Members of the City Council — and the public — are understandably angered by the fallout from the Honolulu Board of Water Supply’s policies in recent months, but increasing politicians’ control over the agency is not the remedy. The new leadership of the board should be given a chance to rebound.
The Council is considering a proposal by Councilman Ikaika Anderson that would give it final approval of the water board’s operating and capital improvement budgets, even though city tax revenues are not affected or tapped by the agency. It also would require Council review of any land transactions or land condemnation contemplated by the water board, and require that the semi-autonomous board’s members follow the city’s standards of conduct.
"They have a right to be upset," says Ernest Y.W. Lau, who was appointed manager and chief engineer of the self-sustaining water supply system by the board in January.
Lau previously had been deputy director of the state Commission on Water Resource Management and head of the Kauai water department.
Last November, the water board unanimously approved a 70 percent rate increase over five years, the first rate hike since 2006, to maintain and replace aging infrastructure, sorely needed due to deferred maintenance.
Previously, the water agency also had spent nearly $490,000 over a three-year period on lobbyists to persuade the state Legislature to enact bills related to the board. Spending revenue from water bills on professional lobbyists is unacceptable. So it is indeed a step in the right direction that professional lobbyists are no longer employed: As Deputy Manager and Chief Engineer Ellen Kitamura assured the Star-Advertiser’s editorial board last week, any such advocacy on the board’s behalf now is being handled by her or her boss.
Lau does not want to undo what the board had done before his arrival — such as the transition to an automatic meter reading (AMR) system, which has proven to be controversial and problematic due to maintenance and bad-battery issues. For example, as many as 16 percent of all of the 166,000 customers complained when they started receiving bills in April based on faulty estimates rather than actual usage.
While the board "really messed up on this estimated bill issue," Lau said, temporary estimates have been necessary, although in reduced numbers, because of malfunctions in implementing a new billing system.
But the water agency seems finally to have gotten on top of this crisis, saying that billing complaints have now eased to about 4 percent. Further, additional temporary staff has improved customer service, which Lau acknowledged had been deficient due to the spike in complaints.
He also defended the change to monthly billing, saying that because of rising sewer and water fees, it makes more sense for customers to pay their bills monthly rather than a whopper every other month. That might be so, but the outcry over inadequate prior notification has become a needed lesson in fuller public disclosure. The doubling of the basic "billing charge" of $7.70 a month — from $42.12 over a year to $84.24 — left customers with sticker shock, especially on top of the water-rate increases.
Complaints about water shortages and poor management led the Legislature in 1929 to create the board, and more important, to insulate it from excessive political meddling.
Political entities already have influence over the water agency: Five members of its board are appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council. The other two members are the director of the state Department of Transportation and the chief engineer of the city’s Department of Facility Maintenance. The Council’s bill for more authority over the water board is unnecessary and should be shelved.
Increased expenses are the result of inadequate maintenance and repair in past years. Creating direct control by the City Council over the water board would not change that reality, but it could unduly interfere with a water agency that is making strides in correcting its many problems.
Lau already is anticipating public hearings for a new 30-year master plan for the Board of Water Supply to stay on top of its operations and facilities, as well as forensic analyses to help write better pipe and construction job bids.
Such action would go a long way toward regaining the trust of the board’s customers, and convincing them that the higher fees they are paying are indeed worth it.
