Update on Wailua Diversion

SUBHEAD: Meeting Thursday 12/14 from 11:00am-1:00pm at the Kapaa Neighborhood Center.

By Bridget Hammerquist on 12 December 2017 in Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2017/12/update-on-wailua-diversions.html)


Image above: Two hikers at the Blue Hole walk across the concrete diversion (at left) of the North Fork of the Wailua Rivere diversion lets only overflow water into the natural channel of the river (at right). From (https://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?1,64439,64449).

[IB Publisher's note: The day with article was first published KIUC announced they were changing policy on the North Fork diversion of the Wailua River. See content of email we received.]

KIUC Board's Action on to Wailua River Diversions Līhu'e, Kaua'i, HI - 12/12/17 - The Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative Board today authorized KIUC President and Chief Executive Officer David Bissell to make changes to the ditch system to return water to the North Fork of the Wailuā River at the Blue Hole and Waikoko diversions. This action will ensure that water is flowing immediately downstream of the diversions. The board also authorized the commencement of engineering design for permanent diversion modifications to ensure continuous stream flow for aquatic habitat. Construction will take place upon approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies. Additionally, approval was granted to install additional gauging stations to increase data collection and understanding of the hydrology of the system. "The hydros have been producing energy on Kauaʻi for more than 100 years and represent an important piece of KIUC's renewable portfolio and will help us reach the State's mandate of 100 percent renewables by 2045," said KIUC Board Chair Allan Smith. On December 8, the State Board of Land and Natural Resources met and approved the holdover of a revocable permit for water use at the Blue Hole Diversion, which contribute 1.5 megawatts of energy to the island's renewable portfolio.

Image above: Boulders are scattered across the diversion at the head of the North Fork of the Wailua River due to heavy winter rains. Note the diversion channel is all but blocked (at left) and the natural flow of the water is in the original river bed (at right). From (https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2017/12/11/kiuc-receives-approval-for-holdover-of-hydro.html).

---

IB Publisher's note: On Friday 7 December 2017 the Hawaii State Board of Land & Natural Resources (BLNR) met on Kauai to consider the  renewal of a revocable water-diversion permit for Kauai Island Utility Cooperative’s (KIUC) hydroelectric plants that utilize water from Mt. Waialeale.

The water diversions have been criticized as illegal.  The Kiai Wai O Waialeale coalition, along with community groups Friends of Mahaulepu, HAPA and the Sierra Club, said KIUC and Grove Farm are illegally using 30 million gallons or more of water per day for the hydroelectric plants, and on days when there’s no rain, the streams are dry.

The BLNR approved the KIUC request.

Their will be a debriefing of the BLNR meeting Thursday 12/14 from 11:00am-1:00pm at the Kapaa Neighborhood Center.

WHAT:
Debriefing on BLNR decision in favor of KIUC and Gloves Farms to continue diverting Wailua River forks.

WHEN:
Thursday December 14th from 11:00am to 1:00pm

WHERE:
Kapaa Neighborhood Center
4491 Kou Street Kapaa, HI 96746

Summary of BLNR Meeting
Friday was an exciting day and I have to say that we did shine a bright light on a big issue that has received little public coverage. For those who may not have seen the news coverage of the Board meeting, here are a couple links to TV and newspaper coverage.

http://www.thegardenisland.com/2017/12/09/hawaii-news/kiuc-wins-water-fight/

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37029649/land-board-approves-permit-to-continue-diverting-waialeale-waters-for-hydropower

For those who want to listen to the meeting Friday, here is a link to download the audio recording of Friday's BLNR meeting:

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/15e8a4fc-0d4b-4223-8c90-a96c83b92c04

My big take away/summary is:

1. The Board was arbitrary when it denied the request for a contested case hearing.
2. The denial gives us the right to go directly to the State Environmental Court.

Based on the facts and illuminating power points presented, Kiai Wai O Waialeale may be well positioned now to file a State Court lawsuit against KIUC on the merits of BLNR's renewal of the Waikoko and Blue Hole/North Fork Wailua diversion permits while simultaneously suing Grove Farm for its 4 100% base flow stream diversions (Iliiliula, Iole, Waiaka and Waiahi) in violation of the following water use law.

The testimony offered by KIUC established that Grove Farm is also taking 100% of the base flow from four streams fed by Mt Waialeale which waters are mixed into the waters from Waikoko and Blue Hole, diversions on State land.

Grove Farm has no permits to divert those streams and should have permits because the water is no longer used to grow sugar and pursuant to Hawaii State Supreme Court decisions, when the purpose for the diversion ends, the diversions have to be taken down and stream flow restored as mandated by Hawaii's Constitution.

Most importantly, DLNR staff and KIUC admitted the water use at issue is consumptive, because the waters diverted are never returned to their stream of origin. If you read the statute below, it doesn't appear that BLNR has any authority to approve, permit or lease State waters when the use is consumptive.

§171-58 Minerals and water rights.
(a) Except as provided in this section the right to any mineral or surface or ground water shall not be included in any lease, agreement, or sale, this right being reserved to the State; provided that the board may make provisions in the lease, agreement, or sale, for the payment of just compensation to the surface owner for improvements taken as a condition precedent to the exercise by the State of any reserved rights to enter, sever, and remove minerals or to capture, divert, or impound water.(c)(3)

After a certain land or water use has been authorized by the board subsequent to public hearings and conservation district use application and environmental impact statement approvals, water used in nonpolluting ways, for non-consumptive purposes because it is returned to the same stream or other body of water from which it was drawn, and essentially not affecting the volume and quality of water or biota in the stream or other body of water, may also be leased by the board with the prior approval of the governor and the prior authorization of the legislature by concurrent resolution.

When you read the statute, Grove Farm's diversions are illegal. Grove Farm is directing water through KIUC's hydro plants and in return, KIUC releases that water back to Grove Farm and also adds the water from its State land diversions.

Not only did we have 3 solid votes against RP renewal, with each no vote the voting board member spoke directly to KIUC's CEO, David Bissel, and told KIUC to:

1. Complete their environmental studies (171.58 call for an EIS... did not understand why attorney's like Chris Yuen were speaking in terms of an EA when the statutory requirement is clear that any authorized use of State water can be permitted only "subsequent to" the acceptance of an EIS),
   
2. Restore uninterpreted stream flow as soon as possible and
   
3.  Meet with DHHL staff asap to achieve water distribution for its beneficiaries. One of the yes votes, from Chris Yuen, also made it sound like he wouldn't support them if they were not substantially along in the process by this time next year.

The other aspect that I didn't understand was why Suzanne Case did not recuse herself once it was clear that water from four Grove Farm stream diversions (IliIliula, Iole, Waiaka and Waiahi) mixes with the KIUC diversions and all runs through KIUC's power plant before being delivered to Grove Farm's infrastructure: the upper Lihue ditch (which is piped), the lower Lihue ditch and the Wailua South Fork that is 100% diverted by Grove Farm into the Hanamauulu ditch. 

Those four diversions were not part of the RP but the water from them is being used by the permittee and in return the permittee supports distribution back to Grove Farm. If you read 171.58, I can't find anything that exempts Grove Farm from a permit for their use of waters of the State. It is not right that Grove Farm directs this water to their surface water treatment plant before selling it to the County.

They claim they're charging for the delivery of water which is certainly splitting hairs because their charge is a fixed annual fee for 3 mgd.BLNR's arbitrary and capricious denial of the request for a contested case hearing, is a huge gift because we may now advance an Environmental State Court claim, having had our administrative remedy curtailed and having been deprived of due process. So rather than having the cost of an administrative hearing, I think we get to go right to State Court.

Note: Bridget Hammerquist is President of Friends of Maha’ulepu
P.O. Box: 1654
Koloa, HI 96756
friendsofmahaulepu.org
(808)742-1037

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Waialeale Water Lease 7/18/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Kauai's Hydro Battle 7/31/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Notice of Objection 6/3/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Special KIUC/FERC Meeting 5/28/11
Island Breath: Kauai Water Diversion - as a way of life 4/9/04

.

Saving the Colorado River Delta

SUBHEAD: Two Years After the Colorado Pulse Flow to restore the river delta — An abundance of life.

By Maureen Nandini Mitra on 21 October 2016 for Earth Island -
(http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/two_years_after_the_colorado_pulse_flow_an_abundance_of_life/)


Image above: Martha Gómez Sapiens, a monitoring team member, stands on a riverbank next to willows and cottonwoods that germinated as result of the pulse flow. Photo by Karl W. Flessa. From original article.

Birds, plants, and groundwater continue to benefit from effort to revive the Colorado River delta.

Back 2014, an unprecedented transnational experiment attempted to restore, temporarily, the flow of the Colorado River to the Gulf of California. As part of a landmark agreement between the United States and Mexico, the International Boundary Water Commission unleashed an eight-week “pulse flow” of some 105,000 acre feet of water from a small dam on the US-Mexico border to help restore the Colorado River delta.

Conservationists hoped the water would revitalize the delta — which has been bone dry for nearly 60 years as a result of upstream dams and diversions on the Colorado — and bring back trees, animals, and aquatic life that were once abundant in the region when it was flush with water. (The transnational agreement authorized environmental flows of water into the Colorado River Delta from 2013 to 2017.)

Two growing seasons after that engineered release, it appears that birds, plants and groundwater in the delta, which lies south of the US-Mexico border, have indeed been benefitting from it.

Native willows and cottonwoods have sprung up wherever the pulse flow inundated bare soil and in response to this post-flood vegetation, birds have begun flocking to the area, according to the latest monitoring report prepared for the International Boundary and Water Commission by a bi-national University of Arizona-led team.

The interim report, released on Wednesday, documents the effects of the environmental flows in the delta from the initial pulse in March 2014 plus subsequent supplemental deliveries of water through December 2015.

"Some of the cottonwoods that germinated during the initial pulse flow are now more than 10 feet tall," Karl W. Flessa, UA professor of geosciences and co-chief scientist of the team that’s monitoring the impact of the pulse, said in a statement.

Migratory waterbirds, nesting waterbirds, and nesting riparian birds have all increased in abundance, the report says. The monitoring team found that the abundance of 19 bird species of conservation concern, including vermillion flycatchers, hooded orioles, and yellow-breasted chats, was 43 percent higher at the restoration sites than at other sites in the floodplain.


Image above: The abundance of 19 bird species of conservation concern, including vermillion flycatchers (pictured here), hooded orioles, and yellow-breasted chats, was 43 percent higher at the restoration sites than at other sites in the floodplain. Photo by Sarah Murry. From original article.

Some of the water from the pulse flow and subsequent smaller environmental flows recharged the groundwater, which had both ecological and social benefits, said Eloise Kendy, a senior freshwater scientist with The Nature Conservancy's North America Water Program who helped compile the report.

The vegetation greened up in areas that received surface water and also in some areas that did not. "The farmers [whose irrigation canals were used for some of the water deliveries] were happy because it recharged the aquifer they use for groundwater irrigation," she said. "And plants that were outside the inundation zone got a big drink of water.

Dams and river diversions built in the twentieth century have for decades prevented the river — that once flowed freely from the Rocky Mountains all the way to the Sea of Cortez in Mexico — from completing its journey to the sea.

These days it dies after it crosses the US-Mexico border. The southernmost dam on the river — Mexico’s Morelos Dam, near Yuma, AZ — diverts nearly all of the river water into an aqueduct that serves agriculture and homes in Tijuana. South of the dam, the river channel travels about 75 miles to the Gulf of California. With the exception of a few wet years, the river has not reached the Gulf of California since 1960.

Before 1960, spring snowmelts regularly sent water gushing down the Colorado River into the delta, scouring the river bottom and overtopping the bank and creating the ideal conditions cottonwood and willow trees to germinate and establish.

But since then, salt cedar or tamarisk, an invasive plant, has taken over the riverbanks. Since cottonwoods and willows need bare ground and sunlight to germinate, they cannot establish themselves on tamarisk-covered riverbanks.

The March 2014 pulse flow delivered a fraction of the water the pre-1960 spring floods used to bring to the delta. Staff from the Sonoran Institute and Pronatura Noroeste, a Mexican conservation group, cleared some areas of non-native vegetation beforehand. The researchers hoped that reducing competition would allow native plants such as willows and cottonwoods to germinate and grow after the pulse flow.

"We reconnected the meanders to the main river channels so when the pulse flow came there were these nice backwater areas where the conditions were good for the establishment of native trees," said Karen Schlatter, a restoration ecologist of the Sonoran Institute's Colorado River Delta Program, who was part of the monitoring team. In those restoration areas, cottonwood and willow seeds that germinated after the pulse flow have become 10 to 13 foot trees, and bird diversity and abundance has increased.

"Now we have diverse habitat types, including lagoons, cottonwoods-willow forest, mesquite bosque and marshes," Schlatter said. "We are seeing a much higher diversity of riparian bird species in the restoration sites compared to other areas along the river."

The pulse flow has also reduced soil salinity in some areas that had been targeted for restoration. "We didn't expect that — it is a huge bonus," Schlatter said. Reducing the soil salinity makes conditions more favorable for native plant species.  If there's another pulse flow, she suggests clearing tamarisk and other non-native vegetation from the river's bank ahead of it would be helpful.

The pulse was the only water release planned so far. Once this pilot project ends in 2018, US and Mexican officials will review findings and discuss whether other discharges should be made.

Part of the impetus for the pulse experiment was to determine whether a healthy delta system can be maintained without a lot of water. Of course, the delta can’t be restored to what it was a say, a century ago, given the cities and towns that need Colorado’s water aren't going anywhere, as well as the fact that much of the delta land has since been converted to farmland.

But, as Flessa says, this short-term experiment “really demonstrates that a little bit of water does a lot of environmental good."
.

Introduction to Hawaiian Land Areas

SUBHEAD: This is a synthesis of the Hawaiian historical record combined with contemporary ecological frameworks.

By Juan Wilson & Jonathan Jay on 2 May 2016 for Island Breath-
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2016/05/introduction-to-hawaiian-land-areas.html)



Image above: Map of Niihau, Hawaii, showing Life Zones, Ahupuaa and Moku. Click to enlarge.

By Juan Wilson
The traditional land divisions of pre-contact Hawaiians was based on the sustainability and self-reliance within community watershed areas (ahupuaa) as well as within bioregions (moku) and lastly individual sovereign islands (mokupuni). These natural land divisions were the result of the flow of water over the land.

We are now beginning to include evidence of the flow of water over and under the surface of the islands. We are calling these areas of consideration Waihona.

For simplicity and efficiency this current work is not being coordinated through the Ahu Moku Committee. Historic documents, reference material and selected kapuna are being consulted. On May 1st 2016 we released the current state of the work to the public.

We welcome comment and criticism. This work is far from complete. Waihona are only partially covered at this time.

The new work can be found by clicking here:
(http://www.islandbreath.org/hawaiinei/hawaiinei.html) 

The available downloadable files of Big Island, Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai Molokai, Oahu, Kauai and Niihau are in the following formats:

GoogleEarth Files - .kmv
Arch D size Plot Files - .pdf
High Resolution Raster Files - .png
ArcView GIS Shape Files - .shp
AutoCad Document Exchage Files - .dxf

The older Ahu Moku work can be found here:
(http://www.islandbreath.org/mokupuni/mokupuni.html)


By Jonathan Jay
Although this work began as an inquiry into the existing historical cartographic documents and collected oral descriptions of the traditional and customary Ahupua`a and Moku land management system of the Polynesian and Hawaiian people, this work is now a synthesis of that historical record combined with contemporary Western ecological and environmental frameworks, adapted to existing present conditions.

As such, this work is no longer an attempt to accurately recreate the boundaries of ahupua'a or moku divisions at a particular point in history. Instead, by attempting to discern the principles and frameworks of understanding that allowed for the creation of organic divisions of land in the first place, we now strive to apply these principles to our contemporary conditions - 'Ahupua`a & Moku for the 3rd Millennium' if you will.  It is our hope that this work will provide the basis for prudent, long-range, sustainable land-use and resource management.


.

2% Solution for the Planet

SUBHEAD: One example is clothing yourself from within a local or regional fibershed.

By Courtney White on 15 October 2015 for the Carbon Pilgrim -
(https://carbonpilgrim.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/2-solutions-for-the-planet/)


Image above: San Francisco Bay area fibershed efforts. From (http://www.bayareagreentours.org/wordpress/wordpress/fibershed-tour-new-tour-2014/).

Since we live in an era of big problems, we tend to spend our time thinking of big solutions. Thinking big, however, can have a paralyzing effect on taking action.

In my new book Two Percent Solutions for the Planet, I take readers on a journey around the world where low-cost, easy-to-implement solutions are regenerating the planet now, rather than in some distant future.

Two Percent Solutions for the Planet profiles fifty innovative practices that soak up carbon dioxide in soils, reduce energy use, sustainably intensify food production, and increase both water quality and quantity.

Why “two percent"? It is an illustrative number meant to stimulate our imaginations. It refers to: the amount of new carbon in the soil needed to reap a wide variety of ecological and economic benefits; the percentage of the nation’s population who are farmers and ranchers; and the low financial cost (in terms of GDP) needed to get this work done.

Big solutions, in other words, can be accomplished for small costs. They are solutions that are regenerative over the long haul, meaning they replete rather than deplete people, animals, plants, soil and other natural resources. See: http://www.chelseagreen.com/two-percent-solutions-for-the-planet

From the Prologue:

We live in an era of seemingly intractable challenges: increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, rising food demands from a human population that is projected to expand from seven to nine billion people by 2050, and dwindling supplies of fresh water, to name just three. What to do? So far, our response to these big problems has been to consider “big” solutions, including complex technologies, arm-twisting treaties, untested geoengineering strategies, and new layers of regulation, all of which have the net effect of increasing complexity (and anxiety) in our lives. And most of these big solutions come with big costs, both financial and social, especially for those least able to bear them.

Which raised a question in my mind a few years ago: Why not consider low-cost, low-tech, nature-based solutions instead?

I knew this was possible based on my experience with the Quivira Coalition, a New Mexico–based nonprofit that I cofounded in 1997 with a cattle rancher and a fellow conservationist. Our original goal was to find common ground between ranchers, conservationists, public land managers, scientists, and others around progressive livestock grazing practices that were good for both the land and its inhabitants.

Over time our work increasingly focused on building economic and ecological resilience in the West, with a special emphasis on ecological restoration, local food production, and bridging urban-rural divides.

Through Quivira, I had met many innovative people who had been hard at work for decades field-testing and implementing a wide variety of regenerative land management practices, proving them to be practical, profitable, and effective.

These practices, such as planned grazing by livestock and the ecological restoration of creeks, are principally low-tech, involving photosynthesis, water, plants, animals, and thoughtful stewardship rather than big-ticket technologies.

I knew they improved land health, produced food, and repaired broken water cycles. What I didn’t know was how they might address the rising challenge of greenhouse gas buildup in our atmosphere.

This changed in 2009 when a Worldwatch Institute report, “Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use,” landed on my desk. Its authors argued that the potential for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through plant photosynthesis and related land-based carbon sequestration activities was both large and largely overlooked.

Strategies they listed included enriching soil carbon, no-till farming with perennials, employing climate-friendly livestock practices, conserving natural habitat, and restoring degraded watersheds and rangelands.

That sounded like the work of the Quivira Coalition!

Exploring further, I discovered that many other regenerative practices also sequester CO2 in soils and plants as well as address food and water problems. The link, I learned, was carbon. It’s the soil beneath our feet, the plants that grow, the land we walk, the wildlife we watch, the livestock we raise, the food we eat, the energy we use, and the air we breathe.

Carbon is the essential element of life. A highly efficient carbon cycle captures, and stores biochemical energy, making everything go and grow from the soil up. A healthy carbon cycle, I realized, had a wide range of positive benefits for every living thing on the planet.

However, I also discovered that carbon sequestration in soils and the climate change mitigation potential of these regenerative and resilient practices was nearly unknown to the general public, much less to decision makers and others in leadership positions. Even within progressive ranching, farming, and conservation communities, the multiple economic and ecological gains that come from increasing carbon in soils were largely overlooked.

The story of carbon needed to be told, I saw, leading me to write Grass, Soil, Hope: A Journey through Carbon Country, which makes the case that if we can draw increasing amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere and store it safely in the soil we can go a long way toward solving many of the challenges that now confront us.

There wasn’t enough space in Grass, Soil, Hope for many of the hopeful stories of regenerative practices that I had discovered along the way. What to do with all these wonderful solutions? After giving it some thought and consulting with my colleagues at the Quivira Coalition, I decided to begin writing them up as short case studies — ultimately resulting in this book: Two Percent Solutions for the Planet.

The goal of this book is to present informative snapshots of regenerative practices in a format that can be widely read and shared. It is not a comprehensive accounting by any means. I picked 50 topics that I consider to be a diverse representation of the regenerative world. There are other solutions already at work, and new ones are being developed even as you read this. I encourage you to seek them out. In the meantime, I hope this book will help you connect the dots between these diverse, pragmatic, and hopeful practices.

Here’s an example – a fibershed:

Of all the human needs we strive to make sustainable, the one we consistently overlook is the one closest to our skin—our clothes. 

Image above: Diagram of Soil to Soil cycle within a fibershed. From original article.

It’s an oversight we need to address, because almost everything we wear is drenched in fossil fuels, including the synthetic fibers that make up the majority of the raw material in clothes and the dyes that make them colorful.

So, if behaving sustainably means procuring our food from a local foodshed and our water from a nearby watershed, why don’t we try to procure what we wear from a local “fibershed”?

The quick answer is that we can’t, because those locally made clothes don’t exist. Not yet, anyway. However, Rebecca Burgess, executive director of the California-based Fibershed, and her partners are on it.

If they have their way, someday we will be able to buy clothes made locally from natural fibers created by sustainable grazing and farming practices and spun in nearby mills powered by renewable energy, all part of a robust, low-carbon, climate-friendly regional economy.

And that’s just the beginning! Burgess envisions these fibersheds as the foundation for an international system of textile supply chains, designed to regenerate the natural systems on which they depend while creating a vibrant and lasting textile culture.

If that sounds utopian, well, consider the alternative: our current industrial system for producing clothes. Take water pollution, for example.

According to the World Bank, textile manufacturing is the second largest source of freshwater pollution in the world (principally from dyeing) and accounts for 20 percent of all water contamination.

Synthetic fibers, which make their way to the sea via sewer lines from industrial laundry operations, are a huge source of pollution in the world’s oceans.

Those are just two of the environmental costs. Don’t forget the low wages, terrible working conditions, and human rights abuses that are pervasive in the garment industry, including persistent slavery and child labor. The toll can be deadly.

The collapse of a textile factory in Bangladesh in 2013 (despite warnings) killed 1,200 workers and injured more than 2,500 in the deadliest garment-manufacturing incident in history.

Burgess is quick to point out that the clothing industry is aware of these issues and that some larger corporations have begun to adopt eco-friendly practices, including the use of organic natural fibers.

However, the goal of Fibershed is to go way beyond correcting deficiencies in the current system and create instead a radically new model, one inspired by time-honored traditions from around the planet.

The roots of the project go back to 2009, when Burgess decided to create and wear a prototype wardrobe made from fibers, dyes, and labor sourced within a 150-mile radius of San Francisco.

To accomplish this goal, she pulled together a team of innovative agriculturalists and artisans to build the wardrobe by hand (because the manufacturing equipment had been lost decades ago).

The team worked toward four specific objectives: produce no toxic dye waste; use no pesticides, herbicides, or genetically modified organisms; significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the wardrobe in comparison to conventionally produced clothes; and incubate a regional community of artisans and farmers that would collaborate and grow in number over time.

The prototype demonstration was a success on all levels, sparking widespread interest not only in the word fibershed (which Burgess coined) but in the concept behind it as well.

 To push the concept forward, in 2011 Burgess founded the Fibershed Marketplace to explore the possibility of creating a cooperative to help fiber farmers and artisans stay in business together.

Then in 2012, she founded the nonprofit Fibershed in order to educate the public, including policymakers and entrepreneurs, on the benefits of producing local clothes using regenerative practices.

Call it “thinking like a fibershed!”

Which raises a question: How is a fibershed defined exactly?

According to Fibershed’s website a fibershed is “a geographical region that provides the basic resources required for a human’s first form of shelter (aka clothing).”

However, don’t get it confused with a watershed, warns Burgess, because a fibershed must necessarily cross multiple topographic boundaries to work ecologically and economically. Right now, that means stretching the definition of “local” way out—at least until sustainable fiber production takes off.

Another way to define a fibershed is to describe what’s in one. The map (below) presents an idealized vision. It includes a solar-powered wool mill; a greywater dye garden; grazing sheep; industrial hemp, flax and nettle cultivation; small-scale cotton-spinning equipment; a greenhouse; children visiting the field where their jeans are grown; a recycling mill; rooftop gardens for food, fiber, and dye plants; sewing pods; a knitting frame; and weaving studios.

It’s a utopian vision that’s very much grounded in reality.

For example, over three million pounds of wool are produced in California every year—more than anywhere else in the nation—of which 99 percent is shipped out of state, mostly to China. Much of this wool is wear-next-to-the-skin quality, which means that the raw material for the establishment of numerous fibersheds is already at hand. In fact, artisanal fiber operations have sprung to life in at least eighteen communities around the state since 2012, selling largely to upper-end markets. It’s small, Burgess says, but it’s a start.

A key component of the Fibershed’s work is its soil-to-soil concept, which aims to help ranchers and farmers build topsoil through a compost-application process that sequesters carbon dioxide on their land while reducing the product’s carbon footprint. [graph] “A typical wool garment produced overseas has a net carbon footprint of 33 kilograms in CO2 equivalents,” said Burgess. “The Fibershed approach reduces that and can, in fact, sequester nearly 38 kilograms in CO2 equivalents per garment.”

It’s all bundled together in an idea called the California Wool Mill Project, which pulls together a broad array of regenerative solutions.

The summary from the Project’s feasibility study (available at http://www.fibershed.com), which was conducted to assess the potentials of producing cloth in a vertically integrated supply chain using 100 percent California-grown wool fiber, states that the goal of the Project is to create a technical road map for an ecologically sensitive closed-loop mill design utilizing renewable energy, full water recycling, and composting systems.

Furthermore, the products from the mill were analyzed and shown to have a high potential for net-carbon benefit.

“The suggested model outlines the potential for a multi-stakeholder coop that would close the financial loop between profits and the producer community,” wrote the authors, “furthering the positive economic impact for our ranching and farming communities.”

In other words, we all live in a fibershed—we just don’t know it yet!
.

From Mokupuni to Ahupuaa

SUBHEAD: The Wailua-Kapaa Neighborhood Assoc meeting with guest speaker Juan Wilson, present "From Mokupuni to Ahupuaa".

By Rayne Raygush on 6 January for W-K Neighborhood Assoc.
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2015/01/from-mokupuni-to-ahupuaa.html)


Image above: The Wailua-Kapaa Neighborhood Association is in the north part of the Puna Moku of Kauai between the North Fork of the Wailua River and south of Kealia Stream. Cartography by Juan Wilson. Derived from (http://www.islandbreath.org/mokupuni/mokupuni.html). Click to embiggen.

WHAT:

Wailua-Kapaa Neighborhood Association meeting will feature guest speaker Juan Wilson, presenting “From Mokupuni to Ahupuaa”
 
WHEN:
Saturday, January 24th, 2015 at 2:00pm until 4:00pm

WHERE:
Kapaa Public Library Meeting Room

INFO:
The presentation is free and open to the public.

CONTACT:
Sid Jackson, W-K Neighborhood Association Secretary
Phone: (808) 821-2837
Email: sjackson23@hawaii.rr.com

 
The Wailua-Kapaa Neighborhood Association will feature guest speaker Juan Wilson, presenting “From Mokupuni to Ahupuaa” on Saturday, January 24, 2014, 2:00 p.m. at the Kapaa Library Meeting Room. The presentation is free and open to the public.

The traditional land divisions of pre-contact Hawaiians were based on the sustainability and self- reliance within community watershed areas (ahupua`a) as well as within bioregions (moku) and lastly individual sovereign islands (mokupuni). These natural land divisions were the result of the flow of water over the land.

In 2010, Wilson, an architect and planner, conducted a detailed survey using historical documents, early Hawaiian Maps, USGS survey maps, the support of the Statewide Aha Keole Advisory Committee, The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Council, the Kauai Historic Society, and individual accounts from residents such Ileialoha Beniamina.

Applied to these sources, Wilson, with assistance from designer Jonathan Jay, used the geography of the islands based on 3D GoogleEarth elevations and USGS map data, as well as the State of Hawai`i GIS data on watersheds, streams and topographical contours. This information was used to tie the traditional information to modern geographic modeling which describes the flow of water over the land.

Historically, boundaries were also determined by the political influence and power. However, to the degree possible, land divisions based on conquest and private ownership were ignored, and this mapping project kept to the relation of Hawaiians to the `aina itself.

“We hope this information will foster more cultural awareness, and a greater understanding and use of native Hawaiian resource knowledge”, says Rayne Regush - Wailua-Kapaa Neighborhood Association.

The meeting will also include updates on other local issues. For more information, contact Association Secretary Sid Jackson at 821-2837 or visit www.wkna.org.

“Opportunities that reinforce our connection to the land and natural resources also help to preserve Hawaiian cultural heritage and traditional values.”

Serving Residents of the Kawaihau District
“We treasure our rural community”
340 Aina Uka Street, Kapaa, Hawaii 96746

.

Dairy polluted groundwater

SOURCE: Robert Zelkovsky (Robert@bamboomoonvideo.com)
SUBHEAD: Federal judge finds that large dairy, the Cow Palace, has polluted groundwater in Yakama WA.

By Ross Courtney on 15 January 2015 for the Yakama Herald -
(http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/latestlocalnews/2828984-8/judge-rules-dairy-polluted-groundwater)


Image above: Cow Palace Dairy General Manager Jeff Boivin and Washington Grown host Kristi Gorenson check out the Granger, Wash., dairy operation. From (http://cpweb.eor.dc.publicus.com/article/20130926/ARTICLE/130929925).

[IB Publisher's note: Keep in mind the proposed pollution free mega-dairy operation planned for Mahaulepu, Kona, Kauai. See links below.]

In a wide-ranging ruling Wednesday, a federal judge found that one of the Yakima Valley’s largest dairies, the Cow Palace near Granger, has polluted groundwater through its application, storage and management of manure, posing possible “imminent and substantial endangerment” to the public consuming the water and the environment.

In a ruling that could set a national precedent for manure management, U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice of Spokane wrote: “Any attempt to diminish the Dairy’s contribution to the nitrate contamination is disingenuous, at best.”

A March 23 trial in Yakima will determine how much pollution Cow Palace is causing, the extent of any threat and what steps should be taken as a remedy, which could range from ordering the dairy to line all its lagoons to determining damages on behalf of the plaintiffs, led by Granger-based Community Association for Restoration of the Environment (CARE), founded by Helen Reddout, a longtime resident, orchardist and environmentalist.

Attorneys for the Cow Palace said they are already considering an appeal, regardless of what happens at trial.

“It may very well be that the appeal will happen sooner than expected,” said Yakima attorney Brendan Monahan, who called the ruling a “disappointing conclusion.”

The civil case relies only on the likelihood of unlawful pollution, not absolute proof as in criminal cases. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste.

Rice wrote that whether contamination poses a substantial and imminent endangerment to health or the environment “does not require proof of actual harm but rather ‘a threatened or potential harm,’ ” quoting an appellate court decision.

He also concluded that “a reasonable trier-of-fact, given the evidence presented, could come to no other conclusion than that the Dairy’s operations are contributing to the high levels of nitrate that are currently contaminating — and will continue to contaminate as nitrate present below the root zone continues to migrate — the underlying groundwater.”

According to the ruling, Cow Palace has 11,000 cows that create more than 100 million gallons of manure annually.

Rice left a few issues of fact still be determined at trial, such as whether the dairies are contributing to surface water pollution.

Environmentalists, who sued on behalf of thousands of families in unincorporated areas of the Lower Yakima Valley that rely on groundwater through wells, claimed the ruling as a major victory.

“This narrows the scope of the trial tremendously,” said Charlie Tebbutt, the Eugene, Ore., attorney representing CARE, which filed the suit. The Center for Food Safety, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, is a co-plaintiff that also assisted in the case.

The judge’s 111-page ruling at times criticizes the company and its owners and officers, Bill and Adam Dolsen, writing that their defense appeared to minimize the potentially harmful human effects of consuming unsafe levels of nitrates, including “Blue Baby Syndrome,” a condition that can result when babies consume formula mixed with nitrate-contaminated water.

“Alarmingly, Defendant Cow Palace’s briefing seems to suggest that this Court wait to act until a young infant in the area is first diagnosed with methemoglobinemia, a health effect that occurs at the lowest dose of nitrate consumption,” Rice wrote.

Affected infants develop a peculiar blue-gray skin color and may become irritable or lethargic, depending on the severity of their condition. According to the National Institutes of Health, the condition can progress rapidly to coma and death if not recognized and treated.

Cow Palace owners said they are deciding what to do next.

“We are reviewing the ruling and will be charting a course forward with our attorneys,” said Adam Dolsen, the president of the dairy company, in an emailed statement released through Monahan.

“We understand that this case has wide-reaching implications that extend far beyond the Yakima Valley and throughout agriculture,” the statement said. “Our family is proud to be part of the Yakima Valley community. We wake up every morning with the goal of producing wholesome milk, being responsible stewards of the land and good neighbors.”

Both sides agree on the possibility of a precedent.

The ruling is the first in the nation to consider manure, when improperly managed, a solid waste under federal law, Tebbutt said.

In addition to calling manure a solid waste, Rice rejected Cow Palace’s defense that septic tanks contribute significantly to contaminated groundwater, noting the Environmental Protection Agency found that 224 residential septic systems near the dairies produced less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the waste generated by the other dairy defendants.

The environmentalists filed lawsuits against Cow Palace, Liberty Dairy, H&S Bosma Dairy and George DeRuyter and Son Dairy in 2013.

Cow Palace was scheduled for trial first. The others will follow later.

CARE has long accused the dairies of spraying the manure on farm fields far beyond the rate that alfalfa, silage and other crops can use. Experts for the plaintiffs found that the dairy applied 7.6 million gallons of manure onto a field of alfalfa that already showed nitrate levels in excess of what the crop could use.

Rice noted that except for one lagoon, the Cow Palace did not have complete documentation for each lagoon, “However Defendants admit that none of the Dairy’s lagoons have a synthetic liner,” which is the recommended standard when lagoons sit over aquifers.

Attorneys for Cow Palace and the other dairies have argued the manure is a useful product, which they use for fertilizer, bedding and compost.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Kauai Grassfed Dairy Fraud 4/13/14
Ea O Ka Aina: Hawaii Dairy Farm Factsheet 10/11/14
.

Two Maui streams reach the sea

SUBHEAD: The flow returns to two streams on Maui that have been diverted for more than 150 years.

By Isaac Moriwake on 13 October 2014 for Earth Justice -
(http://earthjustice.org/blog/2014-october/turning-the-tide-of-history-for-maui-s-four-great-waters)


Image above: A Maui resident enjoys the flow of ʻĪao Stream for the first time in his life. From original article.

Today, flow will return to two streams on Maui that have been diverted for more than 150 years.

This restoration of Wailuku River (also known as ʻĪao Stream) and Waikapū Stream is a result of an ongoing Earthjustice campaign on behalf of Maui community groups Hui o Nā Wai ʻEhā and Maui Tomorrow Foundation to restore instream flows to Nā Wai ʻEhā—“The Four Great Waters” of Waiheʻe, Waiehu, Wailuku, and Waikapū.

It was here in Wailuku and Waikapū that the first sugar plantations on Maui began draining the streams more than 150 years ago. In a sense, today’s restoration of flow brings us full circle to where the private diversions of stream flows and deprivation of Native Hawaiian communities and stream, wetland, and nearshore ecosystems began.

Wailuku River, the second largest river on Maui (Waiheʻe River is the largest) and one of the ten largest in the state, flows through ʻĪao Valley and the Wailuku region, a cultural and historical epicenter of the island. Waikapū Stream flows through the neighboring Waikapū region and is the primary freshwater source for the Keālia Pond National Wildlife Refuge and Māʻalaea Bay.

We began this legal action over 10 years ago, in June 2004. Together with our long-time ally, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, we took the case all the way to the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, which ruled in our favor in August 2012.

Under a settlement approved by the state Commission on Water Resources Management in April 2014, the two companies diverting these waters, Wailuku Water Company and Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar, agreed to restore up to 10 million gallons per day (mgd) to Wailuku River and 2.9 mgd to Waikapū Stream. The settlement also maintained the restoration of 10 mgd and 2.5 mgd to Waiheʻe River and Waiehu Stream, respectively, which the Commission initially ordered in 2010.

Our work to rectify 150 years of injustice is far from over. In addition to releasing water, the diverters still must modify their diversion structures to ensure passage of native stream life. We are also engaged in ongoing proceedings to regulate uses of Nā Wai ʻEhā stream water via permitting, which will further increase accountability over stream diversions.

Nonetheless, today we can take a moment to celebrate this hard-won and long-awaited victory. All four waters of Nā Wai ʻEhā are now flowing for the first time since the 19th century.

Over years of dedicated effort, many people helped to make this moment a reality. This moment is a tribute to them and their commitment and belief in justice, which turned the tide of history for Maui’s Four Great Waters.


Video above: After 150 Years - Water Returns to Maui Streams. From (http://youtu.be/tz9YQ0bRg1o).


.

City of Greenville v. Syngenta

SUBHEAD: Syngenta loses important lawsuit on the health effects of pesticide Atrazine.

By Michael Sussman on 6 April 2013 in Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2013/04/city-of-greenville-v-syngenta.html)


Image above: Poster to ban Atrazine for "Save the Frogs!" From (http://www.savethefrogs.com/actions/pesticides/atrazine/index.html).

Great news! Huge settlement for over1,085 nationwide water systems last October should blow Syngenta out a the water.

Another clear demonstration of what people in government , and "lawyers" can do.

There are good people scattered everywhere. But mostly I am grateful for the conscience I received from my ancestors.

Years ago, when we were building our hydro electric system intake 1500ft up Anahola valley, a plum tree was near the flow of the water and I was urged by John Wherheim, who at the time was misrepresenting himself as a hydroelectric engineer, that "a little atrizine would take care of that."

My ancestral DNA went off although I just recently found out why, Aside from being the furthest one up the valley thereby potentially poisoning the entire Anahola watershed.

I am Hebrew. Wherheim is German . It has now been documented that these poison companies are the same ones that made the poison that the Germans used to kill millions of people in the gas chambers in WWII.

So I am very grateful. I don't know how I could have lived with myself if I would have allowed myself to be intimidated by a German and poured atrazine into Anahola Stream. God of the universe, God of our ancestors thank you for bringing us to this day!

Aloha and keep up the good work everyone,

---

Atrazine Class Action Settlement

From Kelly Ball (kellyball2222@yahoo.com) on 5 April 2013

Atrazine Class Action Settlement Checks Are Being Sent to Community Water System Claimants.
(http://atrazinesettlement.com/EN/)

City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngenta AG Case No. 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF

On October 23, 2012, Judge Phil Gilbert in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois approved the $105 million nationwide atrazine settlement. After an extensive notification effort that included two first-class letters, an email and direct phone contact, 1,085 class members filed claims seeking a portion of the $105 million settlement fund. These class members will receive payments based on evidence of:

1. the levels of atrazine in the water; 
2. how often atrazine had been found in the water; 
3. how long ago atrazine had been found in the water; and 
4. the population served. 

Generally, the more water processed by a system or the frequency of high concentrations of atrazine, the more money they received. The following map shows the location of each water system receiving funds and the magnitude of their recovery:

Settlement Points

On October 23, 2012, a federal judge in Illinois issued final settlement approval.
1,085 water systems receive settlement funds.
Nearly 37 million people live in the areas served by the claimant water systems.
The class is represented by Korein Tillery of St. Louis and Baron & Budd of Dallas.

Settlement amounts are determined by levels, frequency and duration of atrazine contamination.
There are no restrictions on how the funds are used.
How can I get more information?

Additional information is available on this website, or you can call the Settlement Administrator at 1-866-329-7832, or write to Syngenta Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2002, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002. You may also contact Jerry Brown of Korein Tillery at 314-241-4844 or email him at jbrown@koreintillery.com.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Council Date with Syngenta 3/26/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Fungicide found to be Frogicide 4/8/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Syngenta poisons the well 3/24/10
Island Breath: Syngenta Poisoning at Waimea Middle School 1/12/07
Island Breath: 2nd Poisoning at Waimea Middle School 2/23/07


.

Poisoning the well

SUBHEAD: How the Feds let industry pollute the nation’s underground water supply pumping waste underground.

By Abraham Lustgarten on 11 December 2012 for Pro Publica -
(http://www.propublica.org/article/poisoning-the-well-how-the-feds-let-industry-pollute-the-nations-undergroun/single)


Image above: A view of the dry bed of the E.V. Spence Reservoir in Robert Lee, Texas, in October 2011. Records show that environmental officials have granted more than 50 aquifer exemptions for waste disposal and uranium mining in the drought-stricken stat. From original article. 

Federal officials have given energy and mining companies permission to pollute aquifers in more than 1,500 places across the country, releasing toxic material into underground reservoirs that help supply more than half of the nation's drinking water.

In many cases, the Environmental Protection Agency has granted these so-called aquifer exemptions in Western states now stricken by drought and increasingly desperate for water.


EPA records show that portions of at least 100 drinking water aquifers have been written off because exemptions have allowed them to be used as dumping grounds.

"You are sacrificing these aquifers," said Mark Williams, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado and a member of a National Science Foundation team studying the effects of energy development on the environment. "By definition, you are putting pollution into them. ... If you are looking 50 to 100 years down the road, this is not a good way to go."

As part of an investigation into the threat to water supplies from underground injection of waste, ProPublica set out to identify which aquifers have been polluted.

We found the EPA has not even kept track of exactly how many exemptions it has issued, where they are, or whom they might affect.

What records the agency was able to supply under the Freedom of Information Act show that exemptions are often issued in apparent conflict with the EPA's mandate to protect waters that may be used for drinking.

Though hundreds of exemptions are for lower-quality water of questionable use, many allow grantees to contaminate water so pure it would barely need filtration, or that is treatable using modern technology.

The EPA is only supposed to issue exemptions if aquifers are too remote, too dirty, or too deep to supply affordable drinking water. Applicants must persuade the government that the water is not being used as drinking water and that it never will be.

Sometimes, however, the agency has issued permits for portions of reservoirs that are in use, assuming contaminants will stay within the finite area exempted.

In Wyoming, people are drawing on the same water source for drinking, irrigation and livestock that, about a mile away, is being fouled with federal permission. In Texas, EPA officials are evaluating an exemption for a uranium mine — already approved by the state — even though numerous homes draw water from just outside the underground boundaries outlined in the mining company's application.

The EPA declined repeated requests for interviews for this story, but sent a written response saying exemptions have been issued responsibly, under a process that ensures contaminants remain confined.

"Aquifer Exemptions identify those waters that do not currently serve as a source of drinking water and will not serve as a source of drinking water in the future and, thus, do not need to be protected," an EPA spokesperson wrote in an email statement. "The process of exempting aquifers includes steps that minimize the possibility that future drinking water supplies are endangered."

Yet EPA officials say the agency has quietly assembled an unofficial internal task force to re-evaluate its aquifer exemption policies. The agency's spokesperson declined to give details on the group's work, but insiders say it is attempting to inventory exemptions and to determine whether aquifers should go unprotected in the future, with the value of water rising along with demand for exemptions closer to areas where people live.

Advances in geological sciences have deepened regulators' concerns about exemptions, challenging the notion that waste injected underground will stay inside the tightly drawn boundaries of the exempted areas.

"What they don't often consider is whether that waste will flow outside that zone of influence over time, and there is no doubt that it will," said Mike Wireman, a senior hydrologist with the EPA who has worked with the World Bank on global water supply issues. "Over decades, that water could discharge into a stream. It could seep into a well. If you are a rancher out there and you want to put a well in, it's difficult to find out if there is an exempted aquifer underneath your property."

Aquifer exemptions are a little-known aspect of the government's Underground Injection Control program, which is designed to protect water supplies from the underground disposal of waste.

The Safe Drinking Water Act explicitly prohibits injection into a source of drinking water, and requires precautions to ensure that oil and gas and disposal wells that run through them are carefully engineered not to leak.

Areas covered by exemptions are stripped of some of these protections, however. Waste can be discarded into them freely, and wells that run through them need not meet all standards used to prevent pollution. In many cases, no water monitoring or long-term study is required.

The recent surge in domestic drilling and rush for uranium has brought a spike in exemption applications, as well as political pressure not to block or delay them, EPA officials told ProPublica.

"The energy policy in the U.S is keeping this from happening because right now nobody — nobody — wants to interfere with the development of oil and gas or uranium," said a senior EPA employee who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. "The political pressure is huge not to slow that down."

Many of the exemption permits, records show, have been issued in regions where water is needed most and where intense political debates are underway to decide how to fairly allocate limited water resources.

In drought-stricken Texas, communities are looking to treat brackish aquifers beneath the surface because they have run out of better options and several cities, including San Antonio and El Paso, are considering whether to build new desalinization plants for as much as $100 million apiece.

And yet environmental officials have granted more than 50 exemptions for waste disposal and uranium mining in Texas, records show. The most recent was issued in September.

The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that regulates oil and gas drilling, said it issued additional exemptions, covering large swaths of aquifers underlying the state, when it brought its rules into compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in 1982. This was in large part because officials viewed them as oil reservoirs and thought they were already contaminated. But it is unclear where, and how extensive, those exemptions are.

EPA "Region VI received a road map — yes, the kind they used to give free at gas stations — with the aquifers delineated, with no detail on depth," said Mario Salazar, a former EPA project engineer who worked with the underground injection program for 25 years and oversaw the approval of Texas' program, in an email.

In California, where nearly half of the nation's fruits and vegetables are grown with water from as far away as the Colorado River, the perennially cash-strapped state's governor is proposing to spend $14 billion to divert more of the Sacramento River from the north to the south. Near Bakersfield, a private project is underway to build a water bank, essentially an artificial aquifer.

Still, more than 100 exemptions for natural aquifers have been granted in California, some to dispose of drilling and fracking waste in the state's driest parts. Though most date back to the 1980s, the most recent exemption was approved in 2009 in Kern County, an agricultural heartland that is the epicenter of some of the state's most volatile rivalries over water.

The balance is even more delicate in Colorado. Growth in the Denver metro area has been stubbornly restrained not by available land, but by the limits of aquifers that have been drawn down by as much as 300 vertical feet. Much of Eastern Colorado's water has long been piped underneath the Continental Divide and, until recently, the region was mulling a $3 billion plan to build a pipeline to bring water hundreds of miles from western Wyoming.

Along with Wyoming, Montana and Utah, however, Colorado has sacrificed more of its aquifer resources than any other part of the country.

More than 1,100 aquifer exemptions have been approved by the EPA's Rocky Mountain regional office, according to a list the agency provided to ProPublica. Many of them are relatively shallow and some are in the same geologic formations containing aquifers relied on by Denver metro residents, though the boundaries are several hundred miles away. More than a dozen exemptions are in waters that might not even need to be treated in order to drink.

"It's short-sighted," said Tom Curtis, the deputy executive director of the American Water Works Association, an international non-governmental drinking water organization. "It's something that future generations may question."

To the resource industries, aquifer exemptions are essential. Oil and gas drilling waste has to go somewhere and in certain parts of the country, there are few alternatives to injecting it into porous rock that also contains water, drilling companies say. In many places, the same layers of rock that contain oil or gas also contain water, and that water is likely to already contain pollutants such as benzene from the natural hydrocarbons within it.

Similarly, the uranium mining industry works by prompting chemical reactions that separate out minerals within the aquifers themselves; the mining can't happen without the pollution.

When regulations governing waste injection were written in the 1980s to protect underground water reserves, industry sought the exemptions as a compromise. The intent was to acknowledge that many deep waters might not be worth protecting even though they technically met the definition of drinking water.

"The concept of aquifer exemptions was something that we 'invented' to address comments when the regulations were first proposed," Salazar, the former EPA official, said. "There was never the intention to exempt aquifers just because they could contain, or would obviate, the development of a resource. Water was the resource that would be protected above all."

Since then, however, approving exemptions has become the norm. In an email, the EPA said that some exemption applications had been denied, but provided no details about how many or which ones. State regulators in Texas and Wyoming could not recall a single application that had been turned down and industry representatives said they had come to expect swift approval.

"Historically they have been fairly routinely granting aquifer exemptions," said Richard Clement, the chief executive of Powertech Uranium, which is currently seeking permits for new mining in South Dakota. "There has never been a case that I'm aware of that it has not been done."

Aquifer Exemptions Granted
The aquifer exemptions approved by the EPA each year are according to a partial list of approvals provided to ProPublica by the agency in response to a FOIA request. 

In 1981, shortly after the first exemption rules were set, the EPA lowered the bar for exemptions as part of settling a lawsuit filed by the American Petroleum Institute. Since then, the agency has issued permits for water not "reasonably expected" to be used for drinking. The original language allowed exemptions only for water that could never be used.

Oil companies have been the biggest users of aquifer exemptions by far. Most are held by smaller, independent companies, but Chevron, America's second-largest oil company, holds at least 28 aquifer exemptions. Exxon holds at least 14. In Wyoming, the Canadian oil giant EnCana, currently embroiled in an investigation of water contamination related to fracking in the town of Pavillion, has been allowed to inject into aquifers at 38 sites.

Once an exemption is issued, it's all but permanent; none have ever been reversed. Permits dictate how much material companies can inject and where, but impose little or no obligations to protect the surrounding water if it has been exempted. The EPA and state environmental agencies require applicants to assess the quality of reservoirs and to do some basic modeling to show where contaminants should end up. But in most cases there is no obligation, for example, to track what has been put into the earth or — except in the case of the uranium mines — to monitor where it does end up.

The biggest problem now, experts say, is that the EPA's criteria for evaluating applications are outdated. The rules — last revised nearly three decades ago — haven't adapted to improving water treatment technology and don't reflect the changing value and scarcity of fresh water.

Aquifers once considered unusable can now be processed for drinking water at a reasonable price.

The law defines an underground source of drinking water as any water that has less than 10,000 parts per million of what are called Total Dissolved Solids, a standard measure of water quality, but historically, water with more than 3,000 TDS has been dismissed as too poor for drinking. It also has been taken for granted that, in most places, the deeper the aquifer — say, below about 2,000 feet — the higher the TDS and the less salvageable the water.

Yet today, Texas towns are treating water that has as high as 4,000 TDS and a Wyoming town is pumping from 8,500 feet deep, thousands of feet below aquifers that the EPA has determined were too far underground to ever produce useable water.

"You can just about treat anything nowadays," said Jorge Arroyo, an engineer and director of innovative water technologies at the Texas Water Development Board, which advises the state on groundwater management. Arroyo said he was unaware that so many Texas aquifers had been exempted, and that it would be feasible to treat many of them. Regarding the exemptions, he said, "With the advent of technology to treat some of this water, I think this is a prudent time to reconsider whether we allow them."

Now, as commercial crops wilt in the dry heat and winds rip the dust loose from American prairies, questions are mounting about whether the EPA should continue to grant exemptions going forward.

"Unless someone can build a clear case that this water cannot be used — we need to keep our groundwater clean," said Al Armendariz, a former regional administrator for the EPA's South Central region who now works with the Sierra Club. "We shouldn't be exempting aquifers unless we have no other choice. We should only exempt the aquifer if we are sure we are never going to use the water again."

Still, skeptics say fewer exemptions are unlikely, despite rising concern about them within the EPA, as the demand for space underground continues to grow. Long-term plans to slow climate change and clean up coal by sequestering carbon dioxide underground, for example, could further endanger aquifers, causing chemical reactions that lead to water contamination.

"Everyone wants clean water and everyone wants clean energy," said Richard Healy, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey whose work is focused on the nexus of energy production and water. "Energy development can occur very quickly because there is a lot of money involved. Environmental studies take longer."
.

Poisonous mud in Hanalei

SUBHEAD: Lab tests indicate that there is a sandbar in Hanalei Bay laced with toxic heavy metals.  

By Terry Lilley on 28 April 2012 in Island Breath - 
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2012/05/poisonous-mud-in-hanalei.html)
 
Image above: Recent aerial view of the mouth of the Hanalei River and mud sandbar. From Terry Lilley.

You may know I have been studying the reefs in Hanalei Bay since 2006 trying to find out why the corals are dying in shallow water. It appears the coral die off is related to the continual mud flowing out of the Hanalei River.

These materials are also making large sand bars at the mouth of the river. I found several ongoing digging projects in the wetland that were not permitted under the Endangered Species Act. Two projects are private and one is government. None of these projects are using the mandatory sediment traps to keep mud from flowing into the bay.

Just go North out of Hanalei right now and you will see a bridge rebuilding project taking place on a small creek. Notice in the creek you will see the mandatory yellow sediment traps being uses properly. Several weeks ago I took several mud sample for testing by a professional lab in Honolulu called "Test America" to see what is in the mud in the river and bay. This mud is building up right now near the Hanalei Pier like it did last summer.

 
Image above: Muddy sandbar at the mouth of Hanalei River with the pier in the background. From Terry Lilley.

The test results just came back and they are stunning!! Here are some of the results right out of the report and I have the report available for review.

Arsenic 29 ppm (parts per million) Barium 19 ppm Chromium 120 ppm Lead 2.4 ppm

We are also testing for Dioxin which is the most dangerous chemical on earth! I bet it will be in the bay and river since it was used in agent orange testing in the river years ago. The EPA website (Environmental Protection Agency) has on their web the legal limit of these chemicals in drinking water and they are less than "one" ppm! That means our samples have more than 29 times the legal level for drinking water for Arsenic!!

Heavy metal poisoning can cause serious illness. Just read the info on the EPA web site. It is a violation of the Clean Water Act to dump mud and heavy metals into the Hanalei Bay but this occurs daily! I have lots of video and pics with GPS, time and date. I believe and can show with video and lab test, that this mud and heavy metal release is killing the reef in Hanalei Bay and making people sick!

The DOH in Honolulu (Watson Okubo) told me in an email that their department did similar lab test of the mud in the Hanalei Bay a year ago but have not released the results to the public, as they are still being analyzed! It only took us one hour to analyze our reports and I believe they both were done by the same lab!

If you are bothered like I am to have high levels of heavy metals in the water where we surf and swim, then maybe you could call the DOH, EPA, DLNR and Mayor to express your concerns and demand a clean up.




Image above: Handful of mud from Hanalei River that was is laced with heavy metals. From Terry Lilley.

The numbers are in the phone book. I have already sent these agencies a full report but they are not responding. This is not a right wing, left wing, good old boy network, or political issue. It is a simple heath issue that effects us all and it is getting worse with time. This problem can be fixed!!

It just needs a little public attention. We are also raising funds through our non profit to do more testing to see if the heavy metal concentrations are high through out the bay or just in localized spots. If you can help with funding please let me know as we have spent over $2,000 so far on these expensive test. Feel free to forward this email to anyone who may care about the health of Hanalei Bay.

 .

Remove Moloaa Stream Diversion

SUBHEAD: A request to remove the Moloaa/Kaluaa stream diversion in Moloaa Forest Reserve on Kauai.  

[Editor's note: Below is the content of a recent letter to the BLNR concerning the inclusion of the diversion of Moloaa Stream as a topic for Kauai 2011 Listening Session.]  

By Hope Kallai on 16 August 2011 in email to BLNR -
 
Image above: Moloaa Stream (left) as it reaches the ocean at Moloaa Bay. Photo by Juan Wilson in 2005.

DLNR Chairperson William J. Aila, Jr.
 Kalanimoku Building 1151 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

William.J.Aila@hawaii.gov
DLNR@hawaii.gov 
DLNR2011ListeningSessions@hawaii.gov

Aloha e Chairperson Aila:

Mahalo for taking the time to come to Kauai again and especially taking the time to listen to us. I have written ridiculous amount of correspondence to DLNR without response.

Mahalo for changing this pattern. Moloa`a Stream was a perennial stream; it always had flowing water - enough to support several hundred people. About a decade ago, the flow in Moloa`a Stream changed. The stream would not rise during heavy precipitation events; sometimes it rose when it was not raining mauka. There were unexplained dirty water events both brown water and grey water. There were no flushing flows to clear out the sand berm at Moloa`a Stream mouth. Moloa`a Stream began being seriously diverted about 2001, continuing today. The kumuwai of Moloa`a is in the Moloa`a State Forest Reserve, mauka of Ka Loko Reservoir.

The Moloa`a system is fed by perennial tributaries of Kalua`a Stream, including Kanalohewahewa, stemming from a perennial bog. The ahupua`a of Moloa`a has no community water system, either potable or irrigation. Recently, our family’s water well went dry. After 10 years of an un-permitted stream diversion removing our groundwater aquifer, we had to dig 150’ deeper (at $55/ft) to find water to be able to live and farm on our 5 acres.

Two different individuals complained to CWRM before our ahupua`a-based community group did in 2001(Godbey Exhibits: DLNR 1285 to DLNR 1296, EPA 001-033), about the diversion of upper Moloa`a Stream. A formal Stream Resolution Complaint No. 01-12 was filed Oct 3, 2001 by Daniel Garner, complete with maps and photos but Mr. Pflueger’s attorney responded that water does not run upgrade and that the diversion would originate mauka in the State Forest Reserve (DLNR 1297-1303).

 An offer was made to escort state representatives to the alleged “landlocked” State Forest Reserve. As Mr. Garner told CWRM in 2001, “growing taro with no water is difficult, if not impossible” and he abandoned his lo`i kalo on Moloa`a. When is CWRM going to act on the 3 Moloa`a Stream diversion complaints? The newly released Kaloko Phase II Dam Report documents exactly where in the forest the ditch originates, by GPS measurement.

The 2009 Kilauea Irrigation Company Report (Draft April 2009, Final October 2009) maps and documents when the diversion was constructed (about 2001). It further documents how this un-permitted, un-engineered, illegal 7’ ditch terminates into an 8” underground irrigation system on Mary Lucas Trust lands, goes through a 90 degree angle, then is reduced from 8” to 6”. The KICO report maps how the ditch has overflown into Kaloko Reservoir, causing “Overflow Erosion Channels”.

The construction of a new, additional inflow into Kaloko is an alteration of appurtenant dam works. This is illegal and needs to be removed immediately. Moloa`a needs it’s water. KICO has been dumping excess diverted (stolen) water into the ocean in the area of 4170 North Waiakalua for years, all to the detriment of the Moloa`a ahupua`a. When are the alterations to the Kaloko system going to be removed? We have filed a Stream Resolution Complaint - the 3rd on Moloa`a . We have asked for Flow Standards to be established for Kalua`a and Moloa`a Streams.

We filed a Complaint Dispute Resolution Response request on 14 March 2011. We have gotten no resolution yet to our steam diversion complaints. We have gotten no responses. What are we doing wrong? How can CWRM keep permitting groundwater well withdrawals without understanding the water budget of Moloa`a? We cannot wait another decade for our stream flow to be restored. What can we do to remove this illegal diversion from taking and selling stolen Public Trust water from the State Forest Reserve (designated for watershed protection)?

The KICO inflow/infiltration study documents how the turn of one valve returns the stolen water into the Moloa`a ahupua`a, but the entire ½ mile ditch and new headwaters impoundment, in trespass in the forest, must be removed. Moloa`a Stream and Kalua`a bog, (one of the last low elevation bogs in Hawaii) need to be restored. The BLNR voted to revoke Revocable Water Use Permit S-6240 to Kilauea Irrigation System in September, 2007 but left the termination date to be decided by DLNR staff. I previously requested the termination of Revocable Permit S-6240 (2009 June 3 Termination of Revocable Permit S 6240), but have not received an answer yet. Can you please tell me the status of this permit? Does KICO have insurance?

According to the Phase II report, KICO is failing to maintain the Kaloko Ditch from Pu`ukaele Stream. Are they relieved of this maintenance kuleana? Has the hazard rating of Kaloko been determined? Is there an Emergency Action Plan yet? We have written many letters about the diversion of the upper Moloa`a Stream system, but have gotten no responses. We warned people about these un-permitted diversions mauka of Kaloko before the Kaloko dam breach.

Dam Safety inspectors were not sent out in response to a flood that destroyed a bridge (2009 Jan 26 State Ended Safety Inspections Before Hawaii Dam Collapsed). 1 week before 8 people died, the EPA and DOH were sent to Kaloko (EPA 000064-000105). DOH Environmental Health Specialists and the Enforcement Section Supervisor didn’t notice the lack of a spillway -they checked silt fences.

 Nobody checked the stream diversions mauka of Kaloko (-the ditch goes underground on Mary Lucas Trust land) which had been reported to the state for 5 years by then. They were more interested in “closing the loop” (EPA 000045, EPA 000050) and checking Pila`a Consent Decree mitigation remediation actions. We’ve been told:

“You cannot go up there - it’s private land.” “You’re crazy - Moloa`a and Kaloko are not connected,” “Don’t worry, If Kaloko blows, it’ll take out Kilauea side, not Moloa`a.: “It’s Pflueger’s land, he won’t let the state go there.” ‘Moloa`a Ditch never went into Kaloko - only into Kaloko ditch above the flume.” “Moloa`a Ditch went pau in the 1960’s. Only carried water during high rain storms. Kilauea Sugar quit maintaining it before plantation went pau.” “Moloa`a ditch doesn‘t exist anymore. It is functionally obsolete.” “We have no record of this ditch. We cannot talk about it.} “We are not interested in pursuing another Clean Water Act violation against Jimmy Pflueger.” “We have to get Jimmy Pflueger’s permission to inspect the breached dam..” “Kaloko never had a spillway.” “The dam is not a dam anymore. Too small. No more state jurisdiction.”” “Water does not flow upstream.” “I’ll perform my own Phase II investigation, but the it will be private.” “We’re looking into it.” “We cannot discuss this - it’s under litigation.”

On December 22, 2006, Attorney General Wynoff wrote Jimmy Pflueger about Kaloko: Third, we are informed of a second source of water to the reservoir, of unknown origin. Please provide all available information as to this source, including date of installation, plans and specifications for its construction, origin of the water, any documentation as to authorization for use or diversion of the water, and your plans (if any) to cease and desist receiving water from this second source. There’s plenty information about this un-permitted ditch now. There is no authorization for the use of this water. Why does Jimmy Pflueger get to decide when (if ever) he plans to cease and desist receiving and selling stolen water?

When is the State going to remove this illegal, un-permitted, un-engineered ditch system and restore the flow of Moloa`a/Kalua`a Streams back into the Moloa`a ahupua`a? Our downstream neighbor had to water the o`opu in what used to be Moloa`a Stream with a garden hose from his well to keep them alive. The o`opu need their water. We need our water back now. We cannot wait for water pending litigation against Jimmy Pflueger. Nobody downstream is safe until these un-engineered ditches are removed. Ua hewa i ka wai. Nobody has been listening.

I realize this has gone on for a decade under the previous administrations, before being presented to you, but I hope you can realize how the piracy of public trust resources cannot be allowed to continue. Mahalo for taking quick action and putting an end to this decade of deception and denial. We all live downstream.

Hope Kallai
Malama Moloa`a
POB 655 Kilauea, HI 97654

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Moloaa Diversion Forensics 5/22/09

 .

New York Governor sells soul

SUBHEAD: Gov. Cuomo lifts moratorium on fracking in much of state outside NYC drinking water supply. By Matthew McDermott on 1 July 2011 for TreeHugger - (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/06/new-york-governor-partially-lift-moratorium-fracking.php) Image above: Effort to extend NY moratorium on fracking failed in June 2011. From (http://inhabitat.com/nyc/ny-aims-to-extend-ban-on-fracking-for-another-year/).

Win some, (partially, maybe) lose some: As New Jersey bans fracking, the political signs are pointing to New York governor Andrew Cuomo lifting the existing de facto state ban on fracking.

According to the New York Times state officials are maintaing the ban on hydraulic fracturing in the watershed of New York City (a large area of upstate New York) and in the watershed for Syracuse, but would allow fracking to take place outside of those areas.

[Editor's note: The affected are mostly the farms and woodlands of the wide Southern Tier of western New York state that includes rural Amish country and small cities such as Jamestown, and Olean. This will transform much of western NY into something like the mountain top removal area of West Virginia.]

When the official notification will take place is at this time unknown, but the state Department of Environmental Protection is planning to release its fracking survey soon.

In fact, the governor's office is keeping mum on the issue, with a spokesman saying that speculation on when or if the ban might be lifted is "baseless" and "premature".

So speculating more, based on this report of what might happen:

The good news is that the watershed of millions of people will be protected. Phew. One major concern dealt with. The bad news is that the local water supply, food supply and safety, and air quality in those areas opened up to fracking would still solidly be at risk. Opposition to fracking is unlikely to be diminished.

.