Bill 189 restricts water use in times of need.

[james weatherford]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

My agenda from the County Council shows Bill 189 being transmitted from Finance Director Nancy Crawford, dated Dec. 16, 2009. Comm. 659

---

Thanks for that info Rob.
In the conversation with Finance, their claim was that they were putting the bill forward for someone else -- which is sometimes, but not always, the case for the Finance Dept.
Per the Communication (659) with Bill 189, cost appears to be the 'why', which, as Obie said, points the finger at Finance.
This is the punch line from that Communication:
"The only cost control available for the program is
to limit consumption at the spigot locations."

It really could be that Bill 189 was already on the 'to-do list' for cutting costs and has been serendipitously introduced at the worst possible time -- during a dry period. ouch!
Given that point and the several unanswered (evaded?) questions, it doesn't appear that a great deal of thought was put into this.
Which raises another question, do any of the following people rely on catchment and/or spigots?: Mayor, Finance Director, Councilors.



James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[Obie]

The mayor does for sure because he just got and exemption to subdivide his ag land and not upgrade to county water.

[missydog1]

I didn't say that I'm for rationing. I just don't like people complaining that Hilo has more this and that when everyone makes a basic economic choice whether or not to be in Hilo. It might be the difference between living somewhere paid off and having $2000 a month house payments. It was a choice, and you chose no County water, to rely on catchment.

Like Obie said, farmers on County water have to pay for it. Then all farmers should have to pay for it.

There were deals struck with the developers when the Puna subdivisions were approved. Deals that allowed for subdivisions that might never get County water, at least not without carrying the expenses, deals that made the subdivisions responsible for their own roads. Deals that absolved the County of the duty to provide utilities to these subdivisions. These deals produced CHEAP LAND. People were willing to pay little for the land and live on catchment and pay their own road fees. So it doesn't fly with me for people to say, oh we pay road fees. Yes you do, because you paid less for the land, because the land developer didn't have to put in infrastructure. Land developers in Hilo had to provide infrastructure. It cost a lot. That is reflected in the price of land. You get what you pay for.

Read Land and Power in Hawai'i - the Chapter on the making of Puna subdivisions, and you'll understand how it came to be.

[Greg]

Kathy,
You're right that it seems unfair for you to have to pay the meter fee even when you don't use water.

My question is: How much would you have to pay if you used the water meter? I'm pretty sure it's not much more than the meter fee.
____________________________________________________________________

When people mention that we Punans knew of our infrastructure shortcoming when we arrived here, I always think of the multimillion dollar flood control project completed at Bayfront in the not so distant past.

Hilo folks were certainly aware of the runoff and flood problems in Hilo makai. Hilo development even contributed to the increase in runoff and flooding.

I was glad that our Puna district's share of tax dollars could assist Hiloens in maintaining the affluent lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. *


* Sarcasm disclaimer []

Stoneface

[Rob Tucker]

"The only cost control available for the program is
to limit consumption at the spigot locations."

So will they save money by less water per day being used/taken? Except for pumping the water itself has no cost.

or

Will the pumps run less and save electricity?

I understand that the two pumps/tanks that the county operates in Puna are gravity fed to the meters and spigots. So no electricity will be used except to replenish the storage tank(s) from time to time.

This seems very nickelly and dimey and VERY disadvantageous to our farmers, gardeners, livestock and drought stricken residents.

[Loren Baker]

If it is all to do with money, put a meter on it and charge those using it, as they do already in many communities. Sign up with the regulating body, swipe your card, turn on water and fill up, turn off, bill is sent in mail. Very successful program. But they didn't address these concerns in Bill 189.

Just too many unresolved questions.



Loren Baker

[Rob Tucker]

"Just too many unresolved questions."

Very true words in more ways than one.

[missydog1]

Greg,
I actually don't think it's unfair that there's a standby fee. I get a service (got a service; we sold the lot this fall.) I wished it were more convenient for folks who want water some months and not others, as the only way to stop the standby is to have the meter pulled, which costs $75 to restore service so it's not a savings. The cost of water for using service for my household of two is about $20 a month without irrigation. If we water plants regularly, it does go up substantially.

When we lived on the west side, our water bill was over $100 a month because we had to irrigate.

If you've spent any time driving around Hilo neighborhoods, I would hardly say it's an affluent lifestyle. Really. There are two or three affluent subdivisions. Much of the rest is pretty darn basic. I was opposed to paving over parts of Hilo such that flooding problems were increased, but it wasn't my call. As for controlling flooding at the Bayfront, that benefits the whole island and keeps the east side viable for tourism.

[missydog1]

btw, I am FOR all households having the means to get drinking, cooking, and bathing water. As for the economics, given that County water isn't free, I think that ANY provision of a free water is a bonus and not an entitlement.

Think about the folks in North Kohala who were put on water rations last year. They are on County but the County water was too low to serve them. They have no catchment and no spigots! County is all they have and it wasn't there for them because of low rainfall and the failure of parts in one of the two wells.

[MarkP]

Two things stand out for me. First, it seems there is a case of mission creep going on here. The spigots were put in to take care of basic needs in emergencies but people are now demanding that they serve a greatly expanded role, one which I must concur is not entirely fair if some people are demanding agricultural water for free while others pay for it monthly.

The other more significant issue is that this is really no way for families to be providing themselves with water. It is like a kind of welfare and one that really isn't adequate. There is much talk in Puna circles about sustainability. Well, almost 15 feet of water falls from the sky over the course of the year in much of puna and a lot of the time catchment systems averaging 10,000 gallons in size are overflowing. So, apparently 10,000 gallons is not enough storage so how about doubling that? If done at initial construction the cost won't be double. The extra 10,000 gallons should see even a good sized family through a month of drought. If not then that family has fundamental underlying problems that probably keep them dependent on others. I do not believe that a significant amount of agriculture is actually supplied by these roadside spigots and if it is that is no way to run a farm.

The very first step in developing a sustainable lifestyle in an area that gets over 10 feet of rain a year should be to put in sufficient catchment and storage capacity. It may be that the county just wants to save money, but the argument that the average Puna household is dependent on such a tenuous supply is tragic.