East Maui wells/ EMplan Case: Timeline

1991: Maui county BWS (Board of Water Supply) issued a nine page EA on two “exploratory wells” (Hamakuapoko wells) to be drilled in the Paia Aquifer as the beginning of a larger group of wells planned to extend east into the Haiku aquifer. The wells were drilled and testing was done for ag pollutants. The test revealed some pollutants, but not at levels that triggered state or federal limits for human consumption, however the testing was not done by a certified lab.

1992: DEISPN was issued for the entire EMPlan.

Isaac Hall and various SC members (as individuals) and other groups sent comments claiming the EISPN did not discuss the project’s actual impacts.

1993: Maui County BWS issued an FEIS for the East Maui Water Plan (EMPlan) which proposed a County well field (10 to 16 wells with up to 15 mgd capacity ) on A&B, Inc lands in two aquifers: Paia/Haiku and included the 2 wells in Paia aquifer drilled earlier. The FEIS was accepted in Aug 1993
October 1993: Isaac Hall, on behalf of several SC members (as individuals) and several other groups filed a suit claiming the EIS was inadequate since it failed to reveal impacts on the Haiku aquifer, existing streams and ocean resources and did not discuss the fact that the ground water where wells were proposed was polluted with DBCP and other contaminants

1994: The court agreed with the plaintiffs, found the EIS inadequate, required that a SEIS be prepared and required a monitoring/observation well to be constructed in the Haiku aquifer to provide baseline data on the aquifer before any future larger wellfield was installed. A later court order (see 2000 below) stipulated that a protocol developed by the USGS for observing the nature of the aquifer during the drilling process be followed.

As part of rejection of H’pko water samples were sent to a certified lab and both wells were found to have contamination levels of DBCP and TCP that exceeded state standards.

1998: County and East Maui parties disagreed over the drilling of the Haiku Monitor well. In 1999 the matter went to Judge Mossman.

1999 the County reached a 40 year settlement with Dow Chemical who were a successor to Occidental petroleum and Shell Chemical companies who had sold the original DBCP ag chemicals to Maui pineapple growers that are now found in the ground water. The settlement provided that Dow would pay certain ongoing costs to clean up well water for agreed upon County wells until 2039. The two H’poko wells are included in that agreement. Future wells can also be included. It is not clear if teh agreement covers wells that are not polluted with DBCP, but are polluted with related ag chemicals EDP or TCP.

1999: a FEA was issued by Maui County BWS proposing to turn the “exploratory” Hamakuapoko wells into production wells.

2000: An order for declaratory relief was issued by the judge in favor of Isaac Hall and clients that set out the protocol to be followed for the Haiku monitor well. (well not drilled til 2002)

2001: Maui County produced a Draft Supplemental DEIS for the EMPlan project, but did not issue a FSEIS until around 2002 when it was accepted by the BWS in Oct 2002.

2002: Haiku monitor well was drilled, (state well 5418-01) but the protocol outlined by USGS was not followed and the County drilled the well so it could be used as a production well. The well has monitoring data for a few years, and then records appear to be sparse.

Jan 2003: Isaac Hall on behalf of SC and several other groups and individuals filed a suit claiming the Final SEIS was inadequate since it still failed to reveal impacts on marine waters, existing streams and the Haiku aquifer, the county had failed to follow the monitor well testing procedures protocol set out in the 1993 consent decree, and did not adequately deal with fact that the ground water where wells were proposed was likely to be polluted to levels exceeding state standards, with DBCP, EDP and TCP, as had now been shown at the Hamakuapoko wells through new testing.

2003: new mayor Arakawa invited the plaintiffs to settlement discussions and the current consent decree was signed in late 2003. As per the consent decree, the 2002 SEIS was withdrawn.

2006 Maui county installed portions of a 36″ pipeline potentially connecting the Hamakuapoko wells with the Central Maui water systems. CD required only part of pipeline could be 36″

Dec 2006: Isaac Hall wrote to County of Maui asking that they halt pipe installation since it was not proceeding according to terms of the 2003 consent decree but was not able to get an injunction to halt the work.

2012: after nearly a decade of no communication on the EMPlan, the county water department announced it was consulting with the plaintiffs to begin a new EMplan process, as was required by the 2003 Consent Decree. Several meetings and conference calls were held, with no agreement. Then, in March 2013, the County BWS unilaterally published a RFP for two “monitor wells” in Haiku in the “consent decree area”.

Jan. 2013: Isaac Hall on behalf SC and other plaintiffs filed a complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, to Enforce Court Orders to enforce the 2003 consent decree and asked the DWS to withdraw the RFP for the wells and the agreement for USGS studies to support the wells. The Plaintiffs argued an new EIS was needed as per the 2003 consent decree and the other actions required to be undertaken prior to any new EMPlan EIS, by the 2003 consent decree had not been followed.

The County told the court it was following the CD The court suggested the parties try to settle the matter among themselves. Settlement agreements were drawn up and reviewed. they included a county request for a “Limited Amendment to Consent Decree to Allow Collection of Data for Scientific Purposes Only” which the plaintiffs were willing to agree to if other sections of the consent decree were strengthened. At two weeks before the court hearing it appeared a settlement would be accepted by Maui County, but this fell through and matter went to court.

October 2014: Judge ruled entirely in favor of plaintiffs, SC and allies.

Dec. 2014: Maui County filed a new petition with the court asking them to either vacate or amend the EMPlan CD of 2003 as “unworkable”.

2015: Isaac Hall on behalf SC and other plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the County’s request and asked the court to uphold the 2003 consent decree.

March 2015: Judge ruled entirely in favor of plaintiffs and upheld the CD.

September 2015: Maui county proposes its most recent action which seeks to exploit the Haiku aquifer, by drilling a string of 10 wells just outside the upper limits shown in the 2003 Consent Decree maps (“the Makawao Well String”)

Suit asks Judge Loo (who has not heard any of the previous cases) to make a Declaratory Ruling that the proposed 10 wells would be outside the limits of the 2003 Consent Decree boundaries and not subject to terms of the decree.
SC and allies countersue that Maui County DWS needs to file an EA or EIS for the proposed project, but has not.
SC and allies also ask that the matter be transferred to the newly created Environmental Court and Judge Cardosa (who has heard the case for the past four years.)

2017: As of 2017, no ruling from Judge cardosa on whether he would hear the case

HC&S has shut down sugar operations creating potential access for Maui County DWS to more cheap stream water (County may be thinking it may not make sense to drill expensive wells??)

May 2017: County proposes that both parties dismiss the case without predjudice and this is done.