Don’t Inject – Redirect!

Q1. Are Maui’s Coral Reefs Threatened?

A1. Yes, Maui’s coral reefs are in serious decline.  See the report of the Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources titled “Status of Maui’s Coral Reefs” (2007).  A 2005 Science article and to the 2009 testimony from Hawaii’s Department of Lands and Natural Resources confirm this conclusion. Our reefs are substantially worse than those of Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Here’s what Russell Sparks of Hawaii’s Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) testified in 2009: “The reefs off the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility have experienced somewhere around 50 percent decline since we’ve been monitoring it, since 1994.” (p. 24)

What should we do about it? The 2005 Science article concludes, “First . . .scientists should stop arguing about the relative importance of different causes of coral reef decline: overfishing, pollution, disease, and climate change. Instead, we must simultaneously reduce all threats to have any hope of reversing the decline. . . . We need to act now to curtail processes adversely affecting reefs.” [emphasis added]

Q2. What’s causing this decline in Maui’s reefs?

A2. There appear to be many factors contributing to the decline of Mau’s reefs.  These factors include algae growth; decline in grazing fish that control the algae; land-based pollution of near shore waters with nutrients, pathogens, and toxic pollutants;  warming and acidification of the ocean, and other factors.  See the 2005 Science article by Pandolfi.

Concerns over sub-surface seepage of nutrient-laden effluent to the ocean and consequent algae blooms have been voiced on Maui for more that 15 years.  Two recent studies demonstrate fairly conclusively the significant nexus between wastewater from injection wells entering the ocean and contributing to algae growth and coral reef decline.  See the 2009 USGS Study by Charles D. Hunt using tracers and other techniques to detect and map wastewater plumes from the injection wells in the near shore waters of Lahaina and Kihei, and the even more telling 2010 study by Meghan Dailer and colleagues at the University of Hawaii, which concluded:  “Recent research has determined that accelerated growth of H. musciformis and U. fasciata is driven by excess nutrients (Dailer and Smith, submitted for publication). Because of the proximity of the algal blooms to human population centers and agricultural regions on Maui, we hypothesized that the blooms are a result of sewage and agricultural pollution to shallow coastal egions.      These results confirm that the injected effluent from the Lahaina WWRF is continuously flowing through the reef at Kahekili and then subsequently flows to the south.” The results also show that a special nitrogen signature of wastewater is incorporated in the algal blooms of concern.

These two studies are the smoking guns that confirm what has been suspected for over 15 years — that the injection wells of Maui are significant contributors to the algal blooms that are destroying Maui’s coral reefs.

Q3.  How do you know that the Lahaina injection well wastewaters  flow into the ocean?

A3. We know this for several reasons. First, the 1990 Environmental Assessment for the Kahului wastewater treatment plant explicitly acknowledged that the “purpose of this injection is to transmit the plant effluent indirectly into the ocean.” (p. 9)

Second, Dave Taylor, Division Chief, Wastewater Reclamation Division, Maui County confirmed that this is what actually happens at Lahaina in his Nov. 2008 testimony at the EPA hearing:  “The other water, about four million gallons, maybe a little less, goes down the injection wells. The injection well water is — does not go through the ultraviolet treatment. It goes down these deep pipes into the ground, they go down a couple hundred feet. And that water moves outward through the ground, eventually it comes out into the ocean.” – Testimony of November 6, 2008, “EPA Public Hearing on Lahaina Waste Water Injection Permit,” p. 8, lines 15-21. See also Mr. Taylor’s exchange with Mr. Seebart at p. 13, lines 10-25.

Third, Maui County’s web site (answer to Q. 10) says that “independent studies detected injection well discharge in some areas of algae blooms. . . . Fourth, former Mayor Arakawa, who worked at the Lanhaina and Kahului wastewater treatment plans, testified in 2008 that the wastewaters do enter the ocean from the inection wells: “in Kahului, the water goes into the injection well, it comes out almost immediately at the ocean side. We can even see traces of it bubbling up almost as a stream. In Lahaina, we’re not much further. I believe the effects of the water getting into the ocean is a lot sooner than what we think.” See p. 81, lines 15-21.

The Hawaii Department of Lands and Natural Resources (DNLR) concurs and cites University of Hawaii data to support this concern:  “. . . recent scientific studies have provided evidence that the injection well plumes are percolating up into the near shore waters where the reef degradation is occurring.” Then come the Hunt and Dailer studies referenced in A2 above.

Q4.  Is wastewater reclamation and reuse on land feasible? Has it been tried elsewhere?

A4. Yes, see the Experience page of our web site for information on th 1900 US communities now reclaiming and reusing wastewater to help address water shortages and save potable (drinkable) water.  Moreover, in Hawaii, “promotion of the use of recycled water is one of the Department [of Health's] high priority goals.”

Q5. Are there feasible ways to address concerns about pharmaceuticals and resistant bacteria/viruses (RBV) in the wastewaters, even those treated to meet R-1 standards?

A5.  Yes.  See our Safety Page.

Q6.  Where would the money come from to pay for the necessary studies, new piping, pumps, energy, etc. to re-use the Lahaina, Kihei and Kahului wastewater?

A6. The State of Hawaii recently received a $50 million grant from the federal EPA under the recently enacted stimulus legislation to “finance many of the overdue improvements to water projects that are essential to protecting public health and the environment across the state,” including wastewater projects.  Unfortunately, since Maui did not have a “shovel ready” plan for building necessary wastewater reuse infrastructure, we missed recent grant opportunities that several California communities obtained.  See the House of Representatives summary that shows $4 billion in funds “to help communities upgrade wastewater treatment systems.” (p. 7) We need to do the necessary feasibility and design studies to have a “shovel ready” project ready to go when necessary federal funds next become available.  Federal grants are only one possible way of paying for the necessary construction.

We  invite the County to explore a range of possible financing options with us. Among the possible solutions worth exploring are: bond issue financing, power purchase agreements with solar provider consortia, federal grants (such as the Bureau of Reclamation grants for wastewater reclamation demonstration projects, drought reduction, or other water reuse), public-private partnerships, and/or user fees from those who would benefit from the availability of the reclaimed wastewaters, to name only some of the possibilities.

See also: http://www.adb.org/Water/Actions/aus/squeezing-wine.asp for an interesting article on how private financing was obtained in Australia to achieve the necessary level of treatment and transport of the wastewater to fields where it is re-used.

In 2007, the town of Prescott, AZ conducted a unique auction of rights to its treated wastewater effluent and the winning bidder could pay over $67 million for these rights depending on how much of their rights they decide to exercise.  This might be a model worth considering for Maui.

EPA has put together a guide for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of wastewater reuse, and other tools are available for determining how to optimize our recapture and reuse of wastewater.  We want the County to engage in community conversation about how to create a solution for the pollution going into our ocean, not end the dialog by saying only, “It”s too expensive.”

Q7. Could reuse of the Island’s wastewaters help address the stream flow restoration needs of kalo growers and others  in East Maui?

A7. Yes, see the 2008 testimony of Steve Parabicoli, who told the County Council’s Water Resources Committee, “. . . if you were to use [the reclaimed wasteater] for agriculture, such as sugarcane irrigation, you wouldn’t need to upgrade to R-1, you could just leave it as is at R-2, it’s perfectly good enough at R-2 quality, and just basically fund distribution to the near, nearest sugar…, sugarcane ditch or wherever they, you know, they could blend the water with their, their current source, which is surface water. . . . and the beauty of that idea is, you know, you could if you use 5 million gallons a day of R-2 water for sugarcane irrigation, you could leave 5 million gallons a day of stream water back in the streams in East Maui.” (p. 32)

Moreover, it is clear from a 2007 USGS study that successful kalo growing requires “double” the stream flow rates previously estimated to be required for this purpose.  The report “Water use in wetland kalo cultivation in Hawai‘i” by Stephen B. Gingerich, Chiu W. Yeung, Tracy-Joy N. Ibarra and John A. Engott is available online at http://hi.water.usgs.gov. Thus, it is all the more important that we stop discarding these valuable wastewaters down the injection wells.

Q8. Can reclaimed wastewater be used safely and effectively for fire fighting operations and training?

A8. Yes it can with proper treatment.  “The California Deparment of Public Health has approved the use of disinfected tertiary recycled water for . . . Firefighting. “  Firefighting is also a permissible use of treated wastewater in North Carolina, Virginia, and Oregon. Santa Barbara, CA uses treated wastewater for a wide variety of uses, including “structural and non-structural fire fighting”.  Other towns and cities that use treated wastewater for fire fighting include San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Big Bear Lake, and Victor Valley, CA ; and Cloudcroft, NM.  See also the Memorandum of Understanding between several New South Wales (Australia) fire brigades and the Sydney Water Authority, which includes the following: “In endorsing this document, the agencies acknowledge that recycled water is both environmentally sustainable and suitable for fire fighting purposes provided it is used in accordance with this MOU.” A 2004 Health Risk Assessment in Australia likewise concluded: “Properly treated and managed Australian Class A, and in some cases Class B, recycled water is acceptably safe for fire fighting use.” Queensland authorities came to a similar conclusion.  In Japan and the Netherlands, too, treated wastewaters are used for firefighting.

Q9. What does it cost if we con’t reclaim and recycle the wastewater?

A 2004 study of the economic impact of algae and declining coral reefs “concluded that the algae problem causes large losses of real estate value and hotel business and that mitigation could result in benefits of $30 million over time. This would justify major investments in lowering nutrient discharges in the coastal zone.”  Click here for the more extensive report of this study. This is only a part of the cost of inaction.  A number of other opportunities for cost savings and benefits of improved wastewater treatment and water recycling were not evaluated in the 2004 study.  These include avoided crop losses due to unreliable water supply, avoided health costs associated with MRSA infections for ocean users caused by pathogens in the wastewater,  overcoming constraints on economic growth as result of inadequate water supply, cost savings from preventing brush fires, avoided fines and penalties for unpermitted discharges, and the cost savings in reduced fertilizer for agriculture and others who could use nutrient bearing recycled water for irrigation.

Q10. What are R-1 Standards for Wastewater Treatment?

A10. Hawai’i Dept of Health has developed standards for re-use of reclaimed wastewater effluent. R-1 is the classification for water that has been oxidized, filtered, and disinfected. Wastewater meeting this standard is allowed broader re-use than R-2 (oxidized and disinfected only) and R-3 wastewater (oxidized only).

Maui Wastewater Treatment Injection Fact Sheet

Three county wastewater treatment plants on Maui rely on injection wells to dispose of treated effluent: 3 wells at the Kihei facility, 4 at Lahaina, and 8 in Kahului. Injection wells…

• Put our reefs at risk……how?

Algae Growth in the Vicinity of Maui Reefs: Although the county incorporated biological nutrient removal systems that reduced nitrogen discharges by 60%, sewage wastewater continues to contribute to the harmful algal and bacteria blooms that smother our coral reefs, adversely affecting marine life.
Coral cover loss: “over 90% since 1995 [for Maalaea],” and a nearly 25% average decline in coral cover over 9 Maui reefs studied between 1994/1999-2006.

• Waste our water……how?

Rainfall shortage in Maui April-June 2008: “31 percent below . . . average”
Estimated Costs of New Reservoir on Maui to Deal with Drought: $15 million
Agricultural irrigation resource deficit in 2008: “90 percent below normal”
Acres Scorched in Brush Fire Incidents on Maui:
- 3500 + acres in 2006 Maalaea – Olowalu fire
- 1000 acres in 2007 in West Maui
- 650 acres near Maui Meadows in Kihei in 2008
Reusable wastewater discarded by injection wells: county-wide over 11.5 million gallons of waste water a day is pumped into injection wells; 3-4  million gallons/day at Lahaina alone – or about 1.5 billion gallons/year

• Increase waterborne infections……how?

Since 1995 there has been a sharp increase of hospitalization due to staph infection. In 2007 the number of hospitalizations in Maui was 188 people per 100,000. The national average is 89 people per 100,000.

• Harm our economy……how?

Estimated Value of Coral Reefs for Hawaii’s Economy: $364 million/year
Estimated Annual Cost of Algal Damage in Maui: more than $20 million/year
According to Maui County Wastewater Manager Steve Parabicoli, an estimate of total economic losses – due to damaged reefs, loss of fish and sea weed smell that drives down rental prices of beach properties – is as much as $20 million a year.
Add the loss of habitat for marinelife, the loss of esthetic value and the cost soars beyond calculation.

Produced by DIRE – a coalition of Maui residents and organizations concerned about environmentally harmful wastewater disposal at a time of severe drought and water shortage.

Don’t Inject – REDirect … because the situation is DIRE!

We are facing a five year drought and are at risk of more fires.  We can re-direct these waters and reuse them – for irrigation, for green belts that prevent fire, for watering golf courses and lawns, and to free up scarce water for drinking and for stream flow replenishment.

The wastewater we are injecting is flowing out to sea. The nutrients in this water are spurring the growth of algae. The algae are choking and killing our coral reefs.  Our coral reef ecosystems are dying. We are killing the habitat for Hawai’i’s fish and other marinelife.  This injection – along with other pollution from the land — is strangling our economy.  We rely on tourists who are drawn to Maui in part by our clear waters and our unique coral reefs and the fish they attract. We rely on our reefs to provide food, to protect us from storm-driven waves and to provide spiritual, cultural and spiritual rejuvenation and sustenance.

There are practical alternatives.  We can re-direct and reuse the water. To lose the water instead of re-use the water makes no sense in a period of extreme drought and water shortage.

DIRE is a coalition of Maui residents, visitors and organizations concerned about environmentally harmful wastewater disposal at a time of severe drought and water shortage.