Maui Tomorrow Urges Council to Adopt Cochran’s Suggestion on Hamakuapoko Well

The Hamakuapoko wells were drilled by the county in 1992 and were shut down after they were found to contain pesticides such as DBCP, EDB, atrazine
and TCP that leached from farm fields. Although water officials claim that they can bring the pesticides down to legal levels with filtration, critics say Environmental Protection Agency studies to determine “maximum contaminant levels” for various chemicals don’t take into account the effects on infants, children, the elderly and infirm, or the cumulative health impacts of ingesting a mix of toxins such as those contained in the two Maui wells.

In 2006 Stuart Yamada of the state Department of Health’s Safe Drinking Water Branch, endorsed filtration as Oahu’s central valley aquifer is so polluted that they feel their only financially feasible way to get water to residents is to use the filtered polluted water. The cost of their plant was about $6million.

However Yamada agreed that scientific concerns have been raised about the multiple effects of multiple contaminants, but that few studies have been done.

As a result, residents of Upcountry and Pa’ia became vocal in their opposition to having Hamakuapoko well water added to their supply and the County Council passed a ban on using that water for human consumption.

Of particular concern were indications that in extremely low quantities these chemicals (endocrine disrupting chemicals like DBCP) mimicked hormones and might be affecting fetal gender differentiation, particularly male fetuses, causing genital malformation. Published research has indicated that these chemicals, including DBCP can act as androgen receptor (AR) agonists and antagonists or inhibit fetal steroidogenesis. This can induce reproductive malformations resulting in lack of normal sexual organs.

Additionally research has implicated DBCP in breast and other tumors and damage to DNA. ****

The crux of the disagreement between residents of the areas slated to be served by the Hamakuapoko Wells and the County is that the filtration system will not completely eliminate DBCP and other chemicals and that there is a difference between “zero detectable levels” and “zero levels” and that, in particular, the endocrine disrupting effects can occur at extremely low levels.

On August 30, 2011, Mike Victorino proposed rescinding the ban on human consumption and the Maui County Council Water Resources Committee passed this proposal 5-1.

The only dissenting Councilmember, Elle Cochran, proposed that the Hamakuapoko water only go into the ditches for agricultural use and the County use the water that was offset from cleaner sources instead.

Maui Tomorrow urges the County Council and Mayor to adopt Councilmember Cochran’s plan rather than adding Hamakuapoko well water to the potable supply.

Background on Lawsuit and Contaminate Levels:

In September of 1999 a lawsuit brought by the Maui Board of Water Supply against Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Shell Oil Company, AMVAC Chemical Corporation, American Vanguard Corporation, Brewer Environmental Industries LLC, Maui Pineapple Company, Ltd. and Maui Land and Pineapple Company, Inc. was settled. The companies who made and used the chemicals which polluted the aquifer agreed to pay most (not all) of the cost to bring containment levels down to MCL (Maximum Containment Level). MCL for DBPC is zero. ***

Other possible drawbacks to GAC filtration:

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) works on the principle of physical absorption, where contaminants are effectively trapped within the structure of the material. Unfortunately, it can become saturated, and a phenomenon known as ‘kick out’ can occur. When a contaminant is absorbed by GAC, energy is given off in the form of heat. If a different contaminant is subsequently released that generates higher amounts of energy, the original contaminant can be released. The ‘kick out’ can actually increase the amount of a particular contaminant occurring after treatment in extreme circumstances.

Critics also point out that a given sorbent has a finite capacity for absorption of a given contaminant; once this limit is reached, contaminant breakthrough occurs. This can result in over-limit chemical contamination being introduced into the water system, if the filtration is not monitored closely and the sorbent replaced prior to reaching saturation.

*humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/3/248.full.pdf
*www.biolreprod.org/content/39/3/707.full.pdf
*http://www.springerlink.com/content/1gj8e404yhv0jcp4/

**http://mauigifts.us/documents/EPA4.htm

***http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List

****http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/FactSheet/pesticide/fs50.dbcp.cfm