Testimony to the County of Maui 01/25/2010
Prepared by: Robin S. Knox
My name is Robin Knox. I am an environmental scientist with 27 years experience in water quality management. I have experience as a state regulator, consultant to developers and state, federal and local governments, and as a research scientist studying ecosystem scale impacts and developing pollution control and ecosystem restoration strategies. I am currently doing research for the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative and the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology on the impacts of and solutions to land-based pollution problems, and coordinating the Southwest Maui Watershed Planning effort. I work closely with groups such as DIRE Coalition, Maui Nui Marine Resource Council, South Maui Sustainability and others who are concerned about Maui’s water quality.
Through my experiences in Louisiana, I have learned firsthand that the real cost of water pollution and development is ecosystem decline and loss of a way of life. In Louisiana pollution from the continent is killing the Gulf of Mexico fishery. Hydrologic change due to development is causing loss of coastal wetlands and actual loss of land. On Maui as on the mainland, manmade sources of pollution on the land threaten to destroy irreplaceable ecosystems that we rely upon for life support. When we lose coral we lose the underpinnings not only of our tourism economy, but the protection provided to the land itself, and the habitat that supports aquatic life, cultural practices and a way of life.
According to scientists with the Hawaii Department of Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, the control of land-based pollution is necessary to protect and restore water quality conditions under which coral and other aquatic life can not only survive but thrive. The Hawaii Department of Health has reported to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that the waters of the Ma’alaea coast do not meet state water quality standards, and therefore federally mandated studies (called Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs) are required to determine how much pollution can come from the land and yet still support aquatic life and recreational uses of the water. These studies have not yet been done and are needed to know what level of development and poll
Twenty years ago, my home town of Baton Rouge faced a wastewater situation similar to Maui’s. With a population of 150,000, a leaky collection system and three aging regional treatment plants, the City was faced with the challenge of upgrading and expanding to meet demand for new housing. The city chose to ignore the inevitable need for funding for sewage treatment. Instead they authorized each development to have its own treatment plant and discharge. More than 140 sewage treatment plants were built. These secondary treatment plants effluents exerted a huge oxygen demand on the receiving waters and killed a freshwater fishery that the people of the area relied upon for food. The river was too polluted to swim in. Eventually under pressure from EPA the city agreed to remedies, but only after the damage was done. In the end the City had to build the collection lines, pump stations, and treatment capacity to treat all the waste. The 20 year delay only cost the city more money fighting legal battles with EPA and environmentalist. The delay costs the people of the state access to river that is safe and healthy for swimming and fishing. Attached I have provided information on the City of Baton Rouge Consent Decree.
I urge Maui lawmakers and decision-makers to heed the warning of the lessons learned on the mainland. It is more costly to resist pollution control requirements and later have to make amends than it is to comply in the first place. Retrofitting and restoration 20 years later is costly in terms of both $$ and loss of ecosystems.
We know that our current level of development and discharge from injection wells has caused water quality and reef declines. Common sense as well as professional opinion indicates that we should use the precautionary principle. There should be a moratorium on new discharges until such time as there is a plan for pollutant reduction in place. Only when the TMDL studies are done will we know what allocations for point and nonpoint source pollutant loads can be made, and what level and type of treatment, disposal or reuse, or best management practices are called for to support the receiving water quality.