ka u to south kona - Department of Water Supply

Transcription

- FINAL REPORT -
KAÿU TO SOUTH KONA
WATER MASTER PLAN
For:
County of Hawaiÿi
Office of the Mayor
Prepared By:
Townscape, Inc.
September 2004
CONSULTANT TEAM:
Townscape, Inc.
900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160
Honolulu, Hawaiÿi 96813
Overall coordination, community planning, compilation, author/editor
BK, Inc.
675 Kinoole Street
Hilo, Hawaiÿi 96720
Bruce Kawamura
Contributing author: Section 7, “Water Master Plan”
Waimea Water Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 326
Kamuela, Hawaiÿi 96743
Stephen Bowles, Dr. Kaeo Duarte
Primary author: Section 6, “Water Resources”
Contributing author: Section 3.7, “Water Catchment Analysis”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Charlie’s Water Service
County of Hawaiÿi, Department of Research and Development
County of Hawaiÿi, Department of Water Supply
County of Hawaiÿi, Office of the Mayor
County of Hawaiÿi, Planning Department
Honomalino Irrigation Cooperative
Hoÿokena School
Kaÿu Coffee Cooperative
Kaÿu Water Delivery
Kona Paradise Community Association
Mac Farms Hawaiÿi
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Näÿälehu Mainstreet Association and Farmers Market
Ocean View Community Association
Ocean View Community Development Corporation
Various Kaÿu and South Kona Farmers
- FINAL REPORT -
KAÿU TO SOUTH KONA
WATER MASTER PLAN
For:
County of Hawaiÿi
Office of the Mayor
25 Aupuni Street, Rm. 215
Hilo, Hawaiÿi 96720
Prepared By:
Townscape, Inc.
900 Fort Street Mall, Ste. 1160
Honolulu, Hawaiÿi 96813
September 2004
Kaÿu to South Kona Water Master Plan
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
KAÿU TO SOUTH KONA WATER MASTER PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1. Project Area ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2. Why a Water Master Plan? ............................................................................................... 1-2
1.3. Role of DWS..................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.4. Frequently Asked Questions ............................................................................................. 1-4
1.5. Community-Based Planning ............................................................................................. 1-9
1.6. Growth Projections and Water Demands........................................................................ 1-11
1.7. Water Resources ............................................................................................................. 1-13
1.8. Water Master Plan........................................................................................................... 1-15
1.9. Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 1-18
1.10. Growth Implications ..................................................................................................... 1-20
1.11. Financing and Phasing .................................................................................................. 1-20
1.12. Cost Effectiveness......................................................................................................... 1-21
1.13. Next Steps ..................................................................................................................... 1-22
2. Background: Kaÿu to South Kona Water Master Plan............................................................ 2-1
3. Regional Profile ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1. Physical Description of the Region................................................................................... 3-1
3.2. Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Region .................................................................. 3-6
3.3. Growth Trends ................................................................................................................ 3-11
3.4. Infrastructure and Community Facilities ........................................................................ 3-12
3.5. Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 3-15
3.6. Water Use........................................................................................................................ 3-16
3.7. Water Catchment Analysis ............................................................................................. 3-18
3.8. Current Water Development Projects ............................................................................. 3-23
3.9. Water Issues in Neighboring Communities .................................................................... 3-26
4. Community Consultation ......................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1. Participation Process......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2. Community Values ........................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3. Fire Protection................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.4. Lava Hazard ...................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.5. Public Health..................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.6. Education .......................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.7. Droughts............................................................................................................................ 4-6
4.8. Agricultural/Economic Potential ...................................................................................... 4-6
4.9. Water System Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4-8
4.10. Other Issues................................................................................................................... 4-11
5. Growth Projections and Water Demands................................................................................. 5-1
5.1. Kaÿu and South Kona Population Growth ........................................................................ 5-1
5.2. District Water Demands.................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3. Potable Water: Residential............................................................................................... 5-3
5.4. Potable Water: Commercial........................................................................................... 5-10
5.5. Non-Potable Water: Agriculture ..................................................................................... 5-12
i
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
6. Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1. Wells and Water Resource Study Area............................................................................. 6-1
6.2. Water Budget .................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3. Ground-Water Recharge ................................................................................................... 6-9
6.4. Ground Water Occurrence ................................................................................................ 6-9
6.5. Sustainable Yield ............................................................................................................ 6-13
7. Water Master Plan.................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1. Water Master Plan............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2. Short-Range Projects ...................................................................................................... 7-10
7.3. Long-Range Alternatives and Costs ............................................................................... 7-12
7.4. Potable Water: Residential and Commerical .................................................................. 7-12
7.5. Non-Potable Water: Agriculture ..................................................................................... 7-23
7.6. Rights-of-Way, Standards and Materials, and Well Location Criteria........................... 7-27
7.7. Water Desalination.......................................................................................................... 7-29
7.8. Water Distribution .......................................................................................................... 7-30
8. Water System Financing Strategy............................................................................................ 8-1
8.1. County of Hawaiÿi............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2. State of Hawaiÿi ................................................................................................................ 8-3
8.3. Rural Development, USDA .............................................................................................. 8-4
8.4. U.S. Department of Interior ............................................................................................. 8-6
8.5. Rural Community Assistance Corporation ....................................................................... 8-6
8.6. Case Study: Kona Coast View/Wonder View Improvement District.............................. 8-7
8.7. Financing: Capital Costs ................................................................................................... 8-9
8.8. Financing: Operations and Maintenance Costs............................................................... 8-11
8.9. Next Steps ....................................................................................................................... 8-13
9. References................................................................................................................................ 9-1
APPENDICES
A. Population and Water Demand Calculations
B. Water Resources of the South Kona/Kaÿu Water Master Plan Area – Waimea Water Services
C. Well Source Report for Ocean View - Waimea Water Services
D. Water System Standards - State of Hawaiÿi
E. County of Hawaiÿi - Water Conservation Notices
F. Community Informational Meeting Memos
G. Water Revenue and O&M Calculations
H. Community Facility District Ordinance - Kona Coast View/Wonder View
I. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) List – DWS Progress Report
ii
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Kaÿu to South Kona Water Master Plan was initiated to address potential water sources and
water distribution systems for the southwest portion of the Big Island. The objective was to
develop a long-range plan to provide water for homes, commercial businesses, and farmers in the
Kaÿu to South Kona region.
1.1. Project Area
The project area covers parts of the Kaÿu and South Kona districts. This area encompasses
approximately 400 square miles and extends from sea level to about the 5,000-foot elevation.
The study area includes communities at South Point, Ocean View, Honomalino, Miloliÿi,
Kïpähoehoe, ÿOpihihale, and Hoÿokena. Neighboring communities of Pähala, Näÿälehu, and
Waiÿöhinu were also considered in addressing water systems of the region.
The region is rural with low-density development. In 2000, the entire districts of Kaÿu and South
Kona had a population of over 14,000. Over half of these residents depend on rain catchment
and hauling for potable water. Development in the project area includes residential, small retail
commercial centers, family-owned farms with dwellings, and commercial farms. Limited
commercial core areas provide retail services to residents in Näÿälehu, Waiÿöhinu, and Ocean
View.
The terrain in the region ranges from rugged recent lava flows to heavily forested areas. Varying
elevations provide a climate suitable for a variety of agricultural products. Crops include
vegetables, citrus fruits, macadamia nuts, coffee, and ornamental flowers. Cattle ranching is also
a significant economic activity, with several active ranches in the region. Tourism is a growth
industry in the region with its location near Hawaiÿi Volcanoes National Park and West Hawaiÿi.
The region has several parks and natural area reserves.
1-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1.2. Why a Water Master Plan?
This Water Master Plan is especially
needed in the Kaÿu to South Kona
community. There are no County water
systems from South Point to Hoÿokena,
a distance of approximately 40 miles,
with current population of about 5,000
people and the near-term potential of
many more.
Residents within this
project area depend on rainwater
catchment and trucked water for
domestic and commercial purposes.
This community experiences frequent
droughts with rainfall as low as 20
inches per year that affect the viability
of catchment systems.
Students travel to Pahala for classes at Kaÿu High School.
The area is extremely isolated and the closest
water source is more than 20 miles away in
either Waiÿöhinu or Hoÿokena. The distances
to water resources and the high cost of hauled
water are problematic for residents, business
owners, and farmers.
Public health is
compromised by the absence of clean water.
New schools or medical facilities are not
developable in the region without dependable
water supplies. These factors illustrate the
need for a study of water resources and the
planning of water infrastructure.
FIGURE 1.1 – DWS EXISTING SYSTEMS
GAP IN
SERVICE
The project area includes over 10,000 already
subdivided lots in Ocean View.
These
affordable lots have the potential for
significant growth. However, this region is
not equipped with the infrastructure and
public services needed to accommodate that
growth.
1-2
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
With a population of 14,000 in the year 2000, the South Kona-Kaÿu district population is still
relatively small. However, growth is occurring rapidly, especially over the past five years, due
to rapid increases in North Kona housing prices. The population of the Kaÿu and South Kona
districts combined is projected to nearly double to 27,000 by year 2020.
Over 6,000 acres of various crops are located throughout the project area. These agricultural
lands require an estimated 10 million gallons of water per day (MGD). The availability of water
for farming is integral to the future success and growth of agriculture in the region. With the
potential for growth in coffee and various truck crops, up to 11,000 acres could be actively
farmed in the future. Farmers reported that availability of water would increase farm yields,
allow farm expansion, create more jobs, and develop a more sustainable economy.
This plan was initiated by the County of Hawaiÿi, Office of the Mayor
and the Kaÿu to South Kona community. This plan is a communitybased plan and is not a product of the Department of Water Supply
(DWS). Many County departments did participate in the planning
process, including the Mayor and his staff, the Planning Department,
Department of Water Supply, and the Department of Research and
Development.
The involvement of these departments integrated management and provided various sources of
knowledge to the planning team. The Department of Water Supply (DWS) also provided
information on their existing systems, standards, and regulations. The consultant team consisted
of Townscape, Inc., community and environmental planning; BK Engineering, civil engineering;
and Waimea Water Services, hydrogeology.
1.3. Role of DWS
The Department of Water Supply is a semi-autonomous agency of
the County of Hawaiÿi which operates by rules and regulations as
adopted by the Water Board. As a semi-autonomous agency, the
Department operates and maintains its water systems with revenues
generated wholly from water sales. The primary function of the
Department is to provide safe domestic water service through its 24
water systems and 67 sources scattered throughout the island.
The individual water systems are not interconnected except in the
more densely populated districts of South Hilo and Kona.
1-3
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
DWS does not plan to develop any of the projects in the Kaÿu to South Kona Water Master Plan
as they are outside of the existing service areas. DWS is willing to help support community
efforts by providing technical support. DWS could provide support if the community develops a
community facilities district or improvement district.
For example:
•
Advance design and engineering costs up to $400,000
•
Overall construction management and administration
•
Use DWS inspectors for construction inspections
•
Discounts on water facility charges
DWS Position on Expansion
DWS projects are prioritized and placed on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list according
to: safety needs, compliance with EPA regulations, improvements to operational efficiency
(leaks and repairs), and DWS standards. DWS assumes debt service only if revenues received
cover capital costs and operations. DWS takes over the existing system if revenues pay for
operations. DWS has pro-active policies to service the broader public within the limits of their
mission. They offer technical support to communities that organize improvement districts to
fund expansion outside the DWS service area. Examples of this include Andrade Camp
improvements and Coast View/Wonder View.
1.4. Frequently Asked Questions
This section summarizes commonly asked questions about the Water Master Plan. The answers
to questions provide explanations on the plan methodology, planning process, cost estimates,
sample technologie, and reasoning.
Water Master Plan Draft Report
•
“The report is a wonderful resource document with lots of information in one place.”
•
“What is the difference between this Plan and the Well Source Report for Ocean View
(1997)?”
•
ANS: The 1997 report only looked at development of one well at Ocean View. This Plan
is the first regional water study of the Kaÿu to South Kona area. The community
consultation and hydrogeological analysis are also unique to this plan.
1-4
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Population projections
•
“Are the population projections too conservative?”
•
ANS: Population projections were developed for Kaÿu based on community reporting,
high land and home prices in North Kona, availability of affordable lots in Ocean View,
and the overall potential for growth in the region. Some residents believe that future
populations could be even greater than the Plan’s projections. The population projections
could be increased; however, that would not change overall proposed projects and
recommendations.
Cost estimates
•
“Why are cost estimates so expensive?
A pipeline cost of $1 million a mile is
too high.”
•
“In the mainland drilling a 2000’ well
is only $100,000.”
•
ANS: All cost estimates were based on
DWS standards. Recent DWS bids
were reviewed as a basis for project
costs.
The distance required to
transport materials was also factored
as a cost. Recent bids have been very
high!
An example of water line trenching along a roadside.
ANS: Drilling costs are expensive and
also attributable to Hawaiÿi’s geology which is very tough!
•
State DOT
•
“What are requirements for placing water lines within the State of Hawaiÿi road right-ofway?”
•
ANS: Presently, the State Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Right-ofWay Branch reviews each proposed utility installation on a case-by-case basis. No
private utility systems are allowed in the right-of-way. Easement fees for public utilities
can be charged; however, this is also handled separately for each case. Title 19 of the
Hawaiÿi Administrative Rules can be viewed in its entirety on the following web site:
http://www.state.hi.us/dot/highways/adminrules/w105-1.html.
1-5
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Construction and material standards
• “Can a water main share trenches with those planned in the future for Sandwich Isles
Communications fiber optic cable?”
• ANS: DWS standards do not allow water lines to share trenches with other utilities
without costly concrete encasing. Shared utilities can also cause danger/injury with
workers not familiar with other types of infrastructure.
•
•
“Can waterlines be installed at grade instead of underground?”
ANS: According to DWS standards, a minimum of three feet of soil material must cover
pipes. Pipelines installed at grade level would produce hot water as a result of solar heat.
Pipelines at grade would not be secure from tapping or tampering.
•
“Are there cheaper materials that could be used to lower costs? Polyethylene plastic
pipe? PVC pipe?”
ANS: Use of plastic pipes could save up to 15 percent on material costs but installation
costs are more for this material. In the past, DWS has sent out bid requests with the
option to use plastic piping. Nevertheless, contractors preferred steel pipes because of
the difficult backfilling that plastic pipes require. The convenience of steel-pipe
installation outweighs material costs. Finally, experience with use of cheaper materials
finds that they require more maintenance.
•
•
•
“Can less expensive glass lined reservoirs be used instead of expensive concrete
reservoirs?”
ANS: These inexpensive reservoirs are not suitable for Hawaiÿi’s environment due to
earthquake susceptibility. The glass reservoirs are very susceptible to damage during
construction. Any repair or maintenance of the reservoir voids factory warranties.
1-6
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1-7
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 1.2 – BASE MAP
ÿ
September 2003
1-8
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1.5. Community-Based Planning
Early in the planning process, it
was evident that a successful water
plan for this region required broadbased community planning. This
community-based planning process
involved much more outreach than
the standard “public informational
meeting.”
The planning team
consulted with community leaders,
groups,
landowners,
farmers,
businesses, and public agencies.
This approach was integral to the
development of a plan that
addressed the various water needs
of the region.
WMP meeting at the Ocean View Community Association Center.
Community outreach was also needed to provide information on water demand. There was little
information available on the region’s water demand. The planning process thus included
extensive community consultation and public participation, including identifying stakeholders,
conducting interviews, attending special interest group meetings, and holding general public
meetings. Interviews and meetings also created an opportunity to familiarize the community
with the true costs of water systems and planning concepts. The consultation process stressed
the need for community commitment -- the community must bear some of the financial costs for
implementing water systems.
Community associations, farmers, social services agencies, government, and other area residents
provided key insights on water issues.
Issues raised included:
1. Fire Protection: Absence of fire flow protection to residences and business owners.
Homeowners insurance is difficult to acquire and renew. Policies generally provide less
coverage at triple the cost of other areas.
2. Lava Hazard: Approximately 90 percent of the study area is ranked as lava hazard 2; 15
to 25 percent of this zone has been covered by lava flows since 1800.
1-9
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3. Public Health: Many residents do not have safe catchment systems. Many substandard
systems are contaminated with lead or bacteria. Public health is impacted by the absence
of water caused by drought conditions, long distances from sources, and high costs for
hauling. No public health clinic can be located in the Ocean View area without a
Department of Health-approved water supply.
4. Education: There are no public schools in the area and none can be built without an
approved water supply. Over 400 children from the area are bused to schools in Näÿälehu
and Hoÿokena, 20 to 40 miles away.
5. Droughts: Catchment systems are compromised by frequent and intense droughts.
Residents and farmers must often haul water during drought periods.
6. Agricultural/Economic Potential: Over 70 percent of agricultural lands in Kaÿu and
South Kona are not cultivated because of water constraints. Existing farm yields are
limited due to droughts and limited irrigation. The agricultural industry would grow and
develop a sustainable economy with the availability of water.
7. Community Values: Residents want to retain their rural quality of life even if a potable
water supply system is developed.
Lettuce cultivation at Manukä Farms in Ocean View.
Water catchment tank covered with blue tarpaulin.
1-10
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1.6. Growth Projections and Water Demands
Population projections were developed as a basis for calculating water demand. Population data
for the year 2000 and population projections for the year 2020 are listed in The County of
Hawaiÿi Draft Revised General Plan (2001). In 2000, the Kaÿu District population was 5,827
and the South Kona District population was 8,589. Regional growth projections for year 2020
are presented in Table 1.1.
The Water Master Plan analysis for South Kona District population projections is generally in
accord with County projections. Projections for year 2020 were calculated for block groups and
sub-region areas. This data is presented in Section 5.3.
This study’s population projections for the Kaÿu District were significantly higher than the
County’s. This Water Master Plan based population projections for Kaÿu on community
reporting, high land and home prices in North Kona, availability of affordable lots in Ocean
View, and the overall potential for growth in the region. The U.S. Census reflects a growth of
2,429 people from 1970 to 2000, about 81 persons per year. A number of community members
reported that the 2000 U.S. Census population numbers were very low in comparison with local
experience. Thus, 2000 Census numbers were increased by 25 percent to 7,284 persons, to
account for undercounting of homes and residents. These larger numbers more accurately
represent recent growth trends in Kaÿu. The growth rate from 2000 to 2020 could easily double
the rate experienced between 1970 and 2000. Growth at this rate over 20 years would add an
additional 5,200 people to Kaÿu. The population would then total 12,500 in the year 2020. This
study rounded up this number to 13,000 people. Some residents believe that future populations
could be even greater than the Plan’s projections.
The population projections could be
increased; however, that would not change overall proposed projects and recommendations.
TABLE 1.1: KAÿU TO SOUTH KONA POPULATION DATA
Year
Kau
South Kona*
Total
1970
3,398
4,004
7,402
1980
3,699
5,914
9,613
1990
4,438
7,658
12,096
2000
5,827
8,589
14,416
2020**
13,000
14,000
27,000
Source: U.S. Census.
* South Kona district includes areas of Hönaunau and Kealakekua outside of the project area.
** Year 2020 based on analysis of past trends, community reporting, and COH Draft Revised General Plan.
1-11
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
The Kaÿu to South Kona existing water demand for residential, commercial, and agricultural uses
is estimated at over 2 million gallons per day (MGD). The growth in population, commercial
services, and farming is projected to increase regional water demand to over 19 MGD by 2020.
Existing use of potable water, provided by rain catchment and hauling, is estimated at nearly
300,000 gallons per day. Over one million gallons of potable water per day is projected for the
year 2020 population. Residential potable water demand was projected based on rainfall
catchment volumes and water hauling reports. This study based potable water consumption on a
per person water use rate of 60 gallons per day. The population projections developed in this
study were multiplied by the calculated water use rate.
TABLE 1.2: OVERALL WATER DEMAND - KAÿU TO SOUTH KONA REGION
WATER (Gallons)
2000
2020
Potable: Residential
297,000
1,026,600
Potable: Commercial
72,000
132,000
Non-potable: Agricultural
1,910,000
17,920,000
Project Area Total
2,279,000
19,078,600
In year 2003, nearly 24 acres of commercial land in Ocean View required 72,000 gallons of
water per day. The area with commercial zoning could possibly expand as an urban expansion
area (County of Hawaiÿi, Draft Revised General Plan, 2001). A total area of 44 acres would
require 132,000 gallons per day with sufficient water pressure and volume. Agricultural lands
also demand a significant amount of water. Over 6,000 acres of agricultural lands require 10
MGD. Future expansion of 5,000 acres of coffee fields and truck crops would require an
additional 8 MGD of water. More details on water demand calculations are provided in Section
5.2.
TABLE 1.3: SUMMARY OF WATER DEMANDS BY SUB-REGION
Sub-region
2000
Population Demand (gal/day)
2020
Population Demand (gal/day)
Hoÿokena
500
30,000
1,500
90,000
ÿOpihihale
600
36,000
1,850
111,000
Kïpähoehoe
150
9,000
500
30,000
Honomalino
700
42,000
2,100
126,000
Ocean View
3,000
180,000
11,000
660,000
Project Area Total
4,950
297,000
16,950
1,017,000
1-12
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1.7. Water Resources
FIGURE 1.3 – GROUND-WATER RECHARGE
For analysis purposes, the project area was
divided into 23 hydrologic budget units. Units
were based on natural boundaries, watersheds,
geology, geography, and community areas. A
“water budget” was calculated to estimate the
amount of ground-water recharge. The waterbudget model considered the components of:
• Rainfall
• Fog-drip
• Runoff
• Evapotranspiration
• Ground-water recharge
• Change in soil-moisture storage
More detailed data could improve the
ground-water recharge estimates. There is a
severe deficiency of daily rainfall data in the
area. A dense network of rain gauges with 30
years of data would provide data for more
accurate calculations.
FIGURE 1.4 – GROUND-WATER OCCURRENCE
Currently, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) is re-mapping the soils on the
island; however, this information is not yet
available. Adjustments to the water budget may be
necessary with the availability of new soils data.
Water recharge data was used to identify water
resources suitable for development. The recharge
map, Figure 1.3, depicts how much water is in the
ground. The darker areas of the map represent
areas where larger volumes of water are present.
High recharge areas occur in the northwestern and
southeastern parts of the project area, near
Waiÿöhinu and South Point. Recharge amounts
generally decrease to the south and west toward
the areas where rainfall is less than 25 inches
annually.
1-13
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
A ground-water occurrence map was also developed to identify high level perched water,
freshwater, and brackish water. High-level ground water occurs from South Point Road to
Waiÿöhinu in the southeast and to the north above Kealakekua Bay. Generally, potable ground
water is present above the 2,000-foot elevation. Areas below this elevation are not suitable for
potable well development.
FIGURE 1.5 –
ESTIMATED SUSTAINABLE YIELD PER MILE
6.9 mgd
8.4 mgd
Sustainable yield is the amount of water that can be
pumped from the ground without depleting the
source. The sustainable yield amounts were
calculated and mapped to identify areas that might
be suitable for source development and well
drilling.
4.0 mgd
16.7
mgd
3.3 mgd
2.7 mgd
1.9 mgd
Sustainable yield estimates per highway mile were
derived from the recharge estimates of the water
budget (Figure 1.5). Based on Waimea Water
Services analysis, there is adequate ground water
capacity to support well development.
The
estimated sustainable yield would provide water
for potable well production above the 2,000-foot
elevation.
For example, analysis estimated a sustainable yield of 2.7 MGD per mile of Mämalahoa
Highway in the Ocean View area. Depending on well production, 2.7 MGD could provide water
for over 6,000 households. Estimates of sustainable yield should be used conservatively due to
significant assumptions in the methodology. As a result, this study proposes conservative rates
for initial pumping at 150 gallons per minute. Sustainable yield for the South Point and
Waiÿöhinu areas is 16.7 MGD per mile of highway. While this source would provide more
water, its distance from the demand population limits its feasibility as an alternative.
This Plan proposes development of a test well at Ocean View. This test well will provide the
best source of information to make future decisions about water systems in the region. While
more detailed rainfall data may help with calculations and modeling, only drilling and test
pumping a test well will provide actual data on ground water volume and quality.
1-14
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1.8. Water Master Plan
The Water Master Plan provides a strategy to locate, test, and develop water sources for
domestic and agricultural uses. The Plan also identifies reasonable alternatives for water
transmission, storage, and distribution. This Water Master Plan is illustrated with maps,
diagrams, and cost estimates that provide the County, other lawmakers, and the community with
information for implementing water systems in the region.
The Plan includes elements of water system infrastructure that serve both potable and nonpotable needs of the region. The Water Master Plan is based on several assumptions:
•
This Plan proposes to supplement existing water catchment systems in the region.
•
This Plan will not provide detailed plans and designs for distribution systems to the level
of individual homes and businesses.
•
Preliminary engineering studies and cost estimates conform to current standards of the
County of Hawaiÿi Department of Water Supply.
•
Project cost estimates are in 2004 dollars and do not include operations and maintenance
costs.
This Water Master Plan proposes implementation of several long-range projects for water source
development and transmission. The projects include:
1. Well 1 and 2 at Ocean View at 2,180-foot elevation ......................................... $8,168,710
2. Well 3 at Honomalino at 2,180-foot elevation ................................................... $2,419,395
3. Waterline extension from Hoÿokena to ÿOpihihale, six miles ........................... $5,130,400
4. Agricultural wells in Honomalino and Ocean View........................................... $5,465,500
TOTAL ....................................................................................................................$21,184,005
Master Plan projects were selected based on feasibility of costs and infrastructure. The Ocean
View wells have the potential to serve the community in the near term and provide needed
benefits. Developing a water source within the community, where demand is located and future
growth is projected, is favorable.
The first phase of Project 1 is to develop a test well at Ocean View. This well will provide more
information about ground water volume and quality. The next step would include developing the
test well into a production well. This production well would initially provide a closer potable
water source for Ocean View residents. Existing water sources for hauling are located in
Näÿälehu and Hoÿokena, each over 20 miles away. Overall, this well could reduce hauling costs
for residents by as much as 50 percent. The expansion of water systems for other production
wells and distribution will depend largely on the community. All cost estimates include 10
percent for survey and design and 10 percent for contingencies.
1-15
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 1.6 - WATER MASTER PLAN PROJECTS 1& 2
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3
Waterline
Well
Reservoir
FIGURE 1.7 - WATER MASTER PLAN PROJECT 3
1-16
County of Hawaiÿi
As an alternative, piping water in from the
South Point location would provide quality
water.
This alternative, however, is
problematic due to its distance from the
demand in Ocean View and costs
associated with the acquiring of right-ofway. For these reasons, the Ocean View
wells were selected as the better
alternative. More information on this
alternative is located in Section 7.3. The
second core water system could be located
near the Kahuku Community Park.
Detailed surveys, site selection, and land
acquisition studies for additional well and
tank sites are not within the scope of this
study.
Final Report
September 2004
Miloliÿi Beach Lots, South Kona
Project 2 would fulfill water requirements for Honomalino area residents. A core water system
similar to Ocean View with a 0.10 MG reservoir should be installed at 1,921 feet elevation to
provide adequate pressure at the highway.
A 6-mile waterline extension, Project 3 services South Kona residents beyond Hoÿokena to
Kipahoehoe. Existing South Kona potable water wells would supply the area. The project
would provide two standpipes and the opportunity for residents to establish connection to the
main line and develop distribution to their homes. The “Hoÿokena extension” alternative is
preferred because the water source already exists.
Project 4 serves agricultural needs with a demonstration well at Honomalino and a brackish well
at Ocean View. Development of the South Kona Irrigation System demonstration project
includes a well drilled at the 2,800 feet elevation, associated reservoir, and distribution (NRCS,
2003). The system will provide irrigation water to approximately 500 acres and will provide
data for future expansion of water systems. A water well in Ocean View, drilled below the
highway at an approximate elevation of 1,500 feet, would likely produce slightly brackish water
that would be suitable for agricultural and fire fighting requirements. No maps are provided for
project 4 as site selection was not within the scope of the study.
The Water Master Plan proposes projects that address the community’s needs and can be used to
help make decisions. These recommendations represent the best collective thinking at this time.
Projects included in the Water Master Plan could require future modification for several reasons.
The Master Plan will not be implemented by one entity. Various government agencies and/or
community organizations can have a role in the development of water systems.
1-17
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Depending on the type of implementing agency or collaboration effort, changes to water projects
may be required. Moreover, the Water Master Plan recommends projects that provide potable
and non-potable water for residential, commercial, and agricultural use. Adjustments to
proposed projects could also occur if these demands significantly change. Each project
addresses various communities and water user groups within the Kaÿu to South Kona region.
Phasing of specific projects could occur independently or concurrently as demand grows and
funding is secured. As a result, this Water Master Plan could change as government policy,
funding opportunities, or community sentiment changes.
There are also significant challenges in implementation of the plan. Collaboration between the
County of Hawaiÿi Mayor’s Office, Department of Water Supply, and community will definitely
help to design and construct the Water Master Plan. Community cooperation and financial
responsibility will be essential in working with the government to develop water systems for the
region.
1.9. Alternatives
Various alternatives for meeting potable and non-potable water demands of the region were
considered. Alternatives and costs include:
1.9.1. Potable: Residential and Commercial
•
Multiple Wells at Ocean View and Honomalino - A series of stand-alone
wells located at the 2,180-foot elevation to accommodate demands within
the local community.
$10,588,000
•
South Point Pipeline - Two wells drilled at South Point Road within the
area of high perched water. Potable water would be piped from the South
Point area, which is located approximately eight miles away to the Ocean
View commercial center.
$15,604,000
•
Waiÿöhinu Extension - Extend Waiÿöhinu water system for approximately
3.5 miles to South Point. Estimate includes three standpipes, a reservoir,
and a booster pump.
$3,933,000
South Point Well – One well drilled at site of existing South Point
reservoir. Estimate includes well construction, pumps and controls, and
three standpipes.
$2,323,000
•
1-18
County of Hawaiÿi
•
•
•
Final Report
September 2004
Hoÿokena Extension - Extend the South Kona water system for
approximately six miles to ÿOpihihale. Two standpipes could be installed
along the transmission line, one halfway, and another at the end of the
extended water system.
$5,130,000
Stand-alone Well at ÿOpihihale - Develop a well for the area near
ÿOpihihale or Kaÿohe, including the Kona Paradise subdivision.
According to hydrologic analysis, a well would have to be located above
the highway or above the 1,200-foot elevation.
$1,682,000
Honomalino Connection Main - a 12-inch main could be built from the
Ocean View system to the 0.10 MG tank at Honomalino. The 12-inch
main between Honomalino and Ocean View will provide supply flexibility
and back-up if the Honomalino well goes off-line.
$5,354,000
1.9.2. Non-Potable: Agriculture
•
Multiple Agricultural Wells at Honomalino - Develop twelve high-level
wells at the 2,800-foot elevation, each pumping at 750 gallons per minute
(GPM). This system would provide up to 80 percent of the water demand
for 7,500 acres, approximately 12 MGD. Total cost indicated is for well
development and reservoir.
$40,010,000
•
Demonstration Agricultural Well at Honomalino – Develop a well at the
2,800-foot elevation and associated reservoir and distribution. The system
will pump at 700 GPM and provide irrigation water to approximately 500
acres.
$3,590,000
Agricultural Well at Ocean View - At Ocean View, wells could be drilled
below the highway at an approximate elevation of 1,500 feet, which would
likely produce slightly brackish water. This water can be stored in lined
earthen reservoirs for agricultural and fire fighting requirements.
$1,876,000
•
•
Mountain House Tunnel Pipeline - An agricultural water system utilizing
water from Mountain House Tunnel and Ha’ao Springs would consist of
8.7 miles of 12-inch polyethylene pipeline from Ha’ao Springs reservoirs
(elevation 2,308 feet) to Ocean View, a 1.0 (million gallons) MG lined
earthen reservoir (1/3 acre x 10 feet deep) would be provided at Ocean
View (elevation 2,000 feet).
$11,143,000
1-19
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1.10. Growth Implications
Over 12,000 subdivided lots in Ocean View have the potential to accommodate regional growth
without rezoning. This means that growth can occur within existing County General Plan land
use and zoning designations.
The existing population in the region needs
water and other basic services. Developing
water infrastructure for residential and
agricultural use will certainly promote growth.
The project area has grown quickly even without
County water systems. Most in the community
agree that growth will happen with or without a
water system.
Deferral of water source
development should not be used as a method of
controlling population. The challenge is in A low density of homes exists in the region.
preserving the desired rural landscape and
lifestyle even if a water supply is developed.
The potential for growth is complicated because much of the area is within lava hazard zone 2.
Should basic infrastructure be financed and developed in a hazardous area? A water system may
encourage growth in a lava hazard area that is susceptible to property loss and economic
devastation. This risk should be balanced with the need to provide basic services for residents.
The challenge of this study was to plan for basic water needs within the constraints of hazardous
areas.
1.11. Financing and Phasing
The first well at Ocean View is estimated to cost over $4.3 million. The constructing of the test
well is estimated at nearly $1.6 million. As a part of this Water Master Plan project, $250,000
was reserved for funding the first phase of implementation. The $250,000 could be used for land
surveys, design, and if required, land acquisition. The balance of funds required for a test well
must be found in order to move forward with this phase of water source development at Ocean
View. The balance of funding required for a test well can only be secured from private or State
funds—no federal funds are available for test wells. The hope is that new State legislation can
allocate funds for this phase of water development.
1-20
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Cost for development of a production well and reservoir is estimated at $2.8 million. A
combination of grants and low-interest loans are potentially available for this phase of well
development. The loan terms of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Development program are attractive with a maximum term of 35 years at a current interest rate
of 4.5 to 5 percent. The cost to residents would depend on the size of the district. Financial
details would be negotiated with the community, DWS, and County of Hawaiÿi Corporation
Counsel and Finance Department.
1.12. Cost Effectiveness
1.12.1. Ocean View
The typical water hauling cost from Näÿälehu to Ocean View is $140 for 4,000 gallons.
According to DWS rates, water haulers filling at the Näÿälehu standpipe pay approximately $12
for 4,000 gallons. The difference between the customer cost and water cost is, therefore, $128.
These funds are used by water haulers for overhead, fuel, labor, repair and maintenance,
equipment depreciation, and profit.
Existing water haulers spend over two hours traveling to and from Näÿälehu. Reduced travel
times and labor costs could hypothetically save as much as $64 per haul. The estimated 1,000
households in Ocean View receive 4,000 gallons each month or 12 hauls each year. A potential
savings of $768 a year per household totals $768,000 for the entire Ocean View community. In
relation to the potential savings, the first Ocean View Well system cost is $4.33 million;
therefore, the cost savings would potentially “pay” for the system in less than six years.
If the community qualified for grants and loans at terms similar to those received by the Coast
View/Wonder View project, residents in a CFD or ID would pay back approximately $1.23
million for development of the production well. At least 500 homes could be adequately served
with estimated well production rates. Assuming an improvement district with 500 units, the
monthly payment for developing the production well would be $15.27. Costs for distribution to
the 500 homes would amount to an additional monthly payment of $18.50. This would total
$33.77 a month, not including water charges. If the well proves to have more pumping
capability, other districts can be developed, and eventually share in the costs. At current DWS
rates, 4,000 gallons of water cost approximately $25. The water cost coupled with assessment
fees for well development and distribution, is approximately $59, which is significantly less than
the average hauled water cost of $140.
1-21
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
1.12.2. Hoÿokena
The calculations show that water sales revenue would not adequately cover the debt service,
capital costs, and O&M costs associated with the six mile extension. This plan estimates that at
least 1,057 customers would be required to generate revenues to cover costs. Higher densities of
development would only be allowed with a change in land use. While it is likely that residential
growth in next 20 years will provide more potential customers, the conclusion is that existing and
near-term projected connections will not pay for the extension. Based on existing lots and
existing County zoning it would be difficult for DWS to justify allocation of design/construction
funds for this project. Thus, the future extension will need to rely on future development
changes and initiatives of land owners. It would be prudent to begin planning for the Hoÿokena
extension when water customer connections can adequately finance the project.
1.13. Next Steps
The alternatives presented do not provide an “easy answer” for developing water systems in the
Kaÿu to South Kona region. The options discussed provide alternative paths for implementing
water systems and financing mechanisms. Ultimate decisions for moving forward can only be
made (1) once a test well proves adequate water source, (2) a community facilities or
improvement district is able to be defined, and (3) a majority of community support is verified.
The specific details of water development and financing will require further discussion and
effort. Implementation of Water Master Plan projects for the Kaÿu to South Kona region will
require the cooperative efforts of the community and government at both the State and County
levels. The following actions are recommended in order to facilitate the funding, design, and
construction of these projects:
1. Confirm Basic Financing Structure. The basic financing structure for the Water
Master Plan projects should be preliminarily identified in order to ensure that next steps and
implementation are consistent with the desired structure. The final choice between a CFD or
ID can be made at a later stage as discussed below. Consideration should be given to the
following structural components:
• Formation of Community Facilities District (CFD) or Improvement District (ID).
o Enables the County to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance the projects, producing
interest cost savings that can be passed back to the property owners;
o Provides for the project costs to be paid by the owners of properties that benefit
from the projects.
• Exploring Availability of Governmental Grant and Loan Programs. Bonds to finance
the projects can either be sold to private investors or issued to a governmental agency
to secure repayment of project loans obtained under a water utilities loan program
sponsored by the agency. The USDA Rural Development program is an example.
1-22
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
2. Interim Funding Decisions. The County and community need to determine how to
expend the remaining $250,000 from this plan. What additional work can be completed now
to facilitate action? Alternatives for allocating funds include:
•
Topographic survey of test well site
•
Engineering design of test well
•
Environmental assessment of the test well
•
Community surveys to quantify sentiment
•
Telephone polls of community
•
Facilitator of interviews or informational meetings to organize implementation
•
Legal and/or financial consultants to assist in the CFD or ID process, district
boundaries, and units, loans, and bonds
3. Test Well Site. The County and the community also need to confirm selection of the
Ocean View test well site.
4. Funding for Test Well. Private funding of the test well is unlikely in Ocean View. As a
result, the community and the County should focus its efforts on State funding for the test
well by contacting key legislators in advance of the legislative session.
5. Continued Consideration of Community Views. It is important to obtain a clear sense
of community support or opposition for the projects throughout the planning process. There
are numerous methods of quantifying community sentiment, including written surveys,
telephonic poll, individual interviews, or public informational meetings. It may be necessary
to test the level of community support for the Water Master Plan projects more than once.
6. Analysis of Test Well Results; Identification of Project Components. The test well
results will be used to determine the volume of quality water that can be produced from a
production well. This, in turn, will affect recommended projects and the potential phasing.
•
If the indicated volume is lower than expected, it may be necessary to reduce the
scope of the well service area.
•
If the indicated volume is higher than expected, it may be possible to expand the
scope of the project to reach a larger area and potentially enhance the affordability of
the project.
1-23
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7. Formation of CFD or ID. After the project components have been identified
sufficiently for planning purposes, the County will be in a position to proceed with
formation of a CFD or ID to finance the Water Master Plan projects. This will involve
the following considerations:
•
Either type of District (CFD or ID) could be used for the Water Master Plan projects.
The decision should be made when sufficient information regarding the project plans
is available to determine which type of District presents any distinct advantages or
disadvantages.
•
Chapters 12 and 32 of the Hawaiÿi County Code (relating to the two types of
Districts), should also be analyzed to determine whether they present any
impediments to the formation of the District and, if so, the code should be amended.
•
The process of forming a proposed CFD or ID must be initiated by action of the
County Council.
•
In order to form the District, the County Council will need to define the boundaries of
the District and the basis for project costs to be assessed against properties served.
•
A public hearing (or hearings) for the CFD or ID will need to be held before the
formation of the District can be finally approved by the County Council.
8. Bond Financing Alternatives. Once the District is formed, the County will be in a
position to proceed with a bond issue for the project as follows:
•
The bonds can be issued either as special assessment revenue bonds or as
reimbursable general obligation bonds.
•
The County should explore the availability of funding under governmental loan
programs in view of the potential benefits that can result from this type of funding. In
the case of the Kona Coastview/Wonderview project, for example, the County was
able to obtain USDA loans for the project at very favorable rates; the County did not
have to incur the marketing costs which would otherwise be required if the bonds
were to be sold to private investors and the USDA program made a substantial grant
for the project.
1-24
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
2. BACKGROUND: KAÿU TO SOUTH KONA WATER MASTER PLAN
In 1997, Waimea Water Services completed A Water Development Plan – Phase I. The Plan
was funded by the Ocean View Community Association (OVCA), Tel Hawaiÿi, and the County
of Hawaiÿi (County) through the Big Island Resource Conservation and Development Council.
This Plan recommended the following:
•
Form organization(s) to secure funding
•
Construct well at OVCA Community Center
•
Estimated Cost - $3,900,000
As a result, the Ocean View Community Development Corporation (OVCDC) was formed in
1997, comprised of the following communities/organizations:
•
•
Hale Ola Ka’u (a.k.a. Tempura House)
•
Ranchos Road Corporation
•
Ranchos Community Association
•
HOVE Road Corporation
•
Kula Kai Road Corporation
•
Ocean View Fire Department
•
Kahuku Country Estates
•
Ocean View Chamber of Commerce
•
Kona Garden Estates
In 1998, the Hawaiÿi State Legislature appropriated $1,350,000 for planning, design, and
construction of a well at Ocean View (Act 116, 49A/B). This bill was passed with the support of
the OVCDC and State legislators. Despite the allocation of funds, funding was not released and
the appropriation lapsed in 2000.
In 2000 and 2001, the OVCDC met with the County administration to continue efforts to develop
a water system for the area. The community expressed interest in forming a Community
Facilities District (CFD) for funding purposes. In order for a CFD to be established, this
mechanism requires 25 percent of resident signatures. At that time, the County administration
pledged to support a CFD proposal to the County Council. The County also offered to provide
technical assistance through its DWS. This position was re-affirmed in subsequent meetings
with the Mayor.
2-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
In 2001, the Mayor met with the Governor and obtained a commitment for $500,000. This
funding was contingent upon approval of the CFD. The County informed the State Legislature
and $500,000 was allocated in the budget (Act 259, 19). Unfortunately, in May 2001, the
OVCDC was not able to obtain 25 percent of the signatures needed to form a CFD.
In January 2002, a community meeting was held in Ocean View. The community expressed that
they wanted the State to fund drilling of a test well. The community discussed initiating a CFD
and committing funds if the State of Hawaiÿi would fund a test well.
In April 2002, the OVCDC again met with the Mayor. As the original request for funds could
not be pursued without a CFD, the Mayor suggested requesting that the Governor appropriate
funds to develop a plan for the region. Representatives of the OVCDC agreed with the strategy.
The Governor committed to this partnership with the County and community by approving
$500,000. The Governor approved the County’s request for release of funds in August of 2002.
Thereafter, a County planning group was formed and a Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent out
to prospective consultants. In October of 2002, the County established a committee of
community members to review consultant proposals. Consultants’ proposals were received in
November. The committee interviewed several consultants and made a recommendation to the
Mayor. In December of 2002, the Mayor announced the selection of Townscape, Inc.
Townscape was contracted and began the master planning process at the end of February 2003.
2-2
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3. REGIONAL PROFILE
The project area is made up of many neighborhood areas, including Waiÿöhinu, Ocean View,
Honomalino, Miloliÿi, ÿOpihihale, and Hoÿokena. This section presents an overview of the
planning region, including its physical characteristics, demographics, and economics. Other
information included in this description are sources of surface and ground water, demand
centers, and current water uses. An overview of the region’s agricultural and natural resources is
also provided.
3.1. Physical Description of the Region
3.1.1. Location
The project area is located in the
southwest area of the Big Island of
Hawaiÿi. It is bordered on the east by
Waiÿöhinu and on the west by
Hoÿokena. The region encompasses
approximately 400 square miles. It
includes the summit of Mauna Loa and
stretches down to Ka Lae, known as
South Point, at sea level.
FIGURE 3.1 – BASE MAP
3.1.2. Terrain and Climate
The terrain ranges from rugged recent
lava flows to heavily forested areas.
Varying elevations in the region
provide the growing climate for a
variety of agricultural products from
tropical plants to fruits and vegetables.
Solar radiation in the area is 200 watts
per square meter with 20 to 60 inches
of annual rainfall.
Rainfall for the Ocean View area and throughout the entire region has decreased since the
beginning of eruptions at Kïlauea Volcano in 1983. This change has significant impacts on
residents dependent on catchment water. This change in rainfall is less significant when
calculating long-term ground water.
3-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.1.3. Soils and Agriculture
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Report (1973),
there are approximately 60 soil types found in the area. Major soils series include: Alapaÿi,
Hanipoe, Hönaunau, Honuaulu, Kamäÿoa, Kapäpala, Manalau, Moaÿula, Näÿälehu, Waiÿaha, and
aÿa lava. Soils within the Kaÿu to South Kona area are generally good for crop production and
cattle grazing. Soils in the region support crops, including macadamia nuts, avocados, coffee,
citrus fruits, and ornamental flowers.
There are three classifications of Agricultural Lands of Importance (ALISH) identified by the
Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaiÿi: “Unique”, “Prime”, and “Other Important”
Agricultural Land. There are sections of land in the Waiÿöhinu, Näÿälehu, and Pähala that are
classified as Prime Agricultural Land, best suited for production of food, feed, forage, and fiber
crops. These lands have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce
high yields of crops. Sections of Hoÿokena, ÿOpihihale, Honomalino, Kapuÿa, South Point,
Waiÿöhinu, Näÿälehu, and Pähala are classified as Other Important Agricultural Land. This
classification includes lands, although not classified as prime or unique agricultural lands, that
are of state-wide or local importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, and forage crops.
These lands are important to agriculture in Hawaiÿi, yet exhibit properties that exclude them
from the prime and unique classifications. These classifications do not, in themselves, constitute
a designation of any area specific to land use. However, the classification should provide
decision-makers with an awareness of the long-term implications of various land use options for
agricultural production.
3.1.4. Geology
The geology of the region is derived from a series of volcanic eruptions. Geological series found
in the area include:
•
Ninoole Volcanic Series
•
Kahuku Volcanic Series
•
Pähala Ash
•
Kaÿu Volcanic Series
The Kaÿu Volcanic series includes the Mauna Loa shield and lava of recent eruptions. The
Kahuku Fault is located in the region near Ocean View. The southwest rift zone of Mauna Loa
is one of the longest in the Hawaiian Islands with a total length of 100 kilometers. Historically,
eruptions have occurred in the southwest rift zone. The 1868 eruption occurred in this rift zone
at as low as 640 meters elevation.
3-2
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.1.5. Topography
The area slopes southward from an elevation of over 13,000 feet to sea level at the coastal
boundary. The average slope is 10 percent but varies from 2 percent near the coast to 25 percent
in mauka areas.
3.1.6. Flora and Fauna
Dominant vegetation types in the region are dry grasslands, mesic forests, and montane lowland
forests. Under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with
designating critical habitats for threatened and endangered species whenever such designation is
prudent and determinable. There are 55,205 acres of land within the region which are designated
as critical habitat areas. There are many endangered species located in the region, including:
• Bat: Hawaiian Hoary; ÿOpeÿapeÿa (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
• ÿÄkepa: Hawaiÿi ÿakakane (Loxops coccineus coccineus)
• ÿAkiapöläÿau: ÿakiapolaÿau (Hemignathus munroi)
• Creeper: Hawaiÿi (Oreomystis mana)
• Crow: Hawaiianÿalalä (Corvus hawaiiensis)
• Goose: Hawaiian nënë (Branta sandvicensis)
• Hawk: Hawaiianÿio (Buteo solitarius)
FIGURE 3.2 – NATURAL HAZARDS
3.1.7. Natural Hazards
Overall Hazard Assessments (OHA),
identified in the Atlas of Natural Hazards
in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone (2002),
range from 4 (moderate) to 6 (high) within
the region.
Major hazards include
volcanic activity, waves and storms,
seismic activity, flooding, and tsunami.
The U.S. Geological Survey has
completed an extensive mapping program
to determine the history and severity of
the volcanic hazards on the Island of
Hawaiÿi. The lava flow hazard zone map
divides the island into nine zones based on
occurrence probability of flows. Lava
flow hazard zones 1, 2, 3, and 6 are
located within the Kaÿu to South Kona
region. Lava flows in 1868, 1887, 1919,
1926, and as recent as 1950 have
impacted this region.
3-3
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Volcanism is the source of 95 percent of the earthquakes on the Big Island. Seismic activity is
related to movement of magma within Kïlauea and Mauna Loa or due to movements along fault
lines. There is a high amount of seismic activity in the region. Tsunami are caused by sudden
movements of the seafloor that generate a large wave or series of large waves that travel across
the ocean until they reach a coast. With the April 1, 1946 tsunami, water reached up to 20 feet
above sea level near South Point.
The Kaÿu district has three regions with different flood characteristics. The northwestern region
has low annual rainfall with few defined stream channels. The southwestern region is
characterized by extremely permeable soils, moderate slopes, and young lava flows. There are
few accounts of stream flow or flood damage in the area. The central region includes Pähala,
Näÿälehu, and Waiÿöhinu. These communities experience flooding from storm runoff and steep
slopes. Flash flooding occurs often along the Mämalahoa Highway when streams in the area
exceed culvert and bridge capacity. Flooding causes major disruption to these communities as it
can geographically isolate them. Severe flooding in 2000 warranted residents’ concern and
emergency government response.
The South Kona District has few well-defined drainage ways. Stream flows are rare in the
region. Localized flooding occurs with rainstorms along Mämalahoa Highway. The districts of
Kaÿu and South Kona are generally classified within Zone X of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). This zone corresponds to areas outside of the 100-year flood plains. Coastal areas of
the region are also prone to high waves and strong currents associated with storms.
3.1.8. Ground Water
There are four aquifer sources identified in the region: Kaÿapuna, Manukä, Ka Lae, and
Näÿälehu. According to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Commission on
Water Resource Management (CWRM), the four aquifers have a combined sustainable ground
water yield of 240 million MGD. There are approximately 62 existing wells located in the area,
including the South Point, Kahuku, Kapuÿa, Okoe, and ÿOpihihale wells. Detailed discussion of
ground water is provided in Section 6 of this report.
3-4
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.1.9. Conservation Reserves
FIGURE 3.3 – NATURAL RESERVES
There are two natural area reserves in
the region. Manukä is the largest
reserve in the State's system. Extending
from sea level to 5,000 feet in elevation,
this reserve features a broad range of
habitats. These include subalpine
shrublands and forests, mesic montane
kïpuka forests, wet montane forests,
lowland mesic and dry forests, and lava
anchialine pools. This reservation was
established in 1983 and totals 25,550
acres.
Kïpähoehoe
Reserve
was
also
established in 1983. This reserve is
located on a narrow section of land
running down the southwest slopes of
Mauna Loa. The reserve protects 5,583
acres of rare lowland dry grassland, as
well as lowland dry and mesic forests,
montane wet forests, and montane and
lowland lava tube ecosystems.
More recently, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) acquired forest lands in South Kona to add to the
Kona Hema Preserve. The preserve includes lands in Honomalino and Kapuÿa and now totals
8,061 acres. The Kona Hema Preserve is just downslope of the 116,000-acre Kahuku Ranch,
which TNC purchased in partnership with the National Park Service as an addition to Hawai'i
Volcanoes National Park. In July of 2003, the Damon Estate sold 116,000 acres of Kahuku
Ranch on the Big Island to TNC and the National Park Service (NPS) for $22 million.
3-5
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.2. Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Region
3.2.1. Historical and Current Population
The population in the area has grown substantially over the past 40 years. Beginning in the
1960’s, the region began to see population growth, and the population has been increasing
steadily since.
The Kaÿu to South Kona region is still rural. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the Kaÿu
population was 5,827 and the South Kona population was 5,535. The project area grew by about
4,000 people from 1980 to 2000. There are over 4,000 households in Kaÿu and South Kona
combined. The average household size is 2.63 in Kaÿu and 2.84 in South Kona. The district of
Kaÿu has historically been an isolated independent district.
TABLE 3.1: POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT
Tract - Area
1980
1990
2000
212 - Kaÿu
3,699
4,438
5,827
213 - South Kona
3,560
Source: U.S. Census, 2000
4,998
5,535
FIGURE 3.4 – CENSUS TRACTS
The median household incomes for Kaÿu
and South Kona districts were $29,000
and $40,000 respectively (1999).
Moreover, in 1999, 23.9 percent of the
Kaÿu population was below the poverty
level. In the South Kona district, 13.9
percent was below the poverty rate.
Typically, residents live on fixed
incomes, or are young families that
desire a rural lifestyle. The median age
in Ocean View is 43.1 years.
Surrounding communities have younger
median ages, such as that of Näÿälehu
(35.6 years). In terms of major ethnic
categories recognized by the U.S. Census
(2000), most residents of the area are
Caucasian (37 percent) with the
remainder mostly Asians (19.6 percent).
3-6
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Native Hawaiian Pacific Islanders comprise 13 percent of the population. These categories,
however, inadequately address the ethnic makeup as perceived by Hawaiÿi residents, who
distinguish among Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos. In
addition, many births since 1970 have involved parents of different or mixed ethnic
backgrounds. Consequently, conventional definitions of ethnicity are problematic in Hawaiÿi.
3.2.2. Housing and Real Property
In 2000, there were 5,529 parcels in the district of South Kona and 16,945 in the district of Kaÿu.
The parcel inventory of both districts has continued to increase since 1969. According to the
County of Hawaiÿi Real Property Tax Office, there was a total of 5,099 dwelling units in the two
districts in 2002. Since 1986, each district grew by over 700 units. The majority of homes are
single-family dwellings. According to the U.S. Census (2000), there were 5,152 housing units in
the region, of which 998 were vacant.
3.2.3. Economy
The region’s main economic base is agriculture. Crops are varied and include vegetables, citrus
fruits, macadamia nuts, coffee, and ornamental flowers. Cattle ranching is also a significant
economic activity, with several active ranches in the region. Tourism is a growth industry in the
region as tourists visit during their travel to Hawaiÿi Volcanoes National Park and West Hawaiÿi.
The region has several parks, natural area reserves, and other places of interest.
The largest employer in the area is Mac Farms Hawaiÿi. A large number of residents are also
self-employed through cottage-based industries. Commercial “urban core” areas exist in
Näÿälehu and Ocean View. Services provided include gas stations, feed store, garden supply,
grocery, hardware, auto parts, hair salon, convenience store, clothing, tool rental, electronics,
computer store, alternative energy supplies, U.S. Post Office, and restaurants.
3-7
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.2.4. Land Use and Tenure
FIGURE 3.5 – LUPAG
Area lands are zoned for residential,
open (conservation), commercial, and
agricultural uses.
There are over
300,000 acres of agricultural lands in
the districts of Kaÿu and South Kona.
Of those lands, 80,000 acres are
designated “Important Agricultural
Lands” by the Land Use Planning
Allocation Guidelines (LUPAG). The
County of Hawaiÿi Draft Revised
General Plan (2001) estimates that 70
percent of these agricultural lands are
not cultivated because of lack of
water. State land use districts include
agriculture
and
conservation
designations.
There are also
approximately 2,500 acres of land
designated as “urban” lands in South
Kona and Kaÿu.
TABLE 3.2: ACRES ZONED PER DISTRICT 2000
S. Kona
Single
Family
414
MultiFamily
0
Resort
Commercial
Industrial
15
108
0
Residential
Agriculture
144
52
0
781
101
45
61
Kaÿu
Source: County of Hawaiÿi Draft Revised General Plan (2001)
3-8
Agriculture
Open
112,051
7,628
252,843
115,740
County of Hawaiÿi
The following landowners each own over
4,000 acres in the region:
• State of Hawaiÿi
153,000 ac.
• Samuel Damon Estate 117,380 ac.
• Kamehameha Schools 30,620 ac.
• Yee Hop, Ltd.
21,140 ac.
• Mauna Kea Agribus.
20,325 ac.
• Elizabeth Stack, et al. 20,250 ac.
• Hawaiÿi Kaÿu ÿÄina
16,680 ac.
• Kaÿu Agribusiness
15,815 ac.
• DHHL
11,300 ac.
• U.S. Government
5,300 ac.
• Mac Farms Hawaiÿi
4,000 ac.
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 3.6 – LAND OWNERSHIP
FIGURE 3.7 - ZONING
3.2.5. Residential Communities
The Kaÿu to South Kona project area
includes the following communities:
• South Point
• Ocean View
• Honomalino
• Miloliÿi
• ÿOpihihale
• Kïpähoehoe
• Hoÿokena
3-9
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Several large nonconforming subdivisions were created prior to adoption of the present County
subdivision and zoning codes. These communities have accomplished many projects with their
own resources. Subdivisions in the area are listed in Table 3.3. Land costs in the area vary from
$3,000 to $10,000 per acre, depending on accessibility to the highway, utilities, and coastal and
ocean views. Homes in the region range from luxurious estates with modern amenities to simple
cabins with alternative energy systems. Current sales prices for homes range from $35,000 to
over $300,000.
TABLE 3.3: AREA SUBDIVISIONS
Subdivision Name
Lot Sizes
Total Lots
Green Sands
1 acre
260
Hawaiian Ocean View Estates (HOVE)
1 acre
10,697
Hawaiian Ocean View Ranchos (HOVR)
1-3 acres
Honomalino Acres
1-30 acres
47
Honomalino Acres
1-30 acres
47
Hoÿopuloa
5,000-20,000 sq. ft.
63
Hoÿopuloa
5,000-20,000 sq. ft.
63
1,229
Kahuku Country Estate
3-7 acres
26
Kahuku Country Estate
3-7 acres
26
Keone’s Ranchos
21+ acres
22
Kona Garden Estates
3 acres
241
Kona Garden Estates
3 acres
241
Kona Paradise
1-5 acres
335
Kona Paradise
1-5 acres
335
Kona South Estates
21-24 acres
62
Kona South Estates
21-24 acres
60
Kona View Estates
Unknown
Kona View Estates
Not available
Kula Kai View Estates
3 acres
Lani Kona
1-5 acres
Mark Twain Estates
1 acre
560
Miloliÿi Beach Lots
7,500 sq. ft.-10acres
917
Miloliÿi Heights Farm Lots
1-5 acres
42
Päpä Bay Estates
3 acres
47
154
57
3-10
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 3.8 - SUBDIVISIONS
3.3. Growth Trends
Many residents expressed concern about growth and the changing character of Kaÿu and South
Kona. The region has experienced growth because the North Kona area has evolved into urban
and suburban densities. Many people who want a more rural lifestyle have moved farther south.
There also is a lack of affordable housing in Kona as a result of growth. Home prices in the
primary development area of Kona have increased sharply. Average home prices for a typical
3-bedroom house are now over $400,000. Middle and lower income residents move to South
Kona, Ocean View, and Kaÿu for affordable housing.
3-11
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
From 1970, the entire South Kona district population grew by approximately 100 people each
year. This growth equates to a need for about 35 homes each year. Due to the absence of
affordable housing in North Kona, many people reside in South Kona or Hawaiian Ocean View
Estates, and they must travel to North Kona for jobs, goods, and services. See Table 3.4 for U.S.
Census data. The County of Hawaiÿi’s projections for future growth are based on past land use
trends and existing conditions.
TABLE 3.4: POPULATION BY DISTRICT
South Kona
Total
Year
Kaÿu
District*
District
1970
1980
1990
2000
3,398
3,699
4,438
5,827
4,004
5,914
7,658
8,589
7,402
9,613
12,096
14,416
Sources: 1970-2000 - U.S. Census
* South Kona District extends to Captain Cook, outside of the study area.
3.4. Infrastructure and Community Facilities
3.4.1. Transportation
Private roadways, owned by area residents, are maintained by community association road
maintenance corporations. Subdivision associations collect annual road maintenance fees
currently ranging from $75 to $150 per year. Public transportation in the region is limited. The
County of Hawaiÿi Hele-On Bus services the area twice a week for travel to and from Kona.
Most residents in the area rely on private vehicles and car pools to reach their destinations.
According to U.S. Census data, residents’ mean travel time to work is 40 minutes in Kaÿu and 32
minutes in South Kona.
Subdivision roads are owned and managed by community road
maintenance corporations.
3-12
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 3.9 – DWS EXISTING WATER SYSTEMS
3.4.2. Utilities
Electricity and telephone service is scattered
throughout the subdivisions. Homes and
businesses in the region rely on cesspools
and septic tanks for wastewater disposal.
There is no existing County water system
from Waiÿöhinu to Hoÿokena. Individual
water systems are catchment. However,
some large landowners have developed
small private water systems. Most families
rely on water hauling to supplement
catchment water. Several commercial water
haulers regularly deliver water to homes and
businesses. Sources in the area indicate a
hauling cost of $100 to $200 per 4,000
gallons, depending on the location of
delivery. There are no “official” standpipes
in the Näÿälehu or Waiÿöhinu areas.
Commercial water haulers have temporary water meters off fire hydrants in Näÿälehu. DWS has
issued a moratorium on additional meters for water hauling on the entire island. The community
is also allowed to take water from spigots in Waiÿöhinu and Hoÿokena for noncommercial use.
3.4.3. School Facilities
District schools are located in Hoÿokena, Näÿälehu, and Pähala. Many students in this region are
required to travel long distances to schools. For example, 447 Ocean View students travel at
least 17 miles daily to Näÿälehu Elementary and Intermediate Schools. Kaÿu High School is
located 30 miles from Ocean View.
3-13
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.4.4. Fire/Police/Medical
County funded and staffed fire stations, with emergency medical service, are located in Näÿälehu
and Pähala. The community operates a Volunteer Fire Station in Ocean View. The station does
not have an ambulance and, overall, is not equipped to provide emergency medical services.
There is a new police station in Näÿälehu and a district substation at Ocean View. Police stations
often experience a shortage of police manpower with only one or two officers on duty at a time
for the entire region. Hospitals are located in Pähala and Kealakekua. There is also a medical
clinic in Näÿälehu.
3.4.5. Solid Waste Transfer Stations
Solid waste transfer stations are located in Pähala and Waiÿöhinu. There is a need to develop a
new transfer station to accommodate the needs of Ocean View residents.
3.4.6. Parks
Kahuku Park is located on
property owned by the County of
Hawaiÿi.
Kahuku Park is a
community-established facility,
developed by volunteers, grants,
and donations. The four acres of
park land include a pavilion,
restrooms, playground, ball field,
and basketball courts.
The
community has developed this
park with volunteers and
donations.
Kahuku Park was developed with community volunteers.
Manukä State Park is a wayside area for the touring public to stop, rest, and picnic. The park is
located on Mämalahoa Highway, 19 miles west of Na'alehu. The park has a nature trail and is
best known for its collection of plants, including rare and endangered species. Native birds
including the ÿamakihi, ÿio, ÿelepaio, and ÿapapane are found in the park. There is no drinking
water available at the park. Miloliÿi Beach Park is located on the site of an ancient fishing
village along a rocky shoreline. This County of Hawaiÿi Park has no potable water or electricity.
Hoÿokena Beach Park is located along sandy shoreline in South Kona.
3-14
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.5. Historic and Cultural Resources
The region has thousands of historic
sites, including ancient trails, burial
caves, habitation sites, fishponds, and
heiau. For example, at Ka Lae (South
Point), there are several important sites:
a stone enclosure, canoe moorings, salt
pans, and Kalalae Heiau.
Kaÿu and
South Kona have rich cultural
landscapes that have remained largely
undeveloped.
Without
proper
protection, impacts of new development Kalalea Heiau at South Point.
could threaten many of these cultural sites.
The ancient landscape of Kaÿu and South Kona was covered with forest, brush, and grass
vegetation prior to being transformed into ranch lands. As a result, lands of the region were less
windy. With the presence of such vegetation there was also more rainfall, mistfall, and dew, in
comparison with the modern arid, bare, windswept plains and recent black lava flows. In
pre-contact times, there was more flow in underground streams and more percolation into and
from lava tubes. Early Polynesian colonists found Kaÿu and South Kona to be favorable
environments with fertile soil, good climate, and water supply. Historically, upland slopes
supported sweet potato, dry land taro, banana, and sugar cane. Hawaiians in Kaÿu would
congregate and live anywhere that water was found and fish were plentiful.
Although the region was and continues to be an area with active volcanic activity, Hawaiians did
not fear nor hate the power and destructive violence of Mauna Loa. “They took unto them this
huge mother-mountain and measured their personal dignity and power in terms of its majesty and
drama. They named their land ‘The Breast’ (Kaÿu). They loved Pele, whose home was their
land; they endured her furies, and celebrated the drama of creation” (Handy and Handy, 1991).
3-15
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.5.1. Ahupuaÿa
An ahupuaÿa is a land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea. Ahupuaÿa within
in the Kaÿu and South Kona districts include:
• Hoÿokena
• Okoe
• Kawela
• Pähoehoe
• Kapuÿa
• Puÿumakaÿä
• ÿÖlelomoana
• Kaulanamauna
• Kiolakaÿa
• Kaÿapuna
• Manukä
• Waiÿöhinu
• Kïpähoehoe
• Kahuku
• Kamäÿoa
• ÿAlikä
• Näpuÿülena
• Waioÿahukini
• Päpä
• Päkininui
• Waiÿöhinu
• Hoÿöpüloa
• Päkiniÿiki
• Kiÿo
• Honomalino
• Puÿueÿo
3.6. Water Use
3.6.1. Current Water Use
Historical and current water uses in the Kaÿu to South Kona region are domestic, agricultural,
and recreational. Residents rely on water catchment systems and supplemental water hauling.
Average water production for the County of Hawaiÿi water system in 2000 was 22.35 MGD.
The table below illustrates that existing water sources provide nearly 1 MGD in Kaÿu. The
County of Hawaiÿi Draft Revised General Plan (2001) recommends further investigation and
exploration of ground water sources and well development for the communities of Pähala,
Waiÿöhinu, and Ocean View.
This Water Master Plan is a first step towards fulfilling that recommendation by evaluating
growth conditions and developing alternatives for water systems. According to the County of
Hawaiÿi DWS, over 28,000,000 gallons of water were trucked from Näÿälehu and Waiÿöhinu
standpipes in 2003. That amount is approximately 78,000 GPD. Eight haulers in the area
presently transport about 50,000 GPD, or about 18,250,000 gallons in a year.
TABLE 3.5: AVERAGE WATER PRODUCTION
Location
Water Source
Average Consumption (MGD)
Pähala
ÿAlili Tunnel and a deep well
source
Waiÿöhinu
Häÿao Springs
Näÿälehu
Mtn. House Tunnel Spring,
South Point
& deep well in Näÿälehu
0.366
0.6
TOTAL
0.966
Source: Department of Water Supply, Annual Consumption Report, 1999-2000.
3-16
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.6.2. Major Demand Centers
There is a demand for water for both residential subdivisions and agricultural fields.
Concentrations of residential development are present at Näÿälehu, Waiÿöhinu, South Point,
Ocean View, Honomalino, Miloliÿi, Opihihale, and Hoÿokena. Farms are located throughout the
region with concentrations found in Kapuÿa and Honomalino.
3.6.3. Recreational Demands
Recreational demand for water is generated by activities including fishing, swimming, wildlife
observation, and others. Area parks, community centers, and beaches require potable water.
3.6.4. Drought
The region as a whole is poorly
prepared for droughts. Droughts
diminish drinking water supplies
and cause agricultural losses and
increases in brushfires. This region
is particularly susceptible to drought
impacts because residents depend
on rainwater catchment. The dry
region has one of the highest
incidences of brushfires in the State
of Hawaiÿi.
Vegetation in the region has suffered through drought periods.
The County of Hawaÿi has sponsored workshops with rural volunteer fire fighters to develop the
Big Island Wildfire Coordination Group. It is difficult to prepare for droughts because they can
occur at any time. The USDA maintains a drought mitigation center that assists in the
development of State drought mitigation plans. The Kaÿu to South Kona project area is
extremely susceptible to droughts because there are no sources of potable water. The area would
benefit from a water conservation and drought contingency plan.
3-17
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.6.5. Fire Protection
Residents and business are not
adequately protected from fires
without water.
The closest
County fire station is located 30
miles away in Pähala. Ocean
View has a volunteer fire
station that services various
subdivisions in the area. Their
fire truck tanker holds 1,200
gallons of water.
Many rural areas depend on volunteer fire stations.
Water is also collected and stored through a catchment system at the fire station. In the event
that more water is needed for fire fighting, private citizen water supplies must be tapped. Water
distribution to Ocean View’s small urban core would protect area businesses. In recent years,
several homes and business were completely lost to fires. The district of Kaÿu is also considered
the highest brushfire hazard area in the County. Droughts have worsened this condition.
Catchment systems are not reliable fire fighting sources because of problems with connections
and accessibility to tanks and because of inadequate tank sizes.
3.7. Water Catchment Analysis
3.7.1. Purpose
This analysis is intended to provide a basis for continuing use of catchment for water supply in
the north sector of the Kaÿu to South Kona Water Master Plan area. This summary recognizes
the historical methods of water service in the project area. There are approximately 5,700
residents in the project area that depend on catchment systems for water supply. They represent
about five percent of the total Big Island population.
Effective rainfall catchment and storage depends on a number of factors. Four primary factors
are explored in this short discussion and analysis:
•
Rainfall (annual average as well as distribution in time)
•
Roof area
•
Household demand
•
Availability and cost of supplemental water
3-18
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.7.2. Rainfall
Though estimates of average annual rainfall are useful, some
idea of the distribution of rainfall throughout the year is needed
to truly design an effective catchment system. If rainfall is
distributed evenly throughout the year then a moderately sized
storage system is adequate. If most of the rain comes during
specific months, then it may be advisable to construct a larger
storage system to supply water through the drier months.
Naturally, tank size and price constraints can be limiting factors.
The mean monthly rainfall for the area, as estimated from 47
years of rainfall data taken at ÿOpihihale, is shown in Table 3.6.
Rainfall in the past 20 years, particularly since 1983, has declined
by 10 to 20 inches an year. As a result, the total amount of
rainfall is less than half due to drought conditions.
TABLE 3.6:
MONTHY RAINFALL
ÿOPHIHALE
Month
Mean
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
3.33
2.38
3.52
2.99
3.45
3.3
3.91
3.9
4.24
3.56
3.42
2.73
40.71
Source: Waimea Water Services, Inc.
3.7.3. Roof Area
Without construction of separate catchment mechanisms, a home's roof area is a critical limiting
factor to rainfall catchment. The amount of water captured (gallons) for a given roof area (sq.
ft.) is depicted in Table 3.7 for the above-average monthly rainfall values.
TABLE 3.7: ESTIMATED CATCHMENT BY ROOF SIZE
Roof Size (ft^2) Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Ann
1000 2075.844 1483.636 2194.286 1863.896 2150.649 2057.143 2437.403 2431.169 2643.117 2219.221 2131.948 1701.818 25377.662
1100 2283.429
1632 2413.714 2050.286 2365.714 2681.143 2681.143 2674.286 2907.429 2441.143 2345.143
1872 27915.429
1200 2491.013 1780.364 2633.143 2236.675 2580.779 2468.571 2924.883 2917.403 3171.74 2558.338 2558.338 2042.182 30453.195
1300 2698.597 1928.727 2852.571 2423.065 2795.844 2674.286 3168.623 3160.519 3436.052 2884.987 2771.532 2212.364 32990.961
1400 2906.182 2077.091
3072 2609.455 3010.909
2880 3412.364 3403.636 3700.364 3106.909 2984.727 2382.545 35528.727
1500 3113.766 2225.455 3291.429 2795.844 3225.974 3085.714 3656.104 3646.753 3964.675 3328.831 3197.922 2552.727 38066.494
1600 3321.351 2373.818 3510.857 2982.234 3441.039 3291.429 3899.844 3889.87 4228.987 3550.753 3411.117 2722.909 40604.26
1700 3528.935 2522.182 3730.286 3168.623 3656.104 3497.143 4143.584 4132.987 4493.299 3772.675 3624.312 2893.091 43142.026
1800 3736.519 2670.545 3949.714 3355.013 3871.169 3702.857 4387.325 4376.104 4757.61 3994.597 3837.506 3063.273 45679.792
1900 3944.104 2818.909 4169.143 3541.403 4086.234 3908.571 4631.065 4619.221 5021.922 4216.519 4050.701 3233.455 48217.558
2000 4151.688 2967.273 4388.571 3727.792 4301.299 4114.286 4874.805 4862.338 5286.234 4438.442 4263.896 3403.636 50755.325
2100 4359.273 3115.636
4608 3914.182 4516.364
4320 5118.545 5105.455 5550.545 4660.364 4477.091 3573.818 53293.091
2200 4566.857
3264 4827.429 4100.571 4731.429 4525.714 5362.286 5348.571 5814.857 4882.286 4690.286
3744 55830.857
2300 4774.442 3412.364 5046.857 4286.961 4946.494 4731.429 5606.026 5591.688 6079.169 5104.208 4903.481 3914.182 58368.623
2400 4982.026 3560.727 5266.286 4473.351 5161.558 4937.143 5849.766 5834.805 6343.481 5326.13 5116.675 4084.364 60906.39
2500 5189.61 3709.091 5485.714 4659.74 5376.623 5142.857 6093.506 6077.922 6607.792 5548.052 5329.87 4254.545 63444.156
3-19
County of Hawaiÿi
3.7.4. Household Demand
Water demand is affected by factors
such as family size, conservation
efforts, and the amount of outdoor
water use. According to the American
Water Works Association (AWWA),
daily indoor per person water use in a
typical family home is 74 gallons
(2003). Based on this study each
household averages 2.5 persons and
water use is 185 GPD, 5,550 gallons
per month, or 66,600 gallons per year.
Using these statistics, and given the
rainfall averages above, one would not
be able to meet all demands for a
typical household by means of
catchment.
Final Report
September 2004
Residents depend on catchment water tanks.
3.7.5. Case Histories
Based on some conversations with selected households in the Miloli'i/Honomalino area, nearly
all domestic water needs have traditionally been met with catchment. The households of interest
have lived in the area using catchment for generations
One family home has 7,000- and 12,000-gallon redwood tanks served by the roof area of a
modest 3-bedroom home, a garage, and a storage room. A family of seven lived in this home
and kept a small herd of cattle with only this water supply. They only ordered hauled water
when they had visitors not accustomed to strict conservation measures.
Another family home has two 4,000-gallon tanks fed by a single-room house and two
comparably sized, small, shop roofs. One tank is used for the nursery, garden and laundry. The
other is for household water needs. This home only buys water in times of extended drought.
They do use supplemental water for drinking/cooking water from the Ho'okena spigot.
By comparison, other families in the area have great difficulty with water supply. Many
residents are newcomers to this relatively arid region and are not prepared for daily living
without municipal water and are without the knowledge and tools to survive on catchment water.
Water haulers report numerous calls from families who never realized they were out of
catchment water “until the last drop came out of the faucet.” Families with small children or
teenagers have the most difficulty with conservation and water supply.
3-20
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Water haulers report that many families require 4,000 to 6,000 gallons of hauled water every 4 to
6 weeks. These circumstances are worsened in periods of drought. The main causes of the
problem are:
•
Inadequate roof catchment area
•
Inadequate reservoir tank storage
•
Poor conservation techniques
•
Inefficient catchment systems – leaking, substandard, poor quality
•
Drought
3.7.6. Supplemental Water
Using the AWWA statistics for the region, it is unlikely that catchment alone will fulfill all water
demand all year long. Therefore, options such as water hauling need to be critically compared.
If hauling is very expensive, then one should consider a larger storage system to capture more
water during wet periods. On the other hand, if hauling is reasonably priced, then investing in a
large, expensive catchment system may be economically unwarranted. Sources in the area
indicate a hauling cost of $100 to $200 per 4,000 gallons, depending on the location of delivery.
By contrast, Ocean View has experienced inadequacies in annual rainfall to the extent that
hauling is the norm for most households. Figure 3.10 illustrates the difference between
ÿOpihihale and Ocean View.
The records kept by Huffman and Oberossler in Ocean View are indicative of the rainfall in the
short term. Unfortunately, Mrs. Huffman has passed away and this record has been discontinued
but the relationship of rainfall at the two elevations is clear. Importantly, the rainfall at Ocean
View has diminished over the years, particularly since 1983. The result is an increasing reliance
on water hauling. Input from local households indicates that water lifestyle has a lot to do with
how much demand a catchment system can meet.
It seems prudent to invest in a tank to meet monthly demand (i.e., 5,550 gallons for the typical
American family) plus extra storage as a safety factor. Ten thousand gallons of total storage,
priced from $5,000 to $10,000, is the recommended size for most of the region. This size will
accommodate both rainfall catchment water and hauled water. Investing in a much larger tank
will only grant increased storage capacity for hauled water, given the area's rainfall. Hauling
must be used to supplement any deficit and is generally not delivered in quantities less than
3,000 gallons.
3-21
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 3.10 - Average Annual Rainfall at Ocean View
70
65
Opihihale 2
#517166
60
55
50
Inches
45
40
3700' Elevation
35
1200' Elevation
1270' Elevation
30
25
20
15
Huffman
10
Oberosler
5
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
0
Year
Sanitary drinking water can be supplied using off-the-shelf components, such as particle filter,
charcoal filter, and ultra-violet (UV) treatment or chlorination using household bleach. A typical
cost for providing this treatment (with UV) is about $1,300.
For many in Ocean View, catchment has proven adequate for those who have adjusted their
lifestyle and built adequate catchment and storage. The diminished rainfall exacerbates any
inadequacies and forces increased hauling. The lack of adequate rainfall and cost of hauling
cause public health, fire protection, and other problems discussed in Section 3. With no surface
water nearby, the primary option is to turn to production wells for potable water and to shorten
hauling distance and delivery costs.
3-22
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.8. Current Water Development Projects
There are several ongoing projects in the region that deal with water. Existing water planning in
the region includes projects of the County, State, and Federal governments. This planning
process was coordinated with many agencies. Project status is summarized in this section.
3.8.1. Department of Water Supply
DWS has plans to drill another well at Waiÿöhinu. DWS is currently in the process of site
acquisition and environmental assessment for this well. The well is listed on the capital
improvement project year 2004. Drilling of the well is expected to commence in 2005. This
well will provide back-up for the Näÿälehu well system. The Näÿälehu water system receives
water from Mountain House Tunnel and Häÿao Springs. If these sources are classified as surface
water by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), back-up will be provided by the
Waiÿöhinu well development. Without expensive treatment, surface water would only be
available for agricultural use. The future use of Mountain House Tunnel and Häÿao Springs
would then rest with the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM).
A water moratorium exists in the South Point area that prevents issuing of new water meters.
The moratorium was issued due to the poor condition of transmission lines and the length of
service lines. Although replacement will be costly, DWS will study this option for the next CIP
program. Replacement of the line would remove the moratorium and allow water meters for
existing lots.
The DWS 2025 Master Plan process for the entire island will help develop the CIP project list
for the next twenty years, from 2005 to 2025. The Water Master Plan-Island of Hawaiÿi began
in January of 2004. The plan will address the entire island and will basically follow the County
of Hawaiÿi Draft Revised General Plan (2001) areas. The plan will specifically address areas
designated for development in the General Plan and identify water system inadequacies. A
Water Rate Study will be completed in tandem with the Island Master Plan. The Rate Study will
ensure that funding is generated so the CIP program can accommodate the existing deficiencies
and future demands. The communities of South Kona and Kaÿu should continue to be a part of
this planning by participating in public meetings that are held for this plan.
3-23
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.8.2. South Kona Watershed Irrigation System – National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)
The South Kona Watershed Irrigation
System Preliminary Feasibility Study
(2003) was sponsored by the USDA
NRCS and the State of Hawaiÿi
Department of Agriculture (DOA),
along with the Honomalino Irrigation
Cooperative and the Kona Soil and
Water Conservation District (KSWCD).
The study was conducted to determine
the viability of developing a suitable
irrigation supply for the South Kona
District to alleviate agriculture water Coffee fields in South Kona.
shortages. The Honomalino Irrigation
Cooperative was formed in May 2000 to address agricultural water needs in the area. The
Cooperative is comprised of 65 landowner members. The project area covers over 15,000 acres
extending from Miloliÿi Road to the north to Manukä Forest Reserve to the south.
This project is currently in the phase that identifies the agricultural water needs of farmers in
Honomalino. When economic feasibility is established for certain increments of the project, the
project will proceed to more detailed planning that will culminate with an implementable plan
and Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document. More
information on this project is presented in Section 5.5 of the report.
3.8.3. Water Standpipes
The State Department of Health (DOH) is funding new water standpipes through the EPA Safe
Water Drinking Act Fund. These projects will develop new standpipes at locations off the
highway. A potential site for a Waiÿöhinu standpipe has been identified at the existing solid
waste transfer station in Waiÿöhinu. DWS is also funding a new standpipe facility at Hoÿokena.
The Department is currently researching and investigating an appropriate site. This development
will accommodate commercial water haulers.
3-24
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.8.4. USGS Test Well
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) exploratory well program is a cooperative drilling
program totally funded and utilized by the counties of Maui, Kauaÿi and Hawaiÿi. The counties
own the drill rig and the USGS operates and maintains the rig. Each island has the rig on a
rotational six-month period with possible six-month extensions, contingent on the consent of the
other island participants. The program is designed to provide basic hydrologic and geologic
information for aquifers in the counties. The project helps determine water table elevations and
chloride content. This information is vital to understanding ground water systems and may
determine if the aquifer is high level or basal water and water salinity. Exploratory wells are not
intended to determine the sustainable yield of the aquifer and do not provide a comprehensive
water quality evaluation.
The exploratory well planned for Ocean View will include an aquifer test. Water samples will
be taken and tested for chlorides. The test will also determine the water level in the well. The
well will likely be drilled using air-rotary systems. The process involves the drilling of a 6- to
12-inch bore hole and installation of a four-inch well casing. The elevation and small casing size
limit any pumping of the test well.
Pump testing is conducted with conventional exploratory/production well development. This
type of test well is pursued if there are fairly reliable indications that water is available in
sufficient quantity and quality based on other wells that have been drilled in the area such as the
USGS exploratory well. In that case, an exploratory well phase with a large diameter casing,
anywhere from 12 to 20-inches, is drilled. Once water is encountered, an appropriately sized
pump is installed based on the anticipated safe yield or water demand for the service area. A
series of pumping tests is done to determine either the safe yield or if the anticipated water
demand can be obtained without exceeding the safe yield.
If the pump test is successful and water quality is satisfactory, then the final production phase is
initiated with the installation of the permanent pump, motor control building, electrical, SCADA
(Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) and other appurtenances.
Federal law prohibits use of the USGS exploratory well as a conventional exploratory well. The
underlying reason is that the Federal government does not want to be in competition with private
well drillers. Thus, the test well planned for Ocean View cannot be used for test pumping or
production.
The construction of a USGS exploratory well at Ocean View has not started. The Ocean View
drilling is expected to commence in 2004 upon completion of work in Kawaihae, Hawaiÿi.
3-25
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
3.9. Water Issues in Neighboring Communities
Residents in communities surrounding the project area also identified difficulties with water.
Most of the surrounding areas, including Näÿälehu, Pähala, and Wood Valley, were serviced in
the past by plantation water systems. Upon closure of sugar plantations, DWS assumed
responsibility for many old and antiquated water transmission systems.
The communities of Näÿälehu and Waiÿöhinu experience inadequate water pressure and flow,
especially in the evening. DWS does have CIP projects (2000-2005) planned to help, including
installation of a new well and tank in Waiÿöhinu. Adequate water sources are located in the area.
However, transmission improvements are needed.
In Pähala, farmers expressed the need for available water to promote farming. State encumbered
funds are currently being used to assist in developing some water infrastructure. Approximately
$260,000 was designated for Phase 1 of the Keiwa Agriculture Project. Funding is needed to
plan transmission lines. Developer Peter Savio has expressed intent to purchase a 66-acre parcel
with the old water shaft developed by the plantation in Pähala. It is uncertain if this development
includes plans to renovate the old water shaft. The pump and energy source would require
significant renovations. The Pähala shaft used to provide about 3 MGD of water. The
community also expressed that restoration of old plantation tunnels instead of the shaft would
likely provide more affordable water. Peak flows of the Pähala plantation tunnels were 5 to 10
MGD. DWS CIP projects also include installation of another well and reservoir in Pähala.
Wood Valley also receives water
from a plantation system that uses
Noguchi Spring. Farmers in the
area have license rights to this
water. However the spring source
is considered surface water and
does not meet EPA or DOH
standards. Given the minimal
number of customers and the
expense of work, DWS would not
be involved in water improvements
for this area. Critical issues involve
DOH and the Public Utilities Wood Valley, Kaÿu.
Commission as they relate to water
quality. The condition of rural water systems is an island-wide problem for DWS. DWS works
efficiently to prioritize and implement capital improvements projects with limited funding. As
DWS begins its 20-year Master Planning process, there may be opportunities to plan, prioritize,
and fund projects that improve water systems from 2005 to 2025.
3-26
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
4. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
This section describes the community consultation process and summarizes public comments
and issues expressed during planning.
There is, at present, no County water system in the project area. Residents and farmers within
the area rely on water catchment systems and trucked water. Low rainfall in the past two
decades has caused drought conditions that make catchment systems unreliable for water supply.
It is often noted that access to water determines the quality of life in all cultures. The absence of
a dependable water source in the region affects quality of life and survivability on a daily basis.
Residents of this low-income area must often make difficult economic choices to pay expensive
water-hauling bills. Farmers also struggle to maintain agrarian lifestyles despite the hardships of
frequent droughts and high water-hauling costs.
During the course of this study, the consultant held meetings with various members of the
community. Participants from community associations, farmers, social services agencies,
government, and other area residents provided key insights on water issues. Many of the
participants consulted are listed in Table 4.1.
TABLE 4.1: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Community Associations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
He Kula Na Mea Hawaiÿi
Hawaiian Ocean View Estates (HOVE)
Road Maintenance Corp
Kona Paradise Community Association
Queen Liliuÿokalani Children’s Center
(QLCC)
Näÿälehu Mainstreet Association
Ocean View Neighborhood Watch
Ocean View Chamber of Commerce
(OVCA)
Ocean View Community Development
Corporation (OVCDC)
Ocean View Fire Station
Government:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Representative Bob Herkes, State House
Senator Russell Kokubun, State Senate
Councilman Bob Jacobson, HI County
Council
USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS)
USDA Rural Development
Kaÿu Soil and Water Conservation District
(KSWCD)
HPD, Community Policing
Sandwich Isles Communications (SIC)
Farmers/Businesses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MacFarms Hawaiÿi
Mother Goose Farms
Kahuku Harvest
Manukä Farms
Proteas Plus Plantation
Aloha Protea Farms
Pele’s Island Plants
Big Island Flower Company
West Hawaiÿi Farms
McCall Flower Farm, Inc.
Bougainvillea B&B
Kaÿu Coffee Cooperative
Honomalino Irrigation Cooperative
Water Haulers:
•
•
•
Carol Converse, Kaÿu Water Delivery
Willy Kaupiko, S. Kona Hauling
Charlie Young, Charlie’s Water Service
Large Landowners:
•
•
•
•
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL)
C. Brewer/Mauna Kea & Kaÿu Agribusiness
Kamehameha Schools (KS)
Hawaiÿi Volcanoes National Park
4-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Issues raised include:
1. Fire Protection: Absence of fire flow protection to residences and business owners.
Homeowner insurance is difficult to acquire and renew. Only one insurance agency
(HMA) now issues policies in the area. Policies generally provide less coverage at triple
the cost of other areas.
2. Lava Hazard: Approximately 90 percent of the study area is ranked as lava hazard 2; 15
to 25 percent of this zone has been covered by lava flows since 1800.
3. Public Health: Dangerous catchment systems contaminated with lead or bacteria.
Absence of water for basic needs due to drought conditions, long distances from sources,
and high costs for hauling. No public health clinic can be developed in the Ocean View
area without a DOH-approved water supply.
4. Education: There are no public schools in the area and none can be built without an
approved water supply. Over 400 children from the area are bused to schools 20 to 40
miles away.
5. Droughts: Frequent and intense droughts in the area limit feasibility of catchment
systems for potable and agricultural use.
6. Agricultural/Economic Potential: Over 70 percent of agricultural lands in Kaÿu and
South Kona are not cultivated because of water constraints. Existing farming is
economically marginal because of drought conditions. The agricultural industry would
grow and benefit the region with the availability of water.
7. Community Values: People want to retain their rural lifestyle even if a potable water
supply system is developed.
These issues are discussed in more detail within this section.
A town hall meeting at OVCA in 2003.
4-2
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
4.1. Participation Process
The community consultation process featured: (1) development of a community consultation
plan; (2) interviews with community leaders; (3) outreach to residents, farmers, and water
haulers; (4) an initial general public meeting held for the entire region in Ocean View; (5) a
series of district community meetings held in Näÿälehu, Ocean View, and Hoÿokena; (6) slide
presentations for all community meetings; (8) email and website postings; (9) telephone calls and
mailings; (10) media contact; and (11) a final general public meeting for the region to review the
Draft Report and Water Master Plan.
After the release of the Draft Water Master Plan, the planning team conducted a general public
meeting. Copies of the plan were made available at the County of Hawaiÿi Planning Department,
DWS, and the Ocean View Community Association library. An electronic copy was also placed
on the County of Hawaiÿi website for those with internet access. Comments received are
summarized in Appendix F.
4.2. Community Values
Many residents that participated in this planning process expressed the desire for developing
water systems. This planning process did not directly encounter any people opposed to water
infrastructure. Quantifying community support for water is very difficult and integral to securing
funding and implementation.
In Ocean View, community members have overwhelmingly supported water development. In
2001 the Ocean View community expressed interest in forming a Community Facilities District
(CFD) for funding water systems. In order for a CFD to be established, this mechanism requires
25 percent of resident signatures. In May of 2001, the Ocean View Community Association
mailed surveys to area residents to
inquire about their desire for water.
Unfortunately, they were not able
to obtain 25 percent of the
signatures needed to form a CFD.
Community members expressed
confusion with the survey and
misinformation.
They also
expressed fears about funding such
expensive infrastructure costs. The
community believes they can attain
at least 25 percent of resident
signatures with better information,
Makai view of the Kahuku District and Ocean View.
education, and survey design.
4-3
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
The Water Board particularly mentioned the concern of some Hoÿokena residents who do not
want a water line extension. Despite outreach and a community meeting in Hoÿokena, only those
in favor of water attended. Nevertheless, development and growth management are issues for
area residents. People want to retain their rural way of life even if a potable water supply system
is developed.
Most people throughout the region agreed that growth will happen with or without a water
system. Deferral of water source development should not be used as a method of controlling
expansion and progress. Implementation of water system projects may promote growth and
change the character of the community. Increased property values and taxes are acknowledged
as an impact of water development. However, these points were not raised as major issues in
interviews or meetings.
Area residents are also concerned with conservation of natural resources in their region. Many
residents and farmers brought up the need to establish best management practices for water
usage. The potential of water source development would warrant developing conservation
agreements with large water users. Plans for future water systems should also encourage system
developers and users to be good stewards of natural resources. Protection of watershed resources
is strongly linked to maintaining the subsistence way of life of many residents in the area.
Residents and farmers hope to promote a sustainable balance between the availability and use of
water, promotion of healthy watersheds, and retention of a rural lifestyle.
4.3. Fire Protection
Residents and business owners are concerned with fire protection issues in the region. The
closest County fire station is located 30 miles away in Pähala. Ocean View has a volunteer fire
station that services various subdivisions in the area. The lack of water hinders the Ocean View
volunteer fire station’s ability to fulfill its mission. Their fire truck tank holds 1,200 gallons of
water. Water is also collected and stored through a catchment system at the fire station. In the
event that more water is needed for fire fighting, private citizen water supplies must be tapped.
The “urban” area of Ocean View, including Pohue Plaza and Ocean View Center, particularly
needs fire protection. Water distribution to this small urban core would protect area businesses.
The absence of readily available water makes securing insurance difficult for businesses and
residents. The district of Kaÿu is considered the highest brushfire hazard area in the County.
4.4. Lava Hazard
The project area encompasses both lava flow risk areas 2 and 3. Lava flow risk areas are defined
according to geology, seismic and volcanic activity history, and recent scientific predictions.
Zone 2 includes areas adjacent to and down slope from zone 1. Lava has covered 15 to 25
percent of zone 2 since 1800, and 25 to 75 percent was covered with lava in the last 750 years.
4-4
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Zone 3 areas are gradually less hazardous than zone 2 because of the greater distance from
recently active vents or because topography makes it less likely that flows will cover these
areas—1 to 5 percent covered since 1800; 15 to 75 percent covered in the last 750 years.
Property loss and economic devastation are the most frequent consequences. Based on the
probability of lava flows in these zones, there is concern for developing infrastructure in the
region. The ranked zones also hamper residents’ ability to acquire or maintain insurance.
Insurance companies are hesitant to grant or renew homeowners insurance in zones with high
risks. In addition, volcanic activity also causes acid rain. Lead-based metals (roofing, nails)
leach into water catchment systems due to high acidity water. This causes health hazards for
residents who drink catchment water.
4.5. Public Health
There were also many public health and safety issues raised regarding availability of water.
Without a County water system, residents depend on rainwater catchment systems. Catchment
systems consist of corrugated metal roofs with gutters that direct rainfall to individual household
storage tanks. Various materials are used for tanks, including inexpensive vinyl "doughboy"
pools, corrugated metal, cement, or redwood. Most tanks are not completely enclosed, but are
covered with screens. The State Department of Health is concerned about health risks associated
with this type of water system. Untreated water can cause health risks, including leptospirosis,
giardia, and other illnesses. Many studies show that most catchment water is not safe enough for
cooking and drinking. Many residents need to have water delivered to their homes to meet basic
needs.
The cost for water service is very
expensive due to lengthy traveling
distances.
The nearest spigots are
located in Waiÿöhinu and Hoÿokena. For
most families, water is a major
household budget item. These high
water costs, from $125 to $350 a month,
are imposed on people who are least able
to afford it. Nearly 20 percent of area
residents are below the poverty level.
Many in the community expressed that
withholding water service should not be
used as a means to control development
and population. Public health problems
are a growing concern with the absence
of water for bathing and washing clothes.
Students travel to Pahala to attend Kaÿu High School.
4-5
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
4.6. Education
The absence of a water source and distribution system also affects education. According to the
State DOH Safe Water Drinking Act, no public school can be developed in the region without an
approved water supply.
Catchment systems are currently not an approved source of water for public schools. With
growing numbers of children, over 400 Ocean View students are bused 20 to 30 miles to schools
in Näÿälehu and Pähala. As a result, area students are not able to participate in after-school
extracurricular activities. Many area students receive “home schooling” instead of traveling long
distances to public schools.
4.7. Droughts
Droughts have continually affected residents of Kaÿu and South Kona. The study area is prone
to the most frequent intense droughts in the state. Droughts correspond with global scale
oceanic-atmospheric phenomena known as ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation). Water
catchment systems are not adequate for providing water during droughts. With little or no
rainfall, tanks are only used as storage for hauled water. Residents and farmers rely on water
hauling, which is expensive because of the traveling distance. Many haulers estimate that water
sources closer to customers could cut hauling costs by as much as half. During drought
conditions, water hauling companies cannot keep up with the demand, often establishing waiting
lists for as long as one month.
The Hawaiÿi Drought Plan (2000) acknowledges that communities dependent on catchment
systems are the most vulnerable. Possible improvements to mitigate drought effects include
development of new wells, completion of agricultural water use and development plans, and
development of cooperatives for current land users. No specific plans have been outlined for the
project area.
4.8. Agricultural/Economic Potential
Agriculture has always had a special place in the history of Hawaiÿi. It continues to be an
important industry generating $2.9 billion annually for the State’s economy. Agriculture
provides food and jobs, and helps preserve green space. In 2001, there were 5,300 farms with
7,400 employees in the State of Hawaiÿi. The County of Hawaiÿi accounted for 3,200 farms and
2,650 workers (2001 State of Hawaiÿi Data Book).
4-6
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Area agriculture includes coffee, ranching, macadamia nuts, lettuce, citrus fruits, protea, and
other floral ornamentals. Generations of farmers have struggled to preserve a rural lifestyle
through farming. Farmers in the area strive for sustainable farming as a goal. Sustainability is
difficult to achieve as rainfall varies from 12 to 40 inches a year. Drought has impacts on
agricultural businesses and the overall economy. Businesses lose hundreds of thousands of
dollars in crops, animals, and overall productivity from both short-term and prolonged drought
conditions. Crop losses frequently result in lay-offs of employees and reduced purchases of
supplies, transportation contracts, and tax revenues.
Successful agricultural production is directly tied to having adequate and dependable sources of
water throughout production periods. Agricultural businesses in the area rely on water
catchment systems or undersized private water systems. These sources are depleted during less
than normal rainfall periods. Hauled water is extremely expensive and unreliable due to lengthy
hauling distances and drought demands. The availability of water would create more jobs. Farms
could pay for more help and hire more employees with lower water costs.
Many farmers expressed how access to water sources could ensure that agricultural lands remain
in use. Many believe that without water, farming in the area is economically marginal. The
threat of farms selling out to developers is significant as long as farmers are not doing well.
Farmers in the region pay $30 for 1,000 gallons of water. An ordinary farmer with County water
service pays $2 for 1,000 gallons. The County of Hawaiÿi Draft Revised General Plan identifies
that over 70 percent of the region’s agricultural lands are not actively used because of water
constraints. The availability of water could increase farming, create more jobs, sustain
agriculture, and preserve the rural lifestyle for the Kaÿu and South Kona region.
Lettuce farm at Kahuku Harvest.
4-7
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
4.9. Water System Impacts
This section summarizes some of the
potential impacts a developed water
system
could
have
on
the
environment, quality of life, and
economy of this very rural area. Such
impacts could include positive
improvements to public health and the
economy, and negative effects of
“suburban sprawl.” Identifying the
possibility of change is important to
minimize and mitigate negative
impacts, maximize benefits, and
protect and improve the quality of life A home located within coffee fields in South Kona.
for citizens.
4.9.1. Development
Water development, without regulation, has the potential to change the landscape of the region.
The absence of affordable housing in Kona and increasing home prices in the primary
development area have accelerated residential growth in South Kona and Kaÿu. Middle and
lower income residents are already moving to South Kona, Ocean View, and Kaÿu for affordable
housing. With access to water infrastructure, an even greater growth of residential development
in the region is certain. For example, today it is estimated that there are 1,200 homes in Ocean
View subdivisions. Most residents enjoy a rural spacious environment, and few have neighbors
directly adjacent to their homes. If all 12,000 lots in Ocean View were developed with homes, a
much different environment and quality of life would exist.
Development and growth management are issues for area residents. More homes and a larger
population will increase the demand for public and retail services. This market demand could
potentially spur BIG development and change the way the region looks, works, and feels.
Residents expressed the fear of development and “suburban sprawl” that could severely impact
traffic and commuting patterns to North Kona. The question is, “how do residents get basic
water service without these negative effects?” Residents say development is occurring even
without water service. Most people agree that growth will happen with or without a water
system.
4-8
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
People want to retain their rural way of life even if a potable water supply system is developed.
Efforts to control development should be implemented with proper planning through the County
General Plan, zoning, and land use designations. Land use regulation and enforcement with
regard to agricultural areas are currently issues of debate and discussion. As a result, changes to
land use laws may help or hinder efforts to control development and protect rural lifestyles of the
Big Island.
4.9.2. Financial and Economic Factors
Design and construction of water facilities in the region will require significant funding. The
cost for these services should provide an overall economic and social benefit to the community.
The cost of improvements is particularly controversial in lava hazard zones where volcanic
destruction is a significant threat.
The positive impacts of water development could outweigh the costs with the growth of
agriculture industries. Many agencies and residents talked about the Kaÿu to South Kona region
as the last agricultural “frontier” in Hawaiÿi, where some prime farming lands are available at
affordable costs. Tourism is also a growth industry in the region as tourists visit the Hawaiÿi
Volcanoes National Park and other parts of West Hawaiÿi. The region has several parks, natural
area reserves, and other places of interest that could benefit from water service.
For residents, the contributions of water system improvements would be realized in several
ways. Water service and fire hydrants would significantly decrease homeowners insurance. In
some areas of the region, homeowners insurance is extremely expensive, if available at all.
4.9.3. Environmental
The region has thousands of historic sites, including ancient trails, burial caves, habitation sites,
fishponds, and heiau. For example, at Ka Lae (South Point), there are several important sites: a
stone enclosure, canoe moorings, salt pans, and Kalalae Heiau. Kaÿu and South Kona have rich
cultural landscapes that have remained largely undeveloped. Without proper land use planning,
impacts of water service and new development could threaten many of these cultural sites. Kaÿu
and South Kona are also rich in natural resources. The acreage of forest reserve and park lands
reflects the value of area native forests, beaches, and endangered and threatened species. Area
residents are also concerned with conservation of natural resources in their region.
4-9
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
In many ways, water service could
also protect natural resources.
Natural reserve areas are already
heavily used by fishermen and
hikers. The absence of public
facilities and heavy public use
generate human and solid waste
that has adversely affected
resources like anchialine ponds.
Basic sanitation facilities needed
include potable water, toilets, and
trash receptacles. The region also
has a high incidence of brush fires, Open space and ÿöhia lehua in the Kaÿu District.
which could be addressed by
providing adequate water service.
Conservation is an integral part of water planning. The water service designs should address
conservation and protection of sources. Many residents and farmers brought up the need to
establish best use practices for water usage. The potential of water source development would
warrant developing conservation agreements with large water users. Plans for future water
systems should also encourage system developers and users to be good stewards of natural
resources. Protection of watershed resources is strongly linked to maintaining the subsistence
way of life of many residents in the area. Residents and farmers should promote a sustainable
balance between the availability and use of water, healthy watersheds, and retention of a rural
lifestyle.
The demands of a larger population and unconstrained development would create threats to the
area's quality of life. These threats, such as eroding livability and declining public health, could
result from an increasing demand for infrastructure and services. Without careful planning
designed to manage this new growth, these threats could become reality. With the rising cost of
construction materials and land, it is imperative to develop plans that identify and fund the best
solutions for infrastructure needs. Long-range regional planning is necessary to provide the
community, the County of Hawaiÿi, and partners in Federal and State government a new means
to identify, evaluate, and set priorities for water system projects.
4-10
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
4.10. Other Issues
Stakeholders also raised several other community issues, including communication, emergency
services, crime and drug use, and economic development. Television, radio, and cellular phone
telecommunication is limited in the area. Television and radio programming are not available
without a satellite dish. Radio service is severely limited since October 2002, when the KIPA
tower became inoperable. Reaching residents would be difficult in the event of a natural
disaster--volcanic eruption, earthquake, hurricane, drought, or brushfire. There are no local
weather alerts. Cellular phone service is also unreliable throughout the region. There are
generally no public transportation systems in this area. Many residents have expressed a need for
regular public transportation both within the Ocean View area and to Kona and Hilo. The
County of Hawaiÿi Hele On Bus has recently added routes from Ocean View to Kona
International Airport at Keähole twice a week.
The community is also concerned with inadequate medical services. The nearest hospitals are
located in Kealakekua and Pähala. A medical clinic in Näÿälehu also services the community.
Medical emergencies require travel to hospitals miles away or long waits for ambulance service.
Similar to other rural areas, crystal methamphetamine drug use is a problem in the region. The
effects of “ice” use and associated crimes have impacted the entire district of Kaÿu. Community
members are troubled by this issue and are worried about the future of area youth. The district
has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the State. For this rural area, economic development is
also an issue. Many residents have home-based businesses to supplement income. The Kaÿu
district has an unemployment rate of 8.6 percent. The community advocated increased
employment opportunities that are consistent with existing lifestyles. Residents discussed the
possibility of establishing a cultural center and farmers market.
Water is a prime natural resource, a basic human need, and a
precious asset. Planning, development, and management of
water resources address elements of public safety, health,
education, economics, and quality of life. Implementation of
water systems involves a number of socio-economic aspects,
including environmental sustainability, growth and development,
and land use. Growth and expansion of economic activities lead
to increasing demands for water for domestic and agricultural
purposes. Complex issues of equity and social justice in regard
to water distribution are also of issue. The Kaÿu to South Kona
Water Master Plan incorporated a participatory approach that regularly encouraged the
community to voice issues and concerns. Planning of future water resources should involve not
only the various governmental agencies but also the users and other stakeholders.
4-11
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
This page intentionally left blank.
4-12
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
5. GROWTH PROJECTIONS AND WATER DEMANDS
A key task in the preparation of the Water Master Plan for the Kaÿu to South Kona Region was
to estimate current and future water demands within the region. In subsequent sections of this
Plan, these projections are used to identify the scope and phasing of future water system
development. This section is a summary of regional population and water demand projections
for the project area.
5.1. Kaÿu and South Kona Population Growth
Projections of regional population growth are often based on growth trends of the past 20 to 30
years. However, some regions can experience sudden, rapid growth because of unusual
combinations of land use and market conditions. The County of Hawaiÿi Draft Revised General
Plan (2001) includes population data for the year 2000 and population projections for the year
2020. According to the General Plan, the 2000 Kaÿu District population was 5,827. Most of this
growth has centered in Ocean View. The South Kona District population was 8,589 in 2000.
Table 5.1 includes the County of Hawaiÿi’s year 2020 projections for Kaÿu, at 8,408, and South
Kona at 14,092.
TABLE 5.1: KAÿU TO SOUTH KONA POPULATION DATA
Year
Kaÿu
South Kona*
Total
1970
3,398
4,004
7,402
1980
3,699
5,914
9,613
1990
4,438
7,658
12,096
2000
5,827
8,589
14,416
2020**
8,408
14,092
22,500
Revised
2020***
13,000
14,000
27,000
Source: U.S. Census
* South Kona district includes areas of Hönaunau and Kealakekua outside of the project area.
** 2020 Projections as calculated by COH Draft Revised General Plan, 2001.
*** Revised 2020 numbers based on analysis of recent trends, community reporting, and COH Draft Revised General Plan.
The Water Master Plan analysis for South Kona District population projections is generally in
accord with the County’s projections. This study projected population data for sub-region areas
of South Kona located within the project area. Year 2020 population projections for Hoÿokena,
ÿOpihihale, Kïpähoehoe, and Honomalino totaled 5,950 (Table 5.2).
5-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
TABLE 5.2: SUB-REGION POPULATION GROWTH
2000
2020
Population
Population
Hoÿokena
500
1,500
ÿOpihihale
600
1,850
Kïpähoehoe
150
500
Honomalino
700
2,100
Ocean View
3,000
11,000
Sub-region
However, this study’s projections for Kaÿu District population differ significantly from the
County’s. The projections are significantly larger than those in the Draft Revised General Plan,
as presented in Table 5.1. This Water Master Plan based population projections for Kaÿu on
several factors.
•
A number of community members reported that the 2000 U.S. Census population
numbers were very low in comparison with local experience.
•
Land and home prices in North Kona and South Kona have increased sharply, especially
since the 2000 Census over the past 3 to 4 years. Average home prices for a typical
3-bedroom house in North Kona are now over $400,000. Due to the absence of
affordable housing in North Kona and South Kohala, a significant number of families are
now settling in South Kona and Ocean View. Families buy land in Ocean View for as
little as $3,500 and build affordable homes.
•
The high price of homes in North Kona and South Kohala are not likely to change in the
foreseeable future.
•
There are over 11,000 vacant subdivided lots in Ocean View that still have the potential
to accommodate new homes without rezoning. These parcels are already subdivided with
agricultural zoning at 1, 3, and 5 acres. Parcels are readily available at affordable prices
from $3,500 to $20,000.
•
The U.S. Census shows an increase in the Kaÿu population from 3,398 in 1970 to 5,827 in
2000. This reflects a growth of 2,429 people, about 81 persons per year.
•
The 2000 Census number for Kaÿu’s population is estimated to be at least 25 percent too
low. Year 2000 U.S. Census data was thus increased by 25 percent to account for
undercounting of homes and residents. A population of 7,300 more accurately represents
the settlement of the area in 2000. This increase reflects a growth of 3,902 persons over
30 years, from 3,398 in 1970 to 7,300 in 2000. Growth thus occurred at about an average
of 130 persons a year.
5-2
County of Hawaiÿi
•
Final Report
September 2004
The growth rate from 2000 to 2020 could easily double to 260 persons a year. Growth at
this rate over 20 years would add an additional 5,200 people to Kaÿu. The population
would then total 12,500 in the year 2020. This study rounded up this number to 13,000
people.
Projections for year 2020 were calculated for sub-region areas in the project area. This data is
presented by sub-region in Section 5.3.
5.2. District Water Demands
Approximately 1 MGD of water provided by DWS was consumed within the project area in
2000. DWS currently provides a total of 22.35 MGD a year. Annual total potable water demand
for the Kaÿu to South Kona Region is projected to increase by approximately 1 to 2 MGD over
the 20-year planning period. This increase in total water demand is due to a projected increase in
population in the region.
5.3. Potable Water: Residential
5.3.1. Methodology
Several procedures were used to generate potable water use projections. Water demand was
determined by multiplying the projected per person water use by the projected population.
Based on AWWA data, the average person uses 74 GPD. However, the community reported
lower water usage due to increased conservation measures. Residents familiar with the lifestyle
of catchment water systems are very adept at making the most of their water. Residents conserve
and recycle water by limiting running
water, using buckets and dishpans, and
reusing grey water for watering plants and
gardens.
Water haulers report that
families with young children or teenagers
have
the
most
challenges
with
conservation. Nonetheless, this study has
considered that historical records indicate
communities use more water as a steady
supply of water becomes available.
Water hauling by “Kaÿu Water Delivery.”
5-3
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Community members and water haulers provided information to help establish existing
household water demand. In calculating water demand, the following questions were posed:
•
How often is water hauled?
Ans: Every 4 to 6 weeks. Some residents conserve better than others. In drought
periods, service is more frequent, about every 2 to 3 weeks (Kaÿu Water Delivery and
Charlie’s Water Service, 2003).
•
How much water is hauled?
Ans: Water haulers that service the area have trucks that haul between 4,000 and 6,000
gallons (Kaÿu Water Delivery and Charlie’s Water Service, 2003)
•
How much water is caught from rainfall?
Ans: With 20 to 30 inches of rain a year and 1,300 sq. ft.. of roof area = 19 to 27
GPD/person (Appendix A).
•
How large are most family’s catchment tanks?
Ans: Most have 4,000- or 5,000-gallon tanks. Those who are better prepared have
10,000-gallon tanks (Kaÿu Water Delivery and Charlie’s Water Service, 2003).
•
How large is the average family?
Ans.: 2.4 persons in Ocean View and 2.8 persons in South Kona (U.S. Census, 2000).
ESTIMATED CATCHMENT RAIN VOLUME
Factors:
Annual Rainfall
Average Roof Area
Water demand was projected based on rainfall
catchment volumes and water hauling reports.
Average catchment rain volumes were
estimated using the following formula:
Roof Area * 0.625 = Gallons water
collected per 1 inch of rain (Wentworth, 1959)
Catchment calculations were performed based
on an average 1,056-sq. ft. home with a roof
area of 1,296 sq. ft. A conservative rainfall
estimate of 20 inches per year was used.
= 20”
= 1296 sq. ft.
Gallons Collected per 1” rain
Roof area x 0.625
1256 sq. ft. x 0.625
= 810 gal per 1” rain
Household Catchment per Year
Gals col x rainfall
810 x 20” rain
= 16,200 gal/year/house
Daily Catchment Water per Person
Annual catchment / 365 days / average household size
Ocean View:
(20” rain) 16,200 / 365 / 2.39
= 19 GPD/person
South Kona:
(20” rain) 16,200 / 365 / 2.84
= 16 GPD/person
Household catchment volume per year was
then divided by each district’s average
household size to estimate the average amount
of water per person. See Appendix A for
more detailed information.
5-4
County of Hawaiÿi
According to water haulers, the average
household requests 4,000 to 6,000 gallons of
water every 4 to 6 weeks. Daily use of hauled
water was calculated based on an average use
of 5,000 gallons every 45 days. The daily
household water use was then divided by the
project area. Therefore, this study bases water
consumption on a daily per person water use
rate of 60 gallons. The population projections
developed in this study were multiplied by the
calculated water use rate.
Final Report
September 2004
ESTIMATED HAULED WATER USE
Factors:
Hauled Water
Duration
Daily Hauled Water Use per Household
Hauled water / duration
5,000 / 45 days
= 111 gal / day / household
Daily Hauled Water Use per Person
Household Water / Av. Household size
Ocean View
111 gal / day / 2.39
= 46 gal / day / person
South Kona
111 gal / day / 2.84
= 39 gal / day / person
TABLE 5.3: ESTIMATED WATER USE
Kaÿu
46
19
65
gal/day/person
gal/day/person
gal/day/person
Hauled
Catchment
TOTAL
South Kona
39 gal/day/person
16 gal/day/person
55 gal/day/person
Hauled
Catchment
TOTAL
Project Area Average
43
17
60
= 5,000 gallons
= 45 days
gal/day/person Hauled
gal/day/person Catchment
Average Water Demand
5-5
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
5.3.2. Sub-region: South Point to Ocean View
The largest population growth area in the “gap” in
water service is at Ocean View. The community
referred to as Ocean View includes the subdivisions
of Hawaiian Ocean View Estates, Hawaiian
Ranchos, Kona South, Kula Kai, and Kahuku
Country Gardens. Over 12,000 residential lots exist
in the area. There are no public water systems or
spigots located in the area. Residents rely on limited
rainfall and hauling for their potable water.
In comparison, the South Point community is much
smaller.
However, the population and water
demand would increase if the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands developed its lands at South
Point. Limited water service is provided along
South Point Road. Nevertheless, a moratorium
prevents issuing of new water meters.
The
Catchment tank in Ocean View.
moratorium was issued due to the poor condition of
water transmission lines and the length of service lines.
Studies showed that the 2003 population in the Ocean View area was approximately 3,000
people. Based on information from water haulers and reports of conservation practices, the
estimated water use is 60 gallons per person per day. Rainfall in Ocean View is low with only
approximately 20 inches a year. Generally this amount of rainfall provides 20 gallons of water
per person per day (Appendix A). The deficit of water needed, 40 gallons per person per day, is
provided by hauled water. This amounts to a total of 120,000 gallons of water per day being
hauled from outside sources for domestic use.
TABLE 5.4: OCEAN VIEW
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Year
Population
2000
3,000*
2020
11,000
*Based on U.S. Census Reports +25% to account for under reporting.
5-6
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
TABLE 5.5: OCEAN VIEW DOMESTIC WATER DEMANDS
GPD/person
Year 2000
3,000 people
Year 2020
11,000 people
Catchment Water
20
60,000
220,000
Additional Demand
40
120,000
440,000
Total Water Use
60
180,000
660,000
Water
Based on the population projection of 11,000, the domestic water requirement in the year 2020
will be 660,000 GPD. This is based on a daily per person water use rate of 60 gallons.
Calculations for this analysis of water demands are displayed in Appendix A. Table 5.5
illustrates the existing and future demand for water for Ocean View.
The Ocean View Community does not have a school and approximately 447 Ocean View
students travel at least 17 miles to Näÿälehu Elementary and Intermediate Schools. Pähala High
School is located 30 miles away. According to County Water System Standards, should a school
be built in this area, an additional daily demand of 4,000 gallons per acre would be required
(Appendix D).
Ocean View Community Association Center
5-7
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
5.3.3. Sub-region: Honomalino to Miloliÿi
This area includes forest reserves, commercial agriculture, private house lots, and smaller scale
farming. There are no public water systems or spigots located in the area. Residents rely on
limited rainfall and hauling to provide potable water. The lack of fresh water is a limitation for
recreation in the forest reserve areas. There are currently no improvements or public facilities,
such as parking areas or restrooms, to accommodate public use of Manukä Park or Miloliÿi
Beach Park.
The present population in the Honomalino area is estimated at 700. The estimated water use is
60 gallons per person per day. The estimated total domestic water requirement for this area is
thus 42,000 GPD. Rainfall in Honomalino has declined to as low as 18 inches per year.
Generally, this amount of rainfall provides 20 gallons of water per person per day (Appendix A).
The balance of water needed, 40 gallons per person per day, is provided by hauled water. This
amounts to a total of 28,000 gallons of water per day being hauled from outside sources for
domestic use.
TABLE 5.6: HONOMALINO PROJECTIONS
Year
Population
2000
700*
2020
2,100
*Based on U.S. Census Reports +25% to account for under reporting.
Based on the population projection of 2,100, the total domestic water requirement for
Honomalino by the year 2020 will be 126,000 GPD. This is based on a daily per person water
use rate of 60 gallons. Calculation for this analysis of water demands is located in Appendix A.
Table 5.7 illustrates the existing and future demand for water for Honomalino.
TABLE 5.7: HONOMALINO DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND (GPD)
GPD/person
Year 2000
700 people
Year 2020
2,100 people
Catchment Water
20
14,000
42,000
Additional Demand
40
28,000
84,000
Total Water Use
60
42,000
126,000
Water
5-8
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
5.3.4. Subregion: Kïpähoehoe to Hoÿokena
This area includes forest reserves, commercial agriculture, private house lots, and smaller scale
farming. There are no public water systems in the area. A water spigot operated by Hawaiÿi
County Civil Defense is located near the entrance to Hoÿokena Beach Park. Residents rely on
limited rainfall and hauling to provide potable water. The lack of fresh water is a limitation for
recreation in the forest reserves and beach parks. There are public facilities, such as parking
areas and restrooms that accommodate public use of Hoÿokena Beach Park. Substandard
transmission lines provide water for the beach park and area residences.
The present day population in the area from Kïpähoehoe to Hoÿokena is estimated at 1,250. The
estimated water use is 60 gallons per person per day. The existing domestic water requirement
for this area is thus 75,000 GPD. Generally the amount of rainfall in the area provides 20 gallons
of water per person per day (Appendix A). The balance of water needed, 40 gallons per person
per day, is provided by hauled water. This amounts to a total of 50,000 gallons of water per day
being hauled from outside sources for domestic use.
TABLE 5.8: SOUTH KONA PROJECTIONS
Area
2000*
2020
Kïpähoehoe
150
500
ÿOpihihale
600
1850
Hoÿokena
500
1500
Total
1250
3850
*Based on U.S. Census Reports+ 25% to account for under reporting
Based on the 2020 population projection of 3,850, the total domestic water requirement for the
area from Kïpähoehoe to Hoÿokena will be 231,000 GPD. This is based on a daily per person
water use rate of 60 gallons. Calculation of water demands is located in Appendix A. Table 5.9
illustrates the existing and future demand for water for the Hoÿokena area.
TABLE 5.9: KÏPÄHOEHOE-HOÿOKENA DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND (GPD)
GPD/person
Year 2000
1,250 people
Year 2020
3,850 people
Catchment Water
20
25,000
77,000
Additional Demand
40
50,000
154,000
Total Water Use
60
75,000
231,000
Water
5-9
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
5.4. Potable Water: Commercial
5.4.1. Methodology
County of Hawaiÿi zoning and the
Land Use Pattern Allocation
Guide (LUPAG) were used as a
basis for projecting future
demands of water for commercial
use. The General Plan LUPAG
Map designates areas for urban
expansion. The Urban Expansion
Area allows for “a mix of high
density, medium density, low
density,
industrial,
industrial-commercial
and/or
open designations in areas where Mr. Bell’s Restaurant in Ocean View.
new settlements may be desirable,
but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined” (p. 344).
The Draft Revised General Plan (2001) also states that “water system improvements should be
first installed in areas that have established needs and characteristics, such as occupied
dwellings, agricultural operations and other uses, or in areas adjacent to them if there is need
for urban expansion” (p. 248).
5.4.2. Commercial Water Demand
Approximately 23.8 acres of land within the project area is currently zoned for commercial
development. This study applied Water System Standards for the County of Hawaiÿi (State of
Hawaiÿi, 2002). The requirement for commercial properties is 3,000 gallons of water per acre.
Lands zoned for commercial were used to calculate existing commercial water demand. Based
on the commercial acreage, 71,400 GPD is required.
Future water demand projections of commercial lands were calculated for year 2020 based on the
LUPAG urban expansion designation. The LUPAG identifies 44 acres as urban expansion (UE).
The Revised General Plan (2001) proposes increasing the area to 228 acres for urban expansion.
Future water demand is 132,000 GPD, based on the assumption that all 44 acres of urban
expansion will be developed as commercial property by 2020. Beyond year 2020, upon
development of all 228 acres of proposed urban expansion, 684,000 GPD of water may be
required.
5-10
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
TABLE 5.10: COMMERCIAL WATER DEMAND
Land Category
Acreage
GPD
Water Requirement
1
3,000
Commercial Zoning
23.8
71,400
Urban Expansion
44
132,000
Proposed Urban Expansion
228
684,000
County of Hawaiÿi, General Plan (1989) and Draft Revised General Plan (2001).
5.4.3. Commercial Water Requirements
Sufficient water pressure and quantity are required to provide fire protection for commercial
development. Water flow is required at 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) for at least 2 hours in
order to provide fire protection for area businesses. Table 5.11 below identifies these fire flow
requirements.
TABLE 5.11: FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS
Fire Flow Requirements
Flow Rate
Duration
Fire Hydrant
Minimum volume
Value
2,000 gpm
2 hours
300-ft spacing
240,000 gal
Water System Standards, State of Hawaiÿi, 2002.
Ocean View Market.
5-11
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
5.5. Non-Potable Water: Agriculture
5.5.1. Agriculture Water Demand
Agriculture is the main economic
activity in the region. However
the scarcity of water continues to
be problematic for area farmers.
Existing
agriculture
water
sources are limited to individual
catchment systems and storage
reservoirs. Systems are supplied
by rainfall and supplemented by
water trucks during dry periods.
No potable water source well or
distribution system is located in
the region. Most farmers in the Macadamia nut fields.
region hand water crops. Other
irrigation techniques include use
of mini sprinklers and drip
irrigation.
Brackish water can be used for agriculture irrigation. Studies have been conducted to determine
the salt sensitivity of various crops (NRCS, 2003). Seasonal rains must be sufficient to flush out
enough salt to keep concentrations below levels that inhibit growth. MacFarms has reported that
under existing drought conditions, salt concentrations accumulate in the soil. As a result,
macadamia nut fields would require low salinity irrigation (less than 250 parts per million
chloride) under current rainfall. Brackish irrigation would be sufficient during less severe
drought or for more salt-tolerant crops.
5.5.2. Methodology
Several documents were consulted in calculating agriculture water demand. In 1994, the Kaÿu
River Basin Study was completed as a partnership of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service and the Kaÿu Soil and Water Conservation District. This report addressed agriculture
water systems and needs from Kapäpala Ranch in the east, outside of the project area, to the
Kahuku area in Ocean View. The purpose of this study was to provide an evaluation of soil and
water problems of the Kaÿu district. The study focused on the inadequacy of agricultural water
supply in seven subareas. Water supply alternatives as well as crop suitability analyses were
presented for each area.
5-12
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
The South Kona Watershed
Irrigation System Preliminary
Feasibility Study (2003) was
sponsored by the USDA NRCS
and the State of Hawaiÿi
Department of Agriculture (DOA)
along with the Honomalino
Irrigation Cooperative and the
Kona Soil and Water Conservation
District. The study was conducted
to determine the viability of
developing a suitable irrigation Farmers grow protea for local and mainland markets.
supply for the South Kona District
to alleviate agriculture water shortages. The project area covers over 15,000 acres that extends
from Miloliÿi Road on the north to Manukä Forest Reserve on the South. This area includes
nearly 5,000 acres of active farms, including 4,500 acres of macadamia nuts, 350 acres of coffee,
and 140 acres of various other crops. The study also projects increased farming acreage with
water supply and irrigation distribution.
Agriculture designations of County of Hawaiÿi zoning and the Draft Revised General Plan
(2001) LUPAG were used as a basis for quantifying existing farms and the potential for growth.
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates 7,898 acres of land below the highway
as Extensive Agriculture. Extensive Agriculture is defined as pasturage and rangeland. Since no
agricultural development plan is available on future farming water demands, detailed projections
cannot be made.
Further analysis involved information collected through interviews with farmers. Farmers
ranging from small family-based to large commercial operations were consulted in this process.
The consultant also visited many area farms to observe agriculture operations and water needs.
This included participation in a Kaÿu Agriculture Tour in September of 2003. The tour was
organized by State Senator Russell Kokubun and attended by Sandra Lee Kunimoto (State of
Hawaiÿi, Chairperson of the Board of Agriculture), Jane Testa (Hawaiÿi County, Director of
Research and Development), and Dr. Andrew Hashimoto (Dean of the University of Hawaiÿi at
Mänoa College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources). These visits with farmers
provided opportunities for gathering information and understanding of Kaÿu agriculture and
water demands.
5-13
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
5.5.3. Agriculture Growth and Water Needs
Agriculture crops and growth potential differ in each subregion of the project area. Therefore,
farms and water demands are discussed for each area. This study calculates that existing farming
operations in the region require nearly 11 MGD. The availability of irrigation water could
promote growth of farms and increase economic activity in the region. Over 11,000 acres is
potentially available for farming. This agricultural activity would require almost 18 MGD of
water for irrigation at current rainfall rates.
TABLE 5.12: REGIONAL AGRICULTURE WATER DEMANDS (MGD)
Sub-Region
Existing
Potential
Acres
Water
Acres
Water
South Point
150
0.26
875
1.42
Oceanview-Manukä
60
0.11
120
0.20
Honomalino
5,050
8.00
7,600
12.16
Miloliÿi-Hoÿokena
1,525
2.54
2,525
4.14
TOTAL
6,785
10.91
11,120
17.92
South Point
The South Point or Ka Lae area includes an orange farm of 150 acres. The Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) also has long-range plans for 100 acres of agricultural lots and
625 acres of pastoral lots. The South Point DHHL property is not a priority for development
because of the absence of available water resources. Range and pasture lands are also used for
ranching operations.
TABLE 5.13: SOUTH POINT FARM
ACREAGE AND WATER DEMAND
South Point
Existing
Acres
Water
MGD
Potential
Acres
Water
MGD
19,700
0.02
18,990
0.02
150
0.24
150
0.24
Natural Vegetation
Range Land
Pasture Land
Citrus
DHHL Ag Lots
0
100
0.16
DHHL Pastoral
0
625
1.00
19,865
1.42
TOTAL
19,850
0.26
5-14
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Ocean View-Manukä
Agriculture in this area includes
lettuce farms, protea, truck crops, and
subsistence gardens.
The present
agricultural water requirement for the
60 acres of land in agricultural use is
100,000 GPD, a little more than half
of the existing potable water demands.
Agriculture in the Ocean View
subdivisions could double by 2020 to
120 acres. If current rainfall trends
continue, farms would require at least
1,600 gallons of additional water per
acre per day. Thus, at least 200,000
GPD would be required for Ocean Mänuka Farms on Leilani Parkway in Ocean View.
View agriculture.
TABLE 5.14: OCEAN VIEW-MANUKÄ
FARM ACREAGE AND WATER DEMAND
Existing
Acres
Water
MGD
Potential
Acres
Water
MGD
60,403
0.01
60,403
0.01
Truck Cropping
30
0.05
60
0.10
Lettuce
10
0.02
20
0.03
Protea
20
0.03
40
0.06
60,463
0.11
60,523
0.20
Ocean View-Manukä
Natural Vegetation
Range Land
Pasture Land
TOTAL
5-15
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Honomalino
Macadamia nuts are the predominant crop of the area, followed by coffee and avocados. Range
and pasture lands are also used for ranching. This area consists of approximately 23,000 acres of
agriculture land, of which approximately 7,500 acres are in need of irrigation. Table 5.15
illustrates existing and projected farm acreage within the project area of the irrigation study. The
study projects that at 80 percent demand, the 7,500 acres of farmland would require
approximately 12 MGD of water. Farms require about 1,600 gallons of water per acre per day
for survival under existing rainfall conditions.
The largest commercial farm in the Kapuÿa area is Mac Farms Hawaiÿi. The farm operates a
well (#0751-01) drilled from an elevation of 1,143 feet and pumped at a rate of 750 GPM.
According to the Well Source Report for Ocean View, during heavy pumping periods, the salinity
in this well increased from 700 to as much as 2,000 MG/L (milligrams per liter) chlorides
(Waimea Water Services, page 12).
TABLE 5.15: HONOMALINO FARM
ACREAGE AND WATER DEMAND
Existing
Acres
Water
MGD
Potential
Acres
Water
MGD
4,500
7.2
4,500
7.2
Coffee
350
0.56
2,500
4
Other
150
0.24
600
0.96
5,050
8.00
7,600
12.16
Honomalino
Macadamia Nuts
TOTAL
5-16
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Miloliÿi-Hoÿokena
This area has over 60,000 acres of lands designated for agriculture. The lands include
approximately 1,000 acres of coffee, 500 acres of macadamia nuts, and 10,000 acres of pasture
lands. Range and pasture lands are also used for ranching. Water needs for area agriculture are
approximately 2.54 MGD. Agriculture growth is expected in the coffee industry by 2020. This
growth would increase water demand to 4.14 MGD.
TABLE 5.16: MILOLIÿI-HOÿOKENA
FARM ACREAGE AND WATER DEMAND
Miloliÿi-Hoÿokena
Existing
Acres
Natural Vegetation
50,000
Water
MGD
Potential
Acres
50,000
0.1
Range Land
Water
MGD
10,000
0.1
10,000
Pasture Land
Macadamia Nuts
500
0.8
500
0.8
Coffee
1,000
1.6
2,000
3.2
Other
25
0.04
25
0.04
61,525
2.54
62,525
4.14
TOTAL
Coffee fields in South Kona.
5-17
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
5-18
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
6. WATER RESOURCES
The water resource study area extends beyond the project area to provide for adequate source
options. Water for agricultural and residential use in this region has traditionally been supplied
via direct rainfall, rooftop catchment, and hauling from DWS sources. Water development has
lagged behind the needs of the communities and businesses and only a few private wells have
been constructed.
A limited number of water resource studies have been conducted in the area and most have been
directed toward land development activities. The majority of these studies were performed by
the private sector and are contained in manuscript reports, many of which have not been made
available for public use.
6.1. Wells and Water Resource Study Area
A single exploratory well (#0953-01) was drilled at Okoe by the State Division of Water and
Land Development as a first attempt by the State of Hawaiÿi to define the ground water resources
of that portion of the study area.
An exploratory well was also drilled by the State of FIGURE 6.1- WELLS AND CALCULATING UNITS
Hawaiÿi on South Point Road to evaluate potential
sources of supply for DHHL. DWS, under a
Cooperative agreement with the US Geological
Survey has completed small bore observation
wells at South Point Road and Waiÿöhinu with a
third planned for Ocean View.
The remaining wells have been drilled by private
enterprise at Kaÿu Citrus on South Point Road,
Hawaiÿi Kaÿu ÿAina Partners at Ocean View, Mac
Farms of Hawaiÿi at ÿOpihihale, and Magoon
Estate. DWS has water sources which supply
their systems to the north and south ends of the
project area. Figure 6.1 contains the well
locations and State well numbers. The map also
includes numbered land units used in calculating
the Water Budget for the region. A total of 23
calculating units were outlined based on
geography, geology, vegetation, and watershed
boundaries.
6-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
6.2. Water Budget
The Ka’u to South Kona study area encompasses a total of 383,248 acres. Understanding of the
aquifer system in the area is presently limited and the orderly development of these water
resources will depend on a growing knowledge of the sustainability of the aquifer system. The
State of Hawaiÿi Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) uses the hydrologic
term “sustainable yield” to describe the volume of water which can be safely withdrawn from a
particular aquifer. The sustainable yield of the aquifer is based on ground water recharge
estimates.
A water budget is a common method used to estimate the long-term reliability of an aquifer. In
the case of the Ka’u-South Kona aquifer, the estimates of recharge indicate the first
approximation of developable limits. In its 1990 published estimates of sustainable yield,
CWRM divided the island aquifer sectors into systems that are primarily based on watersheds or
other geographic features. The water budget calculated for this study is for areas defined by
geologic structures and the most likely areas for water development.
Rainfall for the Ocean View area and throughout the entire region has decreased since the
beginning of eruptions at Kïlauea Volcano in 1983. The timing of these eruptions is the key
factor considered in the selection of the most representative rainfall data set for the current
water-budget model.
6.2.1. Water-Budget Model
Ground water is replenished by the infiltration of rainfall that percolates through the root zone in
the soil to bedrock. Ground-water recharge can be estimated by a water-budget model that
considers the components of:
•
Rainfall
•
Fog-drip
•
Runoff
•
Evapotranspiration (ET)
•
Ground-water recharge
•
Change in soil-moisture storage
In the study area, direct runoff to the ocean rarely occurs and is therefore set at zero and removed
from the above equation. Fog-drip is calculated separately as a percentage of rainfall. Thus, the
model calculates ground-water recharge, ET, and the change in soil-moisture storage.
6-2
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Data collected from a dense network of gauges at daily, hourly, or smaller time-intervals, for
each water budget component is ideal. This detailed information was not available in this region,
and therefore a monthly budget was calculated. A monthly water budget is a coarse
representation of the allocation of water in the hydrologic cycle. The extremes of nature are not
simulated by this model. For example, the water influence of an intense two-day storm is
moderated by the monthly accounting. By using mean monthly data, the budget calculates
average component volumes useful for regional assessments of resource availability.
6.2.2. Rainfall
The rainfall distribution in the project area is predominantly influenced by the sheltering effect of
Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa reaches a height of 13,677 feet and shelters much of the project area
from the predominant northeast tradewinds. A small part of the project area, in the vicinity of
Waiÿöhinu and South Point, generally receives orographic rainfall from about 73 inches annually
(calculating unit 17) to about 44 inches per year (calculating unit 21) near the coast (Figure 6.2).
FIGURE 6.2 – PRISM RAINFALL
The majority of the project area is in the lee of
Mauna Loa, where rainfall generation is by
convection. The difference of ground-surface
temperature
and
cooler
ocean
surface
temperatures causes an on-shore wind, or sea
breeze, circulation that moves upslope creating
rainfall at mid-level elevations. During the
summer,
with
increased
ground-surface
temperatures, this circulation intensifies, creating
a unique pattern of summer maximum rainfall.
This convection mechanism causes a band of
increased rainfall between 1,000 and 4,000 feet
(Figure 6.2). Substantially less rainfall occurs
near the west coast of the project area.
Data for the rainfall component of the
water-budget model was derived from the
Parameter-Elevation Regressions on Independent
Slopes Model (PRISM) developed by Oregon State University (Daly, C., R. P. Neilson, and
D. L. Phillips, 1994). The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and other agencies
have collaborated with Oregon State University in the application of this model to develop mean
annual and monthly rainfall maps for the entire United States.
6-3
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
PRISM distributes point measurements of mean monthly and annual rainfall and other climatic
variables to .9 square kilometer grid cells that cover the island of Hawaiÿi. Data includes the
period from 1961 to 1990. Available gauges do not cover the complete range of elevations on
the island. Therefore, the USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was incorporated into the
PRISM model. The DEM grid cell used was 10 or 30 square meters and the elevation value
assigned to each cell is an average elevation representing the cell.
The PRISM rainfall data were used in the water-budget model rather than those described in the
Rainfall Atlas of Hawaiÿi (1986) because these data are for a more current period of record, 1961
to 1990, that includes both strong El Nino events and several years of the current Kïlauea
eruption. Therefore, these data are thought to be more representative of recent rainfall
distributions in the project area. A simple comparison was made between long-term mean
annual rain gauge values and the PRISM value in the cell of the gauge location (Table 6.1). The
rain gauge locations are shown in Figure 6.1. The period of record is the number of years of
complete data. The difference in the measured mean annual and PRISM values are expressed
with respect to PRISM data.
The difference in the measured mean annual and PRISM values are expressed with respect to
PRISM data. That is, a positive percent value means that the PRISM model data at that grid cell
is more than the measured value at the rain gage located within that grid cell. Note that at the
gage locations with measured rainfall for the same period of record as PRISM, the difference in
mean annual rainfall values is less than 10%. Therefore, although there is a lack of rainfall gages
in the study area, the PRISM rainfall appears to adequately model the rainfall distribution. A
dense network of rain gauges with 30 years of data would provide data for more accurate water
budget calculations.
TABLE 6.1: RAINFALL COMPARISON
Station
PRISM Cell
Record
Ocean View
2065
18 years
Kealakekua
169
44 years
MacFarms 35
1532
10 years
1750
31 years
Manukä 2
1212
10 years
Miloliÿi
Gauge Data
19.99 in.
56.15 in.
26.61 in.
48.75 in.
27.68 in.
PRISM Data
42.02 in.
28.13 in.
47.35 in.
51.43 in.
32.22 in.
Difference
+210 %
-99 %
+78 %
+5 %
+16 %
Näÿälehu14
2040
30 years
51.34 in.
55.06 in.
+7 %
ÿOpihihale 2
Puÿu Honua
967
301
30 years
21 years
40.84 in.
26.11 in.
41.33 in.
27.68 in.
-6 %
+6 %
6-4
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
6.2.3. Fog
FIGURE 6.3 - FOG AREA
In Hawaiÿi, fog predominantly occurs by the
cooling of warm moist marine air as it moves
upslope. The most productive fog occurs in
nonraining clouds that form in degenerating
marine air masses. This action frequently occurs
in the project area from the 3,200- to 7,400-foot
elevation. Five elevation zones were set within
this area (Figure 6.3). Within each elevation band,
a fog/rain ratio was applied to the monthly rainfall
to calculate the monthly fog as shown in Table 6.2.
Despite the difficulty in calculating this
component, the measurements suggest it is a
significant element in studying the water budget.
6.2.4. Soil Characteristics
Soils in the study area have been mapped and
digitized by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (Sato, et al., 1973).
Selected soil
properties are tabulated in Appendix B. Soil data
includes “available water,” which is the measure
of the quantity of water in the soil between field
capacity and the wilting point. This is the amount
of water available for uptake by plant roots. The
maximum soil-moisture storage value is the
product of the root depth and the available water
capacity for each soil type (Figure 6.5).
TABLE 6.2: FOG/RAIN RATIOS
IN ELEVATION ZONES
Elevation
(in feet)
Fog/Rain ratio
3200-4100
.075
4100-4900
.12
4900-5700
.16
5700-6600
.205
6600-7400
.25
Because the root depth is poorly known, the values for maximum soil-moisture storage are
similarly coarse estimates. The maximum soil-moisture storage values are critical in the water
budget accounting, because they establish the limit for each soil type, above which ground-water
recharge can occur. This is a weak element in the model, and frequently causes anomalous areas
on the recharge distribution maps. Currently, NRCS is re-mapping the soils on the island;
however, this information is not yet available. Adjustments to the water budget may be necessary
with the availability of new soils data.
6-5
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 6.4 - GEOLOGY
FIGURE 6.5 – SOIL MOISTURE STORAGE
6.2.5. Pan Evaporation and Potential Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration (ET) is the quantity of water evaporated from water and soil surfaces and
transpired by plants. ET can be measured by evaporimeters or lysimeters, or calculated
mathematically from various climatic data, none of which are available in the project area.
However, ET can be estimated from soil and pan evaporation data.
This study digitized a map of the mean annual pan evaporation for the Island of Hawaiÿi for use
in the GIS water-budget model (Ekern and Chang, 1985). The average value of the two
bounding lines is assigned for the area between the lines of equal pan evaporation (Figure 6.6).
Monthly pan evaporation values were calculated from each month’s mean monthly to mean
annual ratio at the Näÿälehu Station (Table 6.3) and applied to the mean annual pan distribution.
Adjustments to the monthly pan evaporation values were made in forested areas. In forested
areas with less than 25 inches mean annual rainfall, the monthly pan evaporation value was
decreased to 0.68 of the original calculated monthly value. The monthly pan evaporation value
was multiplied by 1.1 in wet forested areas that receive greater than or equal to 60 inches of
mean annual rainfall.
6-6
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
TABLE 6.3: PAN EVAPORATION MONTHLY/ANNUAL RATIOS
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
.075
.0728 .0856 .0818 .0867 .0855 .0906 .0995 .0909 .084
Nov
Dec
.0757 .0719
Location: Näÿälehu Station #14.
FIGURE 6.6 –
PAN EVAPORATION & FOREST AREAS
The water-budget model calculates ET on the
basis of potential ET. Potential ET is estimated
by pan evaporation values, the current value of
soil-moisture storage, and the maximum soilmoisture storage value. The maximum soilmoisture storage value is also an important
limiting factor in the model calculation of ET.
6.2.6. Water-Budget Model Accounting
Two accounting methods were used in the
water-budget model. Method I allocates excess
soil moisture to ground-water recharge first.
Method II allocates excess soil moisture to ET
first.
FIGURE 6.7 – AVERAGE
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DISTRIBUTION
Method II is the standard sequence in monthly
water budgeting. However, this sequence is not
supported by soil infiltration rates, which are
represented by soil permeability values, ET, and
rainfall rates in the project area.
In dry areas, the majority of rainfall occurs in
intense events. Infiltration rates reflect that water
passes beyond the root depth during the period
when ET is suppressed, thus recharging ground
water.
6-7
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
6.2.7. Water-Budget Results
ET of 59 percent of the sum of rainfall and fog drip is reasonable given the diversity of rainfall in
the region. Annual rainfall varies from 100 inches, in a few small areas, to less than 25 inches
over large areas in the south and northeast parts of the study area (Figure 6.1). In the dry areas
where potential ET is high, there is not enough water to satisfy this demand. Therefore, the
associated calculated ET is very low. On the other hand, in the proportionately much smaller
wet part of the project area, ET is suppressed, although there is plenty of water to satisfy the
minimal demand.
TABLE 6.4: WATER BUDGET RESULTS
WB Calculating
Unit
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Acres
17,856
27,069
6,678
39,041
11,791
2,437
29,790
9,184
26,485
19,886
7,668
6,244
18,334
19,145
354
16,102
5,955
29,207
53,583
12,939
16,066
7,434
Annual
Rainfall (MGD)
75
51
17
79
49
7
82
25
93
67
26
22
73
56
1.38
87
28
114
146
42
42
14
Annual
Fog (MGD)
4
7
0
5
2
0
11
0
4
10
5
4
3
0
0.22
2
2
5
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
383,248
1195
64
Note: Some areas may show slight imbalance due to rounding.
6-8
(47%) 37
(65.5%) 38
(64.7%) 11
(59.5%) 50
(51%) 26
(71.4%) 5
(53.8%) 50
(60%) 15
(62.9%) 61
(46.8%) 36
(48.4%) 15
(46.2%) 12
(60.5%) 46
(60.7%) 34
(52.5%) 0.84
(70.8%) 63
(71.8%) 21
(57.1%) 68
(58.2%) 85
(59.5%) 25
(76.2%) 32
(85.7%) 12
Annual Recharge
(MGD)
(53%) 42
(34.5%) 20
(35.3%) 6
(40.5%) 34
(49%) 25
(28.6%) 2
(46.2%) 43
(40%) 10
(37.1%) 36
(54.5%) 42
(51.6%) 16
(53.8%) 14
(39.5%) 30
(37.5%) 21
(47.5%) 0.76
(28.1%) 25
(28.2%) 8
(42.9%) 51
(41.8%) 61
(40.5%) 17
(23.8%) 10
(7.1%) 1
(59%) 743
(41%) 515
Annual ET (MGD)
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
6.2.8. Water-Budget Limitations
Absent data with daily intervals, for all components of the water budget, the calculation results
cannot simulate the events of nature. The mean monthly rainfall data used to create the PRISM
rainfall data set and reflected in the GIS water-budget model adequately represent the average
monthly rainfall conditions in the project area. However, the data do capture instances where a
large proportion of the average monthly rainfall occurs during a period of a few days. During
these events, the thin soils of the region are saturated, ET is suppressed, and water infiltrates
quickly beyond the root zone. This ultimately results in ground-water recharge.
The estimated monthly budget considers the hydrologic cycle as a single large event each month.
In areas where rainfall is generally negligible, the monthly approach could be satisfactory.
However, the scenario does not represent the occurrence of rainfall and fog formation in parts of
the region. If more detailed data were available, a water budget could be simulated on an event
or daily basis and would improve the ground-water recharge estimates. There is a severe
deficiency of daily rainfall measurement in the area. Similarly, other measurements used to
calculate ET and fog inception are also not available.
Soil parameters, particularly available water and root depths, are coarsely estimated due to the
lack of field data in the project area. The calculated maximum moisture storage of the soil at any
given point is coarsely estimated. The soil-moisture storage is a critical component in the
water-budget model because it directly affects the calculation of both ground-water recharge and
ET. The estimate of maximum soil-moisture storage is one of the weakest components of the
water-budget calculations and any additional data could improve the estimates of ET and
ground-water recharge.
6.3. Ground-Water Recharge
Figure 6.7 was generated using the ground-water recharge model. The map depicts the results of
water budget calculations. Recharge data were used to identify water resources for potential
development. Basically, the recharge map helps determine how much water there is in the
ground. The darker areas of the map represent areas where there is more ground water present.
The ground-water recharge distribution shown on Figure 6.7 generally follows the rainfall
distribution (Figure 6.1). High recharge values occur in the northwestern and southeastern parts
of the project area and generally decrease to the south and west toward the coast and where
rainfall averages less than 25 inches annually.
6.4. Ground Water Occurrence
The ground water occurs as a basal lens, perched on ash beds or confined to high-level aquifers
by geologic structures, such as volcanic dikes or fault systems. In a fresh basal lens, fresh water
floats on the underlying salt water in a theoretical ratio of 40 to 1. For every 1 feet above sea
level, there will be 40 of fresh water below sea level.
6-9
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Hawaiÿi has highly permeable geology that transmits tidal changes along with the ground water
as the tide flows towards the sea. This results in increasingly brackish water. There are a few
wells which tap the basal lens within the study area. Data show that these wells marginally
produce fresh water when located at or above an elevation of 1,000 feet.
The water levels in the basal lens increase inland, about 5 feet above sea level, in the vicinity of
Ocean View. To the north, the gradient is steeper where the rainfall, and thus, recharge, are
higher. In ÿOpihihale (Well #1652-01), a thin layer of fresh water is found just below the
Mämalahoa Highway.
High level ground water is known to occur from South Point Road to Waiÿöhinu in the southeast
and to the north just above Kealakekua Bay. In both instances, it appears that volcanic fault
systems predominantly retain water in the high level aquifers. Regardless, the water table stands
at about elevation +239 feet at Kaÿu Citrus (Well #0240-01) on South Point Road and as high as
+1,016 feet in the USGS observation well (not shown) at Waiÿöhinu. Above Mämalahoa
Highway at Kealakekua Bay, the water table stands at +360.7 feet (Well #2753-03). Perched
ground water is also found occurring as thin aquifer layers normally perched on ash beds. A
typical example is Ha’ao Springs above Waiÿöhinu.
Figure 6.8 is a conceptual map developed to identify locations of ground water. Water in the
region is identified on the map including:
•
High level perched water: Waiÿöhinu/South Point Area (blue cross hatch)
•
Freshwater: >2000-foot elevation (blue lines)
•
Brackish water: <2000-foot. elevation. (green lines)
6-10
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 6.8 – GROUND-WATER RECHARGE DISTRIBUTION
6-11
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 6.9 – GROUND-WATER OCCURRENCE
6-12
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
6.5. Sustainable Yield
6.5.1. Recharge by Aquifer System
The project area of Kaÿu to South Kona can be compared with the aquifer system areas from the
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). The Manukä system is completely within
the study area. Manukä has a monthly water-budget recharge of 145.9 MGD versus 96 MGD
reported by DLNR. Only small areas of the Ka Lae and Kaÿapuna systems are not covered in the
present study area. The DLNR recharge and sustainable yield values include the entire system
areas. Sustainable yield is the amount of water that can be pumped from the ground without
depleting the source. Sustainable yield estimates were generated using a ground-water recharge
model that considered:
•
ET
•
Geology
•
Rainfall
•
Land use
•
Vegetation
Sustainable yield amounts were used to identify areas that may be suitable for source
development and well drilling.
TABLE 6.5: WATER BUDGET RECHARGE
Fog
Recharge*
DLNR*
MGD
MGD
MGD
Sustainable
Yield
MGD
Ka Lae
18.5
118.5
71
31
Kaÿapuna
29.3
179.9
115
50
Manukä
7.7
145.9
96
42
Aquifer System
* With fog recharge.
Without complete water budget information, it is difficult to assess the recharge results compared
with those reported by DLNR. The sustainable yield estimates can be met using the
ground-water recharge in each system. These estimates will be refined as water development
occurs. The fog component contributed additional moisture equal to 5 percent (64 MGD) of
rainfall over the study area, a fairly conservative fog estimate compared with published studies.
This component of the water budget was not accounted for in the DLNR recharge estimates.
Because the fog component is poorly known, the higher ground-water recharge estimate should
be viewed cautiously.
6-13
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Table 6.5 summarizes the sustainable yield estimates derived from the recharge estimates of the
water budget. Estimates of sustainable yield must be used conservatively as there are significant
differences in methodology. Generally, however, each method of estimating sustainable yield
illustrates that there are adequate water resources in the project area to meet future needs.
FIGURE 6.10 – SUSTAINABLE YIELD PER MILE OF MÄMALAHOA HWY.
6.9 MGD
8.4 MGD
4.0 MGD
16.7
MGD
3.3 MGD
2.7 MGD
1.9 MGD
6-14
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
TABLE 6.6: SUSTAINABLE YIELD ESTIMATES PER MILE
Distance
Recharge
Total
Recharge
Unit No.
Mämalahoa Hwy. (mile)
Recharge
per Mile
2+3
4.5
62
13.8
5+6
3.5
59
16.9
8 + 10
10
79
7.9
11 + 18
1.5
50
33.3
12 + 14
7
46
6.6
13 + 19
12
65
5.4
16 + 17
7
26
3.7
Sustainable
Yield/Mile
6.9
8.4
4.0
16.7
3.3
2.7
1.9
Recharge
Unit No.
2+3+4
5+6+7
8 + 10 + 9
11+ 18 + 22 + 23
12 + 14 + 15
13 + 19 + 20
16 + 17 + 21
Sustainable
Yield/Mile
6.8
10.2
4.5
3.1
4.2
3.7
3.3
Distance
Shoreline (mile)
5
3
10
10
8
17
6.5
Total
Recharge
68
61
89
61
67
126
43
Formula for Sustainable Yield
R/W = Q x .5 = SY/M width
R = Recharge in MGD
W = Width of Aquifer
Q = Total Flow in MGD
.5 = Estimated Percentage equal to Sustainable Yield
SY/M = Sustainable Yield per Mile
6-15
Recharge
per Mile
13.6
20.3
8.9
6.1
8.4
7.4
6.6
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
6-16
County of Hawaiÿi
7.
Final Report
September 2004
WATER MASTER PLAN
This section presents potentially feasible water management strategies that meet the regional
water supply needs identified in Section 5. The strategies are presented in subregions according
to communities and water user groups in South Point-Ocean View, Honomalino-Miloliÿi, and
ÿOpihihale-Hoÿokena. Technical information and costs are provided for each element of the
Water Master Plan.
The primary objective of the regional water supply planning process was to identify current and
future water needs and appropriate strategies for meeting those needs. This section presents
specific recommendations to meet water supply needs.
The Water Master Plan is based on several assumptions.
•
The Master Plan proposes projects to meet the demands of both potable and agricultural
water in the region.
•
This Plan proposes to supplement but will not replace existing catchment systems in the
region.
•
This Plan will not provide plans and designs for distribution systems to the level of
individual homes and businesses.
•
All plans have been specified according to current construction standards of the County
of Hawaiÿi DWS.
•
Project cost estimates are in 2004 dollars and include 10 percent for survey and design
and 10 percent for contingency.
7.1. Water Master Plan
The Water Master Plan includes elements of water system infrastructure that serve potable and
non-potable demands of the region. Proposed long-range projects for water source development
and transmission include:
1. Wells 1 and 2 at Ocean View
2. Well 3 at Honomalino
3. Waterline extension from Hoÿokena to ÿOpihihale
4. Agricultural wells in Honomalino and Ocean View
Total cost of these projects is $21,184,000
7-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.1.1. Water Source - Multiple Wells for Ocean View and Honomalino
These water system projects are proposed to serve present and future potable water needs of the
Ocean View and Honomalino communities.
•
Well 1 at Ocean View; 150 GPM; 2,180-foot elevation
o Reservoir, 0.5 MG (million gallons)
o Transmission line to Ocean View Commercial Area
o Standpipe with meters
o Service Population: 3,000
o Cost: $4,332,405
•
Well 2 at Ocean View; 150 GPM; 2,180-foot elevation
o Reservoir, 0.5 MG
o Connect to Well 1 system
o Cost: $3,836,305
o Plan for additional wells as needed to serve population increase
•
Well 3 at Honomalino; 150 GPM; 2,180-foot elevation
o Reservoir, 0.10 MG
o Cost: $2,419,395
This Plan recommends development of a series of
smaller wells (Approx. 150 GPM), each with its own
reservoir. A 12-inch main will be added to connect
the demand center(s) to these reservoirs. In order to
minimize saltwater intrusion, wells should be drilled
above Highway 11, and a pump rate of no more than
150 GPM should be maintained. However, only
actual drilling and prolonged testing can determine
the actual safe yield of wells drilled in this area. The
first well proposed for the Ocean View area will give
an indication of safe yield for the aquifer in this area.
An example of a production well.
7-2
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
These proposed wells are intended to supplement the existing water catchment systems, not to
replace them. Should the tests show that a yield of 150 GPM can be obtained, it is recommended
that the pump operate at 20 hours per day to meet the present day demand of 180,000 GPD for
domestic use for Ocean View residents. Pumping at 20 hours per day as compared to 10 hours
will significantly increase the Hawaiÿi Electric Light Company (HELCO) power costs.
FIGURE 7.1 – MULTIPLE WELLS
Phase #1 Phase #2 Phase #3
Waterline
Well
Reservoir
7-3
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
The first element of this Plan is a well
and a reservoir. The first well could be
located near the Ocean View
Community Center. A pipeline could
be developed for 2.2 miles along Leilani
Parkway continuing to Mämalahoa
Highway (1.7 miles) and along the
mauka side of the highway (0.5 miles)
to the junction with Lotus Blossom
Lane.
Well drilling in Waikoloa, Hawaiÿi.
A standpipe could be located near Mämalahoa Highway at a location placed for safety and
convenience. The tank would be located with a spillway elevation of about 2,180 feet to provide
adequate pressure for the business center at an elevation of 1,990 feet. The static pressure for
most of the business services would range from 48 to 97 pounds per square inch (psi).
By the year 2020, it is estimated that the Ocean View System could require a minimum of four
wells operating at a safe yield of 150 GPM each and pumping for a period of 20 hours per day.
The first core water system will lay the ground work for future expansion. Each core water
system is expected to service a population of 3,000. It is highly recommended that pressure
zones be created and additional water systems within the pressure zones have reservoirs with
matching spillway elevations. This will allow for the most economical means of interconnecting
the water systems and in sharing water resources. The target overflow elevation of the first core
water system reservoir is 2,180 feet.
The second core water system could be located near the Kahuku Community Park. Subsequent
reservoirs should be located where a spillway elevation of 2,180 feet can be attained. Detailed
surveys, site selection, and land acquisition studies for additional well and tank sites are not
within the scope of this study.
The water requirement for Honomalino area residents can be satisfied by a core water system
similar to the Ocean View core water system. A 0.10 MG reservoir should be installed at
elevation 1,921 feet to provide adequate pressure at the highway. A 150 GPM well with a 0.10
MG reservoir will be added in the Honomalino area for the area’s residents.
7-4
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
The first core water system at Ocean View is estimated to cost $4,332,405. A detailed
breakdown of the cost estimate is provided on page 7-5. Operation and maintenance costs are
not included in the construction cost estimate. Cost for a 12-inch pipe to interconnect systems is
estimated at $125 per foot. The cost for providing three-phase electrical power to Ocean View
Community Association Center is approximately $80,000. This cost was obtained from HELCO
(20 Poles @ $3K-$4K per pole). These cost estimates are based on 2004 costs with no
adjustments for future inflation.
The well would provide many benefits for the Ocean View community. The water resource
would supplement existing catchment systems and shorten water hauling distances by nearly 20
miles. Secondary benefits of a water source include the possibility of public services such as a
school and fire protection for the commercial area. The cost savings for water hauling could be
reduced by as much as half. The typical water hauling costs from Näÿälehu to Ocean View is
$140 for 4,000 gallons. According to DWS rates, water haulers filling at the Näÿälehu standpipe
pay approximately $12 for 4,000 gallons. The difference between the customer cost and water
cost is, therefore, $128. These funds are used by water haulers for overhead, fuel, labor, repair
and maintenance, equipment depreciation, and profit.
Existing water haulers spend over two hours traveling to and from Näÿälehu. Reduced travel
times and labor costs could hypothetically save as much as $64 per haul. The estimated 1,000
households in Ocean View receive 4,000 gallons each month or 12 hauls each year. A potential
savings of $768 a year per household totals $768,000 for the entire Ocean View community. In
comparison with this savings, the first Ocean View Well system cost is $4.33 million.
Therefore, cost savings would “pay” for the system in less than six years. In addition, reduced
labor time would allow haulers to service more customers and alleviate existing backlogs of up
to two weeks!
Water Reservoir.
7-5
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
TABLE 7.1: WATER SOURCE MULTIPLE WELLS
ITEM
UNIT QUANTITY
ELEMENT I
0.50 MG reservoir 1 @ Ocean View
Well 1 construction cost
Well 1 pump and controls
12” pipe to reservoir 1
Power line to well
Standpipe with 6 meters
SUBTOTAL
ELEMENT II
0.50 MG reservoir 2 @ Ocean View
12” pipe to reservoir 2
Power line to well
SUBTOTAL
FT
FT
MI
FT
FT
MI
ELEMENT III
0.10 MG reservoir @ Honomalino
Honomalino well construction cost
Honomalino pump and controls
Power line to well ($7,000/250’)
SUBTOTAL
COST ($)
TOTAL ($)
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
1 750,000.00
2,180
600.00
1 225,000.00
8,900.00
125.00
1.7 50,000.00
1 100,000.00
750,000.00
1,308,000.00
225,000.00
1,112,500.00
85,000.00
100,000.00
3,580,500.00
825,000.00
1,438,800.00
247,500.00
1,223,750.00
93,500.00
110,000.00
3,938,550.00
907,500.00
1,582,680.00
272,250.00
1,346,125.00
102,850.00
121,000.00
4,332,405.00
1 750,000.00
2,180
600.00
1 225,000.00
6,100.00
125.00
0.5 50,000.00
1 100,000.00
750,000.00
1,308,000.00
225,000.00
762,500.00
25,000
100,000.00
3,170,500.00
825,000.00
1,438,800.00
247,500.00
838,750.00
27,500.00
110,000.00
3,487,550.00
907,500.00
1,582,680.00
272,250.00
922,625.00
30,250.00
121,000.00
3,836,305.00
1 300,000.00
2,180
600.00
1 225,000.00
9.5
7,000.00
1 100,000.00
300,000.00
1,308,000.00
225,000.00
66,500.00
100,000.00
1,999,500.00
330,000.00
1,438,800.00
247,500.00
73,150.00
110,000.00
2,199,450.00
363,000.00
1,582,680.00
272,250.00
80,465.00
121,000.00
2,419,395.00
8,750,500.00
9,625,550.00
10,588,105.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE (Water Source Mult. Wells)
Drilling rig for wells.
7-6
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.1.2. Transmission – Hoÿokena Extension
The Hoÿokena water system can be extended a distance of approximately six miles to ÿOpihihale.
Existing South Kona potable water wells would supply the area. Two standpipes could be
installed along the transmission line, one halfway, and another at the end of the extended water
system. Land acquisition would be required to site the standpipes; land acquisition costs are
roughly estimated to be $40,000. The extension is estimated to cost over $5.1 million. The
project would provide the opportunity for residents to establish connection to the main line and
develop distribution to their homes.
Extending the water line main and developing standpipe facilities will decrease water hauling
distances. Decreased hauling distances will reduce the costs of trucked water for South Kona
residents. This facility would provide a near-term benefit for area residents. These facilities
would not distribute water to individual homes. However, the extended water main will provide
the opportunity for existing subdivisions to develop community improvement districts and fund
water service to their homes. The extended water line would benefit improvement districts by
providing clean potable water.
Access to County water will likely increase the value of properties. This trend would make land
less affordable for low- to mid-income families and more attractive to the wealthy. The
dynamics of increased land value and settlement will change the rural landscape. Ultimately,
water distribution will encourage more homes, building, and traffic.
Parcels along the six-mile corridor of the water main extension include those zoned for AG-5a,
AG-20a, and Conservation. The County of Hawaiÿi Draft Revised General Plan classifies area
land use as orchards, extensive agriculture, conservation, and open. The presence of a water
main and/or privately funded distribution may be favorable for developers seeking rezoning of
parcels from agricultural to urban land use. Access to water makes the area more attractive for
developers and investors.
TABLE 7.2: TRANSMISSION – HOÿOKENA EXTENSION
ITEM
UNIT
8” pipeline extension
FT
Land acquisition for standpipe
TOTAL ESTIMATE (HOOKENA EXT.)
QUANTITY
32,000
2
2
COST ($)
125.00
100,000.00
20,000.00
7-7
TOTAL ($)
4,000,000.00
200,000.00
40,000.00
4,240,000.00
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
4,400,000.00
220,000.00
44,000.00
4,664,000.00
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
4,840,000.00
242,000.00
48,400.00
5,130,400.00
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 7.2 – HOÿOKENA EXTENSION
7-8
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.1.3. Agricultural Systems – Demonstration Well at Honomalino
This Master Plan supports development of the South Kona Irrigation System demonstration
project including a well drilled at the 2,800 feet elevation, with pumping at 700 GPM, and
associated reservoir and distribution (NRCS, 2003). The system will provide irrigation water to
approximately 500 acres and will provide data for future expansion of water systems. The South
Kona Watershed Irrigation System Preliminary Feasibility Study provided detailed cost
estimates for the project. Table 7.3 summarizes this information.
TABLE 7.3: AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS – SOUTH KONA IRRIGATION SYSTEM*
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
FT
2,600
COST ($)
750.00
308000TOTAL
($)*
1,950,000.00
1
640,000.00
640,000.00
1.0 MG reservoir
1
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE
3,590,000.00
*The total cost includes a 20% contingency as estimated by the USDA NRCS Feasibility Study.
7.1.4. Agricultural Systems – Brackish Water Well for Ocean View
Wells could be drilled below the highway at an approximate elevation of 1,500 feet, which
would likely produce slightly brackish water. This water can be stored in lined earthen reservoirs
for agricultural and fire fighting requirements.
TABLE 7.4: AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM – WELL FOR OCEAN VIEW
ITEM
UNIT QUANTITY
Well at Ocean View
0.10 MG reservoir @ Ocean View
Well construction cost
Pump and controls
Power line to well
TOTAL (OV Agricultural Well)
COST ($)
1 300,000.00
FT
FT
1,500
600.00
1 225,000.00
0.5
50,000.00
1 100,000.00
TOTAL ($)
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
300,000.00
330,000.00
363,000.00
900,000.00
225,000.00
25,000.00
100,000.00
1,550,000.00
990,000.00
247,500.00
27,500.00
110,000.00
1,705,000.00
1,089,000.00
272,250.00
30,250.00
121,000.00
1,875,500.00
No maps are provided for agricultural wells as site selection was not within the scope of the
study.
7-9
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.2. Short-Range Projects
Many short-range alternatives were discussed for consideration in the near term. There is
urgency for developing water sources and infrastructure throughout the region. As the
community and the County work to identify funding for Water Master Plan projects, short-range
projects may provide assistance.
1. USGS Exploratory Well
The exploratory well planned for Ocean View should be drilled. The project will help
determine water table elevations and chloride content. This information will be vital to
understanding ground water systems and may determine if the aquifer is high level or
basal water and water salinity. Although the exploratory well is not intended to
determine the sustainable yield of the aquifer and does not provide a comprehensive
water quality evaluation, the well is an important step. Water samples will be taken and
tested for chlorides. The test will also determine the water level in the well.
2. Develop New Standpipe Facility at Hoÿokena
DWS should move forward with developing a new standpipe facility at Hoÿokena; they
are currently researching and investigating an appropriate site. This development is
planned to accommodate commercial water haulers. Estimated Cost is $250,000, not
including site acquisition.
3. Develop New Spigot Site and Facility at Waiÿöhinu
Development of a new permanent spigot at Waiÿöhinu will help the community. DOH
will be funding six permanent water spigots on the Big Island through the use of a
Federal "State and Tribal Appropriation Grant (STAG)". Waiÿöhinu is one of eight sites
being considered. The existing solid waste transfer station in Waiÿöhinu is an excellent
site for this facility. This site is feasible for several reasons: the County owns the
transfer station site; the Waiÿöhinu site is off the highway; spigots are not feasible along
the narrow highway because of the hazards traffic causes; and the sites will be selected
by the Mayor's Office, Civil Defense, and DWS after an Environmental Assessment is
completed.
7-10
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
4. Develop Water Spigot/Standpipe at South Point
The community suggested developing a spigot/standpipe at South Point. This facility
would decrease the traveling distance for residents and water haulers in Ocean View and
South Kona. The South Point water system cannot handle the additional load of a
standpipe at this time. If the water main is replaced or improved a standpipe could be
feasible. Costs were not estimated because the existing South Point system could not
accommodate this project.
5. Replacement or Improvement of South Point Water Main
A moratorium exists in the South Point area that prevents issuing of new water meters.
The moratorium was issued due to the poor condition of the transmission line and the
length of service lines. Although replacement will be costly, DWS will study this option
for the next CIP program. Replacement of the line would remove the moratorium and
allow water meters for existing lots.
Ocean View resident’s open reservoir.
7-11
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.3. Long-Range Alternatives and Costs
Various alternatives, including those elements presented as the Water Master Plan, for meeting
potable and non-potable water demands of the region were considered. Alternatives and costs
include:
Potable Water: Domestic and Commercial
1. Multiple wells at Ocean View and Honomalino
2. South Point pipeline
3. Waiÿöhinu extension
4. South Point well
5. Hoÿokena extension
6. Stand alone well at ÿOpihihale
7. Honomalino connection main
Non-potable Water: Agricultural
8. Multiple wells at Honomalino
9. Demonstration well at Honomalino
10. Brackish water well at Ocean View
11. Mountain House Tunnel pipeline
7.4. Potable Water: Residential and Commerical
7.4.1. Water Source Alternative 1 – Multiple Wells for Ocean View and Honomalino
This alternative consists of development of a series of smaller wells (Approx. 150 GPM) each
with their own reservoirs. A 12-inch main will be added to connect the demand center(s) to
these reservoirs. Wells will be developed at Ocean View and Honomalino. More wells can be
developed depending on water availability and demand. Each well will be pumped at 150 GPM
and will provide enough potable water for 3,000 people. Total cost of this element is
$10,588,105.
The Ocean View wells have the potential to serve the community in the near term and provide
needed benefits. This alternative allows phased development of wells and infrastructure as the
community grows. Approximately, $1.35 million is required to fund the first phase of a test
well. Developing a water source within the community, where demand is located and future
growth is projected, is favorable. This alternative would shorten hauling distances by nearly 20
miles, provide fire protection, and increase the potential for development schools and other
public facilities.
This Regional Master Plan does not propose to finalize selection of a specific site or parcel for
proposed wells. Criteria for selecting well sites are discussed in Section 7.5. This Plan will
present potential well locations and the advantages and disadvantages of sites with respect to
engineering, costs, and community needs.
7-12
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
This study analyzed several options for location of the first Ocean View well. These included
the proposed community center parcel and siting within the highway corridor. The highway
location, near the 2,000-foot elevation, would site the well closer to the Ocean View commercial
area. A well and a reservoir tank could be located near the highway corridor. However, an
additional booster pump would be required to transport water along a 12-inch pipeline to another
reservoir at the 2,180-foot elevation. An additional reservoir would also be required for water
chlorination treatment at the source site. This treatment is required by DWS standards. A
standpipe could be located near the Community Center with a second standpipe located near
Mämalahoa Highway at a location placed for safety and convenience.
Alternative 1 is included as an element of the Water Master Plan.
The location of the first well near the Community Center is desirable for several reasons:
•
Pressure: The reservoir must be located at least 100 feet above the use area in order to
provide fire flow capacity and protection for the commercial area for Ocean View. This
difference in elevation will provide the necessary gravity flow and pressure for adequate
water service.
•
Land: The land is available for water system development, whereas in other areas, a
parcel would have to be purchased.
•
Elevation: The highway corridor elevation requires less drilling in comparison with the
Community Center location. However, along the highway corridor, the basal water lens
is thinner than further inland. The hydrogeologist has recommended well locations at or
above 2,180 feet.
•
Costs: Upgrading power lines to three-phase power from the highway to the Community
Center will be required ($102,850). However, the highway location will require an
additional reservoir and a booster pump ($1,028,500). As shown in Table 7.5 below, the
cost estimate for the Community Center location is more than $500,000 below the cost
for the highway corridor location. See Table 7.5 for more detailed costs.
7-13
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
TABLE 7.5: WELL 1 COST COMPARISON
ITEM
UNIT
Well At Ocean View Community
Center
0.50 MG reservoir @ Cmty. Ctr
Well pump and controls
12” pipe to commercial core
Power line to well
TOTAL
Well Along State Highway
0.50 MG reservoir @ highway
0.50 MG reservoir @ Community
Center
Booster pump & controls (hwy. to
OV Ctr)
12” pipe to Community Center
reservoir
Well pump & controls
Land acquisition cost
TOTAL
FT
FT
MI
FT
FT
QUANTITY
COST ($)
TOTAL ($)
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
1
2,180
1
8,900’
1.7
1
750,000.00
600
225,000.00
125
50,000.00
100,000.00
750,000.00
1,308,000.00
225,000.00
1,112,500.00
85,000.00
100,000.00
3,580,500.00
825,000.00
1,438,800.00
247,500.00
1,223,750.00
93,500.00
110,000.00
3,938,550.00
907,500.00
1,582,680.00
272,250.00
1,346,125.00
102,850.00
121,000.00
4,332,405.00
1
2,000
1
750,000.00
600
750,000.00
750,000.00
1,200,000.00
750,000.00
825,000.00
1,320,000.00
825,000.00
907,500.00
1,452,000.00
907,500.00
1
100,000.00
100,000.00
110,000.00
121,000.00
1
8,900’
100,000.00
125
100,000.00
1,112,500.00
110,000.00
1,223,750.00
121,000.00
1,346,125.00
1
225,000
225,000.00
15,000.00
4,252,500.00
247,500.00
16,500.00
4,677,750.00
272,250.00
18,150.00
5,145,525.00
672,000.00
739,200.00
813,120.00
Difference
A test well is the first step in developing a water source.
7-14
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.4.2. Water Source Alternative 2 – South Point Pipeline
An often-discussed method of serving the Ocean View Community with potable water is to have
water piped from the South Point area, which is located approximately eight miles away from the
Ocean View commercial center. This system would consist of a large capacity (Approx. 450
GPM) source located at the South Point Road junction (at the present location of Well #024001). A standby well is needed for any County-approved system, thus two wells will need to be
constructed at the site. Water will be boosted to a 1.0 MG reservoir located directly mauka to an
elevation of 2,180 feet, and then gravity fed via a 16-inch pipeline a distance of eight miles to
another 1.0 MG reservoir (also at 2,180 feet) at Ocean View.
To supply the
Honomalino-Miloliÿi Area, a 12-inch pipeline will run from Ocean View to a 0.10 MG tank
located at the 1,921-foot elevation approximately 6.6 miles away.
Alternative 2 is not feasible at this time because of the high cost. Moreover, cost estimates
provided do not include fees needed for rights-of-way. Section 7.5 discusses rights-of-way in
more detail. This alternative should be considered only if the wells at Ocean View cannot
produce minimum safe yields of 150 GPM.
As an alternative, piping water in from the South Point location would provide quality water.
This alternative, however, is problematic due to its distance from the demand in Ocean View and
costs associated with the acquiring of right-of-way. For these reason, the Ocean View wells
were selected as the better alternative.
TABLE 7.6: ALTERNATIVE 2 - SINGLE SOURCE WELL WITH TRANSMISSION
ITEM
ELEMENT I
Booster pump, controls and
building
12” pipe to 1.0 MG reservoir
1.0 MG reservoir
16” pipe to Ocean View
SUBTOTAL
ELEMENT II
12” pipe to Honomalino
0.10 MG reservoir
Pressure reducing valve unit
SUBTOTAL
UNIT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
QUANTITY
COST ($)
1480
1480
1
1
1
600
600
200,000.00
200,000.00
400,000.00
4,000
125
2 1,500,000.00
42,000
160
1
100,000.00
34,700
1
1
1
125
300,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE
(ALTERNATIVE 2)
7-15
TOTAL ($)
888,000.00
888,000.00
200,000.00
200,000.00
400,000.00
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
976,800.00
976,800.00
220,000.00
220,000.00
440,000.00
1,074,480.00
1,074,480.00
242,000.00
242,000.00
484,000.00
500,000.00
550,000.00
3,000,000.00 3,300,000.00
6,720,000.00 7,392,000.00
100,000.00
110,000.00
12,896,000.00 14,185,600.00
605,000.00
3,630,000.00
8,131,200.00
121,000.00
15,604,160.00
4,337,500.00
300,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
4,787,500.00
4,771,250.00
330,000.00
110,000.00
55,000.00
5,266,250.00
5,248,375.00
363,000.00
121,000.00
60,500.00
5,792,875.00
17,684,000.00 19,452,400.00
21,397,640.00
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 7.3 – SINGLE SOURCE WELL WITH TRANSMISSION
Phase #1
Phase #2
Waterline
Well
Reservoir
7-16
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.4.3. Transmission Alternative 3 – Waiÿöhinu Extension
The Ocean View community has suggested that development of a closer water source for hauling
is desirable. As many as three standpipes could be installed at the South Point Road to shorten
the hauling distances. The Department of Water Supply has a moratorium on allowing
additional services off of the South Point System. The system consists of a 0.10 MG reservoir at
the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and South Point Road and several miles of 4” transite
(asbestos-cement) pipeline running south along South Point Road. The source of water is
Mountain House Tunnel and Ha’ao Springs. Water is transported to the 0.10 MG reservoir via
3.2 miles of 4” transite pipe. In order for additional services to be allowed on the South Point
Water System, a new source has to be developed and the 4” transite pipes need to be replaced.
The extension of the Waiÿöhinu System to the South Point System would provide water source
for area residents and for water haulers. This extension would consist of 3.5 miles of 12”
pipeline with a 0.10 MG reservoir and booster pump at elevation 1575’, and standpipes at
elevation 1850’. This alternative would shorten hauling distances to nearly half what it is now.
However, the project would not provide fire protection or water resources within the rapidly
growing community of Ocean View. The extension and improvements could significantly
improve water distribution for the South Point area potentially calling for an end to the
moratorium on new water meters.
The community has recently expressed favor for this alternative, particularly because it would
not require a community facilities district. While DWS has plans to develop a new well at
Waiÿöhinu to replace water sources from Mountain House and Hao Springs, their plans do not
currently include any extension to South Point. As a result the new well pump is being sized to
provide water only for existing customers in the Waiÿohinu area. At this time an extension to
South Point is not a priority DWS project. The extension would not guarantee significant water
sales to fund the capital costs required. DWS capital improvement budget is currently spent on
repairing and upgrading existing systems to current EPA and DOH standards.
Table 7.7 estimates construction cost for this extension.
TABLE 7.7: ALTERNATIVE 3 - WAIÿÖHINU EXTENSION
ITEM
UNIT
FT
0.10 MG Reservoir
3 Standpipes
Booster Pump & Controls
TOTAL ESTIMATE (WAIÿÖHINU EXT.)
QUANTITY
COST ($)
18,000
1
3
1
125.00
300,000.00
100,000.00
400,000.00
7-17
TOTAL ($)
2,250,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
3,250,000.00
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
2,475,000.00
330,000.00
330,000.00
440,000.00
3,575,000.00
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
2,722,500.00
363,000.00
363,000.00
484,000.00
3,932,500.00
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 7.4 – WAIÿÖHINU EXTENSION
7-18
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.4.4. Water Source Alternative 4 – South Point Well
This improvement would consist of a 1,950 feet deep well with controls and control building.
This system would consist of a large capacity (Approx. 450 GPM) source located at the South
Point Road near the existing DWS reservoir. Water will be boosted to the existing reservoir.
Water will be transmitted to the standpipe facility via a 12” pipeline to elevation 1850’. This
alternative would provide a new water source for area residents. Similar to Alternative 3, water
haulers would benefit from shorter hauling distances to South Point instead of Näÿälehu. The
project would not provide fire protection for the Ocean View community. Hydrologic analysis
estimates adequate water volume at the South Point location, an area with high level perched
water. A variation of this alternative is to pipe water from the South Point well to Ocean View
described in Alternative 2.
TABLE 7.8: ALTERNATIVE 4 – SOUTH POINT WELL
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
FT
12” pipe to 1.0 MG reservoir
FT
3 Standpipes
TOTAL ESTIMATE (SOUTH PT WELL)
COST ($)
1950
1
2,000
3
600
200,000.00
125
100,000.00
FIGURE 7.5 – SOUTH POINT WELL
7-19
TOTAL ($)
1,170,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
1,920,000.00
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
1,287,000.00
220,000.00
275,000.00
330,000.00
2,112,000.00
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
1,415,700.00
242,000.00
302,500.00
363,000.00
2,323,200.00
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.4.5. Transmission Alternative 5 - Hoÿokena Extension
The Hoÿokena Extension alternative is included as an element of the Draft Water Master Plan.
Adequate water source is located in South Kona that can provide water to the Hoÿokena
community. The “Hoÿokena extension” alternative is preferred because the water source already
exists. DWS will likely not consider this extension a priority item. The relatively small
population (approx. 1,000) is spread over a 10-mile area and the cost of $4.2 million is difficult
to justify at this time. However, DWS, Rules and Regulations (2003) do provide an option for
funding such a project. A Community Development Corporation (CDC) or other private entity
could construct infrastructure improvements.
The Rules allow DWS to make refunds to a “developer” for their investment in main extensions.
The Rules require:
• The main extension is at least eight (8) inches in diameter;
• The main extension is a part of the DWS Overall Master Plan;
• The extension serves the entire general area.
The system would have to be built to County standards to allow for dedication to DWS. In
return, DWS would pay the community up to 70 percent of all revenues generated from water
customers within the project area, after power and production charges are deducted. This
“refund” can be paid to the “developer” for up to five years (DWS, Rules and Regulations, 2003,
page 31).
TABLE 7.9: ALTERNATIVE 5 - HOÿOKENA EXTENSION
ITEM
UNIT
FT
TOTAL ESTIMATE (HOÿOKENA EXT.)
QUANTITY
COST ($)
32,000
2
2
125.00
100,000.00
20,000.00
County improvements to Hoÿokena Beach Park.
7-20
TOTAL ($)
4,000,000.00
200,000.00
40,000.00
4,240,000.00
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
4,400,000.00
220,000.00
44,000.00
4,664,000.00
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
4,840,000.00
242,000.00
48,400.00
5,130,400.00
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
FIGURE 7.6 – HOÿOKENA EXTENSION
7-21
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.4.6. Transmission Alternative 6 – Stand Alone Well for Kaÿohe/ÿOpihihale
As an alternative to the $4.2 million Hoÿokena Extension, a stand alone well could be developed
for the area near ÿOpihihale or Kaÿohe including the Kona Paradise subdivision. The cost is
estimated at over $1.4 million. This system would provide water resources for this concentration
of population without incurring the cost of five miles of transmission from Hoÿokena. According
to hydrologic analysis, a well would have to be located above the highway or at the 1,200-foot
elevation. This alternative would provide a water source for this concentration of residents. This
alternative was not selected as a part of the Draft Master Plan. Although this alternative is
significantly less costly than an extension, it would not serve the population throughout the
district. The extension is preferred because adequate water source exists and a water main would
serve a larger portion of the population.
TABLE 7.10: ALTERNATIVE 6 STAND ALONE WELL FOR ÿOPIHIHALE
ITEM
Well at ÿOpihihale
0.10 MG reservoir @
Kaÿohe/ÿOpihihale
Pump and controls
Power line to well
TOTAL (STAND ALONE WELL)
UNIT QUANTITY
FT
MI
COST ($)
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
TOTAL ($)
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
1 300,000.00
300,000.00
330,000.00
363,000.00
1,200
600
1 225,000.00
0.5 50,000.00
1 100,000.00
1 20,000.00
720,000.00
225,000.00
25,000.00
100,000.00
20,000.00
1,390,000.00
792,000.00
247,500.00
27,500.00
110,000.00
22,000.00
1,529,000.00
871,200.00
272,250.00
30,250.00
121,000.00
24,200.00
1,681,900.00
7.4.7. Transmission Alternative 7 – Ocean View to Honomalino Connection Main
In the future, a 12-inch main could be built from the Ocean View system to the 0.10 MG tank at
Honomalino. When completed, a total of 450 GPM (432,000 GPD) will be supplied by this
system. The 12-inch main between Honomalino and Ocean View will provide supply flexibility
and back-up if the Honomalino well goes off-line. A line booster would be needed if water from
Honomalino is needed at Ocean View. This 12-inch main can also service the gap between
Ocean View and Honomalino when the need arises. This alternative is currently not feasible due
to the high cost, low density of homes, and relatively small population. Should the wells at
Ocean View and Honomalino prove to be dependable sources, this connection may not be
necessary. Instead, funds should be directed to developing more wells and reservoirs.
TABLE 7.11: ALTERNATIVE 7 CONNECTION MAIN
ITEM
12” pipe to Honomalino (per foot)
Pressure reducing valve unit
TOTAL CONNECTION MAIN
UNIT
35,000
1
QUANTITY
125.00
50000.00
7-22
COST ($)
4,375,000.00
50,000.00
4,425,000.00
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
4,812,500.00
55,000.00
4,867,500.00
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
5,293,750.00
60,500.00
5,354,250.00
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.5. Non-Potable Water: Agriculture
7.5.1. Agriculture Alternative 8 – Multiple wells at Honomalino
NRCS, in cooperation with the Honomalino Irrigation Cooperative and the Kona Soil and Water
Conservation District, is developing the South Kona Watershed Irrigation System Preliminary
Feasibility Study. The study determines the viability of developing a suitable irrigation supply
for the South Kona district. The Plan identifies several alternatives for providing water for farms
in a 15,000-acre project area.
Among them is the alternative to develop twelve, high-level wells at the 2,800-foot elevation,
each pumping at 750 GPM. This system would provide up to 80 percent of the water demand for
7,500 acres, approximately 12 MGD. Total cost of the well development and reservoir is
approximately $40 million. The study calculated a benefit/cost ratio of 0.92, based on increased
crop yields and expanded crops. This ratio means that this alternative did not pass the test of
economic feasibility at this point in time.
A demonstration project alternative was also proposed for 500 acres of the area. This alternative
proposes development of one well at the 2,800-foot elevation pumping at 700 GPM. This well
would produce 0.5 MGD of water for irrigation purposes. Existing farm acreage, including 156
acres of macadamia nut fields and 339 acres of coffee, would be serviced by this water system.
Total costs of the well and reservoir for this demonstration project is $5.3 million. Calculations
of the study show that social benefits exceed the costs of the project. The benefit to cost ratio is
1.67. The study concluded that the demonstration project would verify technical and economic
assumptions of the feasibility study and provide data for reassessment of other alternatives.
TABLE 7.12: ALTERNATIVE 8 - SOUTH KONA WATERSHED MULTIPLE WELLS
ITEM
Wells construction cost (12)
Wells pump and controls (12)
1.0 MG Reservoirs
UNIT QUANTITY COST ($)
FT
12 x 2,800
750
12
2 1,000,000
TOTAL ESTIMATE
TOTAL ($)*
29,160,000.00
8,450,000.00
2,400,000.00
40,010,000.00
7-23
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.5.2. Agriculture Alternative 9 – Demonstration Well at Honomalino
This
Master
Plan
supports
development of the South Kona
Irrigation System demonstration
project including a well drilled at the
2,800 feet elevation, with pumping at
700 GPM, and associated reservoir
and distribution (NRCS, 2003). The
system will provide irrigation water
to approximately 500 acres and will
provide data for future expansion of
water systems. The South Kona
Watershed
Irrigation
System
Nursery operations at a lettuce farm.
Preliminary
Feasibility
Study
provided detailed cost estimates for
the project.
TABLE 7.13: AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS – SOUTH KONA IRRIGATION SYSTEM*
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
FT
2,600
COST ($)
308000TOTAL
($)*
750.00
1,950,000.00
1
640,000.00
640,000.00
1.0 MG reservoir
1
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE
3,590,000.00
7.5.3. Agriculture Alternative 10 – Brackish Water Well at Ocean View
In order to prevent depletion of the limited supply of potable ground water, a separate
agricultural water system should be considered. At Ocean View, wells could be drilled below
the highway at an approximate elevation of 1,500 feet, which would likely produce slightly
brackish water. This water can be stored in lined earthen reservoirs for agricultural and fire
fighting requirements. Since the water level at this elevation is estimated to be only 3 to 5 feet
above sea level, over-pumping will result in increased salinity. The recommended pump rate is
150 GPM. The ÿOpihihale Well #1652-01, at the elevation of 1,200 feet, produced fresh water
(220-250 mg/l chloride) at a pumping rate of 115 GPM.
7-24
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
This type of agricultural water system may be able to support small-scale truck farms and is not
intended to support large-scale commercial farming. In this drier area of the island, farming
should be done utilizing water conservation techniques. These could include utilization of
hydroponics, building greenhouses to reduce evaporation, storing rainwater runoff from
greenhouses for agricultural use, etc. Costs for this alternative are illustrated within the Draft
Master Plan. Cost estimates for this project are listed in Table 7.4.
TABLE 7.14: AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM – WELL FOR OCEAN VIEW
ITEM
0.10 MG reservoir @ Ocean View
Pump and controls
Power line to well
TOTAL (OV Agricultural Well)
UNIT QUANTITY
FT
FT
COST ($)
1 300,000.00
1,500
600.00
1 225,000.00
0.5
50,000.00
1 100,000.00
TOTAL ($)
300,000.00
900,000.00
225,000.00
25,000.00
100,000.00
1,550,000.00
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
330,000.00
990,000.00
247,500.00
27,500.00
110,000.00
1,705,000.00
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
363,000.00
1,089,000.00
272,250.00
30,250.00
121,000.00
1,875,500.00
7.5.4. Agriculture Alternative 11 – Mountain House Tunnel Water
The South Point area is presently served with potable water from the Mountain House Tunnel
and the Ha’ao Springs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that
several of the tunnels and springs in Hawaiÿi County were “under the influence of surface water”
and further treatment of this water was required. The EPA Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR) requires that all surface water supplies and ground water supplies found to be under the
direct influence of surface water be treated by a filtration process. The primary purpose of this
regulation is to prevent the outbreak of water-borne diseases caused by giardia or
cryptosporidium, or water-borne enteric viruses.
DWS has determined that obtaining potable water from drilled wells is a more economical
alternative than further treatment of surface water source. To date, EPA has not investigated
Mountain House Tunnel and Ha’ao Springs to determine whether these sources are “under the
influence of surface water” or not. Should these sources be investigated and determined to be
“under the influence of surface water,” DWS may opt to abandon these sources and replace them
with drilled wells. Should this occur, water from these sources may become available for
agricultural use.
7-25
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
The Water Master Plan, Island of Hawaiÿi, DWS, dated December 1980, shows that flow
records taken from Stearns and MacDonald reveal the following data presented in Table 7.11:
TABLE 7.15: WATER FLOW RECORDS
Source
Ha’ao Springs
Mountain House Tunnel
TOTAL
Minimum
0.170mgd
0.193mgd
0.363MGD
Maximum
1.820mgd
6.450mgd
8.270MGD
Average
0.600mgd
1.175mgd
1.775MGD
Source: County of Hawai ÿi, Water Master Plan, 1980.
The 1969-1970 drought records are not included in the above data. DWS has indicated that
during prolonged periods of drought, both sources produced no water.
If water from Mountain House Tunnel and Ha’ao Springs becomes available for agricultural use,
the estimated yields will satisfy approximately 20 percent of the estimated present day
agricultural water requirements. Water from these sources could be used to supplement water
obtained from brackish water wells and to reduce salinity to a level acceptable for agricultural
use. However, cost/benefit should be carefully analyzed before implementing this alternative.
The estimated present agricultural water requirement for the Ocean View – Honomalino area is
over 8 MGD, with the majority of the water being required for the Honomalino area. An
agricultural water system utilizing water from Mountain House Tunnel and Ha’ao Springs would
consist of 8.7 miles of 12-inch polyethylene pipeline from Ha’ao Springs reservoirs (elevation
2,308 feet) to Ocean View; a 1.0 MG lined earthen reservoir (1/3 acre x 10 feet deep) at Ocean
View (elevation 2,000 feet); 6.6 miles of 12-inch polyethylene pipeline from Ocean View to
Honomalino; and a 10.0 MG lined earthen reservoir (3.0 acre x 11 feet deep) at Honomalino
(elevation 1,700 feet). On-site brackish water wells should be constructed to fill these reservoirs.
For safety/security purposes, reservoirs should be fenced with a minimum of 6-foot high fencing.
TABLE 7.16: ALTERNATIVE 10 – MOUNTAIN HOUSE TUNNEL CONNECTION
ITEM
UNIT QUANTITY
12” pipeline to OV
1.0 MG earthen reservoir*
12” pipeline to Honomalino
10 MG earthen reservoir*
Mile
Mile
8.7
1
6.6
1
COST ($)
530,000.00
100,000.00
530,000
1,000,000.00
TOTAL (CONNECTION MAIN)
* Includes security fencing.
7-26
TOTAL ($)
4,611,000.00
100,000.00
3,498,000.00
1,000,000.00
PLUS 10%
SURVEY & DES.
PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCY
5,072,100.00
110,000.00
3,847,800.00
1,100,000.00
5,579,310.00
121,000.00
4,232,580.00
1,210,000.00
9,209,000.00 10,129,900.00
11,142,890.00
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.6. Rights-of-Way, Standards and Materials, and Well Location Criteria
7.6.1. Rights-of-Way
Hawaiÿi Administrative Rules, Title 19, Department of Transportation, Subtitle 4, Highways
Division, Chapter 105, “Accommodation and Installation of Utilities on State Highways and
Federal Aid County Highways,” prescribes policies and procedures for accommodating and
installing utility facilities within the rights-of-way of State highways and Federal-aided County
highways. Water development projects would have to comply with these Rules.
The State of Hawaiÿi, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Right-of-Way Branch
is responsible for the administration of these Rules. Presently, the Right-of-Way Branch reviews
each proposed utility installation on a case-by-case basis. Title 19 of the Hawaiÿi Administrative
Rules can by viewed in its entirety on the following web site:
http://www.state.hi.us/dot/highways/adminrules/w105-1.html.
7.6.2. Hawaiÿi Volcanoes National Park/Kahuku Ranch
The National Park has acquired ownership of the Kahuku Ranch lands. Alternative 2 illustrates
future water lines developed from South Point to Ocean View. If a water main was developed in
these areas, a right-of-way would have to be acquired. NPS handles rights-of-way on a case-bycase basis. Generally, NPS supports development of utility rights-of-way as long as they do not
interfere with park resources. Once a utility service has determined its plans, they may complete
an NPS right-of-way application. This application should include the proposed route and any
design information that is available. Adequate details provided in this step can expedite the NPS
process. This application is reviewed and approved at NPS “Resource Council” meetings. If
approved, the utility service can proceed with the EA process as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
If new or significant facilities are planned, an
Environmental Impact Statement may be required. The NEPA documents will address any
impacts to natural resources, including threatened and endangered species, vegetation,
archaeology, and cultural practices. This NEPA process can be lengthy and requires significant
public review.
7.6.3. Sandwich Isles Communications (SIC) Trenching
Many community members, who were aware of SIC projects, suggested sharing SIC trenches for
fiber optic cable with water lines. This arrangement would reduce the cost of installing water
lines. However, DWS Rules do not allow water system infrastructure to share underground
space with other utilities without costly concrete encasing. Potential complications arise when
different utilities conduct maintenance. If fiber lines are damaged during maintenance, water
services could be required to replace the entire cable line. Repair by splicing is not desirable as
it slows the system speed. The potential for disruption in service and liability, with multiple
services in the same trench, currently outweighs the benefit. This standard may be re-evaluated
and analyzed for feasibility.
7-27
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
In 2000, SIC developed an EA evaluating a fiber optic cable route from Kailua-Kona to South
Point. They are also planning to study an alternative route from Volcano to South Point.
According to SIC, plans for terrestrial trenching and fiber optic cable installation are long-term,
in 10 to 20 years.
7.6.4. Construction Standards and Materials
For the purpose of this study, cost estimates were based on utilizing only County of Hawaiÿi,
DWS-approved materials, in conformance with the Water System Standards (2002). DWS will
not accept a water system that does not utilize their approved materials as specified in the Water
System Standards, State of Hawaiÿi, dated 2002.
Should there be no intention of dedicating the proposed water system to the County of Hawaiÿi,
DWS non-approved products may be utilized. High density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe may be
used in place of ductile iron pipe. The savings in material cost is approximately 15 percent.
However, the cost of installation, which is approximately 80 percent of the total cost, will remain
the same. In the past, DWS has sent out bid requests with the option to use plastic piping.
Nevertheless, contractors preferred steel pipe because of the difficult backfilling that plastic pipe
requires. The convenience of steel pipe installation outweighs material costs. Finally,
experience with use of cheaper materials finds that they require more maintenance.
A significant cost savings can be realized by constructing reservoirs utilizing material other than
concrete. Depending on the type of reservoir constructed, a savings of up to 50 percent may be
realized. Alternate types of reservoirs may be pre-fabricated fiberglass tanks, corrugated
galvanized iron tanks with plastic liners, welded steel tanks, etc. Inexpensive glass-lined
reservoirs are not suitable for Hawaiÿi’s environment due to earthquake susceptibility. The glass
reservoirs are very susceptible to damage during construction. Any repair or maintenance of the
reservoir voids factory warranties. The State of Hawaiÿi, DOH requires that all potable water
storage facilities be totally enclosed and insect proof.
The community has suggested placing waterlines at grade instead of underground to save
trenching costs. According to DWS standards a minimum of three feet of soil material must
cover pipes. Pipelines installed at grade would produce hot water as a result of solar heat.
Pipelines at grade would also not provide security from tapping or tampering.
7-28
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
The Water System Standards (2002)
are prepared by a committee of
representatives from each island.
Proposed changes are approved by
the DWS Manager and Water Board.
The DWS Manager is responsible for
implementing changes with the
assistance of the Engineering Section.
Revised water system standards are
then provided to area contractors.
Technology is fast changing and new
materials are becoming available that
lower costs and increase efficiency.
New development in Ocean View.
This study recommends evaluation of
DWS standards. Although new materials and construction processes may require training, the
overall improved efficiency may warrant change.
7.6.5. Well Location Criteria
The ultimate location of wells will be determined at a future date. Sites must be selected
considering several elements including:
• Elevation: Above 2000-foot elevation
• Future Well Development: Future wells at same elevation
• Urban Core and Pressure: Sufficient elevation and pressure for fire protection of the
urban core
• Power: Power available or upgradeable
• Property: Parcel(s) available for lease
7.7. Water Desalination
Desalination, using reverse osmosis technology, has proven to be effective in several situations
on the Big Island. A well producing water of marginal quality for drinking water can be
improved; however, there is an added water cost in chemicals, energy and the requirement to
have certified water treatment plant operators. An added drawback is handling the concentrate
rejected from the plant. In the proper location, the reject water can be used for irrigation.
For example, where a drilled well, constructed to a depth of 2000’ feet, should tap water of
marginal quality, a reverse osmosis process can be installed to bring the quality into compliance
with EPA Clean Drinking Water standards. The plant can convert the water at an efficiency of
from 65% to 75% recovery. The rejected water, 25% to 35%, must either be disposed of or used
in irrigation to improve the cost effectiveness.
7-29
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7.8. Water Distribution
Plans for water distribution to individual homes are not a part of this regional Master Plan. This
Plan proposes to supplement but will not replace existing catchment systems in the region. The
preferred projects bring water sources for hauling closer to residential communities. The future
of implementing water distribution to homes depends on the community. Based on analysis,
there is adequate water capacity to support residential distribution. The theoretical sustainable
yield illustrates adequate ground water supply. The pumping rates of wells will determine how
much water can be produced for homes.
The community requested estimated costs for water distribution. The costs provided here are
very broad and provide homeowners with a “ball park” figure to consider in water distribution
planning. These costs include water lines, pressure reducing valves, and fire hydrants. Costs do
not include reservoirs or pumps that may be required depending on location.
ESTIMATED WATER DISTRIBUTION COSTS
Average Lot Width
= 125 ft.
125’ @ $100
= $12,500
$12,500.00/2 lots per 125 feet = $ 6,250
TOTAL COST/LOT FOR DISTRIBUTION = $6,250
7-30
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
8. WATER SYSTEM FINANCING STRATEGY
Various Federal, State, and County of Hawaiÿi funding programs were researched and analyzed.
There are several grant and loan programs that can potentially provide funds for water systems
serving the public. Each program has its unique rules and regulations. This report will
summarize these programs and their applicability to the Kaÿu to South Kona Water Master Plan.
The most significant limitation of available funding programs is the absence of grant or loan
programs for test well drilling. None of the programs researched provide funds for infrastructure
until a test well has been successfully installed and pumped.
The details of these programs are complicated and involve many regulations and requirements.
The specific terms of these grants and loans will vary depending on the demographics of the
community, interest rates, and changes in law. As a result, this study cannot provide in-depth
financial calculations for these programs. Such details should be developed as a part of future
application processes.
8.1. County of Hawaiÿi
The County of Hawaiÿi has several programs that can assist communities in identifying and
securing funds for infrastructure improvements. These programs are quite complex and require
case-by-case negotiation with property owners, the community, DWS, County Council, and
County staff. The program requirements are summarized here for consideration.
Community Facilities Districts (CFD) (Hawaiÿi County Code, Chap. 32)
The OVCDC attempted to develop a CFD in 2001. The Corporation was not able to obtain the
required 25 percent of signatures of HOVE property owners.
•
•
•
What: Special tax levied for improvements with a lien on property.
How:
o Resolution by County Council for study.
o Council adopts ordinance to accept.
Requires:
o Petition with signatures of 25 percent of area landowners.
o The assessed value of land in the CFD must be at least twice the cost of
improvements.
8-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Improvements by Assessment (ID) (Hawaiÿi County Code, Chap. 12)
This type of district has been formed and implemented for water distribution improvements at
Kona Coast View and Wonder View subdivisions in North Kona.
•
•
•
What: Assessed fee for improvements with lien on property.
How:
o Resolution by County Council for study.
o Council adopts ordinance to accept.
Requires:
o Petition with signatures of 60 percent of owners OR 20 percent of owners and 50
percent of residents.
o The assessed value of land in the ID must be at least twice the cost of improvements.
Formation of a Community Improvement District (CID) first and foremost requires a strong
commitment from the community. The possibility of forming a CID in Ocean View is not a
straight forward process. This plan proposes use of the Community Improvement District
mechanism for well development. Other County Improvement District projects have developed
water distribution systems to individual homes. In comparison, the Ocean View well project
would develop a water resource and has the potential to serve a wider range of people.
Identifying who these “customers” are and who should ultimately pay is crucial in defining the
district boundaries. For these reasons, there are many possibilities and organizational options
that this Plan cannot answer. The only way to get answers is to begin the process of developing
the CID.
Important issues that will need clarification through formation of the CID include:
•
•
Can the community get the necessary support to develop the CID?
What geographic area will be used to define the “district”? All 12,000 lots of Ocean
View? A smaller area of the subdivision around the proposed well and commercial
center? Other alternatives?
•
Are there maximum or minimum limits to the number of “units” in a district?
•
How will water resources be made available ONLY to Improvement District
participants?
•
Do all landowners in the defined “district” pay for the service?
landowners pay the same as commercial businesses?
8-2
Do residential
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
8.2. State of Hawaiÿi
The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to make funds available to drinking water systems to finance
infrastructure improvements. The program also emphasizes providing funds to small and
disadvantaged communities and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for
ensuring safe drinking water.
State of Hawaiÿi, DOH receives approximately $7 to 8 million of Federal funds from the EPA
each year. About 70 percent of this funding is available to applicants through low interest loans
from the DWSRF Loan Fund. Loans to eligible projects will be based on current commercial
lending practices. The terms of the loans cannot exceed twenty years. The intent of the DWSRF
is to assist water systems in constructing the infrastructure needed to address current and future
compliance problems.
The statute allows for both public and private applicants; however, there currently is no
mechanism to assist private projects. Anyone can apply for State Drinking Water funds as long
as they can show that they can technically, financially, and managerially maintain and operate
the facilities and be in compliance with all State and Federal water quality standards. DOH
anticipates that a private applicant would wait years unless they assist in the development of a
new process for private applicants.
DOH is currently reviewing the feasibility of implementing a linked deposit or other program to
assist privately owned Public Water Systems. In 2002, DOH submitted a bill to the State
Legislature to establish a linked deposit program. The bill allows DOH to provide interest rate
subsidies by depositing revolving fund monies into interest-bearing accounts at participating
financial institutions that would in turn issue loans to public water systems for implementation of
projects under the DWSRF program. The bill was passed on April 30, 2002. However, the
process has not been implemented. Banks would be required to invest large amounts of time and
effort with little or no compensation. The linked deposit program is not economically profitable
for banks and, as a result, participation has not occurred. Without the participation of lenders,
the program will not work.
The County of Hawaiÿi DWS has applied for these funds on many occasions for well projects.
Most of DWS well projects are at least partially funded by the revolving fund. Requirements
include:
• Water system development must be classified as “improvements.”
• Projects can only be sized for existing population and “reasonable growth” over the life
of the facility.
• Adequate technical, managerial, and financial capability is required to assure loan
compliance.
8-3
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Details of applications, requirements, and terms would have to be developed through
collaboration with local State DWSRF Office, DOH Fiscal Office, DWS, and community. The
nature of the DWSRF program and applicability for private groups is still very uncertain.
8.3. Rural Development, USDA
The Rural Utilities Water and Waste
Disposal Loan and Grant Program is
administered by the Rural Development
Agency of the USDA.
The Rural
Development program provides low interest
loans and grants.
This program can provide funding for as much as 40 to 75 percent of the capital costs. This
funding source cannot be used for test well drilling but can be used in development of the
production well. The program has several types of grants and loans including:
Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans
•
Direct loans are made for development of water and wastewater system, including solid
waste disposal and storm drainage.
•
•
Loans are for rural areas and cities and towns with a population of 10,000 or less.
Funds are available to public entities, such as counties and special-purpose districts.
•
Priority is given to public entities, in areas with less than 5,500 people, to restore a
deteriorating water supply, or to improve, enlarge, or modify a water facility or an
inadequate waste disposal facility.
•
Applicants must be unable to obtain funds from other sources at reasonable rates and
terms. The maximum term for all loans is 35 years.
Water and Waste Disposal Guaranteed Loans
•
•
Guaranteed loans may be made for the same purpose as direct loans.
Loans are made and serviced by lenders such as banks and savings and loan associations.
•
Loan guarantees may be available for up to 90 percent of any eligible loss incurred by the
lender.
•
Lenders pay a 1 percent guarantee fee, which may be passed on to the loan recipient.
8-4
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Water and Waste Disposal Grants
•
Grants reduce water and waste disposal costs to a reasonable level for users of the
system.
•
Eligible applicants are the same as for loans.
•
They may cover a maximum of 75 percent of eligible facility development costs.
In order to receive assistance applicants must:
•
Be unable to obtain needed funds from commercial sources at reasonable rates and terms;
•
Have the legal capacity to borrow and to repay loans, to pledge security for loans, and to
operate and maintain the facilities;
•
Propose facilities that are consistent with any development plans of the State,
multi-jurisdictional area, counties, or municipalities where the project is to be located. All
facilities must comply with Federal, State, and local laws, including those involving zoning
regulations, health and sanitation standards, and water pollution control.
Loan and grant funds provided by Rural Development may be used to:
•
Construct, repair, modify, expand, or otherwise improve water supply and distribution
systems and waste collection and treatment systems, including storm drainage and solid
waste disposal facilities. Certain other costs related to development of the facility may also
be covered.
•
Acquire needed land, water sources, and water rights.
•
Pay costs such as legal and engineering fees when necessary to develop the facilities.
Loan terms specify a maximum repayment period of 40 years. However, the repayment period
cannot exceed the useful life of the facilities financed or any statutory limitation on the applicant’s
borrowing authority. Three interest rates are used. They are set periodically based on an index of
current market yields for municipal obligations. Borrowers may choose the interest rate in effect on
the date of loan approval or on the date of loan closing. Loans are secured so as to adequately
protect the Federal government’s interest. Bonds or notes pledging taxes, assessments, or revenues
may be accepted if they meet statutory requirements. A mortgage or other lien may also be taken
on the applicant’s property when State laws permit.
The “poverty interest rate” is currently 4.5 percent. The poverty rate applies when the primary
purpose of the loan is to upgrade existing facilities or construct new facilities required to meet
applicable health or sanitary standards. It also applies to service areas where the median household
income (MHI) is below the poverty line for a family of four.
8-5
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
The market rate is set quarterly based on the average of the “Bond Buyer” 11-Bond Index over a
four-week period prior to the beginning of the quarter. The intermediate interest rate is the poverty
rate plus half of the difference between the poverty rate and the market rate, but not to exceed 7
percent. It applies to loans that do not meet the criteria for either the poverty rate or the market rate.
A Community Development Corporation cannot incur the debt. As a result, it is likely that the
community would have to partner with the County of Hawaiÿi DWS in order to incur the
development debt. Rural Development lists the Hawaiÿi poverty line at $21,160 a year for 2003.
The median income of the Kaÿu district was $29,466 in 2000.
8.4.
U.S. Department of Interior
The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation has recently initiated Water 2025. The
program is committed to addressing water supply challenges throughout the U.S. The program is
not a funding mechanism, but an administration that facilitates water projects. The project is still
very new and requires that potential applicants consider the following elements in planning:
•
Conservation
•
Efficiency
•
Collaboration
•
Improved technology
•
Interagency coordination.
The project is still being developed and requires work with members of the U.S. Senate and
House. Water 2025 may provide some opportunity for Hawaiÿi; however; this would require
competition with other states experiencing extreme droughts and water shortages.
8.5. Rural Community Assistance Corporation
The Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) is a nonprofit organization that helps rural communities in 13 western
states including Hawaiÿi. They help develop partnerships,
advocate for small communities and develop capacity. RCAC
provides assistance for upgrading water, wastewater, or solid
waste operations and management.
They help finance
environmental infrastructure and community facilities in rural
communities. RCAC also provides training and technical
assistance for operators, managers and utility board members.
8-6
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Safe drinking water and sanitary disposal systems are a high priority for a healthy rural economy.
The types of projects financed include water and wastewater treatment facilities. Long-term
loans are made in communities with a population of 20,000 or fewer. The Community facility
loan guarantee program from U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development enables RCAC
to make low-interest loans with amortization periods of up to 25 years. More information and
current application forms are available at www.rcac.org
8.6. Case Study: Kona Coast View/Wonder View Improvement District
The County has approved the formation of an Improvement District to provide a public water
system for the Kona Coastview and Kona Wonderview subdivisions in a collaborative effort
with USDA Rural Development and DWS. The total cost of the system is estimated at
approximately $6.1 million. USDA has agreed to finance approximately $1.8 million of this
amount in the form of a grant. The remaining $4.3 million will be financed through a
combination of loans from USDA and DWS. These will consist of: (a) two USDA loans
totaling approximately $3.7 million, which will have a 35-year loan term; and (b) an additional
loan from DWS in the amount of approximately $600,000, which will have a 5- to 6-year term.
All three loans will bear interest at rates below 5 percent. Each loan will be secured by a bond
issued by the County for the Improvement District.
The $4.3 million of project costs (net of grant funding) will be paid by property owners within
the Improvement District through special assessments levied on their lots or condominium units
(referred to as “assessment units”). There are 437 assessment units in the District, each of which
will be assessed for an equal share of the net project costs (approximately $9,700 per unit).
Property owners will be permitted to pay this special assessment in a lump sum or in monthly
installments representing their proportionate shares of the USDA and DWS loans. Monthly
installments are expected to be approximately $66 per assessment unit until the DWS loan is
retired, then decline to approximately $43 per unit for the balance of the USDA loan term. Table
8.1 below provides some financial highlights regarding the Kona Coastview/Wonderview
Improvement District.
8-7
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
TABLE 8.1: KONA COASTVIEW/WONDERVIEW
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Total Project Costs
(Less) USDA Grant
Net Project Costs
$6,060,000
1,823,600
$4,236,400
USDA Loans
DWS Loan
Total Loans
$3,696,400
540,000
$4,236,400
ID Assessment Units
Net Project Cost Per Unit
Monthly Assessment
(yrs. 1 - 6/yrs. 7 – 35)
437
$9,695
$66/43
The Kona Coastview/Wonderview experience underscores
the importance of cooperation among residents and
landowners in the process of initiating and establishing an
A cohesive, well-informed
community can help to facilitate the process, identify key
issues and concerns, and shape critical decisions regarding
the project. To ensure this type of community involvement,
the County played a major role in keeping the residents
apprised of relevant infrastructure and financing details
throughout the process.
The process also benefited significantly from the
cooperation between government and community. The
County, DWS, and USDA all showed strong commitment
to the project, and were highly responsive to the
community’s needs and concerns. Community commitment Water well rig in Hawaiÿi
and cooperation with government were also evident as
various issues were addressed with the community in the
course of developing the project plans and establishing the
8-8
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
8.7. Financing: Capital Costs
8.7.1. Test Wells
Construction costs for the first test well at Ocean View are estimated to be nearly $1.6 million.
The estimate includes costs for land surveys, design, and contingencies. As a part of this Water
Master Plan project, $250,000 was reserved for funding the first phase of implementation.
Approximately $160,000 of the $250,000 could be used for land surveys, design, and if required,
land acquisition. The balance of funds required for a test well, approximately $1,440,000 must
be found in order to move forward with this phase of water source development at Ocean View.
Funding for test wells is extremely limited. Once a test well is completed and reliable quality
water is identified, many sources of funding then become available. While the test well may be
difficult to fund, future development and funding resources are contingent upon its success.
There are two options for funding the cost of the test well:
1. Source: State of Hawaiÿi
•
State legislation must be introduced
•
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Allocation
2. Private Funds
$1.44 million/OV population of 3,000 = $480.00/person
$1.44 million/OV homeowners 1,000 = $1,440.00/homeowner
The balance of funding required for a test well can only be secured from private or State funds.
The hope is that new State Legislation can allocate funds for this phase of water development.
Legislators in the region will have to introduce a bill presenting this Water Master Plan and the
request for funding. Support from the Governor will be essential in assuring that any allocated
funds are actually released.
8.7.2. Production Well and Reservoir
Costs for development of a production well and reservoir is estimated at $2.75 million. A
combination of grants and low interest loans are potentially available for this phase of well
development. Distribution to approximately 500 homes is estimated to cost $6,250 for each
home, a total of $3.125, not including additional reservoirs and pumps.
Eligibility and allocation of funds is based on the median household income of residents. The
loan terms of the Rural Development program are attractive with a maximum term of 35 years at
a current interest rate of 4.5 to 5 percent. The grant maximum is 75% of costs. The Rural
Development 2003 allocation for the State of Hawaiÿi was $4 million for loans and $2.1 million
in grants.
8-9
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Table 8.2 presents potential funding if the community qualified for grants and loans at terms
similar to those received by the Coast View/Wonder View project. Under these terms, residents
in a CFD or ID would pay back approximately $1.23 million. The cost to residents would
depend on the size of the district. The proposed pumping rate of the well would provide 300,000
gallons of water per day. Assuming that water haulers would use 100,000 gallons per day for
other customers, 200,000 GPD would remain for piped distribution to homes.
A standard usage rate for households with distribution is 400 GPD. At least 500 homes could be
adequately served with estimated well production rates. Table 8.2 presents financial data
assuming an improvement district with 500 units, resulting in a monthly payment of $15.27.
Financial details would be negotiated with the community, DWS, and County of Hawaiÿi
Corporation Counsel and Finance Department.
Table 8.3 presents financial data for distribution to 500 homes at $18.50. Together well
development and distribution totals a monthly payment of $33.77 not including charges for
actual water. At current DWS rates 4,000 gallons of water would cost approximately $25.00. As
other districts are developed, the well development cost could be shared to include all who
benefit from it. An average home now pays $140 a month for 4,000 gallons of hauled water
versus an estimated $59 for well development, distribution, and water costs.
TABLE 8.2: PRODUCTION WELL
Item
RUS Grant (45%)
RUS Loan (55%)
TOTAL COST
ID Units
Capital Cost Per Unit
Cost Per Unit*
Monthly Payment
TABLE 8.3: DISTRIBUTION TO HOMES
Item
RUS Grant (45%)
RUS Loan (55%)
TOTAL COST
1,237,500
1,512,500
2,750,000
500
$3,025.00
$6,412.09
ID Units
Capital Cost Per Unit
Cost Per Unit*
Monthly Payment
$15.27
* Assuming interest rate of 5% for 35 years.
8-10
1,406,000
1,719,000
3,125,000
500
$3,438
$7,773
$18.50
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
8.8. Financing: Operations and Maintenance Costs
The feasibility of developing water sources and infrastructure is affected by costs. Can water
sales revenues adequately fund operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of the proposed Ocean
View well and the Hoÿokena extension? Detailed calculations were developed to study this issue
and are located in Appendix G.
8.8.1. Ocean View Wells
Several scenarios were considered in calculating expected water sales revenues and projected
O&M costs. For the Ocean View well a first scenario based expected revenues on the amount of
water hauled from Näÿälehu in 2003. The second scenario based calculations on a demand of 40
GPD per person. All revenue estimates used DWS water hauling rates effective July 2004.
Operations costs were based on both DWS systems O&M and projected costs from Well Source
Report for Ocean View (1997).
Assumptions for the Ocean View system and financing include:
•
2" water meters for water haulers
•
5 water haulers
Calculations illustrate that projected water sales revenues would be slightly lower than the O&M
costs. However, the amounts are within a couple thousand dollars of one another. Based on the
assumptions of this study water sales revenues would likely cover operations and maintenance of
the well.
TABLE 8.4: OCEAN VIEW WELL
PROJECTED WATER REVENUES/O&M
Scenario 1
Water Use
31,000,000 gal/year
Revenues
$98,000/year
O & M Costs $97,000/year
Scenario 2
Water Use
43,800,000 gal/year
Revenue
$133,000/year
O & M Costs $137,000/year
8-11
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
8.8.2. Hoÿokena Extension
Capital costs and O&M costs were calculated for the Hoÿokena extension. Development of a
water line along the highway would create the opportunity for adjacent landowners to connect to
water service. However, there is no guarantee that landowners will connect to and use services.
The first scenario for the extension based expected revenues on 100 customers, the number of
homes located along the six miles stretch of waterline. The second scenario based calculations
on 435 customers assuming that the Kona Paradise subdivision of 335 parcels would develop
infrastructure to distribute water to their homes.
Assumptions for the Hoÿokena extension and financing include:
• Capital cost (6 miles of 8”) = $5,130,400
• 5/8" water meters for customers
• 20 year loan @ 5.5% interest
• Water use =400 gpd/household
The calculations show that water sales revenue from both scenarios would not adequately cover
the debt service, capital costs, and O&M costs associated with the six mile extension. This plan
estimates that at least 1,057 customers would be required to generate revenues to cover costs.
There are approximately 373 parcels within the vicinity of the proposed water line that are
developed with buildings. An additional 686 existing lots within the area could be developed
with at least one structure. Higher densities of development would only be allowed with a
change in land use. While it is likely that residential growth in next 20 years will provide more
potential customers, the conclusion is that existing and near-term projected connections will not
pay for the extension. Based on existing lots and existing County zoning it would be difficult for
DWS to justify allocation of design/construction funds this project. Thus, the future extension
will need to rely on future development changes and initiatives of land owners. It would be
prudent to begin planning for the Hoÿokena extension when water customer connections can
adequately finance the project.
TABLE 8.5: HOOKENA EXTENSION
PROJECTED WATER REVENUE/O&M
Scenario 1 100 customers
Water Use 14,600,000 gal/year O & M Costs $30,000/year
Debt Service $424,000/year
Revenues $52,000/year
Total Cost
$454,000/year
Scenario 2 435 customers
Water Use 63,510,000 gal/year O & M Costs $128,000/year
Debt Service $424,000/year
Revenues $227,000/year
Total Cost
$552,000/year
8-12
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
8.9. Next Steps
Implementation of Water Master Plan projects for the Kaÿu to South Kona region will require the
cooperative efforts of the community and government at both the State and County levels. The
following actions are recommended in order to facilitate the funding, design, and construction of
these projects:
1. Basic Financing Structure. The basic financing structure for the Water Master Plan projects
should be identified at an early stage in order to ensure that subsequent actions are consistent
with the desired structure. Based on the nature of the projects and the needs of the
communities to be served, consideration should be given to the following structural
components:
•
Formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) or Improvement District (ID).
Either type of District would: (a) enable the County to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance
the projects, thereby producing interest cost savings that can be passed back to the
property owners; and (b) provide for the project costs (including debt service on bonds to
finance the projects) to be paid by the owners of properties that benefit from the projects.
The choice between a CFD or ID can be made at a later stage as discussed below.
•
Exploring Availability of Governmental Loan Programs. Bonds to finance the projects
can either be sold to private investors or issued to a governmental agency to secure
repayment of project loans obtained under a water utilities loan program sponsored by the
agency. The availability of governmental loan funds should be explored because this
type of funding can offer significant benefits as discussed below. If such funding is
available, the specific requirements of the relevant governmental program would need to
be incorporated into actions taken in the project planning and design stages, as well as the
actual financing stage.
2. Interim Funding Decisions. The County and community need to determine how to expend
the remaining $250,000 from this plan. There are several issues to consider in deciding how
to use these funds. More specifically, can planning/engineering products be helpful in
attaining future State funding? Can other additional work be completed now to facilitate
action? Alternatives include:
•
Use some of the $250,000 for topographic survey, engineering design, and environmental
assessment of the test well. Completion of these steps may strengthen the possibility of
receiving future State funding. Products of this Master Plan, the topographic survey, and
engineering design may help with funding needed for test well drilling. The products
also demonstrate County and community commitment to developing a water resource in
the area.
8-13
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
•
Use some of the cash to fund activities described below (including, for example, any
surveys, polls, interviews, or informational meetings to identify the views of the
community).
•
Use a portion of the funds for hiring legal or financial consultants to assist in the CFD or
ID process. Coordination with community and government will be required to resolve
the details of district boundaries and units, loans and bonds, and project implementation.
3. Test Well Site. The County and the Community also need to confirm the selection of the
Ocean View test well site.
4. Funding for Test Well. As previously discussed (in Section 8.7 above), it is hoped that the
State legislature will appropriate funds for the costs of the test well for the Water Master Plan
projects. Since the alternative of obtaining private funding, although possible, is likely to be
difficult, the County should focus its efforts on State funding for the test well. Due to the
critical importance of funding for the test well, contact should be made with key legislators
well in advance of the legislative session in order to familiarize them with the projects and
obtain their support for legislation to fund the test well. Steps should also be taken to
establish appropriate channels of communication and other means of ensuring that the
progress of this legislation is properly monitored during the legislative session, and to
identify and address the need for legislative testimony or other actions in support of the
legislation during the course of the session.
5. Consideration of Community Views. It is important to obtain a clear sense of community
support or opposition for the projects early enough for this information to be used in
identifying and prioritizing project components and evaluating the likelihood of opposition
by property owners before substantial costs are incurred. In addition, information on positive
views of the community may provide helpful support for any proposed legislation to fund the
costs of the test well. There are numerous methods of obtaining the views of the community,
including any (or a combination) of the following: written surveys, telephonic polls,
individual interviews, or public informational meetings. The following considerations should
be noted:
•
If surveys, polls or interviews are used, it would probably be advisable to retain a
professional consultant to develop the sampling technique, questions, and procedure to be
used so as to ensure the validity of the results.
8-14
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
•
Public informational meetings can be effective in communicating the key components of
highly technical projects to the public and providing the type of open forum that
encourages participation and provides valuable insights into the strength of public
opinion and the reasoning behind the opinions expressed.
•
It may be necessary to test the level of community support for the Water Master Plan
projects more than once. Unless the issue is already clear, it would seem appropriate to
test the basic level of support for the projects (at least in concept) before proceeding with
the test well. However, the level of community support may change after the test well is
completed, since the test well results must be obtained and analyzed in order for the
project components to be identified more definitively and for the total project costs to be
estimated.
6. Analysis of Test Well Results; Identification of Project Components. The test well results
will be used to determine the volume of quality water that can be produced from a production
well at the site. This, in turn, will affect the components to be included in the projects and
the potential phasing of future projects and components. For example, under the multiple
well scenario described in Section 7.1.1 above, the potential Well 1 system includes a 150
GPM production well, 0.5 MG reservoir, and transmission line to the Ocean View
Commercial Area. Under this scenario, depending on the production volume indicated by
the test well:
•
If the indicated volume is lower than expected, it may be necessary to reduce the scope
of the Well 1 system project. The feasibility of the project may need to be reassessed if
this reduces the number of properties served below the critical mass necessary to make
the project affordable.
•
If the indicated volume is higher than expected, it may be possible to expand the scope
of the project to reach a larger area and potentially enhance the affordability of the
project by spreading the project costs over a greater number of properties. Depending
on the demand for service, this could be implemented as part of the original project or
on a phased basis.
DWS will need to be directly involved in this process to ensure that the projects comply with its
standards so that they can be operated as part of the DWS system upon completion.
8-15
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
7. Formation of CFD or ID. After the project components have been identified sufficiently for
planning purposes, the County will be in a position to proceed with formation of a CFD or ID
to finance the Water Master Plan projects. This will involve the following considerations:
•
Either type of District (CFD or ID) could be used for the Water Master Plan projects.
The decision should be made when sufficient information regarding the project plans is
available to determine which type of District presents any distinct advantages or
disadvantages for the specific circumstances pertaining to the projects. As part of this
determination, Chapters 12 and 32 of the Hawaiÿi County Code (relating to the two types
of Districts), should also be analyzed to determine whether they present any impediments
to the formation of the District or the financing of the projects and, if so, whether such
impediments can be removed by appropriate amendments to these Code Chapters.
•
The process of forming a proposed CFD or ID must be initiated by action of the Council.
The Council may do so either on its own initiative or if petitioned by a specified
percentage of property owners within the proposed District.
•
In order to form the District, the Council will need to define the boundaries of the District
and the basis for project costs to be assessed against properties served. Key
considerations would include the following:
o The boundaries of the District should be defined on the basis of the properties served
by the projects. The District should include properties that have access to water
distribution lines constructed as part of the projects. Therefore, the boundary is most
easily defined with water distribution. While a CFD or ID can be developed for a
water source without distribution, defining units served would be much more
difficult. Government and community would have to work together to determine and
agree which units are served and ultimately are part of the district.
o If project components are implemented on a phased basis, it may be appropriate to
define the District initially to include the properties served by the first phase well and
reservoir and provide for the annexation of additional properties as subsequent project
phases are implemented.
o This Water Master Plan contemplates the potential implementation of multiple well
system projects. A determination will need to be made as to whether these projects
should be financed through the formation of a single District or multiple Districts.
8-16
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
One of the key factors will be the extent to which the areas served by these projects
will share in the use and benefits of each other’s infrastructure.
o A special assessment will be levied on properties within the District for their share of
the project costs. These special assessments should be levied on a basis that bears a
reasonable relationship to the benefits received from the project. Based on the nature
of the projects, it would seem appropriate to levy these special assessments on a per
parcel basis.
•
A public hearing (or hearings) for the CFD or ID will need to be held before the
formation of the District can be finally approved by the County Council. The project
plans and cost estimates will need to be firmed up sufficiently to be presented at the
hearing(s) and properly reflected in the Council’s final approval.
8. Bond Financing Alternatives. Once the District is formed, the County will be in a position to
proceed with a bond issue for the projects as follows:
•
The bonds can be issued either as special assessment revenue bonds or as reimbursable
general obligation bonds:
o Special assessment revenue bonds are payable solely from the special assessments
levied on properties included in the District. The County pledges these special
assessments to the bondholder, but is not liable for any shortfalls in the assessment
collections. The risk of a shortfall typically results in a higher interest rate (as
compared to reimbursable general obligation bonds) and may make the bonds more
difficult to market, depending on market conditions and the existence of various
factors that could adversely affect the property owners’ abilities to pay.
o Reimbursable general obligations are backed by a pledge of the full faith and credit of
the County (i.e., the County’s general fund and full taxing power), but payments on
such bonds are subject to reimbursement from the special assessments levied against
properties included in the District. The pledge of the County’s full faith and credit
enhances the marketability of the bonds and helps to reduce the bond interest rate.
However, it also means that the County is liable for bond payments whether or not the
special assessment collections are sufficient to reimburse the County in full.
8-17
County of Hawaiÿi
•
Final Report
September 2004
As previously discussed, the County should explore the availability of funding under
governmental loan programs in view of the potential benefits that can result from this
type of funding. In the case of the Kona Coastview/Wonderview project, for example:
(a) the County was able to obtain USDA loans for the project at very favorable rates; (b)
the County will not have to incur the marketing costs, which would otherwise be required
if the bonds were to be sold to private investors, by issuing its bonds directly to the
USDA to secure these project loans; and (c) the USDA loan program is coupled with a
grant program under which the USDA is making a substantial grant for the project. If
such governmental funding is not available, the County would need to develop alternative
plans to market its bonds to private investors.
8-18
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
9. REFERENCES
American Water Works Association, 2003.
Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone, 2002.
Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM), 1990.
County of Hawaiÿi, Draft Revised General Plan, 2001.
County of Hawaiÿi, Civil Defense Agency, Interim Plan: Hazard Mitigation Plan: Natural
Hazard, in coordination with the Planning Department and Department of Data Systems
with assistance from consultants Dr. George Curtis and Planner Brian Nishimura,
October 2003.
County of Hawaiÿi, Department of Water Supply, Environmental Report Kona Coastview /
Wonder View Subdivision, 2003.
County of Hawaiÿi, Department of Water Supply, Rules and Regulations, 2003.
County of Hawaiÿi, Department of Water Supply, Water Conservation Notice, Affected Areas:
North and South Kona, May 29, 2003.
County of Hawaiÿi, Department of Water Supply, Water Conservation Notice, Affected Areas:
Pahala Village, Kaÿu and Näÿälehu to Waiÿöhinu, Ka'u, March 28, 2003
County of Hawaiÿi, Department of Water Supply, Water Master Plan, Island of Hawaiÿi,
December 1980.
County of Hawaiÿi, Office of the Mayor, Proclamation, (emergency proclamation for the
Department of Water Supply), July 1, 2003.
Daly, Christopher, R. P.Neilson, and D. L. Phillips, “A Statistical-Topographic Model for
Mapping Climatological Precipitation Over Mountainous Terrain,” Journal of Applied
Meteorology, v. 33, no. 2, 1994, pp. 140-158.
Ekern, P. C. and J. H. Chang, Pan Evaporation: State of Hawaiÿi, 1894-1983: State of Hawaiÿi,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and Land Development,
Report R74, 1985, p. 171.
Giambelluca, T. W., Water Balance of the Pearl Harbor-Honolulu Basin, Hawaiÿi, 1946-1975:
Honolulu, Hawaiÿi, University of Hawaiÿi Water Resources Research Center Technical
Report 151, 1983, p. 151.
9-1
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
Giambelluca, T. W., M. A. Nullet, and T. A. Schroeder, Rainfall Atlas of Hawaiÿi: State of
Hawaiÿi, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and Land
Development, Report R76, 1986, p. 267.
Grunow, J., “Productiveness of Fog Precipitation in Relation to the Cloud Drop Spectrum,”
Proceedings of Cloud Physics Conference, 1960, pp. 104-09.
Handy and Handy, Native Planters. 1991.
Huffman and Oberossler, (Ocean View rainfall data), 1974-2002.
Juvik, J. O. and P. C. Ekern, A Climatology of Mountain Fog on Mauna Loa, Hawaiÿi:
Report 118, 1978, p. 63.
Juvik, J. O. and Dennis Nullet, “Relationships Between Rainfall, Cloud-Water Interception, and
Canopy Through-Fall in a Hawaiian Montane Forest,” in Hamilton, L.S., J. O. Juvik, and
F. N. Scatena, (eds.), Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1995, pp. 165-182.
Macomber, Patricia S. H., Guidelines on Rainwater Catchment Systems for Hawaiÿi, 2001
McKnight, J. H. and J. O. Juvik, Methodological Approaches in Hawaiian Fog Research:
Report 85, 1975, p. 34.
Ocean View Community Association, A Vision for Ocean View, Managing Information with
Rural America (MIRA), 1999.
Sato, H. H., W. S. Ikeda, R. T. Paeth, R. S. Smythe, Minoru Takehiro, Jr., Soil survey of Island
of Hawaiÿi, State of Hawaiÿi, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
1973, p. 115.
State of Hawaiÿi, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, Data Book,
2002.
State of Hawaiÿi Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, Data Book,
2003.
State of Hawaiÿi, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Report to The Twenty-First
Legislature, 2002 Regular Session, Requesting Further Action on the Designation of a
State Recreational and Historic Park and Nature Reserve at Kapu‘a, Honomalino, Okoe,
Kaulanamauna, and Manukä, Districts of South Kona and Ka‘u, Island of Hawai‘i,
December 2001.
9-2
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
State of Hawaiÿi, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Commission on Water Resource
Management, Report to the Twenty-Second Legislature, State of Hawaiÿi, 2003, In
Compliance With Sections 340e-31 Through 340e-41, Hawaiÿi Revised Statutes, Relating
to the Drinking Water Treatment Revolving Loan Fund of the Department of Health
Statewide Framework for Updating the Hawaiÿi Water Plan, February 2000.
Management, State Water Projects Plan, Hawaiÿi Water Plan, volume 2, Island of
Hawaiÿi, February 2003.
Management, Water Resources Protection Plan, Volume II, Hawaiÿi Water Plan, 1990.
Management, Hawaiÿi Drought Council, Hawaiÿi Drought Plan, Phase 1, August 25,
2000.
Management, Hawaiÿi Drought Council, Hawaiÿi Drought Plan, 2002.
State of Hawaiÿi, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiÿi Island Plan, Final Report, May
2002.
Thornthwaite, C. W., “An Approach Toward a Rational Classification of Climate,”
Geographical Review, v. 38, no. 1, 1948, pp. 55-94.
Thornthwaite, C. W. and J. R. Mather, “The Water Balance,” Publications in Climatology, v. 8,
no. 1, 1955, pp. 1-104.
Trusdell, F.A , P. Graves, and C.R. Tincher, Maps Showing Lava Inundation Zones for Mauna
Loa, Hawaiÿi, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, 2002.
U.S. Census, 2000.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Draft South Kona
Watershed Irrigation System Preliminary Feasibility Study, 2003.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soils Report, 1973.
Wentworth, Chester K., Rainfall, Tanks, Catchment and Family Use of Water, Hawaiÿi Water
Authority, 1959.
9-3
County of Hawaiÿi
Final Report
September 2004
9-4

ka u to south kona - Department of Water Supply

Transcription

Similar documents

EHFF 2016 Flier - Star of the Sea School

A Different View!

VIEW - Hawaii Community Federal Credit Union

Finding the Perfect Place to Live in West Hawai`i

The Mana of Kohanaiki

Tree Top Ocean Views

Prizes - Hawaii Community Federal Credit Union

Current Page

Ocean Essence Pacific Sea Salt Scrub

Ringi-Chingi-2013 - Azim Premji Foundation