
Herzberg systems: In proc. Symp. on Groundwater Hydrology,
San Francisco, California, Nov. 6, 7, and 8, 1967, Proc.
Series No. 4, Am. Water Res. Association.

11.	Lum, Daniel, 1971, Kanaha Pond Well, Maui, Pump test
results, February 25, 1971: Memorandum for the Record,
March 3, 1971

12.	McCoy, F. W., Jr., 1963, Detailed beach analysis - Maui:
In Coastal Geol. of Hawaii, Ralph Moberly, Jr., and others
Hawaii's Shoreline, Appendix I, Hawaii Inst, of Geophysics
Report, No. 41, University of Hawaii, P. 98-107.

13.	Miura, M. T., 1972, Kanaha Pond basline study: Memorandum
report to Howard Nakamura and others dated February 14,

14.	Montgomery, J. M., Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1972,

Results of a pilot test on an injection well for the
Wailuku-Kahului wastewater reclamation facilities:

James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., Pasadena,
California, Report WPC-Hawaii-45.

15.	Peterson, F. W., 1972, Water development on tropic volcanic
islands - type example: Hawaii: Ground water, V. 10,

No. 5, p. 18-23.

16.	Peterson, L. L. and Hargis, D. R., 1971, Effect of
storm runoff disposal and other artificial recharge to
Hawaiian Ghyben-Herzbert aquifers: Water Resources
Center Tech. Report No. 54, University of Hawaii.

17.	Stearns, H. T. and MacDonald, G. A., 1942, Geology and
ground water resources of the island of Maui, Hawaii:
Div. of Hydrography Bull. 7, Terr, of Hawaii.

18.	Takasaki, K. J., 1972, Preliminary report on the water
resources of central Maui: Div. of Water and Land Develop.
Circ C62, State of Hawaii.

19.	Tenorio, P. A., Young, R. H. F., and Whitehead, H. C.,
1969, Identification of return irrigation water in the
subsurface: water quality: Water Resources Research
Center Tech. Report No. 33, University of Hawaii.

20.	Watson, L. J., 1964, Development of ground water in
Hawaii: ASCE, Jour. Hydraul. Div. p. 185-202




In the Matter of:



Kahului Library,

Kahului, Maui, Hawaii.

Friday, February 23, 1973.

Pursuant to notice, the above-entitled matter came on for
hearing at 1:05 o'clock p.m.,


CASSANDRA DUNN, Esq., Hearings Officer.


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





George A. Milme


Mae Mull


John Cook


Colin Lennox


William Darrah


Dorothy Pyle


Toshi Enomoto


Albert Janion


David C.K. Enomoto


Gloria Foster


William Neilson


Keichi Kobayashi


K. C. Seebrick


Maurice Taylor


Robert Bruce


Alvin T. Amaral


Joseph Franco


Richard Marland


Norman Hondo


Walter Quisenberry


William Thompson


Howard Nakamura


Frank J. Doyle


Stanley S. Goshi


M. Dean Parsons


Doak C. Case


Manuel S. Molina


Howard A. Powers


William P. Mull


Robert Bruce


John Bose II


Russ Cahill


William Martin


W. M. Eller


Winston S. Miyahira


Joseph Kealoha


James M. Sconyers


Charles 0. Iwata


John M. Fernandez


Ken N. Kato


Allen W. Barr


J ohn I. Hanchett


Portland. Oreoon-Honolulu Hawaii




Gerald Machida


Leslie Skillings


Norman Saito


Gene H. Grounds


James Brock


Noboru Koito


Edwin T. Silva


Ronald Lau


Hannibal Tavares


Drew Hartnett


Pat Esclito


Peggy Hai Ross


Ed Kaahui


Frederick D. Ross


Frank Tamaye


Tony Hodges


Mac Harlan


John Fernandez




Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentle-
men, may I have your attention please? I there's anyone in
the room who has not filled in a registration card, would you
please do so, because we want to keep it as a record, and make
it a part of the record.

My name is Cassandra Dunn and I am the Regional Legal
Counsel for the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, and will be conducting the hearing.

I want to advise you of the ground rules of this hearing,
so you will know what to expect and what you can and cannot do,
so that the hearing can be run orderly, and so that we can ask
for your cooperation, and so that everybody can be heard.

I apologize for a slight cold that I caught in Honolulu,
but I will do the best I can and if you will listen, I think
that we won't have any problems„

The hearing here today is to receive comments and informa-
tion from the public regarding the proposed waste water treat-
ment and disposal system for the Wailuku and Kahului area, con-
sisting of a sewage treatment plant and equalizing storage pond
injection disposal wells and the pump stations and force mains
at Kahului, Maui, Hawaii.

The notice of this public hearing was published in local
newspapers and a copy of the publication will be made a part of
the hearing record„

For the record, it's approximately 1:07 p.m. in the after-
noon of February 23rd, 1973 and we are located in the Library
in Kahului, Maui, Hawaii.

There will be an additional session this afternoon — or
I should say, this evening, at 7:00 p.m., in the Baldwin Audi-
torium and there will not be an additional session here at
7:00 p.m. It will be moved to the Baldwin Auditorium.

This is not a rule-making proceeding, nor is it an adver-
sary type proceeding; and therefore, the Federal Administrative
Procedures Act does not apply. Everyone will be heard, no mat-
ter how long it takes this afternoon and tonight. I will stay
until everyone has what he has to say go on the record.

We generally handle these hearings on the following basis,
as far as testimony is concerned from those who wish to make

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



statements. We hear all statements from representatives of the
State, Interstate, Municipalities, and other agencies connected
with the State, City, County, et cetera. Then we hear state-
ments coming ฃrom Federal Agency representatives, including
members of Congress and Senate.

Then we hear statements from the various industries that
may be affected and statements from the environmental, civic
and similar type groups and members of the public. However,
the Hearings Officer does reserve the right to deviate from
this schedule if someone has a problem, you feel that you need
a specific time to give your statement, to make your comments,
then, if you will let us know, we will try to deviate from that
pattern and give you the chance to say What you have to say
regarding this project, which is the subject of the public hear
ing today.

An official record is being made. There will be statement
which will be received later. There have been some statements
that have been received already, and, of course, there is a
record made of any oral statement that will be made today and
this evening.

The official record will be reproduced. We do have a
Court Reporter here, taking the statements verbatim. If you
want a copy of the official record personally, then you should
make your own private arrangements with the Court Reporter, Mr.

All the written statements that have been received will be
received today and will be received within 7 days from today,
will be made a part of the record, but it will be reproduced
in black and White only, so if you submit a record or a copy
of your statement that cannot be reproduced in black and white,
then you have got a problem and so have we, so make sure that
your statements can be reproduced in black and white.

A copy of the official record will be made available for
public examination and a copy will be placed in the Library —
excuse me, not in the Library, but at 1000 Bishop Street, Suite
601, in the EPA Offices in Honolulu. We will place a second
copy in the Library here in Kahului. But this will be only
after the Court Reporter has had a chance to transcribe the
proceedings. It will probably be within oh, about 3 weeks to
4 weeks, because we will hold the record open for a period of
7 days from today.

Officially, the record will be held open until Friday,

March 2nd. Any statements that you wish to submit for inclusiojn

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii



in the record should be postmarked no later than March 2nd,
Friday, 1973, and you may either mail your statements to 1000
Bishop Street, Suite 601, EPA Offices, or you may mail them to
EPA 100 California Street, in San Francisco.

The record that is made of the public hearing today will
be studied and evaluated to determine the necessity for an im-
pact statement.

The Hearings Officer reserves the right to ask questions
of anybody who is going to give testimony here today. However,
I will be the only one who can ask questions and it will not be
for cross-examination purposes, it will be solely to add to
the information or ask for clarification. I have the right to
limit the presentations to the issues at hand, to limit any or
all presentation, if it isn't pertinent to the issue, and to
strike or prohibit redundant or corroborative information, and, |
if you do have redundant or corroborative information somebody j
else has testified to, we ask that you submit it for the record
in writing rather than taking the time orally.

There will be no member of the public or in the spectator
section who will be permitted to ask any questions and there
will be no interruptions from the floor; and, as I said before,
everybody will have a chance to make their statement as long as
it's relevant to the issues, and I ask your cooperation.

Mr. George A. Milme of ADS, Inc., has requested that we
deviate from our process and that he be allowed to give his
statement first, because he has to catch a plane later in the
afternoon. Mr. Milme?


MR. MILME: Madam Chairman Dunn, ladies and gentlemen,
Aloha. I knew some of your here and most of them, I don't.
However, I have a testimony here by ADS, Inc., for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency for this public hearing, and it seems
to us that we are once again struggling with the classic case,
the need to protect our environment, as opposed to meeting a
human vital problem, the proper disposal of waste.

Regarding the proposed pure activated sludge system, using
rapid sand filters with a 5-acre plastic reservoir, shall we
say, for emergency cases, at only a 4-foot water table, once it
is filled up, either with rain or sewage, Vhat is to become of
it? Where does it go? I don't know. They have probably made
arrangements for that; but regarding the proposed pure acti-
vated sludge system, it is our contention that it will not be


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





adequate, both in terns of socage disposal and environmentally,
not to mention economics.

This system was patented in England in 1913. It is used
in Hew York, Chicago, has failed in a Hiperian sewage plant and
Los Angeles, and for one thing, this proposed system is one of
the trickiest to operate — it depends on a good operator; and
it requires considerable land. It produces an unwelcome oder
and it offers a very slight reduction of only — a BOD reduc-
tion of only — oh, sometimes 20 to 25%, and the dried sludge
has to be hauled off as land fill.

At the present time, it is employed, as far as we have

been able to determine in large urban centers, presumably 	


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Excuse me, I do hate to interrupt
you, but it's my understanding of the hearing today, that the
subject is with regards to the location.

MR. MILME: The location?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: That's correct, and whether or not
the Environmental Protection Agency should file an impact stati
raent. We were asking for information with regard to these two
subjects; and the point of this hearing today is to gather in-
formation to determine Whether or not we should, in fact, file
an impact statement. On that, do you have information?

MR. MILME: Yes, on the 120 acres that was originally
planned, we had a 12-foot water table there and there was some
discussion about a salt water or some type of infiltration —
we don't know the PH of it — that has to be examined, but this
system of ours can go underground, entirely, and there is no
odor and no stench to it, or anything else. It's a new system.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Hell, this is something that you
place in your bids when you submit your bid, if you were going
to bid on it, but this hearing is not for purposes of your ad-
vertising your product.

MR. MILME: I understand that.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: This is strictly with regard to th|s
location of the sewage treatment or sewage disposal system and,
if you have any information with regard to Whether we should or
should not prepare an impact statement; and What you have said
so far doesn't indicate to me that the information that you are
offering is for that purpose.

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





MR. MILME: Well, perhaps my PR man was wrong When he wrot
this up for me. He was supposed to be here to present It and
not me. However, I wanted to say that we believe, from John
Buse — if John Bese is here, that we will offer — would like
to offer that original 120 acres that we can take care of —
that has a 12-foot surface water table rather than the 4-foot
water table, and it will not be harmful for the birds and it
will be odor free.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Well, new, are you telling us that
you are offering some other land elsewhere?

MR. MILME: There originally was some land offered of 120
acres by the Quonset huts, originally.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is this your land, sir? Is this
your particular land? Do you own the land you are talking

MR. MILME: No, I don't have anything to do with the land
at all; but I Just say that it would be easier to put the sys-
tem there rather than the one that they have recommended to put
out here on the pond.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: All right. Is this your opinion,
sir? Are you expressing this as your opinion?

MR. MIU!E: This is not only my opinion, this is any of
our opinions. Mr. William Buck Lum, who is the owner of the
Marine Drilling Company, has been drilling wells around these
Islands for the last 35 years, probably knows more secrets
about What's underneath the ground than anybody else, and he
and I, both agree, that it is — that it should be at the ori-
ginal place rather than at the pond. I don't want to be out of
line, and I don't want to be — I have this written up for you,
and if it's out of order, why, I don't know what to do.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Well, I don't mean to rule you out
of order, sir. I just have to stick to the rules with regard
to what can and cannot be said.


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: We have the issues here before us,
and if we go off into left field, then I could be sitting here
until this time next week, you understand. I will be glad to
take your statement.

MR. MILME: All right.

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And if you feel that you would
like to have it submitted for the record, I will be glad to
read it, and if you like, I can read it during the recess and
go over those portions that nay be pertinent, those portions
that nay not be pertinent.

MR. MILNE: All right. Perhaps that's the best thing to


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And the record will note your opin-
ion, that you feel that the other location is better than the
present proposed location.

MR. MILME: Yes. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Mi line, I would like to say
thank you for caning and making the effort to give us the in-
formation. If you do have any information with regard to an
alternate location for this proposed sewage treatment plant,
may we suggest that you contact the County and give them your
proposal, tell them What your proposal is and What your alter-
nate location is, okay?


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mrs. Mae Mull, Secretary of the
Hawaii Audubon Society. You may proceed.


MRS. MULL: My name is Mae Mull; I am Secretary of the
Hawaii Audubon Society.

The Hawaii Audubon Society works toward the goal of better
protection of native wildlife in Hawaii. He have few victories
to point to with pride. The birds are losing out as their liv-
ing places are bulldozed, polluted, degraded, oar filled in.

Is it a better world for people in Hawaii, when Hawaii's
native wildlife disappears? Some people think we shouldn't
care about birds, as the caring about Hawaiian birds is some
kind of a luxury. That means you don't care about people. On
the contrary, those of us who are in conservation work, care a
great deal about people. We want our children and grandchildren
to have a good life in Hawaii. We want the human race to sur-
vive. We want people to have decent living places with clean
air and pure water; but the quality of human life depends on hoir

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





we use our natural enviraiment.

We cannot destroy the natural world and fool ourselves tha
this Is progress for people. Human beings, too, are a part of
nature and we cannot ignore the laws of nature without great
harm to ourselves.

The decline of Hawaii's birds and the loss of native eco-
systems, is the barometer of what man is doing to the environ-
ment, that we have to live in, too.

We all agree that a solution roust be found to the sewage
problem, but is the only solution, putting the treatment plant
between Kanaha Pond and the ocean? Is pumping the waste water
under Kanaha Pond the only way to dispose of the effluent?

A long time ago, in 1952, before any environmentalists
were around, Maui people and territorial people, recognized tha|t
Kanaha Pond was something special, and should be saved as a
refuge for Hawaiian water birds and the migratory birds that
spend 8 or 9 months of the year at Kanaha. A long time ago,

Maui people sought and planned for a public park across from
the Pond. It was such a beautiful beach and there was lots of
room for recreation and picnicking.

We believe that those were good plans for people — good
plans for birds and good plans for people to enjoy birds. The
State then made plans for a public park and bird sanctuary.
The Legislature appropriated $100,000 for that. Shouldn't thes
promises be kept? Is it wrong to want what was promised?

We urgently request the planners to find a better site for
the sewage plant and a better way to reclaim the waste water.

The Audubon Society in Hawaii was started in 1939 by peo-
ple who saw a crisis at hand. Native birds like the Hawaiian
Stilt, Hawaiian Coot, Hawaiian Duck and migratory ducks and
plovers, like the Kolea Bird, were being over-hunted, and any
numbers of birds were seriously declining. Audubon members
worked hard to stop the shooting, so those birds could continue
to exist in Hawaii. Thfcn, in the 1950's and 1960's, huge de-
velopment projects began to take over wetland areas and water
birds lost huge chunks of habitat on Oahu. Today, right now
this minute, there are hundreds of stilts, coots, herons, migra
tory ducks, plovers, living at Kanaha Pond. You could all go
out there and enjoy them, as we did this morning. This is one
of the few places left Where stilts and coots can nest and
raise their young.


Portlano. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





It is essential to protect Kanaha Pond as a permanent
sanctuary if Hawaii's endangered water birds are to survive as
viable species.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Mull.

MRS. MULL: I would like to give you the copies of some
Government publications, if you have not seen these — "Hawaii'|s
Endangered Wildlife", put out by the U. S. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries & Wildlife and the State Division of Fish and Game;
and these are available at those offices in Hawaii — in Hono-
lulu and in Maui. Also, this book that describes the status
of native water birds — Hawaii's endangered water birds, and
it describes the importance of Kanaha Pond, not only to Maui,
but to the State and to the Nation.

hearings OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mrs. Mull.

(Witness excused)



MR. COOK: Thank you. My name is John Cook. I am the
Associate Director for Management, Western Region, the National
Park Service. I am here today in an official capacity to speak
for the National Park Service and I certainly hope I don't come
across as another Mainland bureaucrat that has come to the
Islands to tell the fine people of Hawaii what to do or What no
to do.

Our Agency has a responsibility with regard to Kanaha Pond
It's probably a legitimate question — in fact, it is, to ask
Why am I here today and to What do I address myself with regard
to this proposed project? Kanaha Pond is a national, natural
landmark, and is so registered. I won't read the statement I
have prepared here — it's ready for the record. I will merely
highlight it and give you a bit of the rationale why we strongl
urge that an environmental impact statement be prepared with
regard to the project.

There are, as you have heard and will hear later on, rare
and endangered species involved in the Kanaha Pond area. It is
our sincere desire that an impact statement address itself to
all of the alternatives and to the total impact of the proposed
project, giving total disclosure of What these would be and
with that, the decision can rationally be made within the con-
fines of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





The Kanaha Pond is important and is of national signifi-
cance; therefore, its importance is not only to the people of
Hawaii, but the University of Hawaii did an evaluation in 1969,
Which determined it was, indeed, unique and therefore it had
value to all the peoples of the United States.

It's for those reasons that we urge that a full environ-
mental impact statement be prepared, complete disclosure of all
the alternatives, and to that, we will of course respond accord

Thank you very much.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUHN: You have previously submitted
copies of your statement to us, is that correct?

MR. COOK: Yes, I have, to the young lady at the door.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Cook.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Lennox — Mr. Colin Lennox?


MR. LENNOX: Mrs. Dunn, Hearings Officer, and members of
the Environmental Protection Agency concerned with this hearing
I would like to give a statement aimed primarily at the Hawaiiah
Stilt and its relationship to possible extinction. I have long
been associated with this problem, front the year 1943 to '53,
I was the Cabinet Officer in the Governor's Cabinet of the
Territory of Hawaii, concerned with the protection administra-
tion of fish and wildlife. After the war, and we started re-
constructing, the first thing to do was to knew more about our
wildlife and its relationship with its environment.

It had never been done in an overall scale and we employed
through the help of Aldo Leopold, whom conservationists know as
one of the early founders of conservation in the United States,
and employed on a contract, Mr. Charles Schwartz and his wife,
both biologists — wildlife biologists. In 18 months of field
study, they came forth with the most definitive study and com-
pilation on the game birds of Hawaii, of which, at that time,
the stilt was one.

Now, this is over 25 years ago, and this is the opening
statement on the Hawaiian Stilt. It is a wonder that the
Hawaiian Stilt still exists. Further along — I will just quot


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





a few places — "these ponds" — and it relates to the Kanaha
among them — "should be closed to all trespass and protected
from drainage and pollution". Finally, the last paragraph:
"The stilt is an endemic Hawaiian species that is greatly en-
dangered but still has enough numbers and remnants of habitat,
to be safe from extinction. The danger lies in the lethargy of
thought and action, but there is still time."

He also covered the Nene Goose at that time. We took
immediate action on the Nene Goose. That was easy. We could
rear that in captivity and build up numbers for release.

We took almost immediate action, too, on the Kanaha Pond*
I worked out with Mr. F.F. Baldwin, an arrangement to turn
that over — it was under HC&S Company ownership at that time,
as a wildlife refuge, under the protection and general manage-
ment of the Fish and Wildlife Service. So the interest in this
pond is not dating from today or last week or 5 years ago,
which, by the way, is the anniversary of a special event that
we held on February 1st — I happened to be the moderator,
wherein the County offices, represented by the Mayor, the
Governor's office, represented by the Land Office, and other
dignitaries, gathered with the nature conservancy in the Hui
Manu o Maui, to rededicate this pond as a Hawaiian Stilt refuge
It has also been called a national monument, as was told to you
by the Nat iana1 Park.

I'm retired, now. 1 have had a lifetime of work in this
field and am still very much concerned with conservation. The
first knowledge I had of this sewage treatment plant was a
Maui news article on December 7th, 1971. I must confess, I was
away and had been out of the State for sane months, and had
only returned a few months before. On learning this, I joined
a study group, of retired men, closely relating to the fields
that affect this pond, in geology and hydrology; and we have
spent, since February of last year, a considerable time — so
much time, that the other day, 1 decided I would take a look
and try to make out how much it was. I keep a log of my daily
activities. I have for years. I find 36 days entered in that,
that 1 spent more than an hour on this pond problem and more
than 100 hours altogether.

Now, in today's talk, we have gathered tremendous amounts
of information on not only monitoring what has been done in the
testing wells, but also on the habitat of the stilt and the
factors concerned, its quality as a habitat. And I have under-
taken the proposition of giving a little background on why this
is such an important bird. It's a native bird of Hawaii. It's
of a form of the Black Necked Stilt, which is widely distribute


Portland. Oregon- Honolulu Hawaii





over the United States Mainland. Actually, the stilt of that
sort occurs also exactly as far away from Hawaii as you can get.
In 1971, I photographed a very close resemblance to one of ours
in Zulu Land, of South Africa, on the marsh there.

This is endemic to Hawaii as a sub-species. As I say, it
closely relates to the one on the Mainland, but for anatomical
— minor anatomical references, as determined in the 1880*s,
when a specimen was sent on to Smithsonian, Mr. Stigner deter-
mined it as an additional species, but of a sub-nature to the
Species Himantopus.

Other factors that make this a different species is the
loss of its migratory habit, its fear of predators. It existed
here long before the first man came. It was held sacred by the
Hawaiians, and in its position, it has more claim to a heritage
in Hawaii than man himself.

The populations of this bird, before Captain Cook, must
have been in the untold thousands, because around the Coast, of
particularly Kauai, Oahu and Maui, and on the North Kona areas
of Hawaii, there were many brackish coastal marshes, providing
habitat and food conditions suitable for a large population.
The introduction of the first predators, particularly the mon-
goose and cat, caused a reduction in the nesting areas, and
they had to move back from the edges of the marshes into high
points in the marshes, where they were more successful in their

Then later in that 19th Century, man came in as a water-
fowl hunter, with his shotgun, and it was on the list of ap-
proved game birds, up until 1941, long after ducks and plover
had been taken off of that list.

The populations in 1944 were estimated at 200 by George
Munro. This is for the Territory. I doubt very much if it
ever got that lew. However, when the Schwartzes made the study
in 1947, which was a very detailed one in all areas of the
Islands, they came up with an estimate of 1,000. Today, it
ranges between 1200 and 1500. The census given on Maui as of
June 29th, '72, was 475, plus or minus.

New, what do these birds need as a habitat to secure their
existence? They need shallow ponds fed by springs of fresh
water or brackish water, such as the Kanaha, such as the Mana
area on Kauai — they occupied sane thousands of acres, and hav
now, since 1920, been in sugar cane. That habitat is gone.
The Kuapa Pond in Oahu — now, Hawaii Kai Village — or Land
Development — and so it goes.

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



Then there are other habitats that they use, which are not
secure habitats. These, as I refer to as "secure" or being
furnished by the basil ground water that occurs under all of
the — each one of our volcanic islands, where it breaks to the
surface near the shore, bulrushes form, mud flats, and the
ideal conditions, with which we find the stilt.

The "insecure" habitats are the shallow ponds that are
filled after the winter rains, where water may stand as long
as 6 months. Sometimes they find nesting there; always, they
find some feeding. There are also the plantation reservoirs,
Which, as they become mud-filled, get shallow enough for them
to feed in; and there are coastal lava pools. I have seen thes
birds in fair numbers on the lao , in such pools, on Barbers
Point, and the point in the center of the huge capillary forest
there is an area that fills up after floods, and 1 have seen
20 and 30 and 50 in a flock. Lihue , the other day, 1 saw a
reservoir being emptied of its mud up until a few weeks ago,
was a habitat for a few birds. The Kealia Pond on this Island
was — is an ideal habitat when it has water on it and right
now, because of the expenditure of money from Federal grants,
there is work going on there in the raising of catfish and
prawns, and there is a spillage over of water that is keeping
a film of water on a good part of that pond and the birds sure
actually nesting on some of the banks; but should the pumping
stop — should that operation come to an end as uneconomic, it
will revert back to What it was all the years in the past. In
dry weather, it becomes a hardened mud flat; actually, before
the War, I mean, before aviation got well started here, and we
had airports, it was quite a common thing to land small planes
on it.

Now, their food chain — we say that these birds have to
have certain types of food, and they do. They have evolved
under certain feed that occurred here in Hawaii. They can make
adjustments, but not the kind of adjustments that a species
that has evolved under a much wider range. The dragon fly larvk
was considered one of the major ones. This has greatly diminished
through a parasite that has gotten in here that has cut down
the population of dragon flies. When I was a boy, the dragon
flies were everywhere. Today, we rarely see them. Small fish,
water snails, seeds and roots of plants are quoted by Monro.
However, in the more detailed types of work that we are doing
under our present knowledge of biology, where the intestinal
tracts can be examined, where the snails can be identified as
to their species, that has not been possible since this science
has developed to its present understanding, because this is a
protected bird, and there is one way of finding out what they
are eating, and that is to shoot and kill them, and we can't do


Portland, Oreqon - Honolulu Hawaii





that any more, so it has remained — there is a paucity of knew
ledge, exacting knowledge, on exactly what these birds are feed
ing on.

Nov, to come to What this may do to the sewage — if the
sewage treatment plant and injection wells, as planned, is put
into this habitat. The geological and hydrologic evidence at
hand, give more than a 50-50 chance that when 3 to 5 million
gallons of water per day — of treated water, is pumped into
the injection wells, that some of it will mix with the ground
water entering the springs, which have been feeding the Pond
for hundreds of years. This water, although clarified and
treated to the point where it is safe for irrigation and swim-
ming in, is loaded with the nutrients of such, particularly,
phosphates and nitrates, which, in time, will promote a growth
of alg&e, that the foods Which the stilt depends on will be
eliminated. This will not be something that will occur in one
year, 5 years, maybe even 10 years, but it will be the natural
process. Such a condition would be ripe or also be right for
a sudden drop in oxygen in very hot weather — hot and still
weather, and an outbreak of botulism could occur.

The resident population could be wiped out in two days, if
such occurred.

The entire plant complex, with all of the activity asso-
ciated with it, would very adversely affect the feeding and
nesting of the birds. It should never be here.

Now, this hearing — by the way, I have a copy of this
outline, with its reference to go to the record, and I also hav
a copy of the Schwartz publication, coming from AUK , on their
feeding. I have a copy of the Kanaha Pond, Hawaiian Stilt,

Which was prepared at the time it was rededicated as a stilt by
the nature conservancy in the Bui Mano and 1 have a copy here
of the Hawaiian Endangered Water Birds, published by the 0. S.
Bureau of Fisheries & Wildlife, U. S. Department of the Interiojr
Portland, Oregon, all of which I would like to leave for the
file, but before closing, I would like to bring a few points
to your attention.

First of all, you are entering Central Maui, with its bio-
sphere, which means the living objects in this area — living
animals, two of whom are quite concerned about this problem.
One is the stilt, naturally, and it has a very definite claim
on a right in this environment. It has also reached the stage
of an endangered species about where we have the Nene, at the
time when we started the Nene project; and I have heazd by hear-
say, that the stilt is quite concerned about this, in fact, if

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



you can, sane dark night, about 2002 hours, be at the Pond, you
will see a sudden rising — this is the hearsay — you will see
a sudden rising of the stilt, silently forming a dense forma-
tion and flying backwards in a protest flight. That's all they
can say about it. However, man has a very definite need for
sewage treatment, and he is vocal. There are two vocal groups
— I'm one, but the other group is in strong opposition of one
of the two major sites that were recommended by the Austin Re-
port, for which the County paid a very handsome sum; and it's
a very complete report.

One site was the so-called "Quonset Hut" site. Here, most
of the sewage flows to — from the populated areas of Wailuku
and Kahului by gravity. It is back far enough so that it is
beyond the tidal wave line of any prior tidal waves. It offers
an opportunity to utilize the treated water on a vast area of
sand hills where water, laced with nutrients, such as phosphates
and nitrates, would be of infinite value in making a — in esta-
blishing a suitable vegetation. Also, if it has to be injected
into the earth, to get rid of, into the lavas below, it is not
in an area where waters that may come up from it, filled with
these types of nutrients, would bother — no water is taken froht
that area now that affects existing conditions; and also, there
is an outfall already in, in the region of presently, the Wailuku
sewage. Which was water of this quality and it's this quality
water that is being put into the Willamette River and other
places on the Mainland and people are enjoying swimming in ther|e
as they weren't able to do before these treatment plants went
in. Those are the factors that seem so important to the value
of the Quonset area as against the Kanaha.

But why is there this public outcry? It's certainly not
because it's the building. The plant structure is a beautiful
thing. In fact, it could be easily taken for a lush country
club, if you have seen the plan. No, in my opinion, it's fear.
It's fear on the part of people that their County of Maui and
the engineers they employ, cannot build the kind of plant that
is being built in many parts of the world and operated so that
it will be free of foul odors.

Now, this fear is quite a natural one, because we have
some horrible examples. We have the example of the plant at
Kaneohe, using the Kaneohe — taking care of the Kaneohe sewage
We have another cone taking care of the Kailua sewage. Getting
to the leeward of those, under almost any conditions, is an
unpleasant experience. And naturally, a sewage treatment plant
carries that label.

Now, it has been said that the reason we can go to Kanaha


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





Pond, is that it will be far enough away; that the one at the
Quonsets is right close to an area inhere there is a heavy human
usage. Actually, if you will take the USGS Wailuku Quadrant —
the USGS map of the Wailuku Quadrant, and measure to the Baldwin
High School, which is the area closest to the Quonset Hut area,
downward — to the leeward that is, of the tradewinds, which
blow about 90% of the time, it is 3,500 feet to Baldwin High
School. If you go to the area where it's proposed in the Kanaha
Pond, it's 3,500 feet to the Maui Mall, which is also heavily
used by people. If you go to the area Where there are residences,
from Quonset Hut area, it's 4,000 to the Sand Hills.

Now, if this stink pollution is the real factor that we
are concerned with, then there is another site that you can go
to — one that was proposed last summer. This third site is in
the Uoxious industrial area near Kanaha Point. Then, the dis-
tance would be — this is a noxious industrial area now. It
has a cement mixing plant, it has other heavy industry, and it's
isolated and it's far enough away fcom the Pond so that injec-
tion waters would not possibly back up. The distance then to
the Maui Mall would be 7,500 feet; to the Kaholui industrial
area, the other closest downwind developed area is 6,000.

Now, I belong to the other group that feels that it is
most essential to protect the Kanaha Pond as a bird refuge,
particularly for not only the Hawaiian Stilt, Which is very
close ~ will not see us through many more generations if it
is not protected — and we can't raise it in captivity, on any
big scale, that is — that a clean smelling plant can be built
and the advantages of the Quonset area would then prevail.

Such plants are being built in tourist areas in the West
Indies now and many U. S. cities. I am speaking for the conser-
vation, not only of the Kanaha Pond and its birds, but for the
conservation of the water that could be saved from this vast
treatment plant.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Did I understand you correctly, Mr.
Lennox, when you said that your fear was that part of the ef-
fluent that came from this treatment plant would get into the
Kanaha Pond? Is this your fear?

MR. LENNOX: Yes, I am just passing over that quite quickly,
because me member of this Committee that spent so much time on
it, who is a geologist-hydrologist, will be spinning a clarified
picture of why that occurs — why we say that.


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You say that he is going to give

MR. LENNOX: Yes, Dr. Powers.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUHN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Lennox.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Darrah — Mr. William Darrah?


MR. DARRAH: Mrs. Duma, Mr. DoFalco, Mr. Seeley, Aloha.
My name is William Darrah. I asa here as a representative of
the National Wildlife Federation of Washington, D.C. I have
also been here for about two years.

For the record, the Federation is advocating the prepara-
tion of an environmental impact statement on the subject pro-
ject; also, we wish to go on the record in opposition to the
proposed site, in favor of an alternative site, in this case
described by the County as "Site A".

The primary concern of the National Wildlife Federation
is that the integrity of Kanaha Pond not be interfered with by
the introduction of effluent from the advanced sewage and treat-
ment plant into the pond proper. Based upon information pre-
sented to us, to the State, we believe that there is such a
substantial likelihood that such infiltration will occur, that
we are now urging that additional testing occur. In this re-
gard, we make the following comments:

Our general comments are — first, we do not oppose in-
jection, per se, as a method of disposal. In fact, given the
proper assurances that the disposal aquifer is neither contin-
uous with the potable water aquifer or an aquifer supplying the
springs which feed Kanaha Pond, we support this disposal method
and would not object to its use at an alternative site. How-
ever, injection of large quantities of waste water into lava
rock, does not have a history of success in Hawaii. Information
as to the ultimate path of the injected water is lacking. Ac-
cordingly, we believe that acme degree of caution is warranted.

Incidentally, I have a number of sites which intersperse
this presentations They are in the prepared copy, which I will
give to you.

We recognize that a municipal waste disposal into substrata

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





limestone is an accepted practice in Hawaii. Specifically, we
acknowledge that the State Department of Land & Natural Resources
has operated and monitored a 300-foot limestone seated injection
well for the past 5 years in Waimanalo, Oahu. Much of the in-
formation that has been gained from the tests carried on at
that site pertain directly to the instant project and for EPA's
convenience, we attach a copy of the preliminary report, which
was prepared on the Waimanalo project here, too.

As specifically relates to the proposed site and project,
we make the following comments: Assuming arguendo, that one
test bore and one pilot test injection is a sufficient basis
upon Which to make a reasoned judgment, as to where the effluenjb
will disperse, it is the position of the Federation, that the
pilot test which was performed, was not adequate. We urge that
at least one additional test be performed; and that for that
test to be deemed adequate, the following occur:

1.	Effluent of a temperature and density similar to that
of treated effluent be injected. The pilot test utilize sea

2.	A maximum injection rate of 10,000 gallons per minute
be achieved and maintained. While the test specifications for
the test call for this rate, the actual maximum achieved was
only about 6,500 gallons per minute, and that for only a limited

3.	A radioisotopic tracing substance be introduced into
the test injection for the purposes of determining Where the
effluent will go. The first test utilized fluoresceine dye.

That tracing substance is not effective in a saline environment

4.	A continuous injection, 24-hour minimum duration of
minimum 10,000 gallons per minute bo performed, in order that
the effect of tidal flow cm the recipient aquifer and the re-
quired injection can be effectively measured.

5.	A systematic sampling and monitoring program be main-
tained for a minimum period of one week subsequent to the test
injection. No such monitoring program occurred during the firsjt
test and the monitoring period was, in fact, less than 4 hours

It is now generally acknowledged that the perched bottom
of Kanaha Pond is permeated by a number of fresh water springs
and that these springs are supplied by the ground water slightl^r
inland and below the Pond. In light of the assertion by Dr.
Cox of the University Environmental Center, that the buoyancy
effect of the warm, low density effluent and the cold dense


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





water in the aquifer has been overlooked, and the fact that the
presence of numerous vertical fissures in the substrata lava
rock is presently acknowledged, there appears a reasonable like
lihood that the effluent will migrate inland and into the aqui-
fer Which supplies the springs in this Pond. Accordingly, the
possibility of infiltration must be carefully examined.

In that regard, the following should be noted: It is indi
cated in the reports on the Waiiaanalo injection veil, the ground
water in coastal regions is continually migrating seaward, and
there accordingly, an injection slug, in spite of any buoyancy
effect will disperse an ellipsoid shape and then drift towards
the sea, and that there will be no drift back. It has also
been suggested that if inland migration does, in fact, occur,
dilution of the effluent into the aquifer will be complete and
the effort will be rendered neutral prior to its introduction
into the pond.

The Federation urges that both of these theories may be in
error and that in fact, both back drift and incomplete dilution
may occur. First, there is data to indicate that there is only
minimal hydrologic pazsductivity between the injection site and
the sea and that if a head of sufficient strength to force the
effluent laterally through the aquifer is generated, that same
head will force the effluent through vertical fissures in the
lava rock, and from there, through the breaches in the Pond
bottom to the Pond. This is borne out by the test results of
the Conservation Council of Hawaii, Which indicated that the
water level in the test well varied only about 7 inches during
a period where there was experienced the 2-foot rise and fall
of the tide. Which is an indicator of low permeability.

Second and more important is the fact — and various ex-
perts assert — that the waste effluent will migrate under and
inland of the Pond by acknowledging that the Maui Department of
Land and Hatural Resources well — that's a State well, located
inland of the Pond, in the same aquifer as the effluent, reci-
pient aquifer will draw effluent to the surface. And this fol-
lows here with some sites.

An early criticism of the present site that it was so
situated that existing force mains and trunk lines would lead
directly to the plant, are subject to high rates of infiltra-
tion; and that because of the difficulty of an activated sludge
type treatment plant, to treat highly diluted waste,this proposei
plant will not function properly. The same criticisms indicate^
that Site A, which is the Quonset Hut site, is so located that
infiltration can be almost completely avoided by initially li-
miting plant hookup to the Wailuku and West Kahalui system, whi^h

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



is a relatively law infiltration system and thereafter, the
East Kahalui collection system, after it has been approved, can
be hooked up.

Infiltration should be a primary consideration in plant
location. As you are aware, by Section 201 (g)(3) of Public
Law 92500, the Congress has indicated its intent that no fund-
ing be granted for plant construction after July 1st, 1973,
where there is substantial infiltration of the associated col-
lection system. The rationale implicit in the statute is that
the cost of treating the infiltrate should never exceed the cosฃ
of repairing the system.

The existing Wailuku-Kahalui system, in total, has a high
infiltration rate. Illustrative of this is the fact that the
Kahalui pump station, located very near Site 1-B, the proposed
site, pumps between 1.43 and 2 million gallons a day and has
an infiltration factor of between 66 and 90%. However, the
areas where intrusion occurs seems to be confined to a very
small area in the extreme northeast section of Kahalui, approxij-
mately one mile from the proposed site. It also appears that
this area of high infiltration is one that can be isolated from
the remainder of the system with a relative degree of engineer-
ing ease. All other systems of the Kahalui collection system
have moderate to high integrity. Obviously, the collection
system must be repaired. As the County's own consultant con-
cluded, without repair to this system, economic treatment and
reuse of waste water is not possible. At the same time, the
sewage treatment plant must be constructed as soon as possible.
Construction and repair must then proceed concurrently. Optiimunly,
the completed sewage treatment plant will receive waste with
minimal infiltrate.

If the proposed site is utilized, all of the infiltrate in
the system, will have to be treated and injected, because the
trunk lines feeding any plant at the proposed site, run through
and connect to the area of high infiltration. If, however,

Site A is utilized, the waste reaching the plant will have very
little infiltrate, if that small part of the collection system,
located in Northeast Kahalui and characterized by high infiltra^
tion is not connected until it is repaired.

In view of the foregoing, it appears that a more feasible
alternative, economically, is to construct a sewage treatment
plant at Site A, and at the same time, repair a limited section
of the collection system where high infiltration presently oc-
curs. When EPA is satisfied that the infiltration problem has
been solved, they can authorize the connection of the remainder
of the system.


Portlano, Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





To our knowledge, no one to this date has considered the
impact of clearing 19.3 acres of the land which is presently
covered with relatively dense undergrowth. The impact of a
construction period of approximately 18 months in length; the
impact of laying new trunk lines and force mains from the exist-
ing system to the plant site; the impact of trucks constantly
hauling sludge from the plant, once the plant is completed; and
the impact of a large physical structure which will ultimately
complete the ongoing process of pond enclosure — this is our
areas of major concern which we believe EPA should consider and

Some additional comments bearing directly on site location:
Assuming that it is concluded by EPA that no infiltration of
Kanaha Pond will result from effluent injection; infiltration
of the collection system is not found to be a major factor in
site determination; and the actual construction and maintenance
of the plant will not have an unacceptable, adverse effect on
the surrounding environment; there are still additional factors
which must be considered in any reasoned analysis of the rela-
tive benefits of Site B — proposed Site, over Site A. Speci-
fically, from the consultant's report and the other documents
which we have reviewed, it appears:

1.	Siting A can reduce plant costs by as much as $1,815,6
This figure does not include the additional cost of seeding the
required erosion control revetment, in foundation rock, which,
is located 60 feet below beach level, Which is no mean engineer
ing task, and which that additional cost has never been esti-
mated to our knowledge;

2.	As Mr. Lennox indicated, that Site A is at a point
where most of the existing sewage from the Wailuku-Kahalui
sewage treatment system is- presently conveyed by gravity;


3.	That Site A is in an area where treated effluent could
be more readily utilized for irrigation;

4.	That Site A is not in a tsunami zone. We would empha-
size that the method of protection proposed for Site 1-B, at an
additional cost of $140,000, has been characterized by Dr. Cox
as of "questionable adequacy";

5.	That Site A, in fact, is so located that if any odor
is produced by the plant, it would have less adverse effect on
the surrounding environment, because of the prevailing wind
direction and population distribution. And this is not a con-
cession on our part that the plant will produce odor; and


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



6ซ That Site B is located an land which is extremely un-
stable structurally; specifically, Site B# the proposed site,
is in a "critically eroded and eroding area", Hawaii Regional
Inventory of the National Shoreline Study, prepared by the
Department of the Army, and has been further classified by the
U. S. Soil Conservation Service as "highly pervious and of poor
stability",. That is to say, we have no assurances that if that
plant is constructed on that tract of land, that that plant has
a physical ability to remain there.

Finally, the Federation strongly disagrees that a policy
of unlimited growth should be adopted and fostered by any County
in Maui; and specifically urges in this regard, that building a
sewage treatment plant, capable of sustaining a doubling of
population in the subject area by the year 1985, is improper.
Insofar as population projections in the consultant's report of
36,500 above the existing population of 16,500, is not sup-
ported, and in fact, is contradicted by presently experienced
growth rates in the County, we reject them,- and we particularly
reject the notion initially put forth by EPA, that "the conse-
quences of doubling the population are largely speculative". i
Both the need for additional capacity, in the effect of a populai-
tion which would require that additional capacity, must be thor-
oughly examined by EPA.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I have a question, Mr. Darrah. I
believe you stated that your information was that the land was
not structurally sound and did you quote that from a U. Sซ
Conservation Service leaflet of some kind?

MR. DARRAH: Yes, I did, Mrs„ Dunn.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Could you give me the name of the
leaflet and the page number? Or perhaps some other identifica-

MR. DARRAH: Yes, the quote that the area is a "critically
eroded and eroding area" is from the Hawaii Regional Inventory
of the National Shoreline Study, U. S. Army Division — or U. S,
Army, Division Pacific Ocean, Honolulu, August, 1971; and we
will provide a copy of that quote. Essentially, what the Army
concludes is that that shoreline is continually eroding inland.
In 1940, it was so situated to be approximately 100 feet out-
board of where it is now. This can be readily seen by looking
at the pillbox, which is new submerged in the water off the


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



The quote that the soil is "highly pervious and of 'poor
stability'is from the Massive U. S. Soil Conservation Service
Statewide Survey, which was published August, '72. The quote
appears at Page 175 of that document.

HEARINGS OFFICER DOHN: This information, is in the state-
ment that you are presenting to us?

MR. DARRAH: Yes, it can be put in there, if you would
like. I can xerox a page and also xerox the cover. The second
one was an EPA sponsored study.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Over What period of time was this

—	what did you say, approximately 100 feet of erosion? Over
what period of time did this take place?

MR. DARRAH: Yes. Information of that nature was passed
on to me second hand by John Base, who could, When he makes his
testimony tonight, more specifically tell you What the situa-
tion is. I have been told that the existing shoreline is ac-
tually 800 feet outboard of Where — the pre-existing shoreline

—	the original shoreline is 800 feet outboard of where it is

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNEJ Over what period of time?

MR. DARRAH: That, I don't know. I have been told that
since 1940, the shoreline has eroded inland 100 feet.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: So that's approximately 32 years,
is that correct?

MR. DARRAH: I guess so, yes.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Okay. Have you anything else to

MR. DARRAH: No, thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much for coming,
Mr. Darrah.

MR. DARRAH: Thank you.

(Witness excused)



portlano. Origon - Honolulu Hawaii





MRS. PYLE: I have a rather brief statement to make.
Actually, Kanaha Pond is most widely known as a wildlife refuge
and the home of the 	 (interrupted)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Excuse me, Mrs. Pyle. Your full
name is Dorothy Pyle?

MRS. PYLE: Right.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And you are a resident of Maui?

MRS. PYLE: Yes, I am.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Are you representing someone other
than yourself here today?

MRS. PYLE: Well, I could say I was representing my hus-
band and a whole lot of my friends.


MRS. PYLE: Okay? Actually, I had better say that — well,
perhaps some attention should be paid to the fact that it's
also an important historical — a very important and valuable
historical site. It has been connected with the Alii of Oahu,
Maui and the Big island. Although there is no concrete evidence,
it being before the beginning of recorded history in Hawaii,
the Pond is traditionally believed to have been constructed
under the order of King Kapi'i'oho (phonetic) about 250 years
ago. The Pond was, at that time, divided into two, by a stone
wall or a kuapa and was built by laborers standing so closely
together that they could pass stones from hand to hand.

There was an ancient kapu or taboo on the rock dividing
wall, but this was broken down when a high priestess princess
of Maui walked on it, in meeting her brother, Kanaha1o'kalani,
who had been lost. The Pond is named after him — Kanaha Pond.
There are numerous other legends and stories involving this

For several years, I worked in Honolulu with — as a his-
torian for the Hawaiian Register of Historic places. Now, this
was an organization whose main purpose was to record and to
evaluate historical sites and to place them on a register of
historic sites for the State of Hawaii. I can say, with my
past experience, having studied this information, that there is
no doubt in my mind that within a short time, Kanaha Pond will
be a State registered historic site; so it seems to me that
besides it being a National, natural landmark, it also being a

Portland Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii





State registered historical site, would give it double reason
to be preserved.

I also — this is my awn personal opinion — have a third
reason why I think this Pond should be preserved and not be
turned into a sewage treatment plant; and that is, that it is a
one of a kind thing, When it's gone, it's going to be gone and
there's no way in the world that we will be able to bring it
back or restore it or find another one to take its place. It's
the only one there is and that's all. So I would strongly recofn
mend that an environmental impact statement be made on this

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Well, the fact that it may be made
into a State historical site and the fact that it is a National
natural landmark site — now, what does that have to do with
how the sewage treatment plant may affect the Kanaha Pond?

MRS. PYLE: Well, it would seen to me that historical sites
should be kept in their historical nature or in their historical
surroundings. The building of a sewage treatment plant on top
of a. historical site, to me, is kind of removing the historical
value from the place.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I'm not sure — do you have infor-
mation that this sewage treatment plant is being) built on top
of the Pond?

MRS. PYLE; Well, I think that — there is an example that
can be used in this, if you want to use this kind of thing as
an example. There are numerous registered National landmarks
or National registered historic sites. One that I can think of
was in an area either in Virginia or North Caroline, somewhere
like that, where they wanted to build a bridge that would come
into the historical area. Now, it wasn't going to knock down
the buildings, it wasn't going to do anything like that; but
it was decided by the National Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation that that bridge not be built in that area, becausje
it would have an adverse effect on the historical nature of the
area. I think that even if the sewage treatment plant was not
built directly upon the fish pond or the wildlife refuge, it
would be in such a position and built in such a way that it
would have an adverse effect in the area and thus ruin the his-
torical value.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Have you anything else to add?



Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much.

MRS. PYLE: I will leave you this — this is the only copy
I have.


MRS. PYLE: You are welcome.

(Witness excused)


MR. ENOMOTO: Madam Chairman, good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. I shall make it very short. I primarily wanted to
ask this question publically, here: What happened to the plans
for a park in the Kanaha area? So, since I have seen some of
our councilmen here, I would like to direct that question to

Thank you very much.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Well, Mr. Enomoto, I'm sorry, it
isn't a question and answer type of hearing. Perhaps you could
-— (interrupted)

MR. ENOMOTO: Well, What I am trying to say is, that I am
agin' this Kanaha Pond site for the sewage plant.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Did you wish to make any further
statement as to why you are against it?

MR. ENOMOTO: Well, thank you for the time, then. Well, I
grew up in Kahalui, and this may surprise Mrs. F. F. Baldwin
here, but me — myself and my constituents used to trespass in
there and we used to search for mudhen eggs and make omelets
with them; and long before the experts came over there to find
out about the springs in that Kanaha Pond, we knew all about it

So, I am a bird lover myself — never changed — fish lover
too, and I hope that instead of a sewage plant over there, that
the State or the County will go ahead and open up the drainage
ditch so that we can have that water which is now all piled up
and without any outlet. We could have fish coming in, because
it used to be a spawning ground for fish. We had all kinds of
fish in the harbor, so I say this, let's have the fish to cone
back. Open up the place and take the sewage plant sane place


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



else — Maalaea, more better, you know — Maalaea might be a
better place. Talk about windage and all that, well, there
you go.


MR. ENOMOTO: So, I say, save Kanaha Pond for the birds
and fish and open up the ditch, let the fish grow and the spawn
ing grounds. We used to catch mullets over there, you know, at
the outlet; and in fact, four of us, we were caught by the Fish
& Game, one time, catching mullets out of season, you know.

Thank you very much.

(Laughter and applause)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Enomoto.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Janion? Is that the way to
pronounce your name, sir, Janion?

MR. JANION: Janion.


MR. JANION: Mrs. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name
is Albert Janion; I am the President of the Maui Historical
Society, although what I have to say has nothing to do with the
Maui Historical Society. I am not speaking for them.

It seems to me, a very strange thing — I remember very
distinctly, and I think many of us do, that in 1970, When there
was a question of extending the runway of the airport, in the
direction of Spreckelsville, we put up a protest because we
were bothered by the noise and there's always a potential dan-
ger to houses when there are planes in the area — we have so
far been fortunate, but there is that danger. However, we were
told very distinctly by members of the Council and by members
of the State Government, that no matter what might happen to
humans, nobody was going to disturb those birds. Now, three
years later, we have a complete change of heart.

Another thing, too, is that in today or yesterday's paper,
I think, the Chamber of Commerce said that they approved the
Kanaha Pond site, but they stipulated that adequate tsunami
protection was made. Ladies and gentlemen, there is absolutely
no protection against a tidal wave. I remember very distinctly
in 1924, When the steamship KILAUEA was tied 19, at the Claudine


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





Wharf (phonetic), I saw the ship picked up by the wave and put
on the warehouse; and so far, we have not ever had a major
tidal wave in the Hawaiian Islands, if you count the Krakatoa
explosion in 1881 as the limit. In that case, the wave went
over the tops of palm trees 90 feet in the air and at one point,
the wave — I think at Rmchoa, in Java, was 123 feet high. Tha:
would take us almost up to Wailuku, but there can be no adequate
tiflal wave protection; and so, the building of a wall isn't
going to help, because although so far, we have never had a
major tidal wave, there is no telling what might happen. A
volcano exploded less than a few weeks ago, which hasn't ex-
ploded for a thousand years, so you don't know where you are.
All you can do is hope for the best. But I think that in view
of everything that has been said, I couldn't possibly — I am
not an engineer and I couldn't possibly do anything than regis-
ter my disapproval of the Kanaha Pond as a sewage site.

Thank you very much.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Well, Mr. Janion, how do you feel

that a tidal wave is going to affect a sewage plant or 	


MR. JANION: Well, as I understand, there would probably
be a building above the ground and that building would be liable
to be washed out completely in a major tidal wave.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Isn't that true of all buildings
in the area?

MR. JANION: Oh, yes; yes. Within, say, up to a certain
height — let's say up to 162 feet, yes.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And how does that affect — how
does that affect the presence of a sewage treatment plant on
Kanaha Pond and the birds?

MR. JANION: Well, of course, the tidal wave itself, in
recession, sucks out almost everything that it can.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Then it could also suck out the
Pond, too, is that right?

MR. JANION: Oh, yes, it's possible. In Java — there are
90 volcanoes in Java, and when they had the Krakatoa explosion,"
100 — I think 132 villages were completely wiped out, with a
loss of 40,000 lives and many thousands of lives lost of people
sucked out to sea and never heard of again. So it can do as
much damage going out as it could do coming in, but we don't —

Portland. Oregon- Honolulu Hawaii





hopefully, we don't expect a wave of that size. There has only
been one in the known history of the world, that size.

Of the small tidal waves that we have had here, the Quonse:
Hut area would be a much safer place. Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Now, this is with regard to your
feeling that the sewage treatment plant itself would be safer
in another location, is that what you are saying?

MR. JANION: Oh, it would be a safer place for a plant in
another location, yes, definitely. Because, if you will look
in the beginning of the telephone book, you will see, on the
north shore, where the black line — showing the tidal wave
prone areas, and where the proposed site is, it is almost —
almost the thickest part of the black line. It is one of the
most prone areas that is marked.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Now, I have forgotten v/heti did
you say was the last time we had a major tidal wave in Maui?

MR. JANION: Oh, that wasn't the last one. I was away for
a great number of years, but I do remember very distinctly, the
1924 tidal wave. It might have been '25. I think it was *24;
but where the shopping center now stands, there were people
standing up to their knees in water, picking up fish, which is
quite a good sized one.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNNs Very well. Thank you, Mr. Janion.

MR. JANION: Thank you very much.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: May I request that we not have any
individual conversations among yourselves trtiile we are having
people give their statements and make their comments? Mr„ David


MR. ENOMOTO: Thank you. My name is David C.K. Enomoto.
I am a resident of Kahului since 1917, to this date.

I have seen every tidal wave generated here in this harbor
and I did work on all the necessary clearing up of all the de-
bris, and et cetera.

I am not in favor, at the moment, of the sewage treatment


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





plant in Kanaha Pond. The reason for this, in Kahului, we have
two problems — the tidal wave — excuse me — and the erosion,
along the seashore; and of course, we have our pollution prob-
lem — the Wailuku outfall, which is on my left, where I reside
in the Harbor View Tracts. We have the Kahului Sewage Plant
right near the Kanaha Pond site. I live right alongside of
both outlets of the outfall to the sewage systems.

I am not going to go into any details on the problem of
pollution, but I think we are a little too fast in deciding
where we should put the sewage plant. I know it's a problem
with the engineers. They have regulated and put in a lot of
time to see which is the best place. If I had to make my state
ment to economize, I would put that plant right where the second
alternate plan is, proposed, for this reason: Not too long ago
I read in the paper where the Corps of Engineers was going to
put in revetment along the Kahului Harbor area, along down to
the section where I live, of course, up to this part of the
area, what we call the breakwater — it's going to be good. I
agree. I wrote them a letter, stating my opinion. I go along
with the idea, because when 1 served in the Harbor Board, 8
years, that was one of my pet projects, to try to protect Kahu-
lui from wave action, because I guess most of you know how the
tidal waves generate and how they do subside, and et cetera.
I have been in every tidal wave practically, when they were
generated, other than in the evening, right from the pier where
I was employed.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Enomoto, are you worried about
the location of the sewage plant being destroyed or the sewage
plant being destroyed by a tidal wave or are you worried about
the Pond?

MR. ENOMOTO: Well, that problem, ma'am, is — a tidal wavle
when it comes in — I am speaking for myself, please. I don't
represent nobody. I am speaking as an individual, resident of
Kahului from 1917 to '71, I worked 51 years for the Kahului
Railroad. I started as a laborer, stevedore and came up to be
a superintendent; and got into all these projects. But, speak-
ing of a tidal wave, it is a lot of problems, because I believe
more on the portion of erosion.

New, I can give you an example — if the sewage plant was
built over there on the Kanaha site, you will never see a tidal
wave come in or you will never see it come in for the next 20
years; but erosion will take place. If I go back there, to the
year when I worked in there, putting in that drainage to clean
up Kanaha Pond, under Mr. Bill Walsh, Mr. Watkins — Wilbur
Watkins, Harrison Foss (phonetic) — they were the engineers fo


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





Mr. Frank Baldwin; and Mr. Frank Baldwin wants to preserve
Kanaha Pond. The reason why is because of the birds. But
there was one big problem that we had — we had a lot of rain
in those years. Kanaha Pond used to flood quite a bit — up
to three feet of water. We had the only means of power genera-
tion plant and Maui was well, too. They had a generative cool-
ing system of water going into the Pond — that is, the surplus
water coining in off the ditches or the plantation ditches, and
of course, When the snow — heavy rain up in the kula, they
come clear down to the ditches and fill up Kanaha Pond, and
then the water would overflow the roads.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: What effect did you feel that this
sewage treatment plant will have on Kanaha Pond and the birds?
Do you have any information?

MR. ENOMOTO: Well, I am not an engineer, but I knew, any
sewage plant, there must be an inlet and an outlet. There must
be some sort of pollution. All I know is what is in the papers
— they are going to drill so many feet down and the water is
going to drill out — well, I don't buy it, because I feel an
outlet should be provided and the inlet should be protected.
Now, I live right near the sewage plant. I don't see no prob-
lem as far as smell goes. What I am trying to say is, let's
keep that Kanaha Pond as she is, with the protection, What we
can give, with a contemplated, already generated project far
parks that is going to be in that area, and let's look ahead
25 years. With the plant in that site, I don't think it is
really going to be of any help for anyone in the future or to
any advantage.

What is.the rush? I don't think we should rush anything
about it. You can put two small plants — one small plant
right way inside where the present site is, and put one in the
outfall, and you can have two small plants — or put a cen-
tralized plant, right in the central here, near the Quonset
Huts here. Economically, I believe we can kill two birds with
one shot and have a better operation.

Now, I am not arguing about that, but it's my thinking.
But let's preserve Kanaha Pond and leave the birds the way they
are. I lived 2 5 years right next to Kanaha Pond and I know the
bird life. There were thousands of wild ducks. We had thou-
sands of 'Akekekes, golden plovers — we had mudhens, we had
geese — we had 'Auku'us and we had numerous other birds —
then, we had the Cardinals come in and I can almost tell when
the birds are mating, When they are earning in — just by the
way they sing; and I love birds, just like my brother said, he
loves birds and I love fish.


Portland Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii





For the second reason Is, the fishing grounds should be
kept clean. Where we are now, where the sewage plant is going
to be planned, you are going to have a certain amount of pollu-
tion out on the outside. It is not polluted there as yet.

Kahului Harbor is polluted from the end of Maui Electric right
down — clear down to — clear down to Paukukalo. And there is
nothing you can do about absorbing — well, all the reports thajt
tine Board cฃ Health gives, and just to take it with a grain of salt
and just live with it. Why can't we figure, take this plant anฃ
put it up there, when we can put it down there and put the con-
taminated water within the confines to the polluted water and
make a go of it? I think economically, we are not widening the
area — confining the ocean area to a small area. We think tha^
area I am talking about, rather than going out on the Kanaha
Pond site and putting in the sewage plant and they are afraid
to contaminate the water out there, and then, of course, we
won't have a park there, we won't have a fishing ground there.
We have a lot of fish lovers. I don't know hew many of you
here are skindivers and love to fish and we have good, clean

There is no place in Maui today, that I can see. I have
lived here long enough that we can say, "Well, oh, there is
going to be our next spot." You get from Maalaea down to Waile^
I think is already taken up.

Now, there may be a sewage plant built in Lahaina, there
may be one at Kfthei, there may be one in Baldwin Park, to take
care of the Paia area. We have to take care of the Wailuku outj-
fall and we have the Kahului outfall. We have five areas. I
am not an engineer, but I think I am experienced enough to know
what should be done and why the rush? Give these people here,
sitting here — for all I knew, they are bird lovers and give
Kanaha Pond a chance to exist; and I still maintain that Mr.
Baldwin really could have eliminated Kanaha Pond with this re-
spect .

As you know, when you drive up Kanaha Pond, you will see
all the coral fill on the side of the road. And now you see
some buildings coming up. We had a project of digging Kahului
Harbor. We could have taken all of that sand and filled Kanaha
Pond, but Mr. Baldwin said, "Just enough to cover the overflow
water coming in, to take care of the Haleakala Highway — the
rest is pau"-- it ended right there and they got the engineers
together, Mr. Wong, Mr. Watkins, Harrison Foss, and they de-
signed the outfall, Which was the present water outlet for Kanajia
Pond. It was made in a float system, taking care of the high
and low tide water level for the wave action that comes in —
water will come in through the Kanaha Pond. When the Kanaha


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





Pond fills up, the water will go out with the tide and kept the
marine life active and we had thousands of fish all over. And
today, we don't have it. Unfortunately, the tidal wave came
along and knocked everything out, broke all the pipelines, and
that is non-existent. And I am sorry to say — we could have
improved the place right after that and kept the Kanaha Pond
more active. We would have more birds come in there and you
will be surprised — the more fresh water in there — there is
a spring in there— there is a breakwater in there. We get in
a boat, we go out there, and we used to drive in there. ThereVs
a lot of fish in there. But as you know, there is nothing —
water is stymied, it's real rough on the birds to liver but
nevertheless, we do have spring water in there, which really
exists for the life of the birds.

How, I would like to say this, that as a person Who has
lived here long enough and seen what's going cm, I like to see
the future preserved — keep that area open and the future con-
templated, putting in parks along that area and keep the water
clean out there, because I know. When the current ccsnes in with
the pollution of the Kahului Sewage System, the water will never
reach that area. When they surveyed the Harbor, under Mr. Paul
Low, I was the skipper of the boat that took the engineers out
and dropped flags — put a marker in there, and every morning,
we would see how far the marker float will run and Where they
would sit back and start to dribble in, right within the Harbor,
and we know just about where this spot the current will stop,
and then when it is active again, it will start to go out, threB
miles, clear out to that 3-mile buoy that wซ have. That's the
reason why we have two — in my opinion, now — that is the
reason Why we have two outfalls — and facing to us, northeast
and one going east, just because of this current action.

When I was on the Harbor Board, I made many, many talks
regarding to this statement, when we were talking about harbors
between the different Islands. And the wave action, when a
tidal wave comes in, no matter when the tidal wave hits Kahului,
it will hit Kahului right in the town, because of this reason.
Now, the water will go — follow the deep. Since we have du$
the Harbor lately, for bigger ships to come in, when the tidal
wave comes in, it is going to be more severe. Because I know,
when it recedes — When it comes in, it will never go to where
I live, on the west side of the breakwater. It will never come
in 19 this side, but it will take care of Kahului, right in
between the area Where the stores are.

That's the way it goes, and every tidal wave that we had,
it acted the same way. We have turbulence one here, then come
down and another turbulence, this way, but I am not an expert




on tidal waves, but we studied a lot of that wave action when
I was with the Harbor Board, and that was a problem — all the
Islands to protect the harbors, and et cetera.

Now, I can go on and on, but I am sure, if you want to
know anything, I will be very happy to say, because as I said,
I represent myself, because I think I am the oldest one living
here in Kahului, from 1917. I retired in '69 and I am still
active. I will be close to 70 ~ 69 and I have seen every spec]
of Kahului built from the year 1917.

Kahului town was built in the 20's 	 (interrupted)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Enomoto, we are very apprecia-
tive of your extensive knowledge about Kahului and the buildings
here and we congratulate you on your youthful appearance. Have
you anything else to add with regard to the effect of the sewage
treatment plant on Kanaha Pond only?

MR. ENOMOTO: Well, I would like to say this, I would ra-
ther not have it there.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: All right, thank you.


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Enomoto;
thank you very much.

MRS. FOSTER: Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the
speakers before me, especially Mr. Lennox, have expressed my
very deep feelings about preserving Kanaha Pond.

I am a Maui girl; I was born in Paia, and as I grew up, I
spent my recreation time between Lcwer Paia, Baldwin Park. At
that time, we called it the "Kinney Beach", because Mr. Kinney
had a house on a sand dune. I no longer find that sand dune
there, and we used to hike clear down to Spreckftisville — that
Whole area was a playground; and during all of the years — all
of these youthful years, even to this past year, I have seen
tremendous changes on these beaches — the erosion, especially,
in NASCA , and where the Kanaha Pond is, where we used to play
— where we used to catch fish, we used to do everything that

(Witness excused)




Portland Oregon-Honolulu. Hawaii





all Hawaiian kids did. So from a standpoint of recreation, I
would say, let us preserve Kanaha. Kanaha is a national trea-
sure . Please, let us keep it.



HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mrs. Foster.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Neilson — Mr. William Neilson

MR. NEILSON: My name is William Neilson, and I am speak-
ing as an individual. I happen to be a neighbor of Mr. Enomoto
and he will probably throw me out of here when I get through.

At a meeting held in the Kahului Library conference room
on March 19th, 1971, I stated that a proposed site on the air-
port would be ideal, because the airport property could not be
used for residences. It would be a mistake to take 11 acres of
good land from the Quonset Hut area.

I wish at this time to reaffirm my position. It is my
understanding that the area required new for the Kahului-Wailukjj
Treatment Plant is 20 acres, as against the previously estimated
11 acres. To take 20 acres of land that should conceivably be
used for residential sites, became part of the Maui War Memorial
Complex, possibly be used in future expansion of Maui Community
College, or be used as a park, would be a serious mistake in
Judgment, when there is available, land that cannot be used for
these purposes, and for Which the County will not have to pay.

Aside from freeing land for community purposes, an extra
benefit would be that the airport sewer system could be easily
tied into the County system, thus, doing away with the present
open sewage stabilization pond now located on the airport.

For the above reasons, I urge that the sewage plant be
located on the airport property. Respectfully submitted.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Neilson.

(Witness excused)


Portland Orcoon - Honolulu. Hawaii




MR. KOBAYASHI: I am a little different from most of you.
I take off my glasses to read.

My name is Keichi Kobayashi. I live in Wailuku, Maui, at
287 Lelehoku Street. I am in favor of the Wailuku-Kahului
Sewage Treatment Plant. I am not for or against the Kanaha
Pond site as the location for this plant.

I am opposed to the proposed alternate site behind the
Quonset Huts on Kahului Beach Road. I am one of those people
who live in the 1200-foot perimeter along with the Maui Comttti-
nity College, Baldwin High School, and the recreational complex
For me, 1200 feet is one foot too close for a sewage treatment

I, too, would like to suggest alternate sites. The first
site would be somewhere in the Pukalani area. There will never
be danger from tsunamis. Residents in that area complained of
lack of water. A large development, which includes a golf
course, is being hindered, because of water problems. Effluent
from the treatment plant could be used to irrigate the golf
course and the homes in the area, as well as the sugar cane.
Surely, this puka would blossom and become heavenly again.

Because costs of building the plant at this site can be
prohibitive, I would like to suggest another alternate site.

This site would be in Spreckelsville, in the Maui Country Club,
Baldwin Park area. Certainly, this area is no more vulnerable
to tsunamis than the Quonset Hut area. Again, effluent could
be used to irrigate the recreational complex of the golf course
and the parks. Much more cane lands, closer to this site, are
available for irrigation also.

Finally, to the bird watchers, I say, take heart and keep
the faith. One of the species that I thought was extinct, has
made a comeback. The Koleas are back. I personally have not
seen any of this species in the past, but from old time bird
watchers' remarks, this specie is very hardy and can subsist
in various elements, and with carpet bags in hand, they flit
from place to place.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You have no comments to make with
regard to the location of the sewage treatment plant near Kanah|a
Pond nor the effects that it would have on Kanaha Pond, which
would indicate that we should prepare an impact statement?


Portlano Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





MR. KOBAYASHIt Mo, I do not.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kobayashi.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Seebrick? Mr. K. C. Seebrick?
Yes, Mr. Seebrick?


MR. SEEBRICK: Yes. I didn't expect to be called upon.
I put dcwn I was willing to speak, if asked.

I first came to Maui in February of 1921 and I have moved
over here and have lived here since 1953. I have been in the
acadanic field and I have traveled over the Territory and then
the State, so I feel I have a pretty good knowledge.

My field is administration, from the University and Colleg^
point of viw and I have been very, very- much interested in
Hawaii far a long time.

I am opposed to the location of this plant and building at
Kanaha Pond, because, for many, many years, so much work was
done to establish this monument and I think that it has not beeH
established — I know it has not been established that there
will not be pollution. I am confident from seeing a number of
tidal waves during this period, that it would be practically
impossible to protect a plant that is put out at the place wher^
they are planning on putting it now. Even without a tidal wave
the way in which that shoreline has changed, is to me, so clear
an indication that it's the wrong place; and since there are
alternate places, I think that more studies should be made and
we should be more careful.

There is no question at all that we do need this sewage
plant and wo need it soon. But there are alternate places that
in my judgment, are much better for the future growth of Maui
and far the protection of the people, as well as for the birds.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Seebrick.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Let's take a 10-minute recess.

(Short recess)

Portland, Orioom-Honolulu Hawaii


toA' - U 19 /3



To Whom it May Concern:

The attached Draft Environmental Statement (D-EPA-24004-HI)
for the construction of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
System, Wailuku-Kahului, County of Maui, Hawaii is hereby
submitted for your review and comment. It has been prepared
in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and subsequent regulations prepared by the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Comments should be sent to this Office within thirty (30)
days of the date of this letter. All comments received will
be considered in the preparation of the Final Environmental
Statement for this project.




HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Ladies and gentlemen, please,
would you take your seats? Ladies and gentlemen, would you
take your seats, please? We are ready to reconvene the hearing.


If there is anyone who has not filled in a registration |
card, would you please do so? The registration card looks j
something like this (indicating), and they are available on thej
table in the back. Unless you fill out a registration card,
your name will not appear in the record as having attended the i
hearing. If you do fill out a registration card, you will go i
on record as having attended.

Mrs. Margaret Sotters. Mrs. Margaret Sowers?

(No response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Taylor — Mr. Maurice Taylor?


MR. TAYLOR: My name is Maurice Taylor. I am a Fish &
Wildlife Biologist with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wild-
life; and at this time, I would like to make a brief oral state-
ment in lieu of our former written statement, which will be
mailed to you within the week.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You may do so, Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: The Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife is
concerned with the construction of the facility adjacent to
Kanaha Pond. Our concern, basically, is the maintenance of
water quality in the Pond for the endangered bird species and
Kanaha Pond, as has previously been stated, and as we are aware,
is one of the most important water bird habitats for endangered
bird species in Hawaii. However, it is also important to the
national and international efforts for the preservation of
these birds.

However, the proposal to construct the well and facility
on a narrow strip of land between the ocean and Kanaha Pond and
inject treated effluent dc*m into the water, is of concern to
us, because of the potential upwelling of nutrient effluent
into the Pond.

Although it has been stated that this upwelling won't
occur, because the Pond is perched, there is an impervious
layer beneath there. We are concerned that there is the proba-
bility, as stated in the environmental appraisal, that this I
could occur. With injected water — this is effluent — going !


Portland, Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





into the ground, it is possible that it could go back toward
the Maui Electric Company or go back toward the Fish & Wildlife
well or the State wall, which adjoins the Pond. The well is
intended for replenishing the water supply in the Pond, in the
event of low rainfall in the area.

If the injected water in the reservoir below does reach
the Wildlife well, then the water that would be pumped from
that well into the Pond, would add nutrients to the Pond; and
our concern, although the water will be secondarily treated —
our concern regarding nutrients, is in relation to the nitrogen
and phosphates in this water — enrichment of the Pond water
through additions of nitrates and phosphates would result in
excessive algea. This would adversely affect the water quality
and the endangered bird species.

In view of the lack of positive assurances then, that the
water quality will be maintained in the well; and that the
enriched nutrients won't get up into the well, Why, we would
recommend that there be an environmental impact statement.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Do you have any independent infor-
mation, other than What you have said here today, to the effect
that there would be upwelling?

MR. TAYLOR: We have the information, as a result of the
geological survey — hydrological survey in the area, which
indicates there is a probability that it could come back; car
the probability that it will go out into the ocean. However,
it also indicates that there is a lens — fresh water lens,
under the cap rock, that will extend to the Pond pump area,
where the well is, and it did indicate that the treated effluent
could be pumped out of the Wildlife well into the Pond.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Who prepared this survey, Mr. Tay-
, lor, do you know?

MR. TAYLOR: X believe it was Cook. No, Robert Scott,
excuse me.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Do you have a copy of What he pre-


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Okay. Have you conducted any tests:
. of your own with regard to the possibility of upwelling?

MR. TAYLORi No, we haven't.







HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Have you conducted any tests of
your own with regard to the effect of nutrients — even if we
assume that some of the nutrients might get into the Pond?

Have you any knowledge or information as to what that effect
would be on the water in the Pond or how it would affect the

MR. TAYLOR: I have not conducted any experiment in this
particular pond area. However, the literature is full of the
effects of enriched water by phosphates and nitrogen, causing
excessive algae, using up oocygen and degrading the water quality
for fish and wildlife resources. I can undoubtedly obtain con-
siderable information along those lines.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You anticipate that your prepared
formal document, Which, as you say, was sent back to your of-
fice and has not yet been returned — do you anticipate the
return of this to you within the next 7 days?


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: In time to submit it to us by
March 2nd?


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Very well. Anything else to add,
Mr. Taylor?

MR. TAYLOR: No, that's it.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor.

MR. TAYLOR: You are welcome.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is Mrs. Margaret Sowers present?
Mrs. Sowers?

(No response)



MR. BRUCE: Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am
speaking today as President of the Hui Manu o Maui — that is
our Local Bird Society; and I would like to state first, that

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



the Hui Manu feels that it is vital that an environmental im-
pact statement be prepared on this proposed Kanaha Pond loca-
tion. There is no question that the complete take-over of the
former Agricultural lands, surrounding the Kanaha Pond by com-
mercial, industrial — commercial and industrial subdivision
and development, in addition to reducing the Pond area by half,
is posing a serious threat to the very existence of this import
ant waterfowl refuge, and reasonable precaution should be taken
against its further destruction.

The County's proposal to locate their sewage treatment
plant on the natural sand dune barrier area, between the ocean
and the Pond, appears to be the most dangerous threat to the
Pond so far. The principal concern of the Hui Manu is that
the proposed injection of 6 to 9 million gallons of highly
nutrient sewage effluent water into the stable body of salt
water under the Pond, will displace the salt water and some of
it will rise up and contaminate the bas&l ground water springs,
which are the main source of the replenishment for the Pond.

As these are geo-hydrological problems, and the Hui Manu
and the Hawaii Chapter of the Conservation Council for Hawaii
requested the volunteer services of Geologists Powers and myseljf,
and others, to make an independent study of this complex prob-
lem, we made tests, which disproved the claims which had been
made that the Pond water was not supplied from springs from the
underground water table. We also checked the gradient of the
ground water moving under the sand dunes toward the sea. We
ran a 24-hour check on the relative tidal fluctuation of the
underground salt water in the County's test well and in the
ocean less than 150 feet away. We found that the rise and fall
of the tide was dampened more than normally and that there was
a higher than normal time lag between the comparative high and
low tides in the sea and the well. This indicated that there
would be considerable obstruction to free movement of water
between the well and the sea and all the more possibility of
the Pond pollution by the injected effluent.

We tested the salt water content at various locations
around the Pond and proved that there was a wide variation,
just as there was a variation in the vegetative growth of the
Pond. Certain types of bulrushes were found to grow near the
springs of fresher water, well enough from the ground water

I understand Mr. Colifc Lennox has put those figures on the
record. He and I — I analyzed the water and he took the notes
and I think he has included it in his testimony. I didn't have
the figures.

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



The attached xerox of an aerial photo of Kanaha Pond,
which was taken in December, 1961, shows at that date, the
encroachment of commercial and industrial development. Since
then, the rapid increase of this type of development has, in
1973, filled in practically all the area above the main highway
above the Pond, the triangular lot above the Pond between the
main highway and the road running along the top of the Pond
towards the airport is now completely filled with a deep land
fill. This lot used to be at pond level and was a feeding
ground for the stilts.

The County's sewage treatment plant is now being proposed
on the narrow sand dune lot between the Pond and the ocean. It
is just one more encroachment on,the ever accelerating pace of
industrial development, Which is threatening the very existence
of the Pond. The destruction of the Pond's natural barrier
sand dunes alone would have a serious environmental impact on
the ecological balance of the Pond. I will treat this matter
in more detail in my statement this evening. I am also going
to make a statement this evening, on different subjects from
these that I am covering now.

On the left-hand side of the Pond, as you look at the pic-
ture, the State of Hawaii is planning a below sea level drainag
canal, more or less parallel to the Pond, all the way from the
main highway to the ocean. This below sea level drainage canal
could very well lower the water level and the shallow, stilt-
feeding areas within the Pond, and then be one more cause of
their extinction by this gradual destruction of their habitat.

The Hui Manu is naturally very disturbed about the adverse
environmental impact of always developments around the Pond and
we welcome the opportunity bf calling them to the attention of
the EPA, so that suggested alternate sites can be considered.
The Hui Manu has, as one of its main purposes, in the last few
years — has had, as one of its main purposes in the last few
years, the preservation of the Kanaha Pond and the protection
of the endangered species of waterfowl, making what is probably
the last stand in their native habitat there. We hope that
some other site can be selected for the County's important
sewage treatment plant.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Bruce, is it my understanding
that you feel that the water will be running away from the Pond
therefore leaving it sort of like a dry mudhole?

MR. BRUCE: Yes. This is not caused by the sewage treat-


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii


ment plant. This is caused by the drainage canal that is pre-
sently under consideration on the east side of the Pond. This
is a Federal highway, so I am sure that there will be an impact
statement made on that, When the time ccnes.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You mean there is a highway planne|d
through that area?

MR. BRUCE: Yes, there is a highway planned — it's the
main Federal highway that crosses — the new Federal by-pass
highway that crosses the middle of the Island is now stopped
at Puunene Avenue, specifically because the drainage was inade-
quate to meet Federal standards between there and the Pond and
the airport.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Well now, what does the highway
have to do with the sewage treatment plant that is proposed to
be placed there?

MR. BRUCE: It has nothing to do with the sewage treatment
plant. I merely brought it in, in conjunction with the other
improvements and construction of commercial and industrial de-
velopment. When this canal goes in, the Pond will be completel
surrounded with such, and I was calling attention to the fact
that the sewage treatment plant will then be on the ocean side,
so that it will be completely surrounded by development. But
the drainage at this time has nothing to do with the sewage
treatment plant. My objection to the sewage treatment plant is
the objection of this effluent water under the well and we made
specific tests — this is my business. I have been in charge
of drilling lots of wells and water development in this Island;
and we tested the water and actually, by the salt content of
the water, we could tell that there was an upwelling of the
bas&l — the brackish water underground. That's what keeps the
Pond — keeps the water in the Pond in dry weather. As this
Hawaiian that was here testified, that when they used to drain
the Pond all the time, and it was continuously fed by those
springs from the bottom of the Pond; and the statement was made
that the Pond bottom was completely impervious and there was no
water coming from the bottom of the Pond. We disproved that by
actual tests.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And you say that there is water
coming up from the bottom of the Pond now?

MR. BRUCE: Yes. And this is water that may be contaminated
by the sewage effluent.


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And a portion of the present water

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



that is coming up at the bottom of the Pond, according to your
studies — is it salt water?

MR. BRUCE: No, it's not salt water. It's fresh water,
and they are going to inject fresh water into the salt water,
and we know that fresh water will rise up through the salt
water. This is just the law of gravity. There is no other way
that it can do.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And it's your contention that the
fresh water that rises up through the salt water will seep back
into the Pond, rather than being thrown back into the ocean?

MR. BRUCE: Well, this will be completely covered. I
don't want to take — that's why I don't want to take the peo-
ple's time. We have another man — Dr. Powers, who is a Geolo-
gist, he will have a chart to show you what happens to this
water. It is kind of an involved subject. This salt water
that they are injecting — this water, is completely static.
It's stable. It's under the whole Island. It's everywhere,
and it doesn't move; so there is nothing going to happen to
that water. It will dissipate. When you inject it into that
well, it will dissipate in a circular direction, under the Pond
under the beach, and everywhere else; but because it is fresh
water, it will rise up and it is very liable to come through
the cracks in the beach rock, and come up and pollute the recreja
tion area along the shore. But I don't want to take your hear-
ing up, because this will all be testified to tonight, and I am
going to make a statement on this line tonight. I am talking
now for the Hui Manu. I am going to talk for the Conservation
Council for Hawaii, because — the Maui Chapter of the Conser-
vation Council — we were requested to make an investigation j
of these things and report them to this hearing; but we weren't)
all able to be here now, so we are all going to report as a
team, so that you will hear the testimony in proper consecutive
order this evening.


MR. BRUCE: Thank you very much.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Bruce.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: That is all the registration cards
I have, of people who have requested time to make comments or
give a statement. Is there anyone that I have missed?

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





(Ho response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is there anyone else who has not
been called upon to make a statement or a comment, who wishes
to make a statement or comment at this time?

(No response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I would reiterate to you that the
7 o'clock session — excuse me.

MR. LENNOX: Could I make one very short statement? In
my letter of this application to make a speech here, I sub-
mitted this 	 (interrupted)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Would you come up and vise the mike,!
so that everybody can hear you?

MR. LENNOX: Yes, thank you. Mr„ Bruce referred to a
water study report that we made together, showing that the
ground water from the basal ground water is breaking into the
Kanaha Pond at rates that might be — at the rate of something
between 600 and 700 gallons per minute. Now, a copy of that
report was sent with my letter to your office in Honolulu When
I applied, and I would like to have that report a part of the


MR. LENNOX: For you to review.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Very well. We will make it a part
of the record, sir.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is there anyone else who wishes
to make a statement or commants at this time?

(No response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: If not, the hearing will be recon-
vened at 7 o'clock tonight, at the Baldwin Auditorium; and it
will continue until everyone has been heard.

(Whereupon, at 3:22 o'clock p.m., an adjournment was taken
until 7:12 o'clock p.m., at the Baldwin High School Auditorium.)








HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Those of you who wish to give a
statement and Who has not already prepared a registration card,
would you come down to the front and see Mr. DeFalco and fill
out the registration card, if you wish to speak or offer com-
ments. The rest of you should fill out a registration card
during the recess. The registration cards are our only way of
determining who was at the hearing and Who was not; and if you
wish to be included in the record or go on record as having
been present, then you should fill out a registration card dur-
ing the recess.

We have some persons Who have indicated that they wish to
speak, according to the registration cards. For those of you
who were not present this afternoon at the Library, my name is
Cassandra Dunn; and I am the Regional Legal Counsel for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, located
in San Francisco.

This hearing is to receive comments and information from
the public regarding the proposed waste water treatment and dis-
posal system for Wailuku-Kahului area, consisting of a sewage
treatment plant and equalizing storage pond, injection disposal
wells, pump stations and force mains, in Kahului, Maui, Hawaii.

The notice of this public hearing was published in the
local newspapers; and a copy of the notice will be a part of
this official record of the hearing.

For the record, we have reconvened this hearing, a few
minutes past 7:00 p.m., February 23rd, in the Baldwin Auditorium,
in Kahului, Maul, Hawaii.

This is not a rule-making proceeding nor is it an adversary
type proceeding, and therefore, it will not be treated as such.
The Administrative Procedures Act will not be applicable and
we will make time for everybody to be heard tonight. We have
made arrangements to continue here this evening until every-
body has had a chance to make a statement or his comments with
regard to the issues Which are the subject of this hearing.

Generally, the following order will be handled at this
hearing: Interested Federal Agencies representatives will
first be heard, which includes Senators and Congressmen or
Congress Ladies; State, interstate, municipal government repre-
sentatives will then be heard; then various industries who are
affected will be given the opportunity to make presentations;
then environmental and civic groups or similar groups, and mem-


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



bers of the public. If there is anyone Who wishes us to de-
viate from this order, then you should let us know right away
by contacting the girl out front at the registration desk or
Mr. DeFalco; and if you have justification for deviation, we
will be glad to cooperate with you.

There will be an official record made. We have a Reporter
present. Oral statements and written statements will be in-
cluded in the official record. The record will be reproduced
in black and white, so any written statements that you wish to
present should be made on paper, Which will reproduce in black
and White. If you submit it on paper that will not reproduce
in black and white, you and I both have a problem.

The official record will be available to the public in two
different locations after the Reporter has had the opportunity
to transcribe the same. It will be available at the EPA officejs
in Honolulu, located at 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 601. It will
also be available at the Kahului Library here in Kahului. The
record for this public hearing will be held open for a period
of 7 days. Anyone who wishes to submit additional written com-
ments, should have them postmarked not later than March 2nd,

You may mail your remarks, either to EPA in Honolulu, at
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 601; or you may mail them to the
Environmental Protection Agency in San Francisco, at 100 Cali-
fornia Street.

After the record has been prepared and made available to
the public for examination, it will be considered by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency in determining whether or not an
impact statement should be made. You will have to forgive me,
I caught a cold in Honolulu.

I, as the Hearings Officer, reserve the right to ask ques-
tions for additional information or for clarification on some
statement that has been made. I reserve the right to limit
presentations to the issues at hand and to limit oral presenta-
tion if it is not pertinent to the issues. Any redundant or
corroborative material, which can be submitted for the record,
should be so submitted rather than read aldud.

There will be no questions from any member of the audience
or anyone from the floor, of any witness Who is here to give
testimony; and there will be no interruptions from the floor.
I will be the only one to ask any questions, because we cannot
take the time for everyone to ask questions of everybody who
wants to make a statement or make their cosaments. And as I saijfl,


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii



everybody will be given a turn to make their comments or their

If you disagree with something that someone has said, then
we ask that you not interrupt; and if you want to make a state-
ment to make comment with regard to what someone has said, then
you should see either the girl at the registration desk or Mr.
DeFalco, and we will schedule time for you to be heard. And we
do ask for your cooperation so that the hearing can be handled
in an orderly manner.

We have with us this evening. State Representative Alvin
Amaral. Would you come forward, please?


MR. AMARAL: Thank you, Madam Chairman, dear. My name is
Alvin T. Amaral. I am an elected public official, representing
the 7th District -- Representative District in the Hawaii State
House of Representatives. I live in the District to be served
by the proposed waste water treatment and disposal system.

Madam Chairman, I am aware of the steps carefully taken
by the County in arriving at the selection of a site and the
approval of a system which will adequately handle the disposal
of sewage, so as to enhance the environment of the District,
prevent the pollution of the nearby ocean and promote the healtjh
safety and welfare of my constituents.

I have confidence in our County officials, Vho have de-
veloped this system. They are the first ones Who will be
directly concerned with the protection of our environment and
the welfare of our people. They are ijti daily contact with the
people and have an intimate knowledge of their needs and de-
sires .

The County of Maui is in the forefront of our State, in
positive action to protect the environment of our County and
eliminate all forms of pollution which may harm the health and
safety of our people. I trust their judgment.

I have neither seen nor heard any convincing evidence to
show that their judgment in the design of the system and selec-
tion of the site was wrong. I therefore support the County in
its position and urge that the project be moved ahead as quickl
as possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Madam
Chairman, I will submit ray written statement to the EPA in a fejw


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



days to the Honolulu address.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You understand you should have it
submitted by March 2nd?

MR. AMARAL: Yes, I will do it the first part of next week,
I am sure.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Amaral.

MR. AMARAL: Thank you.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Joseph Franco? Mr. Pranco has
requested that he be given priority because of a medical prob-


MR. FRANCO: Thank you. Madam Chairman. My name is Joseph
Franco and I am the Political Action Chairman of the ILWU, Maui

Our organization represents approximately 5,000 workers in
the County of Maui, many of whom, together with their families,
live in the Central Maui area. The IUWU has consistently sup-
ported a policy of controlled growth for the County of Maui.
While we are interested in providing for job security and the
needs of our members, we have also taken an active interest in
community problems, such as the protection of our environment.

We feel that the program of providing for the adequate
collection and treatment of sewage is an important — is most
important to the planned growth of our County. We have the
problem of raw sewage being discharged into the ocean at four
locations. Two of these outfalls will be eliminated upon con-
struction of the Wailuku-Kahului Sewage Treatment Plant.

To protect the health of our community and to insure the
protection of our shoreline area, we feel that this project
should proceed at the earliest possible date, so that we can
go on to provide programs and projects to meet our needs in
other areas. Many of the people we represent are still living
in substandard dwellings in the plantation camps. We have
worked with the employers in the past to provide the simple
housing for our people, which they can afford. We are sure
that these programs will continue in the future, but how can
we try to meet these housing needs $f the result is to continue

Portland, Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





to pollute the waters of Kahului?

We are satisfied that the consultants, the County and the
State, the Federal Government, have already made extensive
studies into the question of locating the plant adjacent to
Kanaha Pond. The Pond is already partly surrounded by indus-
trial development and is close to the airport. There does not
seem to be any major damage to the bird sanctuary from these

It is also our understanding that the County will continu-
ally monitor the injection wells, and if necessary, relocate
them if danger to the Pond becomes evidence.

In the long run, we support the reuse of the sewage efflu-
ent, perhaps to irrigate cane fields, to put more lands into
production, while at the same time, preserve our valuable water
resources for domestic use.

It has been suggested that the plant be relocated to ano-
ther site adjacent to the Quonset Huts, near Kahului. This
land costs the taxpayers of our County over $10,000 an acre.
A 20-acre site will have a cost to our community of $200,000.
We believe that this valuable land should be used for recrea-
tional, social, educational and cultural purposes, to benefit
all the citizens of Maui.

In summary, we feel that this project is necessary for the
orderly growth of our community. Further, we believe that we
have delayed long enough. Additional time lost will only mean
an added burden to all of the people and the taxpayers of the
County. We have the plans prepared and a good bid. We have
safeguards built in to protect the environment. We have land
available at no cost. In the best interests of all, let us
proceed at the present site as soon as possible.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Franco, do you speak for all
of the members of the ILWU or are you here in an individual
capacity, speaking for yourself?

MR. FRANCO: I was assigned here by the Division Director
to speak on behalf of the membership of the IIWU, Maui Division

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Very well. Thank you. Do you
have anything else, Mr. Franco?

MR. FRANCO: That's all, ma'am. Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much.


Portland Orecon - Honolulu Hawaii



(Witness excused)


DR. MARLAND: Mrs. Dunn, I am Richard Marland, Interim
Director, Office of Environmental Control, Office of the Gover-
nor, State of Hawaii. I want to thank you for this opportunity
to present the views of my office and the State of Hawaii, on
the important issue bฉing heard here tonight.

First, I was privileged this afternoon to hear the testi-
mony of many of the witnesses Who are opposed to the location
of the proposed sewage treatment plant. The statement of those
witnesses were, for the most part, well presented and dealt
with factors Which are appropriate to a discussion of the envi-
ronmental impact of the proposed plant. Most of the statements
were directed toward the following 5 issues:

1.	Threat to the water quality of Kanaha Pond from the
effluent of the plant with its concomittant effects on the life
processes of the birds, Which are sanctuaried there — especiall
the Hawaiian Stilt;

2.	Recommendation that Kanaha Pond be rehabilitated and
used as a park;

3.	The use of alternative sites, Which were described as
"superior" from an environmental aspect;

4.	Lower construction costs associated with the Quonset
Hut area as a construction site; and

5. The threat of tsunami inundation.

My testimony will relate to these points and will put into
the record, much of the information which my Office and other
State Agencies have used to arrive at the conclusion that an
environmental impact statement for the sewage treatment plant
is not necessary.

We believe that the information documented in this testi-
mony and that of others Who will appear here tonight, will show
that sufficient information exists to show that a negative de-
claration or a statement of non-impact, is an appropriate docu-
ment for this project. The significant documents relating to
this project are listed here in my testimony by title and by
date. Most of them are already in the files of the Environmen-

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu hawau



tal Protection Agency. However, if additional copies are re-
quired for the purpose of this hearing, we will be pleased to
prepare copies and submit them for the record. The earliest
document is dated March 25th, 1971, and is a record of a public
hearing — of the public meetings held in various parts of Maui
for the purpose of discussing the County-wide sewage general
plan. Specifically, a meeting held March 19th, 1971, at the
Kahului Library, dealt with the proposed Kahului Sewage Treat-
ment Plant at the Kanaha Pond location. Approximately 40 per-
sons who attended this hearing, supported that site. The sum-
mary of these public meetings were forwarded to the state of
Hawaii and EPA on April 15th, 1971.

On April 2nd, 1971, an environmental assessment of the
proposed Kahului Sewage Treatment Plant at the Kanaha Pond site
was forwarded, through the State of Hawaii, to the Environmenta
Protection Agency, as an attachment to a request for a construe
tian grant. This application was approved by EPA and the grant
offer was made.

On January 27th, 1972, an additional public hearing was
held by the County of Maui on its comprehensive sewage and
drainage master plan. Extensive discussion and comments were
presented, both in support and in opposition to the proposed
treatment plant at the Kanaha Pond site. Largely as a result
of the information received at that public hearing, additional
environmental studies were undertaken. One significant study,
made in preparation for that January 27th, 1972 hearing, was
the Kanaha Pond Baseline Data Study. This was conducted under
the auspices of the Environmental Center of the University of
Hawaii and included 10 different scientists plus the coordina-
tive efforts from my office. This important document closes
with the following statement, and I quote:

"it is highly unlikely that Kanaha Pond receives substantia
recharge from the ground water body, even during the lew water
periods. The thick bottom cover of mud is. quite impermeable
and generally prevents interflow between the pond water and the
ground water body. This is confirmed by the almost negligible
tidal fluctuation in Kanaha Pond and by the large seasonal flue
tuations of water levels in Kanaha Pond, in direct response to
precipitation. It is most unlikely then, as indicated earlier,
that recharge to Kanaha Pond comes primarily from surface run-
off ."

Public concern, Which was certainly shared, both by the
County and State officials, stipulated additional investigation
of the environmental effects of this plant. On June 30, 1972,
a statement was received by my office from Mr. John Base II, in


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





Which the Conservation Council for Hawaii, raised questions
about the effSicacy of aub-surface injection of sewage effluent
at the proposed site. This report was referred to the Environ-
mental Center of the University of Hawaii for analysis and con-
firmation or whatever results would be derived by that Center's
study of the problem.

The response from the Environmental Center, dated Septem-
ber 14, 1972, concludes in part that the proposed underground
disposal wells will have no significant effect on the water
quality or ecology of Kanaha Pond. Dr. Doak C. Cox, Director
of the Environmental Center, will have more specific testimony
on this subject.

Concurrent with the studies of the Bnvironmental Center,
the Environmental Protection Agency conducted its own geo-hydro-
logic evaluation of the injection field. This report, prepared
by Mr. Robert C. Scott states, and I quote: "The proposed in-
jection well field will not cause leakage up to Kanaha Pond."
Mr. Scott is a Geologist with the United States Department of
the Interior.

The economic aspects of additional sites do not support
the thesis that financial savings would be possible by using
an alternative site. Correspondence addressed to Mr. Stanley
Goshi was sent in the form of carbon copies to me. These des-
cribed the increased costs associated with the alternative sites.
I imagine that Mr. Goshi, himself, will present substantive
testimony on this issue.

The use of an alternative site, located in the Quonset Hut
area, was discussed at the public meeting held in March of 1971.
This was the one in which the citizens present, agreed that the
Quonset Hut site, should be reserved for the park, which is
called for in the County's general plan; and that 11 acres of
that site should not be sacrificed for the sewage treatment

I would like also to place into the record, official ac-
tions in which Maui County and the State of Hawaii, have jointly
carried out closely coordinated efforts on behalf of preserving
and improving Kanaha Pond. There is currently a request for
funds at the State level, to rehabilitate the Pond, under the
auspices of the State Fish & Game Division, of the Department
of Land and Natural Resources, since siltation from surface
run-off is threatening the Pond, and it is the most important
threat to the continued existence of this ecological treasure, j


The State and County's concern for Kanaha Pond is also

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii





demonstrated by the joint requirement of the County and my of-
fice, that construction of an industrial park could not proceed
until provision had been made for the diversion of polluted surj-
face drainage away from Kanaha Pond. Surely, with these demon-
strations of concern for this important bird sanctuary, the
State and County would not be so inconsistent as to allow its
degredation from sewage effluent.

On the basis of the foregoing documents, and additional
reports, which includes a pilot test injection well and others
that I have not listed, the State of Hawaii concluded that ther
would be no significant environmental impact, which would be
detrimental to the environment in and around Kanaha Pond. On
this basis. Governor Burns authorized Mayor Carvalho to proceed
with the advertising for bids to commence construction. Gover-
nor Burns' action was preceded by letters of approval from the
Department of Planning and Economic Development, the Department
of Land & Natural Resources, the Department of Health and the
Office of Environmental Quality Control.

The final documents, which I would like to enter into the
record, was received in my office on January 5th, 1973, and is
a letter from Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr., Regional Administrator,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, to Which is at-
tached, an 11-paged environmental impact appraisal of this pro-
ject. The conclusion reached in this appraisal is, and I quote

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Dr. Marland, excuse me.

DR. MARLAND: You have that?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I don't like to interrupt, but
really, the appraisal or the statement to which you make refer-
ence, I don't believe, is pertinent to the hearing that we have
here today. One of the reasons we have had this hearing is to
determine whether or not an impact statement would be in order,
to be prepared by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency? and the conclusions that may heretofore have been
reached by our Regional Administrator, I don't believe would be
a proper subject of the hearing at this time.

DR. MARLAND: Very well. I would say, that on the basis
of the documents that constitute our files and the records of
the Environmental Protection Agency, that we concur in the find
ings, Which seem to be unanimous among the State and Federal
Agencies involved in making the approvals. Our office and the
State of Hawaii do concur in this finding and we believe that
there is a sufficiency of scientific validation to warrant that

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii






And I thank you for the privilege of presenting this infor

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Dr. Marland, for appear


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I have been handed a substantial
number of requests for time to speak and it looks like we are
going to be here until the wee hours tomorrow morning. While
the schedule of speakers was to include all those persons who
wanted to speak from the State, County and other municipal
agencies, we do have a gentleman who requests time to speak
before 8:00 p.m.; and my watch says that it is getting on to-
wards 8:00 o'clock now — about 20 minutes to. So I would re-
quest that Mr. Hondo — Norman Hondo, come forward and give
his presentation.

And at this point, I would also request that those of you
who have made requests to speak, limit your time, if you possi-
bly can, to, at the very most, 10 minutes, so that everybody
cam be heard and feel comfortable about being heard. If you
can do it in less time, I would appreciate it; and, if you have
written statements, I believe that if you submitted your writ-
ten statements, rather than read them aloud or perhaps you coul{3
point out the major parts of your written statement and then
submit your written statement, it will go into the record any-
way. That way, we could save a little time, if we could have
your cooperation, please.

Mr. Hondo, would you proceed, please?


MR. HONDO: Thank you. Madam Chairman. I am Norman Hondo,
representing the Kahului Hotels.

At a meeting held on February 21st, 1973, the officers of
the Hotels fronting on Kahului Bay, Kahului, Maui, namely, the
Maui Hukilau Hotel, the Maui Palms Hotel and the Maui Beach
Hotel, unanimously decided to urge the County of Maui to take
immediate steps to proceed with the construction and operation
of the proposed sewage treatment plant without further delay
for the following vitally important reasons:


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii




Kahului Harbor is being used by many people, primarily,

young, local people, vfao surf all day Whenever surf conditions
are ideal, notwithstanding the contaminated conditions of the
water. These young people surf without apparent knowledge that
the Harbor is contaminated by the vast quantities of raw sewage
which is being dumped into the ocean, just outside of Kahului
Harbor. The health of these youngsters is in serious jeopardy.

2. Certain areas of the Harbor have a great potential of i
becoming a great popular water sports center for now, for the j
more than 20,000 people who live in the Kahului and Wailuku
area of Central Maui. The Kahului and Wailuku area is the I
fastest growing community in the County of Maui and convenient^
located recreational areas will become increasingly important
as the population grows.

Kahului Harbor, particularly along the south shores, was
once a great place for youngsters to swim during the days befor
the development of the new town of Kahului, when the volume of
raw sewage was a fraction of what it is today. As a matter of
record, a youngster became a national swimming star because he
lived along the beach along Kahului Harbor and enjoyed diving
for fish, coral, shells and many other forms of sea life, which
once abounded and flourished in the Harbor.

Such ideal conditions for the development of our youth can
be restored again if the sewage conditions can be corrected.

At a public meeting held at the Kahului Library on October
19th, 1972, the U. S. Corps of Engineers, Department of the
Army, outlined a proposed plan, Whereby improvements are to be
made along the beach in Kahului Harbor for the recreation of
local residents and hotel guests. The work involves the restor
ation of beaches along the public park. Which was created through
the efforts and public interests of local service clubs and
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. The restoration of the beach, Which
was lost when the Harbor was dredged a number of years ago,
will mean recreation, such as picnics, swimming, wading, surfin
water-skiing, skin diving, et cetera, not only for our local
people, but also for the thousands of visitors Who are guests
at our three Hotels.

In a day of a highly competitive market in the tourist
industry, except for the brief period of shortage of hotel room|s
as has occurred recently, it is highly important that we offer
our visitors the best that we can, including uncontaminated
beaches. This is extremely important in a day When our State
is facing a huge deficit and when even our great Nation has to


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii


devalue our dollar for the sake of our economy.

The three Hotels have invested heavily in improvements
along the shoreline of Kahului. It provides convenience to the
visitor because of its centralized location. It is a convenient
meeting place for the many service organizations, in the highly
populated Central Maui area, such as the Rotary, Lions and Ki-
wanis Clubs.

We believe that it is critically important that we proceed
with the construction of the proposed plant as soon as possible
We understand that a proposed location was decided upon by pro-
fessional consultants, only after they studied and gave every
consideration to the various sites Vhich were available. We
believe firmly that a sewage treatment plant should be located
in an area which is already industrialized, with gasoline stor-
age tanks, Maui Electric Power Plant, concrete batching plants,
et cetera. We roost certainly do not believe it should be placed
anywhere close to the resort Hotels, like Maui Palms, Maui Huki-
lau and the Maui Beach, our Community College, residential neigh-
borhoods and potential apartment developments.

This was signed by "Maui Beach Hotels, Inc., Vice President,
John Abe". Thank you for the time.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, sir.

(Witness excused)



DR. QUISENBERRY: Mrs. Dunn, I am Dr. Walter Quisenberry.
I am the State Director of Health. Thank you very much for
alleging me to present a brief position statement for the De-
partment of Health in regard to the Wailuku-Kahului Sewage
Treatment Plant.

I have submitted a brief statement. I will abbreviate it
just a little bit more far the record.

The Department of Health supports the proposal to construct
a secondary sewage treatment plant at the Kanaha Pond site. We
believe that the site selection was based on the best available
information and that the concerns relative to this site were
adequately addressed.

The plans for the sewage treatment plant were reviewed by

Portland Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii



our staft tor adequacy of treatment. The plans called for
secondary treatment of the sewage, with additional effluent
polishing via sand filters prior to disposal into wells at the
site. Approval of the design plans was granted by my Depart-
ment in April of 1972.

Prior to final site selection, members of the Sanitary
Engineering Branch of the Department of Health, met with repre-
sentatives of the consultants of Montgomery Engineers of Pasa-
dena, California, and the County of Maui. Of the sites pro-
posed, it was mutually determined that a site in the Naval Air
Station, Kahului airport area, was desirable. The final site
selection was made by the County of Maui, in conjunction with
their consultants. The Department of Health did not object to
the site selected.

Subsequent to the selection of the sewage treatment plant
site, concerns over possible intrusion of the effluent to Ka-
naha Pond were raised. Meetings were held to discuss this mat-
ter with recognized experts in geology. Mr. Robert C. Scott,
a Geologist with the United States Department of the Interior,
stated that in his opinion, the waters of Kanaha Pond would not
be affected by the disposal of sewage effluent at this site.
The Department of Health saw no reason to reject the proposal
on the basis of contamination of Kanaha Pond, and once again,
recommended approval of this site.

The Department of Health supports reasonable methods to
end this raw sewage discharge. We believe that the plan for a
secondary treatment plant at the proposed site, is the best
available, to eliminate these discharges. We recommend that
the construction proceed as quickly as possible.

We do not believe that an environmental impact statement
is needed. Thank you very much.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Dr. Quisen-

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. William Thompson.


MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mrs. Dunn. My name is William
Thompson, Deputy to the Chairman, State Department of Land &
Natural Resources.


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





On July 28th, 1972, the Board of Land & Natural Resources
approved the Conservation District Use Application filed by the
State Department of Transportation, for use of certain lands at
Kahului, Maui, as a sewage treatment plant.

The treatment plant to be constructed and operated by the
ฃ4aui County Department of Public Works adjoins the 273-acre
Kanaha Pond. The proposed plant lios between the Kahului Air-
port and the Kahului Harbor industrial area, on lands under the
jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation. Use of
these lands is subject to review and approval by the Federal
Aviation Authority. Kanaha Pond itself is under the jurisdic-
tion of the Department of Transportation, and similarly under
control of the FAA.

For your ready reference, a copy of the Board of Land &
Natural Resources decision will be attached to this report.

Other geological, hydrological and engineering reports,
have been and will be filed with the EPA; and rather than re-
peat their analytical findings, I would prefer to supplement
the Board's decision by describing our role in this matter pend
ing before you.

The State Department of Land & Natural Resources, by law,
controls uses within conservation lands. The County, through
zoning powers, controls the uses of urban, rural and agricul-
tural land districts. The site for the proposed Kahului Sewage
Treatment is located, as I mentioned earlier, on Department of
Transportation lands within the Conservation District boundar-
ies. In accordance with regulations of our Department, Maui
County, through the Department of Transportation, applied for
the construction and use of the sewage treatment plant on said
site. The application was the final step by the County to the
State, in securing approval for the project. I use the word
"final" — inasmuch as the staff of our Department had been in-
timately involved in the evolveraent of this project since early
in 1971.

Personnel from both our Divisions of Fish & Game and Water
& Land Development, have been working with the consultant and
Maui County officials, in the proper location and management
of this treatment plant.

Of the many programs administered by our Department, is
the management of wildlife refuges throughout the State, by its
division of Fish & Game. For many years now, we have sought to
have control and jurisdiction of the Kanaha Pond wildlife refuge
turned over to our Department. It was only in 1970, that, work


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





ing together with the State Transportation officials, we secured
their approval. With this in hand, we proceeded to prepare con-
struction drawings and specifications for the enhancement and
protection of Kanaha Pond and its water bird inhabitants. This
project has been advertised and bids received. However, before
this award can be made, we must receive the concurring approval
of the FAA. This negotiation is now being carried out jointly
by our Department and with the State Department of Transporta-
tion, with the FAA. It has been many years for us to arrive at
this point in time, where the first major effort to protect
Kanaha Pond is ready to get underway.

Indeed, it would be inconceivable for our Department, after
working so hard for the preservation and protection of Kanaha
Pond, to approve another undertaking that might bring about its
destruction. In working out the final design of the proposed
treatment plant, the protection of Kanaha Pond has been fore-
most in our deliberations. In the final analysis, we have
reached the conclusion that the location of the treatment plant
is desirable from an engineering point of view.

Further, the treatment plant, with its minimum amount of
activity, is a compatible facility to the adjoining Kanaha Pond
wildlife sanctuary. If I may put it another way — our wildlifs
personnel would prefer a quiet type of facility, with a minimum
amount of activity, in preference to the beach park, earlier

The question now hinges on the effectiveness of the injec-
tion wells. Our Department, in another of its many programs,
carries out extensive well-drilling projects. Our staff has
gained much expertise in underground hydrology over the past
years. Further, they are quite familiar with sewage and water

It may interest you to know that our Department, through
its Division of Water & Land Development, has constructed a
sewage treatment plant at Waimanalo, Oahu, which utilizes in-
jection wells for the disposal of sewage effluent. It has been
the same staff, which, over the years, have worked with various
engineering facilities, which includes sewage treatment plants
and injection wells, that have reviewed and analyzed the data
and findings of the consultant responsible for the design of
the proposed treatment plant. They are in agreement with the

To insure the proper operation of the injection wells, a
monitoring program is mandated. Again, this monitoring program
is not completely new to our staff. The injection wells at


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





Waimanalo are also being monitored.

Therefore, it has been the staff recommendation and action
by the Board of Land & Natural Resources, to grant Maui County
use of the Kahului site for a new sewage treatment plant. Be-
cause the design of the treatment plant is based on sound en-
gineering principles and competent judgment, and a monitoring
program that is a requirement far use of the area, we endorse
the application of Maui County for the proposed Kahului Sewage
Treatment Plant.

I would like to make one final comment. Due to the close
watch we have kept of the design of this project, we feel our
environmental concerns have been adequately answered. We there-
fore, did not require an EIS.

With the cooperation of the State Department of Transporta-
tion, the FAA, Maui County, and most certainly, those citizens
who have helped us over the years to retain Kanaha Pond as a
bird sanctuary, we have no fear that Kanaha Pond can become an
even better bird refuge in the coning years.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I have a question, please, Mr.
Thompson. You have said that you don't feel that an impact
statement is required in this instance?


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Did I understand you correctly that
you have made some tests of your own or is from reports and
tests of others that you have had your people look at?

MR. THOMPSON: We had our staff present while tests were
being conducted. We had staff that analyzed the results; and
as I mentioned, we also have experience in this matter, due
to the projects that we have — well drilling and also the
treatment plant with injection wells at Waimanalo on Oahu.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Now, these other projects that you
are telling me about, are they similar in nature with regard to
being near a bird sanctuary?

MR. THOMPSON: No, the projects are different — the topo-
graphy — the geology, is slightly different. But I merely
mentioned this to show that our staff is acquainted with this
type of facility.


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii

convcntjon reporting	court reporting	notary public


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: When your staff was present while
tests were being made by other groups or other agencies, was
the caliber of your staff equal to a caliber of those persons
who were performing the tests?

MR. THOMPSON: I have no doubt about the competence of„our
staff in their recommendations or their findings.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: If there was a Geologist making a
test, did you also have a Geologist present representing your
Agency? As an example?

MR. THOMPSON: I think this person would have a different
skill. I think the Geologist who also witnessed the tests, had
his different qualifications. I don't think I would say our
staff is the equal of the other persons Who were there, but
based on the experience that our staff has, I don't think the
other persons are similarly qualified for certain areas as our
staff is.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You feel that your staff was com-
petent and understood what was going on?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, definitely.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.

(Witness excused)



MR. NAKAMURA: Thank you, Mrs. Dunn. I will make a few
brief remarks this evening. My name is Howard Nakamura, Plan-
ning Director for the County of Maui. My comments will pri-
marily be limited to some of the preliminary planning that has
been involved in this project.

In mid-1970, the County of Maui contracted with consultant
firm of R.M. Towill, Inc., to prepare a comprehensive sewer,
water and drainage master plan for the County of Maui. The
total project, although broken up into two phases, was funded
cooperatively by the County, State and Federal Governments.
The study was in response to requirements established by HUD
aaal EPA, that such a comprehensive plan was needed precedent to
further construction grants, as well as the desire of the Count
to prepare realistic guidelines for the construction of such

BILL'S recording service

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



By March of 1971, preliminary plans had been prepared and
were reviewed with the general public. A series of meetings
were held at Kahului, Lahaina and Makawao. Relative to the
particular matter under discussion, two alternative locations
were proposed for the sewage treatment plant by the consultants
— one at the Kanaha site, ultinately selected, and the second
in the vicinity of the Quonset Huts near Puoni and the Maui
Community College.

Comments which were received at the public meetings, which
had bearing on the final selection of the site, were as follows:

1. The expression that the proposed site near Kanaha Pond
would be ideal, since it is located on airport property, cwned
by the State of Hawaii;

Secondly, that it would be a mistake to take 11 acres of
land, which was the area under consideration at that time, from
the Quonset Hut area, which had been proposed for recreation,
cultural and educational uses;

3. That it would be desirable to integrate Paia, Pukalani
and Makawao into the treatment plant, to create a regional col-
lection and treatment system. The ultimate conclusion was that
sewage generated from each of the two major study areas, which
are Mailuku-Kahului and Makawao-Pukalani-Paia, should be con-
veyed to a single facility, located near Kanaha Pond for treat-
ment and effluent disposal.

The report states that "the initial capital investment for
providing a separate treatment facility versus the conveyance
of sewage to the treatment facility located adjacent to Kanaha
Pond, favors the latter alternative". In the final analysis
then, when considering total cost, both in terms of the original
capital investment and annual operations, the regional system
proved to be more desirable.

Mr. Frank Doyle, representing the firm of R.M. Towill, will
be able to discuss further, some of the planning and site selec-
tion considerations following my testimony. However, I would
like to stress that many factors were taken into consideration
in the selection of the plant site. These factors Included
potential tsunami damage, reuse of the effluent for irrigation,
both of sugar cane and recreational areas, the compatibility
of land use, possible objection by conservationists, the lower
capital cost of a single site versus the lower cost, when con-
sidering the entire study area as a single regional system,
possible odor problems, and the availability of land. In con-
sideration of all of the above factors, it was recommended that





the present site be selected.

Ultimately, following public hearing as required by law,
the sewage roaster plan was adopted by the County Planning Com-
mission and the County Council. The master plan was then sub-
mitted to both HUD and EPA for certification and approved ef-
fective November 15, 1972.

I would also like to clarify the County's position as it
relates to Kanaha Pond. It is unfortunate, if the impression
has been conveyed that the disagreement over the site has arisei
between those who favor the presentation of Kanaha Pond as a
bird sanctuary and the County, which must then naturally be
against such preservation. Nothing could be further from the
truth. We have consistently, over the past years, initiated
and supported actions to preserve the integrity of the bird
sanctuary. We have opposed proposed actions by the FAA to fill
in the area. We have advocated that the jurisdiction over the
Pond be granted to the State Department of Land & Natural Re-
sources .

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Excuse me, Mr. Nakamura. I am not
really concerned about what action you have taken to appease
other persons in the area; nor am I concerned about what the
other persons would say with regard to your inaction or your
alleged inaction as they would see it. I am only concerned
about what the testimony would be regarding whether or not EPA
should prepare an impact statement, Which of course, goes to
the location of the Pond, the treatment, et cetera, and how it
is going to affect the environment — whether or not it is going
to be sufficient to cause a significant change in the environ-
ment so as to justify or warrant our preparing an impact state-
ment under the National Environmental Policy Act. Do you under-

MR. NAKAMURA: Okay. I'm sorry. Madam Chairman, I was
merely attempting in establishing what the County has done in
the design of the treatment plant itself, to protect the Pond;
that this would be consistent with our prior actions, but I
will skip over this.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Nakamura.

MR. NAKAMURA: In closing, Madam Chairman, I would like to
point out that we have embarked upon a total program, which in-
cludes construction of systems for the entire County of Maui.
We do have our funding available. Much of this has been done
in response to standards established by the Federal Government.

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





We will hope to be able to proceed, if all goes well, in
other areas. We feel that it is vital that we view the Wailuku-
Kahului Treatment Plant, not as a single facility, but in its
relationship to the totality of our program.

Thank you very much.


(Witness excused)



MR. DOYLE: Madam Chairman, good evening. My name is
Frank Doyle. I am a Project Engineer with the consulting firm
of R.M. Towill Corporation.

Our company, in mid-1970, was contracted by the County to
prepare a comprehensive sewer draining and water master plan.
My testimony this evening will relate to that part of the pro-
ject, related to site selection of the proposed Wailuku-Kahului
Sewage Treatment Plant.

The sewage master plan for the County of Maui provides a
regional waste water management system, incorporating a single
water treatment — waste water treatment facility to service
the contributing areas of Wailuku-Kahului and Paia-Pukalani-
Makawao. The basis for formulating the recommendations for
siting this waste treatment facility centered upon considera-
tions of the existing sewage facilities servicing the contri-
buting areas, acceptance of the site by the community, through
their participation and involvement in public meetings, compa-
tibility of the waste treatment facility with its surroundings,
economics, and methods of effluent disposal.

Of the two primary sites considered, the site adjacent to
Kanaha Pond was selected and recommended for the following rea-
sons: A sewage treatment facility so located would be compati-
ble with the present land use plan for the area. The site of
the waste treatment facility is located so as to reduce the
possibility of a nuisance problem, which may arise as the re-
II suit of odors from the treatment facility.

Ij	Type of structures required for the development of the

facility would be in keeping with the present requirements for
zoning of the area adjacent to 6he airport site.


Portlano, Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





The plan also notes that consideration must be given to
the possible objections for the site use by conservationists
who may wish to keep Kanaha Pond free from any future develop-
ment .

Tsunami protection must be evaluated and incorporated
within the overall cost of development of the waste water
treatment facility in the area.

The major considerations far not selecting the site in the
Quonset Hut area of Kahului were: The relative location of the
waste water treatment facility to the present and future resi-
dential sites. The direction of the prevailing winds is such
that an undesirable nuisance could result, if an odor problem
should develop at the waste treatment plant. Careful attention
has to be given to this matter when completing the design phase
of development for waste treatment, as odor problems for the
treatment plant may be controlled; however, the actual degree j
of odor elimination is sometimes difficult to predict and the j
cost involved in achieving the desired objectives may, at times|,
be considerable.

The total intended use of the recreation complex must be i
evaluated, particularly in light of the amount of acreage lost !
from possible future recreation use, when acreage is set aside
for the waste treatment facility.	]


The sewage master plan cited water reclamation for irriga-j
tion purposes as the most desirable means of effluent disposal.
Pending legislation for a zero discharge, the amount of water
available for irrigation purposes during the dry months of May !
and October, the water quality standards of the State Depart- !
raent of Health and the practical use of a community resource,
fortify this recommendation.

Question marks of implementation are noted in the plan,
wherein it is recognized that the development of a waste water
reclamation program, could not be initiated without overcoming
some obvious initial obstacles. The acceptance of water reuse
by the sugar plantations is not without reservations. The con-
ditions to be expected when irrigating with treated effluent
are presently being investigated and evaluated. The immediate
implementation of a major reuse program is not expected. A
future implementation program is a realistic goa , which the
County of Maui is now pursuing, in conjunction with the Depart-
ment of Water Supply, the community, and the major water users.

In moving ahead with its projects for water enhancement
and pollution abatement, the County of Maui has provided a j



Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii	I





method of effluent disposal in keeping with the guidelines
established by the sewage master plan and the requirements of
the State Department of Health. Deep well disposal is an eco-
nomic, recognized means of effluent disposal. It provides for
the implementation of a pollution program now, while providing
the backup means of disposal during the development of future,
acceptable, workable and safe water reclamation programs.

As the professional engineer is responsible for the devel-
opment of the sewage master plan for the County of Maui, we
reiterate our recommendations as outlined in the plan and con-
cur with the immediate implementation of the construction pro-

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNK: Mr. Doyle, did you make any tests
to determine whether or not there will be any — I believe you
call it "upwell waters coming into Kanaha Pond" from the in-
jection wells?

MR. DOYLE: That was not a part of our scope of work. We
cited in our master plan, the conditions under which a disposal
well should be installed, pointing out that test wells would be
required during the design phase and also citing the EPA guide-
lines at that time for well injection*


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Very well. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

(Witness excused)



MR. GOSHI: Thank you, Mrs. Dunn. My name is Stanley
Goshi, and I am the Director of Public Works for the County of

Subsequent to the public meetings on the master plan, an
application for a Federal grant was made on April 2nd, 1971.

This application had, as its choice for a site, the State air-
port land, adjacent to Kanaha Pond. The application was ap-
proved, and a grant offer was made by the EPA on May 14th, 1971,
with one of the conditions being that the County meet the re-
quirements of the EPA policy on underground disposal. From
this point in time, final design or preparation of plans and
specifications were initiated f^r both a pilot injection well
and a treatment plant project.

It may be interesting to note here that at a meeting of

Portland. Origon - Honolulu Hawaii



the Kanaha Pond Advisory Committee, held on July 22nd, 1971,
the Head of the Fish & Game Division of the State Department of
Land & Natural Resources, made reference to two problems in re-
gard to Kanaha Pond: (1) Proposed highway drainage and (2)
Construction of a sewage treatment plant. His concern was the
injection well method of disposing of the effluent. He stated
that a study was to be made and that they will raise no objec-
tion, should they be assured that the effluent-would not come
into the Pond and adversely affect it.

The injection well project, after EPA approval of plans
and specifications, permission to bid, award and notice to pro-
ceed, got under way in early December, 1971. The first indica-
tion of any joint opposition from the organizations now oppos-
ing the project, surfaced at a public hearing on the sewer
master plan on January 27th, 1972. On March 29th, the Kanaha
Pond Committee of the Conservation Council, submitted its pre-
liminary findings on the test well.

Based on the questions now arising on the test well and
subsequent consultant's report, the EPA dispatched a geo-hydro-
logist to review the test to our program. At a meeting held on
May 24th, 1972, attended by representatives of the State Depart
raent of Land & Natural Resources, Office of the Environmental
Quality Control, Department of Health, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, the County of Maui and its consultant, and the
U. S. Bureau of Sports Fisheries & Wildlife, it was concluded
that the injection would not contaminate Kanaha Pond„

On July 5, 1972, EPA approved the plans and specifications
and requested that the emergency ocean outfall be deleted from
the final plans. The oatfall has been deleted.

Subsequent to a meeting of the Board of Land & Natural
Resources, at which the County repeated its assurances to pro-
vide a monitoring system and to relocate the wells, if the Pone
is affected, EPA advised the County to hold up on the project
for a more complete review of the site location.

On August 8th, 1972, an EPA team from San Francisco met
on Maui, with members of the conservation groups to discuss
the site question.

On October 25, 1972, a meeting was held with representa-
tives of the Conservation Council, Robert Bruce, Colin Lennox
and Dr. Howard Powers, at which time it was announced that the
EPA had authorized the County to call for bids. The conserva-
tion group present was queried on this point and agreed that
the County proceed to advertise. Bidding then proceeded and


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



bids were opened on January 11th, 1973 .

On February 2nd, the EPA advised the County that an environ
mental impact statement will be prepared and that a public hear
ing will be held on Maui on February 23rd, 1973. It should be
pointed out at this time, that all of the delays and time lags
imposed by the EPA, were at the request of some conservation
groups. We feel that both the EPA and the County have cooper-
ated fully with these groups to parmit additional time for re-

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Goshi, excuse me for interrupt
ing, but does this have to do with whether or not we should fil|e
an impact statement as a result of some significant effect on
the environment by reason of the construction of this project?

MR. GOSHI: Mrs. Dunn, I am trying to point out the time
differential and the period permitted for review.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: All right. You can proceed.

MR. QOSHI: We feel it should also be pointed out that
every delay adds to cost increases as well as continuing the
discharge of raw sewage into Kahului Bay. This brings us to
the present, and to discuss sane of the possible alternatives
presently available to us.

On the assumption that the primary objection is the injec-
tion wells, we could do three things — we could move them, we
could go to a deep ocean outfall or we could go to tertiary
treatment with injection. All of these alternatives would add
approximately one year in time and additional costs of 2.0 mil-
lion for location and 3.5 million for a deep ocean outfall or
tertiary treatment. These estimates include engineering and
construction cost increases far the one-year delay. The alter-
native of moving the complete plan to the Quonset Hut area is
estimated to cost an additional 4.8 million dollars. The esti-
mate includes engineering, extension of the force main from
PaiaPukalani-Makawao, and construction cost increases for the
two-year delay. The choice of a deep ocean outfall instead of
an injection well at this Quonset Hut site, would result in an
additional cost of 7.5 million dollars.

On the premise that none of the alternatives that were
mentioned earlier are acceptable, the relocation of the plant
to an entirely new site, approximately 10,000 feet away, to an
area southeast of the airport, would cost an additional esti-
mated 7.5 million or 9.0 million, depending on the choice of
effluent disposal method.




In continuing this testimony, I would like to touch upon a
few items brought up against the Kanaha site. Our consultant
will elaborate further on these items after ray testimony.

1.	On the subject of tsunami inundation, we would like to
point out that this fact is not new and was recognized in the
site selection and engineering measures have been incorporated
in the final plans and specifications. It should also be
pointed out that the alternate site is also susceptible to

2.	On beach erosion — the Corps of Engineers has indi-
cated that there has been insignificant change in the shoreline
configuration over a 10-year period. To use this argument of
beach erosion against the site would also mean that the very
Pond itself would be endangered and protective measures to save
the Pond itself would be necessary.

3.	The question of infiltration and its possible effect
on the plant operation was also brought up as an argument. The|
infiltration question is not new. It was recognized in the i
planning documents and the County is committed to a program to 1
mitigate this problem. We have funds in the budget to initiate)
an infiltration reduction program. In any event, the infiltra-j
tion affects either site.

4.	There were questions brought up on the test well pro-
gram, such as casing collapses and casing field leaks. These
were minor problems during this phase that were corrected arid
have not shown up as problems since.

5.	On effluent reuse, the ultimate plan of the County is
to completely recycle the effluent for beneficial uses. To
this end, the County Water Department is h6&ding a committee of
private and public organizations to attack this problem. Pri-
vate members are the sugar companies that are to be an integral
part of this plan. I repeat, that the injection wells are only
an interim means of effluent disposal. The plant design in-
cludes provisions for the pumping of the treated effluent to
areaB where it can be used.

6.	The use of the injection well and its effect upon the
ecology of the Pond have been adequately covered. It should be
pointed out that the County has offered a monitoring program
and is now working out this program with the University of
Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center.

All of the current discussion appears to indicate that the
County, State and Federal people are not properly sympathetic

Portland Oregon-Honolulu. Hawaii



to the birds. I believe a review of the actions taken on this
Pond will remove this stigna. We roust ask ourselves about the
efforts of the Advisory Committee, the efforts extended in the

wood treatment plant problem and the fight to divert the drain
age water. These are not the actions of organizations against
the birds.

One small point that has never been brought about, but
Which I would like to insert in the record. Our consultant had
originally proposed directed diesel engine power for the blow-
ers, as being more economical than electric motors. Can you
imagine the possible noise and exhaust from diesel engines
running 24 hours a day? This proposal, even though cheaper,
was ordered deleted from the final plans.

Again, I would like to make a point that formal objections
to the site did not -surface until January, 1972 — a good 8
months after the grant was approved. The site selection and
application were made in April of *71, after a public meeting
on March 19th, in Which no objections to the site were raised.
Representatives of two of the opposing groups were present at
that public meeting. Where was the opposition after news of
the Federal grant were tcade public in mid-May of 1971?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Goshi, the objections or lack
of objections to the project on behalf of anyone in Maui would
seem not to have anything to do really with the effect of the
project on the environment. As I understand, NEPA, an impact
statement is supposed to be prepared by the necessary lead
agent or lead agency, when there is a significant effect on the
environment, irrespective of whether or not an objection is made.
Is it your contention that the lack of objection warrants pro-
ceeding without an impact statement, in and of itself?

MR. GOSHI: Mrs. Dunn, I would say that one of the provi-
sions of HEPA is the word "controversy".

HEARINGS OFFICER DUHN: Well, one of the provisions of
HEPA is, that if there is a significant effect on the environ-
ment, then an impact statement has to be prepared. Another
provision is that if there is significant controversy, then
there should be an impact statement prepared. How, is it your
contention that there is not a significant controversy or that
there is not a significant or a substantial — possibility of
substantial effect on the environment? Is this your position?

MR. GOSHI: That is ray position.


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



MR. GOSHI: At that time.


MR. GOSHI: In closing, I would like to say that adequate
time — that there has been adequate time spent in the review
of this project. In total, we have had over 9 months of time
allotted for review, all at the requests of the conservationists
I believe that the County and the EPA have been more than coop-
erative in meeting these requests. Further delay at this point
in time will only mean that raw sewage will continue to pour
into Kahului Bay, at Paia and also at Lahaina; for we must not
look at this project as a project in itself, but in the totality
of this, to the entire sewer program for Maui County and its
impact on the total economy of the County of Maui, including,
but not limited, to the viability and continuation of the Maui
Land & Pineapple Company Cannery.

The additional time and energy being expended for this one
project only means that less is available for the rest of the
County, for we are not unlimited in the resources that we pos-
sess. I believe, as Director of Public Works for the County of
Maui, that the site selection, treatment process and method of
effluent disposal, were based on sound and valid principles.

HEARINGS officer DUNN: Mr„ Goshi, during your statement,
you mentioned something to the effect that you had obviated any
decision to use diesel engines; and that you were using some
alternative type method with regard to the sewage treatment sys-
tem. The noise of the diesel engines would be quite loud, was
this your position?

MR. GOSHI: My position on obviating the proposal to use
diesel was based cm the effect of exhaust and noise from a die-
sel engine running 24 hours a day, to run the blowers.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And what was your alternative to
the use of engines?

MR. GOSHI: The electric engine — electric motors,

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: What is the difference, if you
know, between the noise of the electrical engine as opposed to
that of the diesel engine? You have to remember, 1 am a girl
and not mechanical.

MR. GOSHI: I do not have any definite figures of any
decibel readings. It's just a connotation of a diesel engine |
belting exhaust into the atmosphere.	j

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: What type of noise will there be
in the operation of this sewage treatment system, once it is

MR. GOSHI: Pardon me?

to be, well, like bells clanging,
or high hum, or angels' music, or
me any type of description?

type of noise? Is it going
for instance, or a low hum
rushing water? Can you give

MR. GOSHI: By the blower building, you would have, de-
pending on where you stand, either a lew hum or a high wind.
Next to the aeration tanks, with air bubbling through, you
will have a slight bubbling or water sound.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Has there been any determination
as to What effect the noise of this electrical engine will be
on the birds in Kanaha Pond?


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Do you know or have you any infor-
mation as to whether or not the noise of this particular type
engine in the sewage treatment system, will be greater than
that which is produced by the use of airplanes or aircraft in
the general area?

MR. GOSHI: I would say that the noise of the airplane
would be greater than the noise of the sewage treatment plant.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And is the sane noise that would
be generated by the use of the airport or the aircraft, in the
same vicinity -- well, or in the same general area as the sew-
age treatment plant? As compared or — in the proximity of
Kanaha Pond, are they of the same general proximity?

MR. GOSHIt I don't follow that?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: The airport or the aircraft noise
and the sewage treatment system, are they both in the same
general proximity of the Kanaha Pond? If you know? If you
don't know — I thought perhaps you might knew. If you don't
know, just answer that you don't know.

MR. GOSHI: Okay.


Portlano, Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





MR. GOSHI: I don't follow the line of questioning, as far
as the proximity.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Well, is there an airport in the
proximity of the Kanaha Pond?


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Approximately how far away is it?

MR. GOSHI: I don't knew the exact distance from the run- |
way to the Pond, but the Pond itself is on airport property. |

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is en the airport property?



HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Yes, I understood that. All rightL
Mr. Goshi„ Thank you very much. Have you anything else to addj?


MR. GOSHI: No, nothing.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much.

(Witness excused)





MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mrs. Dunn. I will raise this up,j
if I may, please. My name is Dean Parsons; I am a Consulting !
Engineer and we are associated with Chung Dho Ahn & Associates
of Honolulu, Hawaii; and I am the Project Engineer on the de-
sign of the Wailuko-Kahului waste water reclamation facility, j

I would like to just add a few comments, if I may. I willj
not go into detail or reiterate what has been said previously;
but I would like to comment briefly on why the site was selecteld
and some of the reasons why we considered it to be a good site I

One, the location of the waste water treatment facility is
located next to land that is zoned as heavy industry.

2. Existing industrial buildings are located to the west j
of the site. The site is located in an area that could be ef- !
fectively landscaped with natural growth and shrubbery, to
screen the treatment facility structures from the public's view].

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





The location of the facility will be utilizing land that cannot
be used for residential purposes.

The site is in an area that will permit gravity flow of
waste water from Wailuku, Kahului, Pa la, Pukalani and Makawao
and will minimize the amount of pumping required for this re-
gional facility.

I will make some comments also on the tsunami production;
and we took the following considerations in our design. The
treatment facility has, on its site — there is, I should say,
a natural sand dune, which people here locally refer to, and
it's our contention that when we have this facility constructed
on this site, that they will remain in their natural state. We
would hope that these dunes would help dissipate any wave com-
ing inland from the sea, and force the water to come in around
and raise at a slow rate.

Our second consideration was that the hydraulic structures
for this facility are designed to withstand inundation.

Another item we took into consideration is that all struc-
tures, housing, control panels, have been elevated.

Another thing that we took into consideration was that the
finished grade within the plant site itself, is drained to al-
low the flow of water away from the structures.

I would like to comment on the soils investigations on
this site for the construction of the facility. Soils and
foundation investigations were conducted by Ernest K. Hirata &
Associates, Incorporated,, They are soils engineers, at the
site, near the Kanaha Pond, and their recommendations were fol-
lowed in the design of the treatment facilities.

Commenting on salt water infiltration, which would be pos-
sible within this vicinity — if the salt water does infiltrate
into the domestic sewage, it would not be detrimental to the
natural treatment of sewage if it were blended into the waste
being collected. Given sufficient time, the micro-organisms
will and could adapt. A shock or a slug of sea water would,
however, have the same impact on a treatment facility as a slug
or a dumping of a septic tank pumping, or a heavy slug of in-
dustrial waste, such as might be expected from a pineapple pro-
cessing plant. It has a tendency to upset the treatment pro-

My last comment that I would like to make would be on
water quality; and that is basically that the effluent from


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



this treatment facility, that will be injected into the ground
| water wells, will be of similar quality to that as discharged
into free flowing rivers on the Mainland where body contact is
permitted. Raw sewage will not be discharged into the injec-
tion wells. If it were, the injection wells would be plugged.
Sewage will be treated by a modified, activated sludge process,
with solids handling by aerobic digestion, centrifuging and
disposal at a solid waste site; the liquid waste to be chlori-
fied, chlorinated and will receive third stage treatment by
rapid sand filtration.

Thank you. If you have any questions, I will be happy to
answer them for you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Yes, Mr. Parsons. You said some-
thing about the treatment process being upset and I wasn't sure
that I understood that?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, basically, what I meant was that the
process itself — there are many ways that a plant can be upset.
It can be returning — the process is an activated sludge pro-
cess and in returning sludge to provide food for your bugs or
your micro-organisms to live in and produce a treatable method
of reducing your solids, you can give too much solids return,
or you can give not enough; and you can have the bugs die off
because of starvation and they have a tendency to cannibalize
and eat one another or to over feed and kill them, because there
is too much food, and this is What I meant.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: What is the possibility of any
backup of the water or -— (interrupted)

MR. PARSONS: I am sorry, I can't hear you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: What is the possibility of any
backup or what you call upwelling of the water into the Pond?

MR. PARSONS: We, in our testing on the injection wells,
and evaluation by our hydro-geologists, it was their profes-
sional opinion that this would not occur. No tests were made
to support this, other than through evaluation of existing
data and professional opinion. I would like to add, however,
that we have met with peoples here in the Islands, particularly
an Maui, and it was our understanding that Mr. Doak Cox would
provide a monitoring program which would be conducted during
the construction of the treatment plant facility. We wrote the
specifications so that the first items of work that would be
conducted would be the construction of the three remaining in-
jection wells, and the construction of additional monitoring

Portland Oregon - Honolulu'Hawaii



wells, approximately 12 to 15 — I think Mr. Cox or Dr. Cox
will elaborate later, probably, as to their total nuniber,
situated at various spots within the area to be able to catalog
and be able to gain this additional information which you are
speaking of.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Very well, Nr. Parsons. Do you
have anything else to add?

MR. PARSONS: No, I don't, ma'anto

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much.

(Witness excused)



MR. COX: Madam Chairman, my name is Doak C. Cox. I am
Director of the University of Hawaii Environmental Center.

The concerns of our Center relate to environmental aspects
of the proposed Wailuku-Kahului Sewage Treatment Plant and in-
jection wells. In the interest of time, I have abbreviated my
testimony from an extended statement, which we are submitting
in writing. Even so, I am afraid what I want to say will take
a few minutes more than the 10 minutes you have suggested as a
limit. I hope you will allow this extra time.

In preparation of our written statement, I have been as-
sisted by Gordon Diigan, Jerry Johnson and Frank Peterson, mem-
bers of the faculties of the Department of Civil Engineering,
the Department of Geology and Geophysics, the School of Public
Health and the Water Resources Research Center of the Univer-
sity. Neither our statement nor my testimony reflects an insti
tutional position of the University.

Concerning points on which no new evidence has become
available, our extended statement merely summarizes detailed
discussions in a report prepared by our Center last September,
copies of which we are making available for the record of this
hearing. Since that report was prepared, we have had available
to us, the overall plan for the proposed sewage treatment and
disposal facilities and plans for ground water monitoring; and,
provided by the Maui Chapter of the Conservation council for
Hawaii, hydrologic data pertinent to Kanaha Pond. My discussio^i


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





will relate to, first, the course of treated sewage effluent
from the proposed injection wells; second, the possible effects
of the effluent in Kanaha Pond; third, the possible effects of
the effluent in coastal waters; fourth, other environmental
aspects of the proposed site; fifth, some environmental aspects
of alternative sites; and sixth, our conclusions.

On the basis of our earlier report and expanded written
statement, or on the basis of ray own knowledge — I shall, of j
course, be pleased to expand on any discussion abbreviated in |
this oral testimony. As we showed in our earlier report, ef-
fluent from the injection wells will not be retained at the j
salt ground water horizon of injection, to flow seaward, thence^
to points of discharge several miles at sea, as postulated by
consultants to Maui County; but will rise in the vicinity of !
the injection wells, to become incorporated in the lower part ;
of the Hertzberg Lens, a fresh or brackish ground water, over- j
lying the salt water. This is because of the buoyancy of the
nearly fresh effluent Which will be injected into the wells.



We now recognize, however, that the rise will not neces-
sarily occur immediately around each well, but may be diverted
! horizontally some hundreds of feet, depending on the local dis-,
tributicm of massive sections of the lava flows into which the ;
injection is made. We cannot predict exactly to what horizon
in the lens the effluent will rise, because of limitations in
knowledge and to the density structure of the lens, the density
of the injected effluent and the extent of mixing of the ef-
fluent with salt water during its rise to the lens. Within the
lens, the effluent flow will tend to spread radially from the
area of injection and will also move seaward, as part of the
normal flow of the lens.

In the Kanaha Pond area, there is some eastward displace-
ment of the normal flow, owing to the effect of a cap of sedi-
ments over the lava aquifer. Critical to the estimate of the
extent of inland movement of effluent, is the velocity of na-
tural seaward flow in the lens, which has not been investigated.
The points of discharge of the lens ground water are at the
shore and in shallow water nearby. Calculations based on data
supplied by the Conservation Council, Maui Chapter, indicate
that the net ground water inflow is an. the order of 500,000
gallons per day. The inflow rate must be somewhat higher to
allow for the — the actual inflow rate, as distinct from the
net inflow rate — must be somewhat higher, to allow for an
undetermined but probably small rate of seepage through the
beach ridge. During storm periods, when run-off adds to the
supply, the Pond overflows to the ocean.




Data supplied by the Maui Chapter on salinity variations
in the Pond, demonstrate convincingly that the major supply of
water to Kanaha Pond in normal weather is spring flow, which
must be derived from the same lens to which the injected water
will rise. The Pond, however, is fed by water from the top of
the lens. The effluent will probably come to -Equilibrium in
the lower part of the lerปs. There may, therefore, be no flow
of effluent to the Pond and it is very unlikely that the ef-
fluent will constitute a major part of the Pond supply.

The highest contribution of effluent to the Pond might be
made by the Kanaha Pond well, which taps the lower part of the
lens, in part. This contribution would be made only during
drought periods when the well is put into operation.

We have considered the effects of concentrations of bio-
logical oxygen demand, total dissolved solids, nutrients, trace
metals and trace organics in the effluent, if part of the ef-
fluent greatly diluted, does enter the Pond. The natural oxy-
genization capacity of the Pond is obviously capable of over-
coming the effects of a lack of dissolved oxygen in the ground
water supply, and a high BOD in the organics through vtfiich the
supply enters the Pond. The Pond biota are obviously capable
of coping with great variability in total dissolved solids con-
centration. Hence, the small contributions of BOD and TDS from
the effluent, after it has been filtered through the aquifer,
will be quite insignificant.

A very high biological productivity of Kanaha Pond is al-
ready permitted by the nutrient supply to the Pond. Hence, the
addition of a small additional nutrient supply from effluent
entrained in the Pond supply, will probably have insignificant
effects. Trace metal concentrations in typical sewage effluentjs
are far lower than those already found in the Pond sediment, as
are the concentrations of those trace organics„ for which we
have sediment analyses. Contribution of the trace substances
to the Pond from the effluent will, therefore, simply add some-
what to already existing sources.

Of importance to the effects of the nutrients and the
trace substances, is the possibility of cumulative effects.
Accumulation of these substances must be limited, at least to
some extent, by the surface discharge and flooding of the Pond
during storms.

The possibility that the effluent from the sewage treat-
ment plant might have significant effects on the water quality
and ecology of Kanaha Pond, can then be summarized as follows:
First, the Pond is fed from the same ground water lens as that


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



to which the effluent will flew. However, the effluent will
recharge the lower part of the lens, while the Pond is fed pri-
marily from the upper part of the lens. The density of the
structure of the lens is such that little or no effluent is
likely to reach the Pond. The greatest chance of significant
amounts of effluent reaching the Pond, is by way of the Kanaha
Pond well. The effluent would be greatly diluted if it reached
the Pond, which, in any case, is only supplied from the well
during drought periods.

If the effluent were to reach the Pond full strength,
without dilution, it is possible that serious ecological ef-
fects would result. However, it is unlikely that significant
ecological changes will result from such greatly diluted ef-
fluent, as might perhaps reach the Pond.

Now, cn the possible effects on coastal waters — concern
over the ecological effects of the svwage treatment plant ef-
fluent injected near Kanaha Pond, should not be restricted to
effects in the Pond. As I have already indicated, the effluent
will emerge in the ocean in very shallow water, very close to
shore. For reasons detailed in our earlier report, we believe
that there will be considerable dilution of the effluent by the
time it emerges; but quantitative estimation of the dilution is
at this point impossible. The nutrients in the effluent should
probably be of greatest concern, because of their stimulation
of alga growth. Such stimulation lap, apparently, resulted else
where from the discharge of sewage effluents in the near shore
waters, through short outfalls. Considering the possible ranges
of dilution, of the injected effluent from the Kahului-Wailuku
plant, the diluted effluent might conceivably contain nutrient
concentrations several times the natural concentration in the
ocean, or only a small fraction of the natural concentrations.

We summarized the situation in our earlier report as fol-
lows: The effects of the diluted effluent in the sea water do
not seem likely to be significant. However, in the light of
the great concern over meeting coastal water standards, the
assumption of insignificant coastal water quality effects, that
is implicit in the recommendation of underground injection, is
an indication of an out of sight, out of mind philosophy, which
has been stimulated by the restriction of the water quality
standards to surface and coastal ground waters — coastal water
excluding ground water.

In our previous report, we called attention to the hazard
of tsunami inundation at the proposed Kanaha Pond site for the
sewage treatment plant. We called attention to the fact that
the landfill that was planned would not constitute adequate

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





protection against the hazard, but recognized that with suitabl
design, the plant could be made essentially tsunami-proof. We
understand that attention has been given to such design.

The beaches along most of the coast from Kahului to Paia,
have been retreating for many decades. Some years ago, it
seemed that the rate of sand loss from this beach system was
very nearly equal to the rate of sand mining, for lime manu-
facture, road surfacing and mixing in concrete, suggesting that
the mining might be the cause of the retreat. Whether or not
sand mining is still practiced on this coast, the beaches are
still retreating and the configuration of the beach in the vici
nity of Kanaha Pond, at least a few months ago, suggested that j
the recent retreat has been particularly severe in that vicinity
If beach retreat threatens the sewage treatment plant, it can,
of course, be protected. But attempts to provide artificial
protection against beach retreat have very frequently had unfor
tunate consequences on beach stability in nearby areas.

Comments on certain environmental aspects of two alterna-
tive sites that have been considered for the Kahului-Wailuku
Sewage Treatment Plant seem appropriate. One of the sites is |
near the road to the west breakwater of Kahului Harbor. We
think it should be noted that underground injection of effluent!
at this site may be quite infeasible. Successful injection of :
effluent at the Kanaha Pond site is made possible by the pre-
sence of lava flews from Haleakala, underlying the site at smal
depth. Near the west end of Kahului Harbor, the Haleakala lava
flows, pinch out and inter-finger with alluvium from West Maui.
Although Haleakala lavas are present near the surface at the
Maui Pineapple Cannery, no lava flows were encountered at Maui i
Community College Well No. 17.2, at a depth — standing to a !
depth of 68 feet; or at Maui County Well No. 17.1, extending
to a depth of 110 feet, both near the west end of Kahului Har-

At the Wailuku Mill, a test hole drilled about 30 years
ago, extended to a depth of 600 or 700 feet belcw sea level
without encountering either lavas from Haleakala or lavas from
West Maui. The permeability of the sediment inter-fingered
with the Haleakala lavas in the vicinity of the west part of
Kahului Harbor, is much too low to permit successful injection 1
of sewage. No plans should be made to inject sewage in this i
area without test drilling to demonstrate the presence of lava {
at the site.	j

The other site to be considered is that in the sand dunes j
east of Kanaha Pond and northwest of Kahului Airport. Although
there are beach and dune deposits at the surface, in part of <


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii





this area, the same lavas that are found at Kanaha Pond lie
close to the surface there. Hence, underground Injection
should be equally feasible there. There are no ponds in the
vicinity, so there would be no question of ecological effects
in such ponds. The sewage treatment plant could be located obi
higher ground, further back from the shore than at Kanaha, re- '
ducing the hazards from tsunamis and beach retreat. The major i
disadvantages with this site are non-environmental ones, such
as the greater distance that the sewage would have to be trans-j
ported.	|

As will perhaps have been recognized from the discussion	'
in the body of this statement, and in our previous report, we

believe that the investigations Which led to the selection of	I

the Kanaha Pond site for the Wailuku-Kahului Sewage Treatment	j

Plant, and of the selection of underground injection, as the	j
means for disposal of effluent from the plant, have, in many

ways, been inadequate and in some ways, have been misleading.	i

We believe that plans based on more thorough and valid inves-	|
tigations might differ in some respects from those now being
considered. However, we would not like to leave the impression!

that in our opinion, that construction and use of the plant as	>
it is now planned, should be deferred.

Deferral would mean continuance of the present practice of
discharging raw sewage to near shore waters, both east and west
of Kahului Harbor, for the period sufficient for thorough re-
examination and for a development of new plans if a change in
site or means of effluent disposal seemed in order. It is our
understanding that a favorable bid has been received for con-
struction in accordance with the present plans.



Stronger evidence than is now available to us, that signi-
ficant deleterious ecological effects will result from the im-
plementation of the present plans — stronger evidence of this
kind, would have to. be available to lead us to believe that de-
ferral would be warranted. We do, however, recommend that plansi
being developed for more thorough investigation, of the course
of flows injected in the proposed well, as a preliminary part
of the construction program, be completed and implemented, so
that if construction proceeds, the effects of injection can be
monitored after the facilities are put into operation. And in-'
deed, so that the major part of the construction program could j
be cancelled, even at a late date, if early information from |
this investigation warranted so drastic a step.	;


Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Cox, you mentioned at the first

Portland Oregon Honolulu Hawap





part of your presentation that there could possibly be some
harm to the Pond, and I assume to the birds, if there was a
large amount of undiluted effluent reaching the Pond. What is
the possibility of a large amount of undiluted effluent reach-
ing the Pond? So that the birds would have access?

MR. COX: If you mean a large amount — a large fraction
of the total amount of water reaching the Pond, I should say
the chances are nil.

HEARINGS OPFICER DUNN: Do you feel that the chances are
nil, that there could be any effect 	 (interrupted)

MR. COX: I said "nil".


MR. COX: Nil.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Okay — do you feel that there is j
a possibility that there would be some effect on the birds froml
any part of the water reaching the Pond?

MR. COX: The chances of effects on the birds or amy of j
the rest of the biota, to a measurable extent, from such frac-
tions of — from the incorporation of effluent in such frac-
tions of the total supply of the Pond as we conceive possible,
we just don't think it will be measurable.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: In your opinion or within your
knowledge, what could cause large amounts of effluent to reach i
the Pond? Can you think of any situation?	J

MR. COX: Putting a direct pipeline.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I beg your pardon?

MR. COX: Putting a direct pipeline from the sewage treat-
ment plant to the well. No, I can't see any way, given the
present plans, any way by which large fractions of the effluent
could reach the Pond.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: When I refer to "large fractions",
I mean sufficient waters to cause harm to the Pond, you under-

MR. COX: Yes. Well, all I can give you is our opinion,
that it's unlikely that measurable effects will result; but I

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





really can't put that likelihood in statistical terms, for

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I understand. All right. Have
you anything else to add, Dr. Cox?

MR. COX: No. You have in the record or will have in the
record, some pretty bulky statements, which do have a great
deal more, but unless there are questions that I can answer to
your satisfaction, I am throucjh.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: All right. Very well. Thank you
very much.

NR. COX: Thank you.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: It's almost 9 o'clock. Let's take
a 10-minute recess. We will reconvene in 10 minutes.

(Short recess)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Ladies and gentlemen, would you
take your seats, please? If you will take your seats, we will
continue with the hearing. Before we continue with another
person who wishes to give a statement or comments in this hear-
ing, I have just a couple of short announcements to make. We
found someone's keys. Apparently, sonteone has misplaced their
keys. There's someone's car keys that have been misplaced, and
Nr. DeFalco has them.

I would like to remind you again, that if you have not
already registered, you should do so in order to make sure that
your registration card is a part of the official hearing record.
We have a large number of registration cards that request time
to make a statement or comment and I just wanted to remind you
that if you wish to submit a written statement instead of mak-
ing comments, we will be glad to accept it as a part of the
record and you do have until Narch 2nd, as long as your state-
ment is postmarked March 2nd, it will be made a part of the
official record. And you should send it either to EPA in San
Francisco, at 100 California Street, or to the EPA office in
Honolulu at 1000 Bishop Street, Suite 601.

|	Is Councilman Molina ready to make his statement? Mr.

j Molina?



Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





MR. MOLINA: Thank you. Madam. Manuel Molina, represent-
ing the Maui County Council. I have a letter and a resolution
I would like to include into the record.

This letter is from the County Clerk dated February 20th,
1973. "Honorable Goro Hokama, Chairman of the Council, County
of Maui, Wailuku, Maui. Dear Sirt Subject: Resolution No.
29 entitled 'Endorsing immediate construction of the Wailuku-
Kahului waste water treatment and disposal system project'.
The Council of the County of Maui, on February 16th, 1973,
adopted the above-captioned resolution. Besides transmittal ofj
certified copies to those designated in the resolution, the
resolution resolves that certified copies of this resolution
be presented at the public hearing for inclusion in the offi-
cial records, referring to, of course, the public hearing sche-
duled for February 23rd, 1973, by the 0. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.

"Accordingly, we respectfully transmit two certified
copies of Resolution No. 29, for presentation at said public
hearing in the manner you deem appropriate. Respectfully, j
James Ushijima."	j

Resolution No. 29, introduced by Joseph E. Bulgo and E. Lcry
Cluney: "Endorsing immediate construction of the Wailuku-Kahu-
lui waste water treatment and disposal system project;

"Whereas, the U„ S. Environmental Protection Agency will
hold a public hearing on February 23rd, 1973; and	j


"Whereas, the purpose of this public hearing is to receive!
comments and information from the public for consideration and
evaluation regarding the waste water treatment and disposal
system for the Central Maui area; and

"Whereas, the Council of the County of Maui is a duly
elected representative body of the people of the County of Maui;

"Whereas, the Council has been fully appraised of the
scope and intent of the project; and

"Whereas, the Council finds that the proposed system to
be sited adjacent to the Kanaha Pond, offers a proper balance
between man and his environment; and

"Whereas, the expeditious implementation of the system is
in the best interests of thฉ people and taxpayers of the Countyl
of Maui;	|

PORtlano. Oreoon- Honolulu, Hawaii



"How therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the
County of Maui, that it does hereby endorse and fully support
the project at the Kanaha site for immediate construction; and

"Be it further resolved that certified copies of this
resolution be presented at the public hearing for inclusion in
the official records; and

"Be it further resolved that certified copies of this
resolution be transmitted to the Honorable Hiram L. Pong,

United States Senator; to the Honorable Daniel K. Inouye,

United States Senator; to the Honorable Congressman Spark N.
Matsunaga; to the Honorable Congresswoman Patsy D. Mink; to Mr.
Russell Train, Chairman, Council of the Environmental Quality;
to Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency; and to Mr. Paul DeFalco, Region IX, Adminis-
trator, Environmental Protection Agency."

Thank you very much.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Molina.

MR. MOLINA: Can I leave this document with somebody or
do you have one?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Leave the document with Mr. DeFalc

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Dr. Howard Powers? Dr. Powers,
may I request, as I would request of any other speakers that
appear here tonight, that you highlight your speech, if possi-
ble, to save time, and give us any written speech that you
have made, if you have it in writing.

DR. POWERS: I shall be very short,

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much.


DR. POWERS: I am a Geologist by the name of Howard Powers
retired now, and I have just a word or two to say about what
will happen to the effluent from the well.

I can see it all right. I think our Chairman can see it.

(Referring to drawing)

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





The blue color represents the salt water that Dr. Cox has
been speaking about — the bas&l ground water table; the yel-
low Is the Hertzberg Lens, which is brackish water, grading up
to sweet water at the surface and this brown line through here,
represents the bottom of the Pond sediments. As I say, it is
very much of a cartoon. Now, when the consultants were doing
their geology — and all of us were concerned in the geology
— we all had the concept that the bottom of the lagoon sedi-
ments was fairly water-tight; and that the Kanaha Pond was
being fed by springs from above this water-tight base of the
sediments, not coning from the basal water table and the Hertz-
berg Lens.

Now, a study by the biologists from the University of
Hawaii pointed out that there were two and probahly three
spring areas where the water seemed to be much too fresh to be
coming from this water in the lagoon sediments. So it is my
conviction now — and geologists usually have to make an edu-
cated guess on what they can see — it is my belief that the
Kanaha Pond springs are coming from the same part of the Hertz-!
berg Lens, \*hich will be invaded by the sewer effluent.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Now, you said that you were making
a guess on this, Drป Powers. Do you have anything — any ether
information, other than your guess? You mentioned someone from
the University of Hawaii.

DR. PCB7ERS: The salt content of the springs seems to be
too fresh to be coining from the water which is trapped in this j
lagoon. Otber collections of samples from the water and the
lagoon are more salty than the water which is canting in the
springs. The water is fresh enough to support palm trees and
bulrushes, and it is a very fresh water — almost as fresh as
the water in the well trtiich Dr„ Cox mentioned, Which is 500
parts per million salt.

That's all I have to say is the question that this inter-
pretation would seem to indicate that there is every likeli-
hood that the effluent from the well will enter the Pond in
the sane fashion that these springs now enter. As I say, we
cannot prove it, but it is based on interpretation of the evi-
dence of the freshness of the water.



Thank you.	I

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: What geological test did you, your-
self, perform?

DR. PCMERS: I made no separate geological tests whatso-


Portland. ORKOON - Honolulu Hawaii


ever. Thanks to the courtesy of the County engineers, we
looked at the corings from the drill and we were just trying
to check out to see what we thought about the location of the

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Very well. Do you have anything
else to add, Dr. Powers?

DR. POWERS: I would like to submit this in writing a lit-
tle later on, not tonight.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You are certainly welcome to sub-
mit anything additional you feel relevant to the subject, as
long as you have it postmarked by March 2nd — on or before
that date.

DR. POWERS: Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you. Dr. Powers.

(Witness excused)



MR. MULL: My name is William Mull. I am President of
the Hawaii Audubon Society, which has been working for 34 years
to conserve Hawaii's water bird populations and their habitat.

We strongly support adequate sewage treatment and disposal
for Wailuku and Kahului, and for all urban centers in the State
but not at the potential cost of such a unique and important
ecological entity as Kanaha Pond, if such a loss can be avoided
In cooperation with the Maui Chapter of the Conservation Counci
for Hawaii, I will outline briefly, a few facts about the cur-
rent status of Kanaha Pond in the overall context of water bird
habitat and endangered species in Hawaii.

Studies by Federal, State and University biologists during
the last decade, have established that Kanaha Pond supports
year around populations of the Hawaiian Stilt, of from 71 to
558 birds; and Hawaiian Coots, from 20 to 166 birds, both of
which are designated as endangered species by the U. S. Bureau
of Sports Fisheries & Wildlife, and the Hawaii Division of Fish
& Game. In addition, Kanaha Pond supports winter populations
of ducks and other migratory birds that number up to over 1,000
individuals. These biologists regard Kanaha as the most import
ant piece of water bird habitat remaining in Hawaii. The most


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



significant factor in their conclusion is the ability of Kanaha
to fulfill the nesting requirements of the endangered Hawaiian
Stilt and Coot. They state that Kanaha Pond is essential to
the survival of the Hawaiian Stilt and the Hawaiian Coot.

In the larger context, Kanaha Pond is an essential part
of the overall Hawaiian eco-system, an eco-system that is
largely endangered. This is indicated by the fact that State
and Federal authorities regard 28 out of Hawaii's 45 surviving
species and sub-species of unique land and water birds, as
threatened with extinction. In the National context, Hawaii's
28 endangered species represent well over half of the 52 en-
dangered species of birds so designated by the U. S. Department
of Interior for the entire Nation.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr.
Mull. Earlier this afternoon, we had some testimony that was
similar to the testimony you are presenting here tonight with
regard to Kanaha Pond being a refuge for the Hawaiian Stilt and
other birds.

MR. MULL: Yes.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Do you have any information which
would show me or show the Environmental Protection Agency, what
the effect of the location of the sewage system will be toward
the birds who occupy Kanaha Pond or something that would show
me or show us that there is going to be a significant effect on
the environment of these birds or a significant change in the
environment as the result of locating the sewage system at the
proposed location near the Pond?

MR. MULL: Yes. My continents — I said they are brief —
they will be over with in a minute or two — are pointed at
demonstrating that if this well fails to do what has been
claimed for it, but which has not been demonstrated, through
the due process of the National Environmental Policy Act — if
this happens, the ecological effect will be significant in termu
of Federal and State law. I am simply summarizing in a way thai:
has not been summarized this afternoon, the pertinent legisla-
tion involved as well as my very brief statement on the status
of these species, in the context of the Hawaiian Stilt and the
Hawaiian Coot. I have about three more short paragraphs to
read, which will complete my statement.


MR. MULL: In the National context, Hawaii's 28 endangered
species represent well over half of the 52 endangered species


Portland Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii



of birds so designated by the U. S. Department of Interior for
the entire Nation. Native Hawaiian plants, insects and other
farms of life that make up our Hawaiian eco-systerns are in
similar bad shape.

On October 7, 1970, the U. S. Congress enacted Public Law
91-438, which concludes that "one of the most crucial situation
to face this or any other civilization is the immediate or near
potential of mankind to damage, possibly beyond repair, the
earth's ecological system on Which all life depends". In Jan-
uary of the same year, the President signed into law, the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act, Which established the require-
ment and the machinery to assess the potential impact of Feder-
ally funded projects that might have a significant effect on
our human environment. Also in 1970, the Hawaii State Legis- j
lature enacted two pieces of legislation — Acts 139 and 195,
to preserve natural areas and to protect native biota. Since
then, the Government has issued an Executive Order — the Gover-
nor, excuse me, has issued an Executive Order, requiring environ
mental impact statements on State projects. Last year, the
State Legislature unanimously approved a bill to conserve and
protect indigenous and endangered birds and mammals in Hawaii.
Act 49, the Endangered Species Conservation Act was signed into
law by Governor Burns an May 16th, 1972.

In this context of serious State and Federal action to
conserve and protect the species and eco-systems that make up
our essential natural environment. Kanaha Pond takes on an im-
portance for the State and for the Nation that deserves the
most cheerful and serious consideration. As it turns out,
there was more involved than the Whims of a few bird watchers
and scientists When the State first set aside Kanaha Pond as a
refuge in 1952; and When the Federal Government declared it a
significant National landmark in 1968, deserving permanent pro-
tection. Clearly, the official machinery is available to weigh
prudently, Where and what kind of treatment and disposal faci-
lities might best be set up to serve the community's needs,
both for sewage treatment and for insured perpetuation of Kanah^
Pond as a valuable element in Maui's natural environment.
Thorough environmental impact statements, with objective assessj-
ments of alternative sites at both the State and Federal levels
will provide the best informed answer.

I have attached to the written copy of my testimony to-
night, several documents that may or may not be available to
EPA, which are pertinent to demonstrating how endangered these
birds are and Where they fit into these eco-systems, and what
the authorities for these statements are. 1 think, although
statements have been made to this effect — this afternoon, for


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii






example, I don't think the authority was stated. I am providing
sane af that authority as background for you in your considera-
tions, along with my written testimony.	j


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: We will receive that information, I
if you will hand it to Mr. DeFalco.

MR. MULL: All right, thank you. I have already provided j

it.	I


(Witness excused) j


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Robert Bruce? Mr. Bruce, as I j
recall, you made a statement this afternoon to us?	j


MR, BRUCE: Yes, I am going to cover a different area |
completely tonight and I am not going to read a long report.
I am just going to briefly summarize some of the things that
I feel are very pertinent and have not been given adequate con-


MR. BRUCE: And the first thing is this matter of beach
erosion. This is a very serious thing on the frontage of that
lot that has been selected on the Kanaha Pond for the site.

There is a report of the U. S. Army Engineers, dated August,
1971, which lists the area there as a critical erosion area of !
the beaches there; and there has been severe erosion over the I
period. I have been connected — I didn't properly introduce j
myself, I guess. I was Head of the Land Department of the
original owner of that land and I have been familiar with the
Spreckelsville Beach for oh, at least 30 years and — have seen|
this continuous erosion and it is very well indicated right j
near the site there. There is one pillbox that is 100 feet outi
in the water and that was originally built on a dune and one j
remark was made that the sand dunes are protecting — would
protect the site. The sand dunes are being continuously eroded
and the only reason the sand dunes actually protect the site is
if they can slowly and gradually shift back; and this has been
occurring all along the Spreckelsville Beach. It's a very
windy beach. There is a strong tradewind and it just picks the
sand up off the beach and throws it up on the dune; and if im-
provements are set in there, they will eliminate the natural
shifting barrier -- sand dunes, which are now the natural shore-
line protection afforded the Kanaha Pond. However, to provide
this natural protection to the Pond, these dunes have to be al-
lowed to pile up high, with the wind-blown coral sand constantly
being produced in the ocean, and allowed to shift to slowly

Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



drift inland, ahead of this critically eroding shoreline. The
elimination of this natural shifting barrier dune is just one
more of the serious adverse impacts of allowing the sewage
treatment plant to be built on this particular site.

The 	 (interrupted)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is it your contention. Mr. Bruce,
that building the sewage treatment plant on that site is going
to cause the erosion of the shoreline?

MR. BRUCE: No, the erosion of the shoreline — I was re-
ferring to the dunes. The erosion of the shoreline has been
going on there for all time. The Array Engineers said they can
see the original indication of the shoreline being 800 feet
from the shore.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is it your contention — maybe I
misunderstood this. Is it your contention that building the
sewage treatment plant in the location proposed is going to
cause a drifting away of the dunes or an obviation or

MR. BRUCE: No, but it will limit the dune from being the
natural protective barrier that it is nc*r. If they have got a
plant there, they are not going to allow the dune to shift over
the plant. The lot along the shore is very narrow, particular-
ly at the east end of the lot, where the holding pond is for
the raw sewage. It gets to be only 300 feet. There are very
clear indications that the shore has gone back oh, at least
300 feet in the last 30 years or 40 years; and we have records
along there, you can look at maps that have been made and lots
that have been surveyed, where there has been drastic erosion
of the shoreline. It's listed as one of the most critical
shorelines on Maui for erosion.

So, I don't want to take too much time — there are lots
of people here to report, and we are not going to be here all
night, I hope, so I would like to take the privilege of sub-
mitting my report in writing at a later date.

I would like to say one thing, though, on the water in the
Pond -- you are particularly interested in that. I actually
went to all points in the Pond and took samples of the water
and made tests of the salinity of those waters that are welling
up into the Pond. There is no question in my mind that the
Pond is being fed by underground springs from the water table;
and there's no question, as Dr. Cox said, that the water will
diffuse in all directions from the injection wells and it will

Portland Orcgon - Honolulu Hawaii



rise up through the salt water and pollute the lens. Whether
it will stay in the bottom of the lens or gradually work up.to
the lens, is another matter. There are such things as lava
tubes in these flows and other channels, and the water will
follew the line of least resistance and it is liable to — and
some of the springs are delivering quite considerable quantity
of water to the well and it's not only going to be in dry wea-
ther. This is one that may be a little redundant, but I did
mention this afternoon that there is going to be a drainage
canal built by the State of Hawaii to drain the road, and it is
a sea level canal, and that might lower the level of the water
in the Pond, so that to protect the site, the pump water would
be run continuously. There is a real chance of that, and of
course, I am very interested in — I am President of the Hui
Manu, the local bird society here, and we are interested, like !
lots of other people, in protecting the birds on that Pond. j
The County is, too, there is no question about that, and this
is a direct threat to the Pond and the well then, might have
to be run continuously, Which would add greatly to the possi-
bility of pollution from this effluent that will certainly risei
up into the water table — springs that are new feeding the
Pond. And if the well is directing the water — is drawing
polluted effluent water in that direction, the springs that arej
feeding the Pond will also be polluted.	j

I will submit a report in writing before March the 2nd. j

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Bruce.

(Witness excused)



MR. BOSE: I am John Bose, a member of the Kanaha Pond
Committee, which has been over a year investigating this sewage
treatment site; and I am also operator of the Maui Environmen-
tal Information Center and I have been collecting documents on
this project since I first learned of it, over two years ago.

Before I go into my statement, if I may, I would like to
ask the Chair for clarification of the nature of this meeting.
I have letters to Senator Inouye, to Senator Fong, to Mr. Keenan
of the National Wildlife Federation in Washington and to our
organization, all accompanying letters of intent to file an
environmental impact statement; and also a request to bring
information to this meeting for a draft environmental impact
statement. Now, this seems contrary to the statement made at






the opening of the meeting that you were still determining
whether or not an environmental impact statement was to be
done. All these people have been informed that it would, in
fact, be done.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You mean by the letter of intent
that was sent out?

MR. BOSE: Not only by a letter of intent, but by the per-
sonal letter to Senator Inouye says, "We shall do the environ-
mental impact statement."

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Who wrote that letter?

MR. BOSE: Mr. Paul DeFalco.	I

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You know, in order to save some j
time, many times, letters of intent are sent out as a matter
of procedure pending a more affective or more extensive study.
It's like any other letter that can be sent out — it can be
sent out in order to save time later on, if, in fact, an im-
pact statement is necessary. If one is not, then a letter of
revocation can be sent out and the negative declaration or the j
impact appraisal, with a negative declaration, be sent along
with the letter of revocation, Mr. Bose. Do you understand?

MR. BOSE: In the interest of saving time, I would like
very much to see this procedure all, as a groundwork for the
draft environmental impact statement and not delay it any fur-
ther. We would like very much to have the project move as
rapidly as possible, along with the Bounty and everyone else.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: At the close of this hearing, as I
announced at the beginning of this session and the session ear-
lier this afternoon, there will be an evaluation made of the
information that is received here, to determine whether or not
there is significant controversy or significant effect on the
environment to justify an impact statement; and the information
that is used here will — or is gathered here, will be used,
if such a statement is justified.

MR. BOSE: Then, would I be correct in informing Senator
Inouye that the statement — "that an environmental impact state
ment shall be prepared", is not actually a correct statement?

I	HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I didn't say that it wasn't a cor-

J rect statement. I did not say that at all, Mr. Bose. I said
j that the letter was sent out in order to save time at a later
time, if, in fact, it is determined by the information gathered

Portland Oregon-Honolulu Hawaii





here, that an impact statement is necessary.

MR. BOSE: Thank you. One of the arguments against the
Quonset Hut site is the odor problem. I agree that this area
is no proper place for a cheap, poorly functioning, smelly (
sewage treatment plant. Neither is the Kanaha Pond site, which|
is less than a half mile upwind from the new Maui Mall Shopping!
Center. The fact is, that there is no excuse for constructing
a smelly plant at either site. To protect the environment, j
the County is required to use the best, practical method of
sewage treatment. For the Kihe4 Plant, the proposed method of j
sewage treatment is technically advanced beyond the older sys- j
tern proposed for the Wailuku-Kahului plant.	I


The complete mixed aerobic system proposed for Kihed will ;
produce no odor, according to the design criteria. It will
also have a lower operating and maintenance cost and be less
subject to malfunction situations, requiring the temporary holdf-
ing of raw sewage in open ponds. If the more advanced tech- |
nique were employed in the Wailuku-Kahului plant, the plant
would be far superior to the plan that has been presented to
us up to this point.

Central Maui deserves no less than Kihefc. The County
should plan an odor-free plant for the Quonset Hut site. When
this odor-free plant begins operating at the logical central
location, it will produce each day, about 5 million gallons of |
clean, rich, sanitary irrigation water. The same nitrogen and I
other nutrients that would destroy the Kanaha Pond bird habitat!,
by producing an overgrowth of algae would transform the sandy j
green belt of parks and public open space into areas of lush,
tropical growth. The brownish stubble at Maui Community Collegje,
produced by the brackish well water now used for sprinkling, |
would become healthy green.	j


Unfortunately, if the present County plan is followed,
this valuable effluent will be thrown away. Any time when Maui
is experiencing water shortages year after year, the County
intends to pump all the reclaimed water into injection wells
near Kanaha Pond. Federal requirements for sub-surface dis- j
posal permit this method only after "alternative measures have j
been explored and have been found less satisfactory in terms >
of environmental protection". The R. M. Towill sewage master
plan does not support any conclusion that injection is the bestj
alternative.	j

Furthermore, the Government policy, "considers this method)
of effluent disposal as a temporary means of ultimate disposal,
to be discontinued as an alternative, enabling great environ-


Portland Orboon - Honolulu Hawaii	j



mental protection" becomes available. We ask that the Federal
policies be strictly enforced and that the more desirable al-
ternative of irrigation use be required for this project. Ac-
cording to the County Engineer studies, utilizing the effluent
from the Kanaha site, will cost ง195,000 more than the same
utilization from the Quonset site, due to the less favorable
location. The value of the irrigation water is more than
$100,000 each year. Surely, we cannot afford to throw away
this valuable resource.

There are, at the present time, three main sewage collec-
tion systems to be served by this treatment plant — the Wai-
luku system, all of Kahului, west of Hina Street and the east
portion of Kahului. The system from Hina Street eastward, has
a severe infiltration problem. The Chung Dho Ahn study indi-
cates that each 100 gallons of material pumped from this sys-
tem contains 75 gallons of ground water and only 2 5 gallons of
sewage, due to leaky pipe joints and manholes. The study says,
"Before secondary waste water treatment is feasible for Wailuku
and Kahului, a program to rebuild sewers and manholes in areas
where ground water is prevalent, must be undertaken." The re-
port later states, "Virtually no dilution in the Wailuku flows.
The W&iluku outfall serves the newer Kahului collection system
west of Hina. All this undiluted sewage is delivered by gravit
to locations very close to the Quonset Hut plant site.

If the Kanaha site is selected, this good sewage will have
to be pumped directly through the area of severe ground water
problem. Mr. Bruce, the Hydrologist in our Committee, has
stated that this would be extremely poor planning, and the rea-
sons are obvious.

From the evidence gathered by the Kanaha Pond Committee,
over the past year, a portion of which have been reported in
our statements tonight, we have drawn a comparison of the rela-
tive merits of the two proposed sites. In summary, Site B, the
Kanaha Pond location, has the following disadvantages: It is
in a flood plane and tsunami inundation zone, as indicated in
the County's drainage master plan. The shoreline is critically
eroding, as reported by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
soil conditions are unstable for buildings, roads or ponds, as
indicated in the U. S. Soils Conservation Service Survey of
1972. It is adjacent to a registered National natural landmark
so designated because of the unspoiled character of the site,
as described by the U. S. Department of Interior, August, 1971.

Initial costs, including sewage delivery, effluent utili-
zation and tsunami protection, are $450,000 greater than if the
Quonset site, with the alternatives, would have been selected,




not including the unkncam costs of shoreline stabilization.
These figures are from the Tcwill and Chung Dho Ahn studies.

The disposal method for effluent is a wasteful, temporary
expedient, in apparent violation of the FWQA policy of October
the 5th, 1970. It could lead to the extinction of the endan-
gered species of birds by destroying their last, best habitat.

The only serious objection to the Quonset Hut site is its j
proximity to Maui Community College and residential areas. The'
money saved by locating the plant at this site, could be used 1
to insure an absolutely odor-free plant, with holding tanks
instead of an open pond, designed to be completely compatible I
with the intended use of the area. The alternative site will j
occupy variable shoreline, a goodly proportion of the scant
public sand beach for the entire Island. By all standards of ;
good planning, beaches should be preserved as open space at
all costs.


It is not too late to remedy the errors that have come |
from hasty planning, so that Maul will end up with the best 1
possible sewage system, while protecting the environment to
the best possible degree. And my feeling is, that if an honest|
environmental impact statement is prepared, in accordance with !
NEPA, the site will definitely be changed.	j



Thank you	j

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Bose. j

(Witness excused)



MR. CAHILL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am Russ Cahill,
of Kokomo, Maui. I am a Biologist, the President of the Maui
Chapter of the Conservation Council for Hawaii; and the Chair-
man of the Committee which has just given testimony. I would
like to make two points and then summarize our Committee's
position on the matter before you. I will try not to be re-
dundant .	j

I would also like to say, and this is not in my written j
testimony, that I feel that this plant siting situation is be- i
ing handled as if it were &n Island without a surrounding area;
and it seems to me that it should be treated as indicated in
the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, for the poten-


Portland Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii	j





tial of it being an incremental loss to the value of this wild-
life refuge, and I will try to cover that.

My first point is, the high nutrient levels in the Pond.
Kanaha Pond is a shallow body of water in a warm area. Its
salinity varies from very low, at its fresh water spring areas,
to very high in its brackish sections. It is a healthy eco-
system producing year after year, several individuals of the
species listed by the Interior Department as endangered. If
the effluent from this proposed plant brings the nutrient load
of phosphates and nitrates in this Pond to a very high level,
I feel that the following will happen:

1.	Algae will bloom in great concentrations and the Pond
will eutrophy.

2.	Lcm oxygen levels will favor those species of microbe
and micro-organisms which are anarobic.

3.	There is a strong possibility that botulism will occur
within the water bird populations, as it has recently, in the
Kaelepulu Pond on Oahu, and in several plantation ponds on

4.	The population of water birds in Kanaha Pond will be

The second point I would like to make is the point of
development encroachment. This Pond is a small remnant of its
former size. Habitat has been lost in this area through severap
factors. The Kahului Harbor end has been filled with dredge
spoil. The airport end has had several roads and bunkers built
into it, cutting off good habitat area. The Pond is bordered
on its harbor end by major petrolium storage facilities, severap
light industrial facilities, the Maui Electric Power Plant and
a livestock feed sales outlet. On its idauka side is Maui's
busiest highway; and on the opposite side of that, Maui's only
major industrial sub-division and automobile sales facilities.
In that area are dozens of structures which have been built
during the last few years. On the airport end, rapid planning
and construction efforts are being nade to provide Governmental
operations, base yard facilities and further industrial uses.
Plans are on the drawing boards for large drainage canals through
both ends of the Pond, to drain highways and future construction



If this plant is built at its proposed location, we will |
have surrounded the Pond with industrial uses within a very
few years. I feel strongly that this action will diminish the




Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii	I





value of this Pond as a wildlife refuge.

New, I would like to summarize very briefly our Committee'
position. First, Mr. Mull testified about the endangered Hawai
ian birds and the fact that our record for bird extinctions in
numbers of endangered and rare bird species, is unsurpassed in
the world.

Mr. Lennox testified this afternoon, and was unable to be
here tonight, about the historic loss of water bird habitat in
Hawaii; and pointed out how important Kanaha Pond is in that

Dr. Powers gave you an idea of what the subterranean and
submarine geology of the Kanaha Pond area consists of, and
expressed the probability that effluent would come up in the

Mr. Bruce discussed the aspects of the tsunami inundation
potential, shoreline erosion potential, and the suitability of
the stir face site.

John Bose covered the infiltration problem, the site al-
ternative, and the disposal method.

You are probably curious about Where we have obtained our
information and why we are interested in this project. Our
information comes first from experience. The testimony you
have heard comes from individuals who have a total of over 120
years of experience in Hawaii, dealing with natural resources
— individuals who have seen these resources destroyed, not
by one great cataclysm, but nickeled and dimed to death by
projects such as this one. Our testimony and our concern comes
from careful study — over 300 hours of study, field work and
discussions. The deeper we have dug into the consultants' re-
ports and other data, the more we have become convinced that
there is no good evidence to support the siting of this plant
next to Kanaha Pond.

If there are reasons, we are ready to hear them. Indeed,
we were ready to hear them over a year ago and the National
Environmental Policy Act requires you to give us those reasons.
We urge you as strongly as we can, to cut through the emotional-
ism and provincialism surrounding this controversy and look at
the facts. We aire sure that if you are objective, those facts
will lead you to one course of action — removal of the site to
a location away from this irreplaceable wildlife refuge.

Thank you.




HEARINGS OPPICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Cahill.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFPICER DUNN: Mr. Robert Martin? Is Mr. Martin


MR. ROBERT MARTIN: Yes, and I have no testimony.


MR. MARTIN: Madam Chairman, my name is William Martin and
I have been asked to read tonight, and enter into the record,
a prepared statement by Mrs. Inez Ashdown, Who is sick at home
and is not able to be here tonight. Her statement is dated
February 22nd, 1973 and reads as follows:

"Gentlemen, as a member of the Mayor's Citizens Committee
on Kanaha Pond, I have worked hard toward preservation and
safety of historic ponds and the bird sanctuaries. Like my
fellow members, I feared What nearby bulldozing, building and
probable use of chlorination, for purification purposes in the
proposed sewage disposal plant, might do When erected almost
beside the ponds. Consequently, I have started to discuss,
argue, questioned and often lost my temper about 'all these new
changes which now are ruining my homeland, so I feel like a
stranger on Maui now'.

"Last evening, my oldest son, Agnus phoned us. I asked
his opinion on the subject, because he is a factory manager and
senior engineer for American Factors Plantation, at Lihue,
Kauai. He knows all about the methods of waste disposal and
purification and environmental balance of nature, et cetera.,
Agnus said that if this new sewage disposal plant be built and
operated properly, there is no reason why it should not be
beneficial, rather than a cause of danger to the ponds, the
birds, the fish, plant life and the environment. I reminded
him that since 1915, I have ridden horseback all in that area
and have seen horses grazing with their heads in the pond water
up to their eyes, to crop the fresh, green grass under water;
that the personnel at the NASCA, Kahului, during World War II
were the ones who filled in part of the ponds, so that now,
during heavy storms, the birds cannot eat because of too deep
water. Also, that I hope to see the ponds looking like a beau-
tiful lake and park land and with the mullet and moi thriving
there, too.


"Newnsa$lฃtaa flood gates should be made, as in the time When
Kiaha-a-Pi'ilani first built between ponds. In Kanaha and Mau-oni


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





there are provided fish for the populace.

"Agnus met all the points with sensible logic and advised
that I continue to trust Mayor Carvalho to protect the ponds
and to see that the disposal plant does not affect the ponds


"New, just for the record, I want to say that I shall go j
along with the modern plans and hope that no harm can come to
the ponds or life there. Agnus added that the purified water
from the new plant could be used for field irrigation, thus ;
helping to save pure drinking water fromWaiakamoe and other |
sources. He concluded by saying that no chlorine is necessary
if the effluent is properly treated and that the plant actually!
could be a beautiful spot.



"Please count me now, as for the Mayor's plans. Respect-
fully, Inez Ashdown."	j


Thank you, Madam Chairman.


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Martin.	j

(Witness excused)	j

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Eller — Mr. W. M. Eller? I


MR, ELLER: Madam Chairman, I am speaking — my name is
Willard Eller. I am speaking in behalf of the Maui Redevelop-
ment Agency — a short statement here.

The Maui Redevelopment Agency has followed with keen in-
terest, the proposed construction of the Wailuku-Kahului Sewage
Treatment Plant. We feel the sewage treatment facility, vrtiich
will serve the entire population in the central and outlying
areas of Maui, is much needed and long overdue.

Our Agency is presently preparing an urban renewal plan
for the heart of Wailuku. This project is administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and will eventually
upgrade the main business sector as well as improve the resi- j
dential areas, which have deteriorated ever the years.	j

The sewage collection system is substantially in existence
and may be slightly improved. The sewage from this area will
receive treatment at the proposed plant, which is considered
an important support facility for our project.	j




Portland Orkoon - Honolulu Hawaii	j



Regarding the plant location, we feel that a site close
to the industrial area, and away from human habitation, is much
more desirable than one in the heart of the recreation and re-
sidential center of Maui.

In summary, the Agency is completely in favor of the pro-
posed WailuXu-Kahului Sewage Treatment Plant as planned and
located. Construction of this important facility should be
allowed to commence without further delay. We request your
help in making this possible.

Thank you very much, sincerely yours, Maui Redevelopment

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Eller.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Winston Miyahira?


MR. MIYAHIRA: Madam Chairman, my name is Winston S. Miya-
hira. It's okay. You may call me "O'Hara", if it is easier.




MR. MIYAHIRA: I represent this evening, the Kanaha Pond
Citizens Committee, as Chairman of that Committee. I realize
that time is running short, so I will briefly summarize what I
have to say and file for your records, a written statement.

I think it's significant that some historical background
be given about this Committee, because of its significance to
the Pond. This Committee was formed in 1959, when the Legis-
lature created or gave us an appropriation to improve the Kanahla
Pond, Which is really the reason Why we are here, in connection
with the sewage treatment plant. And this Committee, from its
early inception in 1959, worked towards developing this Pond,
Which, as you have heard, is one of the best, if not the best,
bird sanctuary left in the State of Hawaii.

However, we have, even before the problem of the sewage
treatment plant, encountered many other problems. During the
early part of our developmental plans, we encountered problems
with the FAA; and incidentally, this is still a problem with us
The latest information is that the FAA has still not accepted

Portland Oregon-Honolulu Hawaii



our developmental plans, and Which is our main stumbling block
from going forth with the development of the Kanaha Pond. We
also encountered problems of drainage problems, flood control j
problems and numerous problems in housekeeping and managerial I
problems, that the Department of Land & Natural Resources has
encountered also, as stated a while ago by Mr. William Thomp-
son of that Department.


Actually, it has been 14 years of frustration. However, |
I would like to state here clearly that the frustration was, !
together with the County of Maui Government the Department of
Public Works, the Department of Planning, Department of Parks,
as well as the State Department of Land & Natural Resources0
I intend to say here, then, that the inter-government coopera-
tion was nothing but excellent. We had the best of cooperation!.
I realize that this does not have anything to do with the im-
pact statement requirement, but I think as a matter of history,!
it is important that our Committee knows about this.	j

With regard to the sewage treatment plant, the Citizens
Committee is purely an advisory committee — advisory in nature.
However, its influence is felt because of our pointing out the
various critical areas concerned — areas that are called to
our attention by members of the Committee. We do not have any
hired employee, as such, but we do have members who are know-
ledgeable in certain areas of water problems. When the matter
of the sewage treatment plant was considered by our Committee,
we had to fall upon the expertise of our County Government, '
expertise of our Fish & Game Division of the State Land & Naturjal
Resources; and through their information to us, as a Citizens
Committee, we reacted, and relied upon them, and to place our
faith in them, so that they may proceed to develop the Kanaha
Pond Committee, in connection — Kanaha Pond bird sanctuary, inj
connection with the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Takada of the
Fish & Game Division stated for our records, and I would also
like to make it clear that what I have to say is from the re-
cords of our meetings — he stated that because of the assur-
ance of the relocation plan given to us by the County of Maui,
specifically that of assuring the Committee that if the sewage
treatment plant development will shew amy signs of seepage of
effluent in the Pond, that they would be willing to relocate
the wells towards the east section, about 4,000 feet away from
the original site. Mr. Takada of the Fish & Game Division then,
felt, and for our information, that this kind of assurance is


placing faith, that they will do everything in their power to |
preserve the Kanaha Pond bird sanctuary.

However, in view of further information that other conser-
vation groups were in the process of conducting studies regard-!





ing this project, the Kanaha Pond Citizens Committee decided
to refer to its sub-committee/ the assignment of obtaining
whatever information available from such studies; and to com-
pile and furnish our County authorities as well as the State
authorities, with such information.

Now, our records indicate that our sub-committee Chairman,
Mr. Robert Bruce, has subsequently furnished such information
to our County authorities and to the Department of Land &

Natural Resources.

I would like for the public to know, this evening, that
when I say that we did, in the course of 14 years of struggle
and frustration, that we had nothing but the best of coopera-
tion — as a matter of fact, we had nearly $100,000 of appro-
priation, which was to lapse on December 31st of last year,
which is about two months ago. Through the grace of our Gover-
nor, we were able to prevent the lapsing of the funds and to
keep going in the developmental plans.

The records will also show that even before I, as Chairman
of the Committee, approached our County fathers, the Mayor of
our County, Mayor Carvalho, had written to Mr. — Dr. Matsuda,
the Director of the Department of Transportation, asking him to
stop the lapsing of funds by speeding up the developmental plani;
of the Kanaha Pond; and thereby supporting — giving his sup-
port to the developmental plans of the Kanaha Pond. I merely
stated that for public information, that we did have nothing
but the best cooperation of the County, as well as the State.

Now, the Citizens Advisory Committee has spent, as I said,
many hours for the last 14 years, to insure the preservation of
Kanaha Pond bird sanctuary. It is hoped that the findings of
your EPA and other authorities that will be involved, will provis
that the bird sanctuary and the sewage treatment plant can co-
exist, without the necessity of any change of plans. However,
if any findings should be adverse, we hope that the authorities
will pursue a course — or courses of action that will be in
the best interests of man, as well as our total environment.

Thank you.


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Beggs — Mr. Webb Beggs? Is
Mro Beggs here?


Portland. Oregon-Honolulu Hawmi





(No response)



MR. KEALOHA: Madam Chairman, I am Joe Kealoha, President
of the Maui County Board of Realtors.

Whereas, it is assumed that the potential tsunami damage
and erosion problems have been taken into consideration, that
plans to protect the sewage treatment plant are incorporated
in said plan, the Maui County Board of Realtors endorses the
Kanaha Pond for the sewage treatment plant site.

The Board will go on record to endorse said site that has
been selected by the County of Maui, in the area adjacent to
the Kanaha Pond in Kahului, because of the following reasons:

1.	Enough studies have been made by consultants;

2.	Plans are already drawn, bids are called for at a much
less than estimated cost;

3.	No one can assure us that our Island waters can with-
stand more raw waste without upsetting economical balance of
marine lifer

4„ Any further delay may jeopardize the health, safety
and welfare of the people of Maui.

Finally, number five, the site selected is away from any
populated, residential and business area.

Therefore, the Maui County Board of Realtors requests that
the EPA grant the County of Maui to proceed with the contract
for the construction of the waste water treatment and disposal
system in the area adjacent to the Kanaha Pond.

Thank you.


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. William WjJlmore. Is Mr. Wifl-
raore present?

(No response)

Portland Oregon hono. l.



HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Donald Ferrell? Is Mr. FerrelL

(No response)


(No response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Ferrell filled out a card, but
apparently decided to leave and he has attached to his card, a
statement; so I an going to see that the statement is incor-
porated into the record. Mr. James Sconyers — S-c-o-n-y-e-r-s ?


MR. SCONYERS: I am representing the Sierra Club, Hawaii
Chapter, and I am going to condense my remarks even more than
I originally intended to.

The Sierra Club agrees with everyone else, that there is
a need for a sewage treatment plant in the Kahului-Wailuku area.
However, we are opposed to presently accepting the Kanaha Pond
site. We concur with the questions that have been raised and
the doubt9 that have been expressed by such people as the Con-
servation Council, Audubon Society, and others; and to put it
succinctly, on the basis of the evidence, including tonight's
testimony, we feel there is sufficient conflicting interpreta-
tion and opinion of the effect of a plant in the Kanaha Pond
area; and there is enough conflicting interpretation and opin-
ion to warrant further study of the consequences of such a
plant in that area; and the consideration of alternatives.

In short, we recommend the preparation of an environmental
impact statement.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Sconyers.

(Witness excused)



MR. IWATA: Madam Chairmam, my name is Charles Iwata; I
represent the United Public Workers Union, Maui Division.







I have a letter here, dated February 22nd, 1973, to Mr.
Paul DeFalco, Regional Director, Office of Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. 100 California Street, San Francisco, Califor-

"Dear Mr. DeFalco: Proposed location of sewage treatment
plant. In behalf of the UPW, ASME, Local 646, Maui Division,
representing a membership of more than 1,100 members, please
be advised that we support the Mayor's recommendation, the ,
Maui County Council, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce, in the j
proposed location at Kanaha Pond, of the sewage treatment plantj


"We believe that a project of this type should be located :
closer to the birds, rather than to schools.	i


"Your serious and sincere considerations regarding this
matter will be greatly appreciated.

"Very sincerely yours, George Ventura, Vice President,
UPW, ASME, Local 646, Maui Division."

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Iwata.

(Witness excused)



MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman and members of the United j
Environmental Protection Agency, my name is John M. Fernandez,
a resident and property owner of Pukalani, Maui, and a former
Director of Public Works.


I am speaking in behalf of myself and the Pukalani Commu- ;
nity Association. We sincerely support the plans of the County]
of Maui to construct the sewage treatment plant at Kahului, in
the vicinity of the Kanaha Pond, the designated location, whichj
is within the close proximity of an existing sewage and oxida-
tion pond presently serving the Kahului Airport and the housingj


Up to this point, we have not heard of any adverse effectsl
of the untreated effluent from the existing oxidation pond on
this body of water.


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu


NOTARY public


We, the citizens of Pukalani, do respectfully request,
that the Environmental Protection Agency, permit construction
of the proposed Wailuku-Kahului treatment plant in the present
selected location, adjacent to the Kanaha Pond, for the follow-
ing reasons:

First, land is available adjacent to the presently exist-
ing heavy industrial development; therefore, no residents will
be affected. The land is also available to the County of Maui
at no cost. Since the plans are already prepared and were pre-
viously approved, construction should proceed as soon as possi-
ble, to eliminate the raw sewage outfalls presently being dis-
charged outside of the Kahului Harbor.

Third, the plant is needed in order to meet the existing
housing needs in Central Maui. Also, it is contemplated that
eventually, this plant will be intercepting and treating the
sewage from the Paia, Makawao and Pukalani area.

Fourth, we are convinced that the County of Maui, together
with the consultants, who have expertise in this field, have
taken all reasonable precautions to protect the Kanaha bird
sanctuary. There seems to be no positive evidence to indicate
that the plant will damage the Pond.

Fifth, further delays would only mean additional costs to
the taxpayers of this County.

Sixth, we likewise support the County as being opposed to
the site near the Quonset Huts, because of the close proximity
to a residential and educational area. This site should be
preserved for recreational, educational and cultural purposes.

We believe that the plant will result in improvement to
the health and welfare of the surrounding community. This pro-
ject has been in the planning stages for many years. Since its
very inception, speaking from personal experience, environmen-
tal considerations and the need to protect the integrity of
this Pond, have been a consideration of the County.

In conclusion, we strongly recommend that the construction
of this necessary facility should begin immediately. Delay of
this project is unreasonable. It should proceed forthwith.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present our
views in this matter.

Madam Chairman, I also have with me, a petition signed by
the citizens of Makawao, Pukalani and the H&liimaile area, sup-


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



porting this project at this present location. The number
amounts to some 274 signatures; and I would like to present
this, to be injected into the record as testimony supporting j
this project*	i

Thank you, Madam Chairman„	!


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. Would I
you give your material to Mr. DeFalco, please?	j

(Witness excused)	'






MR. KATO: Madam Chairman, my name is Ken Kato and I am a

I am in favor of quality growth and development of Maui
County. I am in favor of the immediate installation of the
sewage treatment plant at the site proposed by the County Ad-
ministration, for the following reasons:

First, the need for a sewage treatment plant in the Kahu-
lui-Wailuku area is undeniable. The County of Maui has utilize^
professional engineers, hydro-geologists, biologists and plan- !
ners who have objectively selected the Kanaha site. Thus, from1
the standpoint of logistics, economics and even preservation of
our environments, the experts have found the selected site in
the best interests of the community.	j

Secondly, I am opposed to the squandering of County funds j
or any other funds, merely to pacify minority interests, who
are, apparently, unwilling to accept the findings of the ex-
perts .

Thirdly, for many years, I was under the impression that ซ
the three species of waterfowl found in the Kanaha Pond area, |
namely, the Coot, 'Auku'u and Hawaiian Stilt, are found only ini
the Hawaiian Islands and are facing extinction. Recently, how-1
ever, I have learned that these birds are not exclusively found!
in Hawaii, nor is extinction of the three species as eminent asj
I was led to believe. For example, the Black-Crowned Night
Herren or 'Auku'u, is found in Eurasia, Africa, North and South!
America and the Pacific Islands. The Coot bears the scientific
name of fulica americana. It is found from Canada to Equador,
through the Pacific States. In some states, the Coot is a game!





;	The Black-Necked Stilt, too, is certainly not exclusively

found in Hawaii. This species, himantopus mexicanus, is found
in the Western and Southeastern United States to Peru. This
species breeds in South Oregon, North Utah and South Colorado.
The above information may be found in Roger Torrey Peterson's
"Field Guide to Western Birds". Mr. Peterson is a renc&rn orni-
thologist, and I believe him.

It may be possible, that due to geographic isolation, these
! species may be different races. This, however, does not pre-
clude inter-breeding of separate populations, nor does it pre-
clude the possibility of introducing birds from more abundant i
areas, if the presence of these birds are found to be desirable,,
Thus, I do not believe relocation of the proposed sewage treat-
ment plant is warranted, on the basis that the waterfowls could
be driven to extinction.

I	)

Thank you.


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Ty Benson? Is Mr. Benson pre-

(No response)



MR. BARR: Madam Chairman, my name is Allen Barr. I am
from MakawaOo I am not an environmentalist, although I have a
great deal of respect for them. I am not a missionary, al-
though I have some respect for them, too. I am a resident,
citizen, taxpayer and property owner in Maui County and a social
studies teacher here at Baldwin High School. My particular con-
cern is that the choice of the Kanaha Pond site for the Kahului-
Wailuku Sewage Treatment Plant involves fraud and illegality.
Whatever the impact of the plant itself on our natural environ-
ment, the fraudulent and illegal acts leading up to the Federal
construction grant, will permanently scar our socio-political
environment if they are not properly investigated and appro-
priately rectified oy the Federal Government.

The grant application would have the Federal Government
believe that the choice of the Kanaha Pond site is based upon
the recommendations of the accompanying Chung Dho Ahn and R.M.


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



j Towill Corporation studies. This ia a misrepresentation of the
! truth. The Chung Dho Ahn study was completed under an illegal |
contract. The study was completed in early 1971 and is dated j
April 2nd, 1971. Contract No. 599, between Chung Dho Ahn and
the County of Maui, under Which the study was done, was pre-
sented to the Maui County Council for authorization more than
6 months later, in November of 1971. At the time the contract
was signed and the study was done, the County had no legal
authority to coaanit itself to the contract and Chung Dho Ahn
had no legal bases to expect payment for its services.


Under such circumstances, whatever the professional compe-j
tence and reputation of the consultant firm, the validity and
j objectivity of its recommendations must be doubted. If they
did not recommend the site the County Administration wanted,
the illicit contract could be declared null and void and payment'
would be withheld. This is no small pressure, when a $475,000
| contract is involved. Indeed, the arguments in the study point
j| to Site A as the better site, so one must look beyond the studyi
i itself to account for a recommendation of Site B.

The R. M. Towill Corporation's recommendation of Site B
must also be discounted. At a series of public meetings on !
the sewage water drainage master plan, held in late March, 1971|,
the public was told that the site of the plan was not yet de-
termined. Mr. Frank Doyle, representing R. M. Towill Corpora-
tion, told people at the Makawao meeting, for example, that the
site was not determined; Site A seemed the better and the pub-
lic would have opportunity to react when the study was completed
and one site was recommended as preferred. The Directors of
Planning and Public Works were present and did not correct this:
information if it was wrong.

The public did not learn Which site was recommended until
more than 6 months later. The statement in the grant applica-
tion that says there were only minor objections to Site B by
a few residents concerned with odor, is a misrepresentation of !
fact to the Federal Government. The public was not informed !
of the site at that time and was not given opportunity to reactj.

The Mayor himself, told me in his office, during mid-AprilL
| 1971, that the preliminary report by R. M. Towill was not com- f
! plete. I was naturally surprised to learn that the preliminary!
report submitted with the grant application was dated April 2ndj,
1971. Apparently, this is another misrepresentation, but in
any case, a safe one, since done privately to a single citizen..


More importantly, the Towill recommendation is this: I
have a letter front a Towill engineer which says they were not


Portland Oregon Honolulu Hawaซ.



involved in locating the injection well, Which is the same as
the plant site. Apparently — the injection well site, I'm
sorry, which is the same as the plant site. Apparently, they
were given the information of what site must be recommended.
The decision of what site to specify in the grant application
was not based upon the engineering studies. It was never made
— it has never been made public exactly why the site was se-
lected. It appears to have been an expediency caused by the
Federal Government itself.

The Government approved Hawaii's water quality standards,
and agreed to accept applications for grants as of March 20th,
1971. Deadline for application was April 15th, 1971. To ob-
tain the needed Federal monies, the County had to rush pre-
paration of its application. Since Site A was not owned by
the County at that time, it was apparently forced to commit
itself to Site B.

The County Government has since had to further misrepre-
sent the facts and mislead the public in order to justify a
decision based upon expediency.

I respectfully request that the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Federal Government, generally, take whatever
time and pains are needed to determine the truth in the matters
here raised. I further request that EPA do whatever it can to
get the Federal Government to bear whatever additional costs
result from this delay. This cost will be minor, compared to
the price this Country and this County will pay,for a Govern-
ment which itself commits or condones illegality and dishonesty.

Thank you very much.


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: John Hanchett. Is Mr. Hanchett


MR. HANCHETT: Madam Chairman, my name is John Hanchett.
I am Vice President of Hana Ranch, Inc., a corporation that is
involved in environmental matters in Hana, simply because of
its many varied interests in the Hana District. I appear be-
fore you because I want to emphasize an important aspect of
this subject — of the subject of this hearing, and I feel —


Portland, Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





that I feel has not been given full consideration.

Our projects in Hana are not as complex as this one.
However, they are every bit as important to us as this one is j
to this community. You are discussing a sewage treatment plant.
Our discussions revolve around ancient Hawaiian structures,
roadside foliage and anything that endangers the aesthetics
of our area.


My experience has been with the people who are involved
— County officials, whose judgment is being questioned on site'
selection. I would like to state that during my association
with them on environmental matters, I have found them responsi-i
ble and dedicated in protecting our environment, as it affected;
our community. I find it hard to believe that these same County
officials, who have demonstrated their deep concern for our
environment in Hana, would not have the same deep concern in
this community as regards the sewage treatment plant and its
effect on the environment, in this instance, Kanaha Pond.

Instead, I find it easy to believe their study has been
thorough and complete.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Hanchett.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Machida — Mr. Gerald Machida?


MR. MACHIDA: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Geral|d
Machida; I am the Division Chief, Hawaii Government Employees.

I will not delve into the technical aspects of the ques-
tion at hand, since it was done by t>e experts. I would, how-
ever, like to make the following brier position statement:

I am speaking as a native of the Island of Maui, a con- !
cerned citizen of the County of Maui, and as an employee of the1
Hawaii Government Employees' Association. As most residents of!
Maui, I have been following the status of the sewer treatment
plant project over the past several months, through the news
media, with only a passing interest and concern as to the meritjs
of the proposed site adjacent to Kanaha Pond, as compared to
the alternate site in back of the Quonset Huts. My passing
interest and concern has evolved into a very deep concern, due


Portland Oregon - honoujlv



to the adverse remarks been hurled at the people responsible
for the project.

These are people who are members of our organization —
the professional staff of the Planning and Public Works Depart-
ments, the Legislative body of the County and the Administra-
tion. I have every confidence in the decisions of this group
of County employees; and I have this confidence in their capa-
bilities for as long as I have been with the HGS, some 6 years.

They are experts in their respective fields and their de-
cisions on past projects have been anything but detrimental to
the community, as well as to the environmental and ecological
concerns of Maui County -

Inasmuch as it seems to be pure conjecture on the part of
those opposed to the project, I fully support the proposed plan
and urge the approval of the site without any further costly

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Machida.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Leslie Skillings? I notice that
you have submitted to us, a copy of a written statement. Is
this the statement that you were planning to give, Mr. Skillingi?

MR. SKILLINGS: Yes, It is.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Could you highlight it for us,
rather than read the thing through, and then perhaps, we could
submit it to the record?


MR. SKILLINGS: I think after Allen finished, there is
very little bit that I have to say, other than the fact that I
am speaking for Life of The Land. I am Les Skillings, the Maui
President, and I would like to say that Life of The Land is in
full support of the positions that have been taken by the Con-
servation Council, the Kanaha Pond Advisory Committee and the
National Wildlife Federation.

A great deal of time has been spent — if I am going to
highlight this — my testimony revolved around the historical
perspective of what hao led up to tonight's hearing, and I


Portland Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii


think briefly, I can state, and also document — if you will
notice, after the testimony, there is a chronology that runs
for some 3 or 4 years. The problem that we are facing here is
the fact that the County has not disclosed these studies, the
reports. It has misled the public^its application to the
Federal Government. I would like to quote this part — it
states in Section 6, public objection to the project, the Count
states, "The only objection raised were those connected with
the location of the treatment plant. The few citizens living
in the vicinity of the treatment plant site. Site B, the Kanaha
Pond site, suggested alternative sites. However, none of these
were feasible."


I attended one of the public meetings that were held on or
around March 19th, 1971; and at that time, Frank Doyle pre-
sented alternatives with very little information as far as site
location or disposal of affluent — it should be "effluent".

With that, the public had very little information on which to i
make any objection, but they were promised additional inforrna- i
tion. This additional information was not forthcoming and it ,
is very difficult to have objections to the site when the pub- |
lie did not know or could not know until at least the publica-
tion of the bidding for the test well, for the Kanaha Pond sitej,
and that was on May 26th, of *71, at its earliest.	!

I might point out, as Allen has done, there are some con- '
tract irregularities. I have asked through the past couple of
years, repeatedly for the Tcwill report, which I first picked
up on September 24th, 1970. I have been denied access to this.,
I first saw it, as you will see in the chronology, on December
5th, 1971; and after that point, I was denied to look at it
again until after January the 8th, 1972, on the excuse that it 1
had not been approved by the County Council. Now, this is ridij-
culous. It's too late, after it has been approved by the Countjy
Council, to make any kind of comment on a plan that is being |

I would like to also point out the fact that Ordinance No
716 of the County of Maui establishes regulations and develop-
ment standards for areas subject to flood and tsunami inunda-
tion; and Site B, according to the drainage master plan for the
County of Maui, is subject to both flooding and tsunami inunda-
tion .

I question whether this site is not in violation of the
County's own ordinance, upon which our national flood insurance

I have also attached a letter or a news article from the

Portland, Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



Maui News as part of the documents, in which Howard Nakamura
is quoted as saying that "we don't really have to enforce these
things, in essence".

The last point that is interesting to make, as a compari-
son of the difference between what can be and what hasn't been,
as far as the Wailuku-Kahului plant is concerned, is the pre-
sent Lahaina-Kihefc engineering studies, which are just out.
These two called for What is called "a complete mix system",
which is a new development in the activated sludge process in j
secondary treatment. This appears to be a much superior sys-
tem to what is presently being planned for the Kahului-Wailuku


Now, one of the requirements of Federal law, is that the
system be the most effective in the storage treatment and puri-
fication of waste. With the state of the art now, it would
appear that the Wailuku-Kahului plans will not meet this re-
quirement .

In summation, I think the problem as I see it, is one of
too little planning, too much of a rush, with too little clti- !
zen input, with too much secrecy; and the environmental impact
statement procedure will permit public participation, which has
been absent to date. This is our chance to correct the mistake
before we make an even greater one.

Thank you. I think you will find the chronology very
interesting. I have submitted three copies.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Skillings. Your
written statement will be made a part of the record.


MR. SKILLINGS: Thank you.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Norman Saito — S-a-i-t-o?


MR. SAITO: Madam Chairman, I am Norman Saito. I am an
Engineer and I have presented you with a written statement; and
on the second paragraph, first item, I would like to make one
correction — the date is December, 1971.

I won't go through the whole letter, but I would like to j
say that unfortunately, there is only one person that has gone j
through the records I have in this matter. I think you will j


Portland Oregon - Honolulu. Hawaii





find your upwelling question answered here.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Saito.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Alvin Furuhaga, is that the !
way you pronounce it, or Furuhaga? Is Mr. Furuhaga here —

(No response)





MR. GROUNDS: My name is Gene Grounds, and I am represent-!
ing the Kahului Business & Professional Association.

In my written testimony, the Association is going on re-
cord as supporting the site at Kanaha Pond; and I won't read
the total comments here.

I want to state, though, that the ecology of Kanaha Pond
has suffered considerable abuse over the years, from such
things as agricultural chemicals and aircraft noise; and it is
to the credit of the animal and plant life that it has survived!
and been able to adapt to survive. Notwithstanding, we do not
wish to abandon these few remaining species, which are rare.

The safeguards that the project engineers have designed
into the system, are practical and realistic. Our County, Statle
and Federal engineers have reviewed these systems and found
these favorable.

Regarding the alternate site, the community itself has
designated the alternate site area as a social gathering area
for various community needs. Adjacent to this is the Community
College, which is expanding yearly, the War Memorial Gym, along
with the Little League Baseball Fields and the new Baseball
Stadium, and other areas are projected for this area. This is
Site A. So that this new site that is being proposed -- this
Site A, would not be as desirable as Site B, from a community

In summary, in looking at what has been stated here to-
night, I would like to make a couple of comments. I don't feel


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii


that the ecology of Kanaha Pond will be affected substantially.
There are, What I feel, five factors involved here — one is
site, sound, the ground water effluent effect, the tsunami
inundation and the one that I feel that is — that night have
some credence, but even that can be broken down, I feel, would
be the erosion of the beach area.

As far as the site problem is concerned, the trees and
other areas — other things can be designed into the system to
camouflage the area. Sound has already been discussed by Mr.
Goshi as regarding use of electrical motors, as opposed to
diesel. These sites, as I have noticed, have always been ra-
ther quiet, anyway.

The ground water situation. Which Dr. Cooc went into, and
some of the questions that you brought out in cross-questioning
him, indicate that the water — the effluent water will be go-
ing into the bottom part of the lens and yet, the water in the
Pond generally comes from the top part of the lens, so that
even within the lens area — I don't know how wide this is, but
this — there should be some safeguard factors there, plus com-
ing through the ground itself would have a filtering process.

Tsunami -- Kahului itself i3 subject to tsunami, so we
would not only have a problem with the sewage treatment site;
we would also have a problem with the shopping centers and
residential areas, too. And as was mentioned, the plant Is
designed to be able to absorb temporary set-backs.

The other question regarding your beach erosion, Mr. Bruce
mentioned that the site is located 300 feet back from the shore
line area — the existing shoreline area. This is about the
size of a football field and if it has taken 40 years to go
back the present distance that he mentioned, from 300 feet out,
to the present location, it gives us ample opportunity to rec-
tify any areas of beach erosion with the next 40 years.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Grounds.

(Witness excused)



MR. BROCK: My name is James Brock. I am representing
the firm of Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, Which is an architectural-

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



engineering consulting firm.

We are not associated with any of the design involved in
the plant nor the selection of it, or the sites. However, we
are responding to a discussion of the site at one of the local
professional society meetings As a result of the discussions
publicly here or within the profession here, we have discussed
the site and resultant -- or considerations around the site
within the firm, both here and in Honolulu, and feel that no
new evidence seems to be available to indicate that the delay
caused by the submission of an environmental impact statement
and the time required to process such a statement would be

We feel that the majority of the statements or all of the
statements made by the conservation groups have been considered
in the past. Although we have sympathy with them in their con-
sideration of the Pond and the importance of the wildlife sanc-
tuary, we don't believe that any significant change in their
position exists today that did not exist two years ago; and
that the evidence submitted in the last year and a half to two ;
years will support the action taken by the Government to date.
Thank you.	j


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Brock.


(Witness excused)	1


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Rod Graybeal? Is Mr. Graybeal!

(No response)	'

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: We have a request from Mr. Gray-
beal, representing the Maui Youth Council, and attached thereto
is a statement. Since he is not present, we will make it a
part of the record. Mr. Noboru Koito — K-o-i-t-o — Koito?
Did I say it right, Mr. Koito?


MR. KOITO: Madam Chairman, I am sorry, I have a difficult
first name. It is Noboru — Noboru Koito. I sun here speaking
in behalf of the Legislative Ad Hoc Committee of the Maui AJA
Veterans, Incorporated. I am not speaking in behalf of the
whole membership on a point that we haven't had any meeting to
discuss this subject.

However, last Tuesday, our Committee had the privilege of ;
listening to Mr. Cahill arid also Mr. -- Mr. Cahill, of the Con-!







servation Group, and also Mr. Nakaraura and Mr. Goshi of the
County; and at this time, I would like to thank them for their
very excellent presentations. Now, after weighing the matter
carefully and with an open mind, we have come to this position
— just these Committee members — that we would like to see
the sewage plant located at the proposed site, adjacent to the
Kanaha Pond, on the point that the County officials and those
responsible are very mindful of the importance of ecology, of
conservation and especially of the safeguard of the bird sanc-
tuary there. And on that point, we feel that we would like to
go along on this proposal.

Thank you.


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Bill Lesk? Is Mr. Lesk pre-

(No response)



MR. SILVA: Madam Chairman, I am Edwin T. Silva of Kahului
representing a group of citizens; and I have here with me, a
petition which I will not go into detail. It would take too
much time; and it has 1,951 signatures from concerned residents
of Kahului and our surrounding areas, including 95 signatures
from Hale Mahaolu , housing for our senior citizens, who are in
favor of the Kanaha Pond site; and we feel that there is no
reason for an impact statement and we should proceed as soon
as possible.

And we would like to submit this as our proof that we are
concerned citizens of Kahului in regards to this site down in
Kahului — at Kanaha.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Very well. Thank you, sir.

(Witness excused)




Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



MR. LAU: My name is Ronald Lau. I am a physical educa-
tion teacher at Lihikai Elementary School. I have no facts to
present but would like to insert some common sense as to why
an impact statement should be made. First of all, all the
studies shewing that no threat is going to threaten the birds
at Kanaha Pond remind me of someone playing with a sharp knife,
that can hurt pretty bad sometimes. Why should man have the
right to threaten the home of native birds already endangered,
for the survival of their species? The sad fact is that the
Kanaha Pond area is not the only choice to improve man's envi-
ronment through sewage disposal; and if money, or the loss of
it, through delays, is overriding reason why Kanaha Pond is
the best area, I feel that the survival of native stilts and
ducks are worth far beyond the monetary loss that the County
may suffer.

We are in a position where we can have both the sewage
plant and our native birds, if an alternate site is utilized;
and this means any alternate site, not just the one behind the
Quonset Huts.

It would indeed by an ironic crime against nature to have
the sewage plant built in the Kanaha area to improve man's
environment, and at the same time, very possibly destroying
another of nature's creations, through man's pollutants.

Let us hope that any potential threat to Kanaha Pond never
takes place. We should ask ourselves, "Do we want an Island
with solely Mynah Birds flying around; and finally, as a post- j
script, we should remember that the native birds were here be-
fore all of us people came."

Thank youD


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Hannibal Tavares? Is Mr. Tavares




MR. TAVARES: Madam Chairman, first of all, we want to j
apologize for the cold that you caught here. It is not quite |
in keeping with our Aloha spirit; and we hope that your reco- |
very will be very speedy.


Portland OREGON - Honql jl.u Hawaii




HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Tavares.

MR. TAVARES: Since I know flattery will get me nowhere,
I had better get on with the statement.


MR. TAVARES: Madam Chairman, my name is Hannibal Tavares,
and I am Director of Community Relations for Alexander & Bald-
win, Incorporated? and I am speaking in behalf of that Company.

Alexander & Baldwin owns most of the land in the surround-
ing area and is also the owner of the H. C. & S0 Sugar Company
Plantation, which owns all of that beautiful green land that
you see close by.

We strongly support the plans of the County of Maui to
construct the sewage treatment plant at Kahului, to serve the
needs of the Wailuku-Kahului area. Presently, raw sewage is j
discharging into the ocean at two points on either side of Kahuj-
lui Harboro While we feel that present practices have not re- '
suited in harmful or detrimental effects over the years, never-i
theless, requirements of recent Federal and State legislation,
now prohibit the disposal of untreated sewage into the ocean.


The findings of the County of Maui show that the proposed j
sewage treatment plant will, when completed, result in ccmpli- !
ance with the applicable health and environmental regulations, j
The proposed site is adjacent to the industrial area of Kahuluii
and is some distance from the nearest residential area. The !
plant will not detract from the activities of the surrounding
areas. The open ocean, with strong prevailing winds, make an
ocean outfall effluent discharge extremely costly. The County
has designed deep injection wells to dispose of the effluent
during the initial operation of the sewage treatment plant.
We believe that this system will be satisfactory.

The management of Kanaha Pond has been of much concern to
the community. During periods when water levels have been low
in the Pond, Alexander & Baldwin, Incorporated, has provided
fresh water to maintain higher levels, and will continue to do
so in the future. We have been advised by the County that
should any problem develop respecting recharged well effluent
entering the Pond, there are other feasible alternatives. Geo-
logical and hydrological studies indicate that such problems
are highly unlikely and the injection wells will be compatible
with the Pond.	j


Looking towards the future, the Mayor of this County has





established a task force to look into the possible future re-
cycling of the effluent. Our Company is participating in this
investigation and we feel confident that such recycling can be
accomplished: and that the injection wells will be a temporary

We support the proposed construction of the sewage treat-
ment plant at the recommended site. We have considered the j
environmental impact of the proposal and find no meaningful !
evidence to suggest that harm will result. On the contrary, ;
the plant, we feel, will enhance the human environment; will j
eliminate any threat of reduced water quality into the receiv- 1
ing waters of the ocean; and will result in improvement of the
health and welfare of the surrounding community.


Construction of the sewage treatment plant should begin
immediately. It is required to permit continued development
of needed housing in Central Maui. Delay of this project is j

Madam Chairman, after listening to a lot of the testimony
tonight, I personally, speaking for myself and for the sake of 1
the record, I would like you to know that I am formerly an
elected County official, having missed being Mayor of this
County by a few votes, and as a result, I think I am sensitive 1
to the feelings and needs of the people of this County; and
sitting here tonight, listening as patiently as you have, to
all of the testimony, I am impressed by the meticulous detail
that the officials Who are charged with making this responsi-
bility, have used, in coming to their conclusion in the selec-
tion of the site. I believe that they have been very careful
in trying to protect the environment of this area; and I believle
what they have done has, in fact, enhanced the environment of
this area.	I


They talk about the beach erosion and the problems that
this may cause. I feel that beach erosion is serious. Regard-
less of whether or not a treatment plant is placed there, we
should do something about that erosion anyhow; and I would be
in favor of getting the Corps of Engineers to get cracking on
that o

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You understand, Mr. Tavares, that j
we are not here to determine whether or not the Corps of Engin-
eers should or should not do something? We are only here to !
gather information to determine whether 	 (interrupted)

MR. TAVARES: Yes, ma'am, I am just reacting to a point
that seemed to be made very strongly, and I feel that there arei


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii	< j



other ways of tackling that problem, and I realize that it is
not germane to what you are hearing tonight.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Well. I hope you won't get too
emotional here, because we are really just trying to find some
facts tonight. It's getting awfully late to be emotional.

MR. TAVARES: I know. It's just my size. Madam Chairman,
you know.


MR. TAVARES: I will be winding up in just one second.


MR. TAVARES: Madam Chairman, I believe, and I aim confi-
dent that with the private industry here, working very closely
with the EPA and the County and the State, we can find good
use for that effluent. We can use it for various irrigation
purposes in beautifying the highways and in beautifying part
of the airport itself; in beautifying the civic and open areas
nearby? and I don't believe that this would be a problem at
all for us and I urge that we go along with this project and
I do not think that an impact statement is necessary.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Tavares.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Drew Hartnett? Is Mr. Hartnett




MR. HARTNETT: Good evening.


MR. HARTNETT: I hope I am last. I am Drew Hartnett. I
am a resident of the Wailuku-Kahului area, the President of the
Maui Jaycees and I am addressing you tonight on behalf of that
organization — an organization of approximately 90 members —
young men of this community, between the ages of 21 and 35.

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





I was asked to come here and express the views of the
organization. We have considered the matter at hand this even-
ing, have investigated the facts and the information available
on it and the views of the membership have been expressed. I
do not have them in writing at this time. A formal written
statement will be submitted later.

As a preface, as I understand the discussions this evening!
from having listened to your remarks, Mr. Examiner, the princi-!
pal purpose is to determine whether there exists, a substantialj
question, as to whether or not the proposed project will have
any substantial effect on the environment on the Kanaha Pond '
area. Am I correct in assuming that that is the 	 (inter-
rupted) i

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: That is correct,, Sufficient to
justify or warrant an impact statement prepared by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Another requirement of
the National Environmental Policy Act is, whether or not there
is sufficient controversy to justify or warrant an impact statef

MR. HARTNETT: All right. Then I take it that it would j
also be germane to remark upon the contentions made by both
sides, as determining Whether or not that controversy was sub-
stantial? Would I also be correct in assuming that?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: If you don't get too far afield. ^

MR. HARTNETT: All right. I will make my efforts to stay !
near afield. As we understand the contentions of the objectant^
to the present site — and I would prefer to treat that first.
They are primarily the danger to the wildlife presently exist- ;
ing in the Pond, which they have broken down into two sub-dan-
gers — water outflow and physical presence of the plant; and
they have presented testimony by a Geologist and by — I don't
know if he was an ornithologist or not, but in any event, a
bird fancier, that they feel that there is a substantial danger
to the Pond and we were impressed with the thoroughness of the
County's study, in respect to this matter, and the extent to
which it was gone into by the County, by the private consultants
hired by them, by the appropriate State Agencies and actually,
by your own agency. And we were also impressed with the analy-j
sis of the results in the environmental impact appraisal, which:
we were given a copy of and read. We believe that to be based I
upon good, common sense and solid, hard data.

We have seen copies of certain of the letters filed by the:
objectants to this proposal and to this project, and we have


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaซ,	I



listened to this testimony given here tonight — or I have.
Some of the other members are here, but of course, the entire
membership is not; and it appears to be based on substantially
less substantial data — if I can indulge in that redundancy
— than that Which the County has used in arriving at their

Essentially, the water outflow problem — I would rather
call it "water" than "effluent", because "effluent" seems kind
of like a scare word that people like to use, so I would like
to call it the "water outflow" -- they have removed 95% of
Whatever was in there when it came in; and then that is going
to be injected into the ground at a level of approximately 250
feet, where it will be diluted by water which is already there
— further diluted. It will have to pass through a cap rock
to get up into the Kanaha Pond„ It's probably — in fact, it
is certainly going to be more dense than the fresh water, which
has been referred to as a source of fresh water springs, and
hence, unlikely to rise through that. And then, if it finally
does get up there, we have to assume that this relatively pure
water, which could be processed to drinkability, in a not too
expensive further stage, is somehcw going to have a substantial
detrimental effect. Now, apparently, it would be conceded that
if the outflow of this plant were pumped directly into the Pond
that that would have a detrimental effect; but what actually we
have is a series — and I think both sides would have to con-
cede — a series cf very unlikely events would have to occur
before an adverse effect of the sewage outflow, or the water
outflow of this processing plant, into the Pond, could have
any detrimental effect on the wildlife in it.

As to the physical presence of the plant, we think it's
sophistry of the highest order to suggest that the fact that
that plant was sitting there, could have any effect on these
birds. These birds are overflown by aircraft which produce
tremendously high noise levels — objectionably high noise
levels, daily; and they don't leave. There is a major highway
that runs right passed this Pond. That doesn't seem to bother
the birds. It's used by trucks and traffic in large numbers;
and there is a large light industrial area, which passes along
one side of the Pond. That doesn't seem to disturb them, eithe
They congregate down near the buildings as well as up at the
other end of the Pond. We have been out there and seen them.
They don't seem to care about those buildings. So it seems to
us pointless to suggest that the physical presence of the plant
is going to have any substantial effect on these birds directly

The matters of beach erosion and tidal wave inundation,
I think, have been adequately covered by the engineering studie


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



and the necessary precautions against either of those eventuali
ties can, and undoubtedly would be taken.

In taking into consideration even what obviously is a very
remote possibility, that the outflow of this plant could have
any effect on the Pond, the County has conceded that they would
relocate these wells, in such a way that that effect would be

So frankly, we feel that the objections that are being
made to the location of the proposed site, lack common sense;
and in the final analysis, in a war between experts, common
sense has to be the judge. I have the fortune to be a trial
lawyer and I have seen a lot of trials where you have doctors
on both sides. Somewhere at the end of that trial, the jury
has got to sit down and say, "Well, we have heard them on both
sides and the one that had the best data is the winner." And
I think that that is true in this case.

The alternative site proposed or recommended or sought
after is on the same basis -- on the basis of common sense,
impractical. It would be expensive — it would cost, by the
County's estimates, and I have no reason to doubt them,
$3,000,000 to move it now. It would be absolutely unacceptable
to the public, living in that area, to exactly the same degree
that it would be unacceptable — allegedly unacceptable to the
birds, to have it next to them. And I think if we have to
weigh it on one side or the other, if the birds are going to
be slightly disturbed by the presence of a sewage treatment j
plant in their neighborhood, it's somewhat better than disturb-j
ing all of the people, by putting a sewage treatment plant next!
to them. If that's the choice that has to be made. I don't
think that it is, but if it were the only choice, then it seemsj
to me that it is obvious that the birds are going to have to
adjust to this new addition to their environment.

The contentions — and I would like to respond to a couple
of contentions that have been made tonight, not by name, but
what I feel — what I feel to be unjustified attacks upon the
integrity of the County. I am not a County Attorney; I am a
private attorney. In fact, I appear against the County most of
the time, and I don't like them too well, but there have been
some contentions made here that the contract is illegal, and
my response to that would be that that is pure bunk. There
have been some contentions made that the County has engaged in
a lot of secrecy in handling of the documents and the reports
in respect to this project, and I would say that that is pure
bunk; that all of the reports, all of the documents, have been
made available to us and we don't occupy any special place in




the heart of the County. We ran a project which attacked the
County on an environmental issue just a few years ago. They
made the documents and information available to us at that time.

With regard to the question of whether anything has been
kept from the public, well, Madam Examiner, I think you have
heard the public here tonight; and I would like to comment
somewhat on what I think is the core issue here. The issue is,
as you have agreed, whether or not there is a substantial con-
troversy. And what I have heard tonight is objection made by
a very small group of people. I live here, and I know who the
people are who are objecting, and it is a small group of peo-
ple. They don't represent the majority of the people in this

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You will have to understand, thoug
Mr. Hartnett, that I don't recall seeing you at this afternoon'

MR. HARTNETT: No, I wasn't here at this afternoon's ses-

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And we had a substantial number of
people at the afternoon session.


MR. HARTNETT: I'm sure that you did; I'm sure that you !
did. But, I know the people who have appeared here tonight,
Madam Examiner, and I think that this is a point that should
be made, that it is one that should be considered by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency in determining whether or not a
substantial question exists. I am not speaking of all of those
who are objecting to the present location of the plant. I am
certain that some of them are very sincere in their objections
and in their fears. But I do feel that their fears are not
founded upon hard facts; that the hard facts are that there is
no substantial reason why the plant should not be constructed
at the proposed site .

There are certain — and I do wish to say this, that there
are certain of the persons who have appeared here tonight and
who have objected to the — to speak in opposition to the pro-
ject, who, in my considered judgment, based on experience with
them over the past three years, do not speak out of sincerity
but out of a desire to be the greatest conservationist to them

This matter has been studied in depth and thoroughly and j
the problem that is being discussed here tonight has been stu- j
died in depth and thoroughly by the County, by the State, by


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



the private consultants, by the Federal Government, by the
Environmental Protection Agency, and up until a very few weeks
ago, all of those people found that there was no substantial
reason to fear that there would be any environmental impact —
substantial adverse environmental impact caused upon Kanaha
Pond by this project; and there is no new data — no new data
has been submitted tonight by the objectants, which would cause
this Agency to change its mind in that respect. The delay in-
herent in the preparation of the statement will inevitably cost
the County of Maui and the people of this County, another 150
or $200,000, even assuming that statement, as I do assume that
it would, confirms the proposed site. There is no substantial
reason to cause the taxpayers of this County to expend an addi-
tional 150 or $200,000 over fears which are not grounded on
fact. I believe that that is the situation that exists in this
case, and it is the request of our organization and of myself
personally, that the impact statement not be required and that
the project be permitted to proceed at once.	;


Thank you very much.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Hartnett, thank you very much
for appearing tonight.	|


{Witness excused)	|


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Shall we take a 10-minute recess?

(Short recess)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Let's resume the hearing. Those
of you who are going to make statements for the rest of the
evening, would you please come down front and be ready to give
your statement when your name is called?

Mr. Mac Harlan, come forward, please?

A SPECTATOR: He stepped out for a moment. Shall I go and
get him?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I will call his name again. Pat
Esclito? Is Pat Esclito here?



MR. ESCLITO: Madam Chairman, one of the attributes of a I
successful after dinner speaker is the brevity of his presen- |


Portlano Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





MR. ESCLITO: As we approach the breakfast hour, I, too,
will take heed.

My name is Pat Esclito; I am a resident of Kahului; by
profession, I am an educator; presently, I serve as President
of the Filipino Catholic Community Association. I will be
speaking on their behalf tonight and I would like to say that
I have the confidence in the County, State and Federal Govern-
ment. Furthermore, I believe that the review conducted by
these branches of government is sufficient„ I wholeheartedly
support their conclusions, that the plant in no way will con-
taminate the waters of Kanaha Pond.

Thank you and good night.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, sir.

(Witness excused)


(No response)



MRS. ROSS: Aloha.


MRS. ROSS: My name is Peggy Hal Ross, and I was born and
raised in these Islands and I am 100% Hawaiian and the original
people of these Islands. I represent the Hai clan and many of
family is on these Islands and throughout the State; and now,
I would like to know who you are, because I didn't get to know
who you were and who do you represent?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mrs. Ross, my name is Cassandra
Dunn and I am a lawyer and I am the Regional Legal Counsel for
the United States Environmental Protection Agency for Region
IX, with Headquarters in San Francisco. Region IX, has in its
territory, California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, the Pacific
Trust Territories, Guam and Wake Island; and I represent the
United States Environmental Protection Agency here tonight as


Portland Oregon - Honolulu, Hawaii



a Hearing Officer, to gather information and comments from the
citizens for evaluation and consideration, to determine whether
or not an impact statement should be filed on the project near
Kanaha Pond -- the proposed project; and we are here to gather
information 	 (interrupted)

MRS. ROSS: I gather by your title, you are quite qualified
to be sitting where you are at, then.


MRS. ROSS: And I feel qualified, too, as a citizen of
Hawaii and this Island.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And we recognize you as such.

MRS. ROSS: And I am one of the very few Hawaiians left;
and like the birds of the sanctuary, which the opposing parties
to this Kanaha site are referring to — I was just but a little
child and I remember my parents and many other Hawaiian people
around that area, thrived cm the fish that was in this Pond,
and along the Bay — in Kahului Bay.

I am going to read this, because I had no intention of mak
ing any presentation tonight, after listening to all the^e pro-
fessional people. I am not qualified in any way.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mrs. Ross, if there is anyone who
is entitled to speak 	 (interrupted)

MRS. ROSS: Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: 	 on behalf of Hawaii, it's cer-
tainly you.

MRS. ROSS: Thank you. I want to clarify myself, because
I lived in the Mainland for 18 years in Idaho and my husband
was with the Fish & Game Department and we owned a sanitation
company. So thereby, I am interested in what is happening
about in the Kanaha Pond area.

A bill was passed — I am not sure about the date, through
the United States Congress, through the initiative of the young
Senator, Frank Church, of Boise, Idaho, to conserve all the
remaining primitive areas of our National Forests. This bill
was necessary because of the alarming concern for the gross
neglect that was spiraling throughout the Nation by developers
and different agencies, by disturbing and polluting the naturalj
habitat of these primitive areas. And may I say again, I was i







very involved with my husband's affairs, because he was with the
Fish & Game and Forestry — and their disregard for our deplet-
ing population of animal life.

The bill further describes that these natural habitats or
sanctuaries were to be preserved and protected under the Federal
laws. All the birds and animals. Then, too, to clean up and
replenish our lakes, rivers and reservoirs with fish. It goes
on further to say that these habitats may be condemned if it
could not be rehabilitated or that the cause of the areas con-
taminated or polluted to be unfit for humans or animals.

I don't knew anything about these fancy people with fancy
titles. I don't know of a much quicker way to condemn a bird
sanctuary by putting a sewage plant in the vicinity of the
Kanaha Pond. By the same fact that I can still remember — and
this wasn't very long ago — I am 50 years old; and I still
remember when those areas were fishing areas for many people.
And today, because of progress and all these buildings around
that area, we no longer fish in these areas, because that water
is very polluted.

If the airport and industrial activities around the Kanaha
Pond hasn't yet killed off the birds because of noise pollution
or carbon monoxide poisoning, then I will wager that it is the
hopes of the administrators that the sewage plant will do the

As a child, my folks and I — the Hawaiian people across
the highway, thrived on the fish off the Kanaha Pond and in
the Bay areas. Today, they should be posting signs all along
the bay around the area, warning the people of the pollution
in these areas. I have seen so much of this down there. I
can't believe this is the Bay that we used to swim in and fish

Just recently, and I just come home two years ago and
that's why I'm still here. Just recently, fish was being
caught and sold and that was caught off this Bay by Japanese
ships and sold in our markets. If this raw sewage is good
enough for the fishes and people, why then hasn't anyone as
yet suggested the reprocessing of the sewage and dumping it
into those stinky reservoirs to the irrigation of the sugar
and the pineapple fields, long before this all occurred?

Reprocessing water from sewage is presently being done in
the Mainland for drinking purposes and for other similar rea-
sons. I have seen sewage plants in Texas, where this sifts
all sewage waste to be processed and sold for fertilizer; and ]


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





the reprocessing of garbage was done in the same way. Why do
we persist in putting sewage plants in the vicinity of business
or residential areas? Why do we avoid the areas that are owned
by the sugar and the pineapple companies? They have stolen
enough of lands of the Hawaiian people and continue to get
richer out of the sweating, bloody brows of its citizens; and
it is about time that they relinquish some of these lands to-
ward a sanitation location — for this sewage plant, for free.

We have heard read — and I have heard read, testimonies,
from intelligent and highly Intelligent types of people, and
I heard that they are called the "new missionaries". They are
the minority group. They have spoken with authority and are
conscientious about our environment. If what they have said
has fallen on de&ฃ ears, just What does Howard Nakamura, Direc-
tor of the Planning Commission, expect to get from the mass
majority, that has been fooled by the old missionaries?

Hadn't I been married to this beautiful husband of mine
and left this Island for a while — I would have not been —
I would have been one amongst the mass majority, who have been
fooled by the old missionaries, foreign monopolies and also the
Unions and the present Administration. So that you Japanese
here on these Islands are now taking over where they left off.

I am grateful to these new missionaries — call theni what j
you may; and I hope that you will be as conscientious and con-
sistent as they want you to be. The bad faults of these mis- |
sionaries — new missionaries — are that because they are
young at heart and they are new residents. They are much
smarter than all of us put together and they are the product
of this new generation, and there are the few outstanding who
truly care what is happening to me, and doing something about

I am one of the fortunate ones who have had the privilege
and I am home to stay, because of this kind of rot gut things
that are going on in this County.

I want to leave this to these new missionaries: "For the
Lord said, 'Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as you have done it
unto one of the least of these, my brethren, you have done it
also unto me'."

Thank you for the efforts to helping me, my people, and
my Hawaii; and I hope that when you leave, that you will remem-
ber that what these minority people are doing for the birds and
trying to preserve — granted, they are not the rarest in the j
world. They may be in Canada, in Africa, and everywhere else,

Portland OREGON - Honolulu Hawaii



but we can't afford to go that far to see these birds. These
birds were here before anybody else was and I can still remem-
ber, when we sat in that Kanaha area and lived In the Kanaha
area, and the sky was white with birds, all along the beaches.
Today, those beaches are completely polluted. I cannot believe
that the limu that I used to pick up at that beach and used to
eat, we Hawaiians cannot eat no more off these beaches, because
they are completely polluted.

Why then do we persist and insist, with all the intelligen
people, that sit in these hearings — I feel that it is worth-
less. They are so smart. There are so many of them. They comje
packed with petitions, packed with experts, yet, they do not
even hear the voice of the people; because they are only a few
people. We have so darned many experts, we don't have people
any more.

God bless you. Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mrs. Ross,


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I had two cards tonight for a John
Fernandez. Are there two John Fernandezes?

MRo FERNANDEZ: Just the one.



MR. KAAHUI: Madam Chairman, my name is Ed Kaahui. I
represent some 200 students from Maui Community College, who
are unable to be here tonight.

We have two points to make. One is that we strongly op-
pose the selection of the alternate site, which would be ad-
jacent to our campus. By this selection, we would limit the
growth and expansion of our campus; and we strongly oppose

The second point is that we respectfully request that the
Environmental Protection Agency allow the construction of the
Kahului-Wailuku sewage treatment plant site to be done in the
Kanaha Pond area.


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, sir.

(Witness excused)



MR. ROSS: MaAam, I am Frederick D. Ross and I am a dis-
abled veteran. I am two-thirds Cherokee Indian and the rest,
you might say United Nations; and my wife, full Hawaiian.


I am no authority on this, but I have several different
degrees. I have a degree in police work; I have a degree in
sanitation; I also have a degree in fish and game; and I have
plenty of experience in many other fields. But in Boise,

Idaho, in the center of 500,000 people, sits a sewer plant.
There is no smell. I helped construct it.

In the town of Cascade, Idaho, we done the same thing that
they are trying to do here. We put in the wells. We polluted
every well within 60 miles. You can imagine What happened.

In a town called McCall, Idaho, we also did the same thing,
We ended up with our lakes, which there is a sign on that lake
now, that says, "This lake is 15% hepatitis". The river, which
is coming out of the lake, which is called the Payette Lake or
the Payette River, is polluted. The fish are dying, the birds
are dying.

At New Meadows, Idaho, we also constructed another plant.
This plant was under the ground completely. This plant here
was an acid plant. We have had no problems with that plant —
none whatsoever. The plant has been in for close to 20 years
now. They have never touched it, they have never maintained
it — nothing. Then we want to put in a $9,000,000 plant out
here, Which this plant here, we put it in for $250;000.

In Alaska, we did the same thing. We put in a plant in
Alaska. We had the same problems —- we had backup.

Also, Salt Lake City, in Utah — they tried the same thing
They ended up polluting their Salt Lake and it took them years
to clean it up.


Now, according to the 1st and the 5th and the 6th and the !
14th Constitution of the United States, we have the right to j


' Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



speak at all County meetings and to find out What's going on
and why, what, when and how and Who, and so forth and so on;
but everything is so hidden until after it is all said and dene
then they go ahead and it's completed.

Now, they are going to run into some problems, especially
here in Hawaii. Oil -- with this type of plant that they are
talking about putting in down here at the Kanaha Pond, oil —
just a quart of oil poured into the plant, in with the water,
will kill their bacteria. Then they are in trouble. They have
got to stop and they have got to scrape out. If they get a
heavy tidal wave — I don't know What this tsunami is -- I have
always heard of it as a tidal wave. When they get salt water
inside of this plant, you break down also the bacteria. You
have to stop and scrape out. You are in trouble. And this
costs millions of dollars to do this; and if they put this
plant in, next to the ocean, like they want to put it in, they
are m deep trouble.

I have seen petitioned through this evening and heard on
these petitions here tonight, which is only about 1% of the
population of Kahului and Wailuku, and I feel that this ought
to go to the vote of the people and if the people cannot have
a vote on this, as to Where this thing is to go, then I feel
that there should be a Committee take it to the Federal Govern-
ment and make the City — the County Commissioners put in a
bond to protect themselves from the lawsuit that they will get
for putting in an $8,000,000 sewage plant.

Just imagine, a water tap holding the pressure of about
5 to 15 pounds pressure, and a fire hose, holding anywhere
from 50 to 100 pounds water pressure <> What is that septic
pump going to take, in order to pump it? It's going to take
anywhere from 200 to 250 and maybe higher; and when they do
this, it's going to push something. Pick up a piece of coral.
You can blow through it. We are standing on coral. This is
all coral. All of this low land down here is coral„ Too, 300
years ago, there was no land in here. This was all under water
This was all reef. Now, if they go out here and they drill,
and they are going to try something, they are going to be push-
ing silt right up out here in the middle of the cane field or
in the middle of the road or in somebody's livingroom. Then
they are going to really be in trouble.

Now, the birds — I heard somebody say here this evening
that these birds that are out here in the Kanaha Pond, that
you can hunt them on the Mainland. I'm sorry, but they are
mistaken. In the Mainland, if you are caught shooting one of
these birds, it's 10 and 10 -- and 10 and 10, what I mean, is


Portland. Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



10,000 and 10 years, especially the stilt.

Thank you.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, Mr. Ross.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Frank Tanpye. Is Frank Tampye

MR. TAMAYE: How is that spelled, ma'am?


MR. TAMAYE: T-a-ra-a-y-e? Okay, that's me. Thank you.




MR. TAMAYE: Mad aim Chairman, my name is Frank Tamaye and j
I am from the Island of Oahu. I come to Maui quite often be- j
cause I find that it is very beautiful and the people are just
fantastic.	]

There has been a lot of expertise here tonight — people
from the Government, people from the University, and so forth,
and a lot of people, like myself, I used to believe the experts,
and in some ways, maybe I still do —> depends on the character
of the individualo But a lot of people have been believing the
experts and letting the experts make the important decision.

Well, I would like to say, for the people of Maui, Kalama Park
was a beautiful park, with a sandy beach. These experts, so to
speak, came in and messed up the beach so bad, you can't lay on
the sand any more. It's filled with boulders. So these are the
kind of experts that perhaps are looking after your welfare.

I think it's about time community input is put into planning
and all these important issues; and it seems like Kanaha Pond is
the next thing to go, because many things haven't been answered,
and as far as the experts committing themselves, saying that the
Pond will not be polluted, I have never heard any one of them
guarantee that fact. So if the sewer plant is built in Kanaha
Pond, the possibility of pollution is there. Will it pollute
the Pond and kill off the wildlife? Will the stench be so bad
that the only course of action left would be to fill the Pond?
After filling, will this Pond area be rezoned industrial, like
the surrounding areas around it? And is this some kind of mad


Portland OriCon - Honolulu Hawaii





scheme to kill off the wildlife for profit? I dcn't know.
Profiteers have been kncwn to do strange things.

With that in mind, 1 ask that the EPA should make a study
for the people and report back to the community for their bene-
fit .

Thank you.


(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Douglas Sodetani? Is Mr. Sodetani


(No response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: He made a request to make a state-
ment and did attach a copy of a written statement to his re-
quest, so we will make that a part of the record.

Mr„ Meyer M. Ligoka? Is Mr. Ligoka here?

(No response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: The same is true of Mr. Ligoka.
He made a request and attached a copy of his statement thereto,
and that will be made a part of the record.

Mr. Hodges — Tony Hodges?


MR. HODGES: My name is Tony Hodges, and I am speaking as
an individual and also as the Executive Director of Life of
The Land.

First, I would like to say that I am very pleased to see
this many people and I imagine there were more this afternoon,
interested in sewage. Two years ago, this wasn't the case;
and I would like to say, too, though I am in the minority to-
night, it seems, as far as numbers of people, that I am very
pleased that so many people are now interested in the environ-

I would like to say quickly that myself and Life of The
Land wants sewage treatment — not just on Maui, but on the
other Islands; that as an organization, we have probably done


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





as much, if not more than the State Health Department to get
sewage treatment plants In Hawaii. We took the State Health
Department to Court 2*5 years ago, at which time we found a
minimum of 183 violations of the Federal Water Quality Standard
and the State Water Quality Standards.

We want to see the sewage treated. One of the main rea-
sons that there is any interest now in building the sewage
treatment plant at Wailuku-Kahului or in Lahaina or in Honolulu!,
for that matter, is because of the Court action that was taken.
To put it bluntly. Mayor Carvalho is interested in building the
sewage treatment plant at this point because of that suit.

About a year and a half ago, I had a conversation with ;
Mayor Carvalho 	 (interrupted)	I

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Hodges, that doesn't help me
make any determination as to whether or not we would write an
impact statement,,

MR. HODGES: Yes, it will. Yes, it will. Well, I will
back up for one minute, Mrs. Examiner, and point out -- say i
this — I look forward to your environmental impact statement, j
and, as we have expressed to the Environmental Protection Agency,
you either do it, or we go to Court. And I think it is very
clear from what Mr. DeFalco said here, when he wrote to Mr.

Keenan of the Wildlife Federation, he says, "In view of your j
interest in the matter, this is to advise you of our intention |
to prepare an environmental impact statement on proposed waste
water treatment plant, Wailuku-Kahului, Maui, Hawaii." That's
on February 2nd; and on February 6th, again, on the stationery
of your Agency, your Region, says, "In accordance with the guide-
lines of the preparation of environmental impact statements,
this constitutes a notice of intent to prepare such a statement
for the proposed Agency action specified below, Wailuku-Kahului
Sewage Treatment Plant," and a number is assigned to it —

"Impact Statement No. D EPA 2400-HI", for Hawaii — Hawaiian

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I am familiar with those pieces of

MR. HODGES: Yes, you weren't familiar, though — Mrs.
Examiner, you were not familiar, I am afraid, with the letter
signed by Paul DeFalco, in which he says, and I quote for you:
"The Environmental Protection Agency 	 (interrupted)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Hodges 	 (interrupted)

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



MR. HODGES: 	 Agency has determined that because of the

considerable public controversy concerning this project, that
an environmental impact statement shall be prepared."

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Hodges, I not only was familia
with it, I had read it. The reason I asked what letter and by
whom it was signed, is that there are numerous letters that com
out of that Agency signed by Mr. DeFalco. So do not try to
impeach my integrity by making statements to me like that from
where you are standing. Now, I am willing to listen to any-
thing in this world you have got to say with regard to whether
or not we should prepare an impact statement.

MR. HODGES: Yes. I am saying 	 (interrupted)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I really don't need any criticism
about the County or amy individual in the office to help me
make such a decision on the record. If you have something, I
am more than delighted to listen to it. I will sit here until
1:00 o'clock, if you want0

MR. HODGES: Fine. What I do have are statements by your
Agency that you intend to prepare an impact statement, and I
assume that (1) you will prepare it or (2) that this is an un-
truthful statement; and that's it.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: We will prepare it unless we find
information to the effect that we 	 (interrupted)

MR. HODGES: Well, then. Why did you tell Senator Inouye
that you were going to prepare one? I just want that on the
record, okay.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I am not here to argue 	 (inter-

MR. HODGES: I want it very clearly on the record that
your Agency has stated that you intend to do a draft impact
statement, period. That's all, and we have the letters to
prove it. You sent it to Senator Inouye, you sent it to Sena-
tor Fong, and if you are no longer of that mind, then I suggest
that you tell them again in another letter that you don't in-
tend to do one or that you are still looking into the matter.
That's all. I simply want that on the record.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: If we determine that we are not
going to do one, Mr. Hodges, we certainly will tell them so.

MR. HODGES: Fine, and you have told them 	 (interrupted)


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii




HEARINGS OPFICER DUNN: And we don't need you policing our

MR. HODGES: You had told them now that you intend to do
one. You have told them that you intend to do one.

HEARINGS OPFICER DUNN: I am not here to get into a shout-<
ing natch with you. Now, do you have anything else to say?

MR. HODGES: Fine, then I am saying that you should not
allow, as Counsel for Region IX, Mr. DeFalco to send out let-
ters which are apparently untruthful. That's all.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mr. Hodges, I dcn't need you to
tell me what my duty is with regard to my responsibilities as
Regional Counsel of Region IX.

MR. HODGES: Well, do you, as of this date -- did the U. S|.
Environmental Protection Agency, intend to do a draft impact
statement?	j

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And I ami not here to answer your '
questions. I am here to gather information with regard to
whether or not we should prepare an impact statement. New, do I
you have anything else to say?

MR. HODGES: Yes, ma'am, I do, and in that consideration,
also has to do with the integrity of the United States Environ-!
mental Protection Agency. Okay? And we are discussing that
here tonight.	j

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: The integrity of the United States!
Environmental Protection Agency is not on trial here.

MR. HODGES: We have a letter stating that you are going
to do an impact statement, all right?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Forget the letter. We are not
going to argue about it any more. If you have any other state-
ment to make with regard to Kanaha Pond and the location of
that sewage treatment plant, then you say it. If you don't, |
then I would appreciate it if you would just sit down.	j

MR. HODGES: Fine, and I simply want on the record, those
questions to you, okay? And I have some other statements.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I am not here to answer questions.
I am here to receive infor nation.


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii





MR. HODGES: You are here as an employee of the United
States Government, all right?

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Oh, you are so right.

MR. HODGES: And you are required by the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, to prepare a draft impact statement, that's
all. Not you, personally. I mean none of that personally.

Okay, so we get off with that good start. Okay, I think that
with regard to the Kanaha — it's not the question of the Kanah
site. The fact is, the Environmental Protection Agency com-
mitted itself to the funds for Maui County before an environ-
mental assessment was done; before a draft impact statement was
done: before a negative declaration was done, all right? That,
as you know, as an attorney, is illegal. You cannot commit the
fundso You do that — not you again, when I say "you", I mean

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I am glad that you have a law
degree, Mr. Hodges. New, do you have anything else to say?

MR. HODGES: Yes, ma'am. If you will listen and be pa-
tient, it will all come out.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I am not here to listen to your
alleged law degree and your legal determinations. I am here
to gather information.

MR. HODGES: Fine, the part of the information 	 (inter-

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: And I am going to have what you
have said stricken from the record if you keep it up.

MR. HODGES: That will be your choice,.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: I am glad I can make some decision^
around here. Thank you, Mr. Hodges.

MR. HODGES: Good for you. All right. One of the things
that is not considered and hasn't been brought up here too
much tonight is the fact that the sewage treatment plant, as
now planned contains — provides for a capacity of treatment
which exceeds the present population. In this case, if the EPA
approves a project of this nature, then the EPA would essen-
tially be endorsing — endorsing with fvoids, all right? And
with approval, a project which perhaps will not cause, but which
will permit an increase in population in the Wailuku-Kahului I
area; and that in the Council Environmental Quality Guidelines,!




to NEPA, one of the things that is to be considered there is
the effect of the project on the concentration and distribution;
or redistribution of population. And I would just like to re- |
commend, anyway, in your considerations, that you look into the|
fact that this is planned to bring about or to permit the fur- 1
ther growth of Maui County; that is, to increase population.
And I know that this is pointed out in your environmental assess
ment, where it said that obviously, you know, the general agree-
ment is that increase in population brings about a degredation
of the environment, Which, obviously would not be an enhancement:
of the environment.

Another thing to be considered here tonight, too, as you '
look at the — as you suggest, the need for an impact statement
but I would suggest the content of the impact statement — woul<^
be to look also at the other proposed plants for Maui County —
the other proposed sewage treatment plants and I will say here
tonight and you can determine in your impact statement, in your
analysis, whether — you know, whether this is true. The Countf
of Maui — the reason that it is under a great deal of pressure
to put this sewage treatment plant in quickly, though it has
been dumping raw sewage for many years and has had a broken
main out there or outfall for many years, and has not really
been concerned with the sewage — the reason that it is doing
this is because in fact, it wants to build a sewage treatment
plant at Kihei„ Now, your Agency may not be aware of this,
because they perhaps will not be applying for Pederal funds
for that; but the purpose of the plant at Kihei, where a very
small number of people live, is to enable tiaฎ development of an
area called Wailea, by a company represented by Mr. Tavares.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: That does not have any relevancy
with regard to the 	 (interrupted)

MR. HODGES: Yes, ma'am.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: No, it doesn't, Mr. Hodges„

MR. HODGES: It does, ma'am, because 	 (interrupted)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: No, it doesn't, and I don't want
to hear about it. Let's stick to the Kanaha Pond and the sewage
treatment plant that is proposed — or allegedly proposed.

MR. HODGES: You are talking about committing public funds
— $4,000,000 plus, to a plant, all right, in Maui. And you
are talking about committing it to this and I guess eventually,!
you are talking also about committing it to Lahaina, and I am
saying that you must look -- one of the purposes of your impact!


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii




statement would be to look at What are the sewage needs for
this Island. And when you would do that, I would hope that you
would see that It's more important to provide sewage treatment,
as in the case of Wailuku-Kahului, for areas where people are,
not where we propose or Alexander & Baldwin proposes to put

And I think that if you look carefully, you will find that
the County is playing a game of the pea under the shells with
Federal funds; that they are getting your funds for this one
and the Lahaina one, so that they can afford to build the Kihei
one for A & B.

I think it was pointed out to you tonight again and I will
just touch on that point once more — many people have said
that the sewage treatment plant is needed for the continued de-
velopment „ Now, the continued development of Wailuku-Kahului iฃi
something that the EPA has not yet taken a look at, and I would
suggest that this would be a reason for an environmental impact
statement — in other words, to take a look at what would the
continued development of the Island of Maui be; and hew would
it affect the quality of the human environment. If the sewage
treatment plant is to be built for a doubling of the population,
which apparently is what it allows in Wailuku-Kahului, then this
would be one of the things that you would have to look at, the
quality of the air, of the water, noise, this type of thing;
and I believe that the environmental assessment which the EPA
put out, touched on this and indicated this would be an area of
concern that should be looked at; and this would be again, the
purpose for an environmental impact statement.

And lastly, I would like to say, again, going back to what
I began with, but when I mentioned parts of the law, I don't |
mean to speak to you as an attorney — in other words, you know,
putting myself to you as an attorney. I am not: but I do feel
that other people are capable of reading the law and, you know,
at least telling you what we think of it, just as attorneys
give their opinions as to what the law is to a judge; and so,
perhaps at one level lower, I offer that opinion to you; that
I think it's very clear, you had the attorney come up here and
told you that there was no controversy„ I think that there is
very obviously a controversy. There's obviously two points of
view — in fact, there are perhaps 10 points of view, and I
think that the Environmental Protection Agency should certainly
start its first, we will say, mechanical operations in Hawaii
— you know, its first ongoing sewage treatment plant — get
off to the right footing and get off on the right footing by
jpreparing an environmental impact statement. You are going to
be involved in many, many more in the State and we would hope


Portland Oregon - Honolulu, Hawaii



that in each case, an environmental impact statement would be
approved — or not approved, but prepared; and I think that youj
are aware that Mayor Fasi of Honolulu has already asked the i
Environmental Protection Agency to waive the need for an envi- 1
ronmental impact statement on the Sand Island Sewage Treatment '
Plant; and apparently, he is encouraged in this request by the !
fact that there is some doubt as to whether or not an impact j
statement would be prepared for this plant.	;



Finally, I would like to say that I want, personally —
I know that Life of The Land does and I know that every person j
in this room does — we all want the sewage treated. But far
the purpose of expediency, it isn't worth gambling, and I think!
that the questions that have been raised here must be answered :
and the best format that I know of — and I think perhaps it !
may be the best format that you know of, to accomplish that — 1
to answer those questions and to put the answers to those ques-j
tions out to the public and to get feedback from them, is an {
environmental impact statement; and I would ask that the EPA j
comply with the wishes of Conqress and with the guidelines of j
the Council on environmental Quality and also with your own
guidelines; and I didn't mean to get into a shouting match with
you at all. I apologize for that.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Hodges.	j

(Witness excused) j


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is Bill Lesk available? Mr. Lesk?j



(No response)	;




(No response)	j

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Ty Benson? Is Mr. Benson present?

(No response)




(No response)


(No response)


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Mac Harlan? Mr. Harlan?

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii






MR. HARLAN: My name is Mac Harlan. I represent the Ki"hel
Community Association as past President and member of the Board
of Directors,

I think after that last — 1 should have brought a gallon
of water to pour on the troubled waters -- a gallon of oil. I
have been wondering all evening why you set this up so the
speakers have their backs to the audience. When I am talking
to a group, I would rather talk to them face to face. However,
that's beside the point now.

Tonight, we have heard many experts, both pro and con,
some not so expert; and a few red herrings have been drawn
across the path, I think though, that the consensus of those
present and 90% of the people of the Wailuku-Kahului area, if
a Gallop type poll were to be produced, would vote in favor of
what the findings are with respect to the location of the water
treatment plant at Kanaha Pond. There has been nothing demon-
strated to prove any ecological imbalance to occur to the bird
life and animal life there.

So therefore, as a representative of our community — and
you may ask why Kihei is interested. I will tell you why. We
have 2,000 taxpayers down there and we're going to help pay for
this plant; and we are not interested in seeing anything done
that will increase the cost by moving it to another location,
which, in the opinion of most people, is less desirable. There
fore, we ask that we put full steam forth to complete this pro-
ject and let's forego the impact statement.


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you very much, sir.

(Witness excused)


(No response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is there anyone I have missed? Is
there anyone in the audience who 	 (interrupted)

MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, somebody put my name down
! — John Fernandez and I didn't write that. Is it all right if
i I make a little statemeht? Somebody put my name down — Fer-


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



nandez„ I didn't sign, but I would like to make a statement.

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: You would like to make a statement]
sir?	j


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Would you come forward, please?


MR. FERNANDEZ: My name is John Fernandez from Lower Paia.
And I heard a lot of these remarks — some of these people, the^
are only trying to criticize our Mayor and the Councilmen. Whe^
they selected the Kanaha Pond, I think this is a good place, so
I don't see what gripe they have about Kanaha Pond. Like these:
guys say about fraud. If they did make any wrong-doing, put
them through Court, but they can find nothing wrong, so they ar^
trying to criticize the Mayor and the Councilmen and Howard
Nakamura. I think they made a good job.

Thank you.


HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Fernandez.

(Witness excused)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: Is there anyone else who would lik^
to make a statement? Is there anyone I have missed or someone
who forgot to fill out a registration card and whose name we '
didn't call?

(No response)

HEARINGS OFFICER DUNN: All right. I would like to remind
you that the record will be held open until March 2nd. includ-
ing the date of March 2nd. Your additional statements should
be in writing and submitted to the Environmental Protection
Agency, either at the Honolulu Office, 1000 Bishop Street, Suiti
601; or the EPA Office in San Francisco, at 100 California Street,
If your statements are postmarked on or before March 2nd, they
will be included into the record.

The record will be made available after transcription by
the Reporter and copies will be available to you for examination
— in fact, will be available to every member of the public, for
examination at the Library in Kahului and also at the EPA Offices

Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii



in Honolulu, at 1000 Bishop Street.

Thank you all fca: coming. Thank you for your attention and
your cooperation in making it a little easier tonight.

{Whereupon, at 12:07 o'clock a.m., the hearing in the
above-entitled natter adjourned.)


Portland Oregon - Honolulu Hawaii




In the Matter of:



I, the undersigned Wm. Chun, hereby certify that I was 1
Official Reporter in the above-captianed proceedings; that
these proceedings were then and there recorded by me on the
date stated in captioned Page 1 hereof; that thereafter, these ฆ
proceedings were reduced by me and/or under my direction to


typewriting; that the foregoing transcript, Pages 1 to 149, J


both inclusive, constitutes a full, true and accurate transcript

of said proceedings, so recorded by me, and of the whole thereof,

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hav^ \h2reuiyto^ set my hand this 5th

day of March, 1973.	ฆ?ซ


Official Reporter
P. O. Box 3854,

Portland, Oregon 97208




Portland Orioon - Honolulu Hawaii	|





Basic 6 MGD Secondary Treatment Plant Cost

The engineers $5.5 million (M) estimate at August 1972 was
confirmed by bids received. This included injection and moni-
toring wells to obtain a base cost for the 6 MGD treatment
plant. The cost of the wells was removed from the $5.5 mil-
lion. ($5.5M - $0.16M =) $5.34 M + 0.156 x $5.34M = $6.15M.
The 0.156 factor is the result of 14.5% annual inflation for
13 months - August 1972 to September 1973. 14.5% x (13/12)
= 0.156.* Included in this secondary plant are: headworks
building, grit chambers, comminuters, pipe galleries, aeration
tank, aerobic digesters, sedimentation tanks, sand filters,
chlorination facilities, centrifuges, sludge holding tank,
chlorination building, garage, operations building, adminis-
tration building, miscellaneous plumbing, pumping, spread
footing foundation, landscaping, fencing, instrumentation,
controls, motors, and effluent pond.

Basic 6 MGD Primary Plant Cost

The engineer's $5.5M cost estimate (August 1972) for a second-
ary plant with wells was used as a base. The following items
were reduced or eliminated in cost: aeration capacity, return
activated sludge pumps, filtration, injection wells, air
diffusers, sludge collectors, piping, structural steel,
concrete, electrical equipment, and instrumentation. Still
included would be buildings, sedimentation tanks, headworks,
sludge handling facilities, emergency pond, and valving to
facilitate conversion to secondary treatment. Cost reduction
from the base equals $1.8M. ($5.5M - $1.8M =) $3.7M + 0.156
x $3.7M (inflation) = $4.28M.

Basic 4.5 MGD Secondary Treatment Plant Cost

Cost were estimated to be 85% of the cost for a 6 MGD plant.
$6.15M x 0.85 = $5.2M. The engineering fee is taken to be
$0.15M if re-design is at the present site and $0.32M if a
new site is used. The same equipment as was in the 6 MGD
plant is included.

Design would need to be such that the plant could be easily
expanded to a larger size, as the 4.5 MGD size would have
almost no capacity for growth. Buildings the size of the
6 MGD olant would be provided.


Piling Cost Estimate

The actual piling need was estimated at 1,000 piles, 50 feet
long each, for a 6 MGD secondary plant. August 1972 cost
estimate was $10/ft. Inflating cost to September 1973, the
price/ft. is $11.55/ft. To obtain estimates for 4.5 MGD capa-
city and tertiary treatment multipliers of 0.75 and 1.40
respectively were used.

Size and Treatment

6 MGD secondary
4.5 MGD secondary
6 MGD tertiary
4.5 MGD tertiary

Piling Cost

$. 58M
$. 435M

Engineering Cost


Piling should not be thought of as a "real" alternative as
its need will be dictated by results from soil test.

Tertiary Treatment Plant Additions - Cost

The engineer's August 1972 estimate for 6 MGD sizing was used
and updated to September 1973. The 4.5 MGD sizing cost was
taken as 75% of the 6 MGD cost.

Plant Size

Construction Cost

6 MGD tertiary addition $2.890M
4.5 MGD tertiary
addition	$2.200M

Outfall Cost

Engineering Cost

The engineer's August 1972 estimate for 6 MGD sizing was used
and updated to September 1973. The smaller size was not con-
sidered as it was thought not to be significantly more econom-
ical .

6 MGD outfall

Construction Cost Engineering Cost
$2.600M	$.190M


Injection Well Cost

The engineer's August 1972 estimate was used and updated to
September 1973. It was assumed that the 4.5 MGD sizing would
cost only 75% of the 6 MGD sizing cost.

Size Construction Cost Test Well Cost Engineering Cost


wells	$1.90M .	$.070M	$.016M

4.5 MGD

wells	$.143M	$.070M	$.012M


Alternative A-l Outfall at Present Site

1.	6000 L.F. Ocean Outfall	$2,600,000

2.	Wailuku Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

3.	Wailuku Waste Water Force Main	900,000

4.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovations 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

Construction Cost	5,490,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

New	190,000

September 1973 Cost	$6,155,000

Note: Engineering delay would be one year on the outfall
portion of the project.


Alternative A-2 Primary Treatment & Ocean Outfall at Present Site

1.	Primary Treatment Plant	$ 4,280,000

2.	6000 L.F. Ocean Outfall	2,600,000

3.	Wailuku Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 21" Force Main	900,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovation 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

Construction Cost	9,770,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

New - Outfall	190,000
- Conversion-
primary from

secondary	75,000

September 1973 Cost	$10,510,000

Notes: Engineering delay would be 6 months on the plant por-
tion and 1 year on the outfall portion. Current
design would be used as basis for cutback; but provi-
sion to expand to secondary would be made.


Alternative A-3 Secondary Treatment & Ocean Outfall

at Present Site

1.	Secondary Treatment Plant	$ 6,150,000

2.	6000 L.F. Ocean Outfall	2,600,000

3.	Wailuku Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 21" Force Main	900,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovations 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

Construction Cost	11,640,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

New	190,000

September 1973 Cost	$12,305,000

Notes: Engineering delay would be 6 months on the plant
portion and 1 year on the outfall portion. Sand
filtration is included.


Alternative A-4 Secondary Treatment & Injection Wells

at Present Site

1.	Secondary Treatment Plant	$6,150,000

2.	Injection Wells & Monitoring Well	190,000

3.	Wailuku Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 21" Force Main	900,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovations 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

Construction Cost	9,230,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

September 1973 Cost	$9,705,000

Note: Delay would be 3 months due to bid & award time.


Alternative A-5 Tertierv Treatment & Injection Wells

at Present Site

1.	Secondary Treatment Plant w/Wells	$ 6,340,000

2.	Tertiary Additions	2,890,000

3.	Wailuku Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 21" Force Main	900,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovations 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

Construction Cost	12,120,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

New	200,000

September 1973 Cost	$12,795,000

Note: Engineering delays would be 1 year on treatment plant
portions of project.


Alternative A-9 Secondary Treatment at Present Site
and Relocated Injection Wells to Kaa Site

1.	Secondary Treatment	$ 6,250,000

2.	Injection Wells & Monitoring Well	190.000

3.	Wailuku Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 21" Force Main	900,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovations 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

6.	4000 L.F. Connecting lines & Pumping to Wells	485,000

7.	Test Injection Well	70,000

Construction Cost	9,885,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

New	81,000

September 1973 Cost	$10,441,000

Note: Engineering delay will be 1 year for plant, wells
and connecting lines.


Alternative B-4 4.5 MGD Secondary Treatment and
Injection Wells at Present Site

1.	Secondary Treatment Plant	$5,200,000

2.	Injection Wells & Monitoring Well	143,000

3.	Wailulu Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 21" Force Main	900,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovations 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

Construction Cost	8,233,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

New	252,000

September 1973 Cost	$8,960,000

Note: Engineering delay would be 1 year on the plant and wells


Alternative C-7 Secondary Treatment 8t Injection Wells
at Kaa Site with Piling

1.	Secondary Treatment Plant with Piling	$ 6,830,000

2.	Injection Wells & Monitoring Well	190,000

3.	Wailulu Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 21" Force Main	900,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovations 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

6.	Underground Pump Station at Present Plant Site 1,730,000

7.	4000 L.F. Additional 30" Force Main	360,000

8.	Test Injection Well	70,000

Construction Cost	12,070,000

Engineering Fee	- Current	475,000

New	361,000

September 1973 Cost	$12,906,000

Note: Engineering delays would be 1 year minimum on Plant,
wells, new pump station, and new force main. All Kaa
site alternatives have $100,000 added to the basic
plant cost to provide visual screening and tsunami


Alternative D-7 4.5 Secondary Treatment Plant and
Injection Wells at Kaa Site with Piles

1.	Secondary Treatment Plant with Piles	$ 5,735,000

2.	Injection Wells & Monitoring Well	143,000

3.	Wailulu Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 21" Force Main	900,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station

Renovations 20 & 21" Force Main	950,000

6.	Underground Pump Station at Present Plant Site 1,730,000

7.	4,000 L.F. Additional 30" Force Main	360,000

8.	Test Injection Well		70,000

Construction Cost	10,928,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

New	452,000

September 1973 Cost	$11,855,000

Note: Engineering delays would be 1 year minimum on plant,
wells, new pump station and new force main.


Alternative E-6 6mgd Secondary Treatment Plant with
Ocean Outfall at Quonset Hut Site with Piles

1.	Secondary Treatment Plant w/piles	$ 6,950,000

2.	6000 L.F. Ocean Outfall	2,600,000

3.	Wailuku Waste Water Pump Station	1,040,000

4.	Wailuku Waste Water 18" Force Main	185,000

5.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station	925,000

6.	Kahului Waste Water 24" Force Main		515,000

Construction Cost	12,215,000

Engineering Fee - Current	475,000

New	730,000

September 1973 Cost	$13,420,000

Note: Engineering delay would be 2 years	for the entire

$220,000 is added to the base cost for extensive visual
screening and basin covering for odor control.


Alternative G-4 6 MGD Secondary Treatment w/Injection
Wells at National Guard Site

1.	Secondary Treatment Plant	$ 6,150,000

2.	Injection Wells & Monitoring Well	190,000

3.	Kahului Waste Water Pump Station	900,000

4.	Kahului Waste Water 21" Force Main

to Wailuku Pump Station	900,000

5.	Waikuku Waste Water Pump Station	2,500,000

6.	Wailuku Waste Water 30" Force Main 5,800'	525,000

7.	Test Injection Well	70,000

Construction Cost	11,235,000

Engineering Fee Current	475,000

New	680.000

September 1973 Cost	$12,390,000

Note: Engineering delays would be 2 years on entire project.





1.	Berger, Anthony J. Kanaha Pond Bird Study—Final Report.
September 20, 1972, pp. 79.

2.	United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife. Letter to the EPA, March 5, 1973.

3.	Johnson, Jerry. Letter to the Environmental Protection
Agency, March 2, 1973.

4.	Bruce, Robert P. Statement for inclusion in the record
of the Public Hearing, February 23, 1973, pp. 1-6, 11-12,
and excerpts from United States Department of Defense,
Corps of Engineers. Hawaii Regional Inventory of the
National Shoreline Study. Honolulu, Hawaii: August 1971,
pp. 73. 75.

5.	United States Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers.
Letter to the EPA, August 25, 1972.

6.	Chung Dho Ahn and Associates and (James Montgomery, spe-
cial consultants.) Results of a Pilot Test on an Injec-
tion Well for the Wailuku-Kahului Wastewater Reclamation
Facilities. Honolulu, Hawaii: 1972.


1.	American Society of Civil Engineers.

Consulting Engineering a Guide for the Engagement of
Engineering Services (Manual No. 45).

New York, New York: 1972,

2.	Bank of Hawaii. Hawaii 1971 Annual Economic Review.
Hawaii: 1971.

3.	Bank of Hawaii. Construction in Hawaii 1971.

Hawaii: 1971.

4.	Cambell, J. F. Erosion and Acretion of Selected Hawaiian
Beaches, 1962-1967 (Report H.I.G. - 72-20). Hawaii
Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii:

Hawaii, 1972.

5.	Chung Dho Ahn and Associates and (James M. Montgomery,
consulting engineers, special consultants for this pro-
ject). Study of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for
Wailuku-Kahului. Hawaii: April 1971.

6.	Chung Dho Ahn and Associates and (James M. Montgomery)
Plans and Specifications for Wailuku-Kahului Wastewater
Reclamation Facilities, Force Main, Pump Station.

Hawaii: 1972.

7.	Community Planning Inc. Urban Planning Wailuku-Kahului.
Honolulu, Hawaii: September, 1962. (Prepared for Traffic
and Planning Commission, County of Maui, Hawaii.)

8.	Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams. State of Hawaii
Comparative Analyses of Land Use Controls. San Francisco,
California and Honolulu, Hawaii: December 1971. (Pre-
pared for the Department of Planning and Economic Devel-
opment, State of Hawaii.)

9.	Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams. State of Hawaii Land
Use Districts and Regulations Review, a Summary. San
Francisco, California: June 1970.

10.	Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams. The Wailuku-Kahului
General Plan. San Francisco, California: October, 1972.
(Prepared for the Maui County Planning Commission.)

11.	State of Hawaii, Department of Accounting and General
Service Division of Public Works. A Plan for Development
of a Wildlife Sanctuary and Public Park in Kanaha Pond,
Kahului-Maui. Hawaii: 1963.

12.	State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Water and Land Development. Preliminary
Report on Geohydrologic Exploration for Deep Well Dis-
posal of Effluent Waimanalo Sewage Treatment Plant Oahu.
Honolulu, Hawaii: May 1969.

13.	State of Hawaii, Department of Planning and Economic
Development. The State of Hawaii Data Book, a Statis-
tical Abstract. Honolulu, Hawaii: 1972.

14.	Herschler and Randolph, consulting engineers. Study of
Pollution in Kahului Bay Maui, Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii:
December 1962. (Prepared for the Department of Health,
State of Hawaii.)

15.	Laevastu, Tawo. Avery, Don and Cox, Doax. Coastal
Currents and Sewage Disposal in the Hawaiian Islands.
Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii:
Hawaii, June 1964.

16.	R. M. Towill Corporation. Interim Plan Sub-Basin Area
Waihee - Paia, County of Maui, State of Hawaii. Honolulu,
Hawaii: April 1972.

17.	R. M. Towill Corporation. Sewage Master Plan for the
County of Maui, State of Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii:

October 1971.

18.	Overview Corporation. State of Hawaii Comprehensive
Open Space Plan. Hawaii": 1972. (Prepared for the
Department of Planning and Economic Development, State
of Hawaii.)

19.	Ultramar Chemical Water Laboratory. Water Quality Study,
Nearshore Waters of the Island of Maui. Honolulu, Hawaii:
October 1968. (Prepared for the Department of Health,

State of Hawaii.)

20.	United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. Soil Survey Interpretations Maui. Honolulu,
Hawaii: January 1972.

21.	United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
1970 Census of Population: "General Population Charater-
istics" and "Number of Inhabitants." United States Govern-
ment Printing Office: Washington D. C., 1971.

22.	United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sports
Fisheries and Wildlife. Hawaii's Endangered Waterbirds.
Portland, Oregon and Kailua, Hawaii: December, 1968,

23.	United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sports
Fisheries and Wildlife. Hawaii's Endangered Waterbirds.
Portland, Oregon and Kailua, Hawaii: September 1970.

24.	United States Department of the Interior, Geological Sur-
vey (in cooperation with Department of Land and Natural
Resources, State of Hawaii.) Preliminary Report on the
Water Resources of Central Maui.

ft GPO 790-427