 Hill, Red Hill. It throws consternation all over the place. Red Hill, it's a big controversy now. You've got to remember that the Red Hill storage tax paid back to World War II has been there all this time, and maybe that's the problem, because they have to be maintained in order to emanate the water supply. There have been complaints over the years. We'll hear a little there, and they're kind of a crescendo of complaints, if you will, and maybe a crescendo of contamination too, and now the public is definitely. And two of the people who were involved in the controversy and in the public response to all of this. So can you tell me what the current status is? Because let me say that the status moves almost every day. There's a lot of press on this, and it seems to be, as I said, a crescendo. So Melanie, where are we now on this controversy in terms of the positions expressed by the people who are actively opposing for the use of these tanks? The government, the state government, and the military, the federal government as well. Where are we? Well, thank you for inviting us on the program. I think a little bit of background is, you know, everybody knows about tanks now, and in the beginning nobody knew about it. Not very many people know about it, except, you know, after the week in 2014. But maybe because of all of the events, it's in the public news. I think everybody on Oahu at least knows about it now, because our aquifer feeds everyone on Oahu. Excuse me, sorry. So, yeah, I think it's moving daily, actually, and actually I've been having a hard time keeping up with it as well. But I know the military families are really affected. They've been having to stay away from their homes, and, you know, their water is being brought in for them. There's the second halava shaft that the military has decided to stop, their halava shaft. We've also stopped our border border supply halava shaft so that hopefully whatever plume is in the aquifer does not keep moving towards what feeds, you know, 500,000 people in Honolulu. This is a big question, Melanie. Does this contamination affect the water in all of Oahu, or just in that neighborhood? Well, it's all of Oahu in terms of South Oahu. If you look at the border water supplies map, which Ernie had put out, I think, probably a few days ago. Anyway, you follow the blue lines, and the blue lines go all the way from Moanalua Valley to Maanalua. It's like how they like to stay all the way to Hawaii Kai, which means it goes through downtown as well as Waikiki. And, you know, those are the money-generating areas of Oahu. So they say they feed about 400,000 customers with that aquifer and the aquifer. So it's like, I like the analogy of two straws drinking under the same cup. So the military's shaft is the same as, is drinking out of the same aquifer as the halava shaft that we get our water from. Okay. Well, Francis, what's your interest in this? I mean, why have you come to the point of activism on it? Well, I sort of answered a call from the CR Club. They requested letters to the editor about the subject. I'm a chronic writer, so I decided to jump in. My letter got published, and then I think that's how Melanie found it about me. So she realized that I identify myself as a Moanalua resident. So she called me, and ever since then, we've been involved in trying to get this thing corrected. Melanie is the one that's been most active the longest. She has a long history with this matter. I'm sort of a newcomer, but I am very much interested in getting this thing finally resolved through whatever means I can. I just had a second letter to the editor published about the same subject. So, yes, publicly, I'm one of the advocates. So in terms of those letters and your view of it, and you said getting it to solve, what is the resolution that you would speak? Well, I think both of us agree that the the final solution is to get rid of the fuel from above the aquifer. Because as long as the fuel is there, regardless of whether operations have ceased, if the fuel is still there, there's also possibility it's going to leak. And there is a long history of numerous leaks. I think Border Water Squad counted like 73 of the history of the tanks. And we've had two already this year, one one in November. And of course, the one that brought the attention to the public was the 2014 leak of 27,000 gallons. It's been an unending horror story about constant leaks with this operation. So if the fuel is above, if the fuel from the tank is above the aquifer, then it will get into the entire water system for the for the city and county one way or the other. So my question is, how do you stop leaks like this? I guess the solution you're talking about is you you pump out all the fuel from all the tanks that are vertically above the aquifer. And then and then you have no possibility of leaks because there's nothing to leak from. Is that what you're seeking? Exactly. Exactly. No matter what other remedies that the Navy has offered, and today they've offered some things that you're double lining the tanks for providing a secondary catchment under it, monitoring. We know historically that all of these efforts have failed and they will fail in the future. The Navy has been constantly representing that they have everything under control that they can fix this problem. But historically, they have failed at every respect. And unfortunately, you know, as you mentioned earlier in the program, there is a matter of trust that has developed this stress on the part of whatever the Navy says. So I think everything that they have said so far, you got to consider what a green us up. Let's let's go to that. Melanie, what about the status of trust that Francis talks about? What is the level of trust now and how did it get there? Well, I think our congressional leaders and our local leaders have always had a difficult time, like Marty Townsend said, spreading the needle. They need to, they want to, you know, keep Navy's money here. Navy is probably I think our biggest employer or something they said. So you don't want to chase the Navy away. On the other hand, we only have one aquifer. And so once you follow the aquifer, half the island will be without, you know, potable water. And so now what are you going to do? So you're trying to balance both issues. And to me, they keep the Navy, he's painted it in black and white, like there's either or there's no in between ground. And in between ground, me is that now that we know it really is definitely leaking, whether it is the tanks or the pipes or the nozzles that carry this fuel, we need to remove the fuel first. Get rid of the fuel, get it out of the tanks. Yes, it's not easy. Yes, it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of money. On the other hand, you cannot get the aquifer. You cannot bring that water back to, you know, to feed the rest of us. So we only got one aquifer. We only have one can. But what they are ignoring is that they do have alternative sites. But if they want to keep the tank here, they certainly can just put it over somewhere on Oahu that they own that doesn't have the aquifer under it. They even tried to do a relocation study after the 2014 spill, and then that went nowhere. The next meeting was they just didn't talk about it all, they just said, oh, this is too expensive. Or the one they came up with actually quite insultingly moved it up the valley, up on a little valley, and it was still over the aquifer. So I'm like, I don't think anybody really learned anything here. So it's that kind of thing which erodes the trust between those who would seek a better solution in the community and the Navy. I guess how do you know that that trust is eroded? Is it talking to people? Is the Navy as responsible as it should be? I mean, responsive, I mean to say, are they engaging with you? Are you engaging with them? Where's the trust? No, they don't. They don't. I don't think they engage with any of us. I mean, we have that one fuel tank advisory committee meeting every year, which I actually asked a few years ago, could we have it at least twice a year? So now we are. And that's the only time they answered to it. They used to have public meetings, which they don't have anymore. And they say it's because of the pandemic. However, we're having a Zoom meeting. So we could have a Zoom meeting as well with the Navy if they would want to allow it. But yeah, I mean, you know, it's Francis and I speaking for ourselves. I don't hear from everybody in town, but you look at the letters to the editor, you look at the editor, you look at the poor Navy families who are having to deal with this. I mean, I feel like telling Del Toro, you should have just stayed at Halsey Terrace and then you try and bathe with bottled water. I want to explore that in detail with you. Francis, you had a point you wanted to make and I don't want to cut you off. Right. You know, a good example of the lack of trust that has developed is what happened the past couple of weeks. We've since learned that on November 27, the Navy had shut down its Halava shaft. And this is before any complaints by military families began to arise, at least became public. And then we find out later on that they accused the state of not acting on it, but the state said they never got that information. And why would the state, the governor in particular, request that the shaft be shut down if he already knew? It just doesn't make sense. You know, the whole Navy spokesman have not been forthcoming. They have, if you have to use the word, lied about it. They could have told the BWS or the DOH back when they shut down the shaft that they're closing down so that the water supply could investigate and maybe shut down our shaft, which feeds, you know, 400,000 people. So just that example alone shows that they have not been transparent. Yeah, that sounds like transparency is a big issue here. So what level of transparency, what level of engagement would you seek in order to create an environment? That's a loaded word in this context, isn't it? Create an environment where you could reach some arrangement that would be mutually acceptable if there is one. Jay, I'm not an expert, I'm not an engineer, but I think at the very least it has to be independent monitoring of the wells, independent expert, not relying only on the expert. And yet this brings back the point that was made earlier. The Hawaii delegation has to rely upon the Navy now for information upon which to make policy decisions. And I can speak to that topic because they did serve in Congress two occasions, once when I first started my legal career and once when I retired. And I know that all of the delegation has to rely upon the military for that information. And that's where we end up with this problem, you know, because we're getting bad information, we're getting incorrect information, sometimes dishonest information. So there has to be independent inspections, independent monitoring, independent testing. That's the only way we're going to get the correct information to make the right decisions. And the delegation helped you achieve that? I hope so. We're going to get you back in Congress, Francis. I've done my. A melody, I want to, as I suggested, I wanted to ask you about how this problem affects lives and how it affects health in a given family and how it affects public health and how it affects the future, you know, life expectancy and all that. What are we talking about biochemically here? Well, the fuel, you know, is, is diesel. It's gasoline, I guess, for what with a better opinion. And so really quite frankly, I don't think anybody's done experiments on gasoline, people ingesting gasoline. Other than that, we know the side effects that people are feeling, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, headaches are because they were exposed to ingesting from the gasoline. But nobody's going to do an experiment and say, okay, what are the long term effects? And so yeah, I'm reading the same newspaper reports that you are that there's pregnant women drinking this water, there were kids bathing in it, drinking it, people were doing it for who knows how long, because maybe it's been even longer than the Navy Pet. The Department of Health has recorded all these leaks since like 1993 or before. You know, there's, there's all those long term effects that we probably don't even know. But if the aquifer is followed, where are we going to get water for half a million people? I mean, they're already having difficulty bringing it in for the 9,000 people that are their troops, which is even better because it's their own people and they're like, not even taking care of their own people, let alone us. And can you taste it in the water? Can you taste the gasoline, the biochemical? Some people said they did, right? You know, and so, but it depends on what part a million is at, the part a billion is at, whether it can taste it or not. I don't know, because that's not my area. You made a point a minute ago about how families are concerned so that, you know, when you know there's something in the water, a la Flint, Michigan, you know, and the lead in the water in Flint, Michigan, aside from the biochemical effects, the medical effects on people and kids and long term effects that we may not know, you know, what exposure may do over the decades, you get a psychological reaction. You get anxiety. And of course, that is its own problem. So can you talk about that? Well, I mean, look at the pandemic, all of us have been getting anxious for a couple of years. You know, just even in my own practice, there's more people being anxious than having to look for a counselor and be on medication, not want to be on medication. Now you just compounded it with, I don't know if I poisoned my case, right? And so, all these women and they don't have the support of their spouse or all these men who don't have the support of their spouse who are like they're saying under the sea and don't even know that so, yeah, it's going to be, it's going to be more far reaching. And if it starts affecting the local population and we have to start foraging the water, that's going to be another problem we might just be running against, you know. My next question to Francis, you know, talk about moving the tanks to a location, Melanie said, which would also be owned by the federal government by the Navy ostensibly. Do we know where that would be? Do we know how that would work? Well, it's not a matter of moving the tanks. The old tanks are going to stay there. We might have to fill them in with concrete or some filler. But the other tanks that should be built would be built elsewhere. There was a request by the Lieutenant Governor, I remember, of a independent fuel storage company. And they said that with the current capacity, they could probably take about one third of the fuel from Red Hill. And that's based upon the full capacity of Red Hill, not actual usage. So, and the Navy doesn't tell us how much she had a fuel they actually have been there. It just tells us about the full capacity. So, there is some ability in the local community to take some of it. Some of it may be put on tankers. Others could be put on temporary tanks elsewhere. But this is not a short-term project. It's going to take a number of years. The Navy did do this. They did decommission underground tanks in two locations in the mainland, one in Point Loma, California, and other Manchester, Washington. And they were able to do it on a much smaller scale. But if we start now, we start construction now, we could get some tanks up and running. I would think in a few years. You know, it may be too late by then because I think the aquifer is already contaminated. We got to get started. We got to get started right away. So, what does the Navy say to that? You know, they seem to poo-poo any other proposals other than their own. And their own project won't be done until 2045. And we don't have that time to wait. Anything else that they propose are minor. They're maintenance issues which aren't going to solve the problem. Because we know from history, it hasn't. And we can't wait until 2045. We got to start now. And this one company locally said they can take one third of it. And there may be others that can take some other part of the total capacity. You're suggesting that these tanks are bigger than they need to be. What I mean is there's excess fuel in there that is beyond what the Navy needs for its ordinary operations. Is that right? How do you know that? Who is saying that? Can I put in? So, like I said, I've been part of this effect committee. And so I actually asked the captain that. I said, how much fuel do we really need? And he says, oh, I don't know that you would have to ask the LA. I'm like, okay, but somebody must do this. And I said, well, he said, you should ask your legislator. So I did. I wrote to them. I asked them and I did not get an answer. I got a form letter back saying, oh yeah, we're very concerned about tanks. So then I wrote again and I said, okay, but you didn't answer my question. And then I got the answer that said, oh, that's national security secret. And so you don't, you can't tell you how much fuel we actually need. But if you look at it logically, we are not, we don't have as many surface ships as we did before World War II, which is what this was built for. We have more, you know, nuclear powered things. And so I don't think we need as much fuel there. But of course, I never gonna tell me how much it's going to be. And we also have RIMPAC coming up this summer, so we can drain some of the fuel that way and just not refill it. We can use our Hawaii's tanks that are being found that they will take about one third of the capacity. Maybe it's not even at full capacity now. They're not even telling us. I'm not even sure they know themselves. So there are things to do. But the point is that we got to get the fuel out of there as soon as possible. However, probably the tank, the piping and the nozzles are probably not intact. I mean, he is an engineer, he knows that. But he's probably, that's why he said in the form that, you know, when it's practicable to do, we should probably move the fuel out. But maybe not right now, since we move it now, we might make a good bill. Makes sense, right? But if we don't keep pushing to remove the fuel, when it says no longer a front page issue, it may go back to the same old, okay, maybe stop this. I'm not worried about this anymore, which is what I'm afraid of. We'll end up with a permanent refill. Yeah. One thing I just want to confirm is that the Navy is putting, as the fuel is depleted from these tanks, the Navy's putting more fuel in right now, right? Right. Right. Except right now, they're not because, remember, they suspended operations, right? So I think that means movement of fuel. So yeah. Okay. The other thing I wanted to ask you guys, and I don't know, maybe this is an engineering question, because at the end of the day, an expert engineering opinion is going to be relevant no matter which way you go. You know, there's a fellow at the university, by the name of Don Thomas. Thomas is a volcanologist, and he has spent a lot of time examining the soil structures on the Big Island. And he has found that although our existing aquifers are relatively close to sea level, there's also water sources in Hawaii that are up in the mountains that have untapped water. And I don't know if anybody's ever discussed that with you or thought about it, but Don says it's a question of money, of course, but you could tap water in those high level sources, high altitude sources in the mountains and not have to worry about the existing sources that is through the aquifers. Has anybody talked about that? Not to me directly, but I think that would be nice to find and discover, but I don't think that's I mean, we really depend on that. And even it's already threatened by sea level rise, because it's actually not in a contained space, you know, over brackish water. And so the brackish water can rise as the level is rising. So it's not, you know, in a stable container. I mean, that'd be nice if we could find an alternate source, but I don't think we need time. Right. Time is of the essence, isn't it? In terms of public health, in terms of, you know, preserving the purity that we have. So I guess, Francis, I'm interested in knowing what your organization can do in terms of getting and listing the support of the delegation in Washington, in terms of enlisting the support of legislators who may be interested in, you know, environment and, you know, water in the legislature. For that matter, there's always DLNR. So who could help you? Who is helping you in order to make the point here from government point of view, the point of view of those people who would like to see some government action? Who are the champions here? Who could be the champions? Well, I can't speak for the association. Mellon is much more closely associated with the organization. But individually, everybody can contact their Congresspeople, their legislators. They're at all levels, local, state, and in Washington. And I've made my efforts to contact people that I know back in Washington. And I found that they're very receptive. I think there's a realization that this is a crisis. I think everybody sees the crisis unfolding right now in the past few weeks. So I think there's a full-on approach to get this matter solved and get the Navy to start working on their problem rather than just talking about it. But I think from an association perspective, I think Melanie should respond to that one. Oh, yes, I was fully intended to ask the same question of Melanie. Melanie, who are the champions that you would approach here? So I think it's a little misplaced to say that our value association should be. Actually, I think everybody needs to step into the plate, meaning everybody in Hawaii will find it. We need to let our legislators know, both in Washington and locally, that we care, and this matters because it actually does affect everybody in terms of realistically, all the way out to white guys. So everybody in between should be also concerned about this matter. And Sierra Club has been pushing for the longest time, Board of Water Supply has been also. I know people think of Sierra Club as a fringe group, so you'd hate to say that. But it's actually each individual needs to write and call and send an email to a computer. Write and call who? Oh, sorry. Oh, so everybody, so case that Toronto and Pele, you can start there, and you can also write to Igay, and you can write to your own representative of your district. You know, state and Senate and representative, you know, and that way you can let them know it's on your radar, you care, and the message is simple. Remove the fuel as soon as possible, and then maybe speak alternative, storage things, double walled above ground. It doesn't have to be gravity-fed. You know, they keep backing the deck that way whenever they try to do their alternate studies. It doesn't have to be, but you definitely want an interstition between the walls that will monitor for heat. You can get to it, stop it before it gets all the way up to the environment. They like cutting cover, they like gravity-fed. It's fine, you can do it at more powerful peninsula, because that one is not over the average. They have lots of land that they own, which I guess is kind of contaminated right now, but anyway, that they could build double walled tanks above ground, and it doesn't, I mean, you know, it doesn't have to be gravity-fed. That sounds romantic, that sounds sexy, but it's not really needed anymore. We do have solar powered pumps, we do have nuclear power. So, Francis, you know, Melanie mentioned climate change, and when I think of water, I think of a future such as the Colorado river basin is having right now. It's a lack of water, it's drought, it's changes, unpredictable changes in weather. And maybe in some sense, we're talking about a larger issue here. You know, I remember having a conversation with the border water supply some years ago, I said, have you guys ever considered, what do you call it? Telling to them? No, when you turn seawater into fresh water. Resolidization. Yeah, yeah. And they said, oh, we have no plan to do that for many decades. It's not time for us to think about that. Well, it's not money either, because, it cost San Diego billions and billions to do it. They did do it, but it was very expensive. So, Query, what about the possibilities of some of these water, future-esque water solutions in terms of the seawater source, in terms of the bladders we hear about, ocean bladders, in terms of some of these larger civil engineering kinds of solutions, which are maybe not appropriate right now, but which would be appropriate when we reach another stage in climate change. Is that part of this discussion? I think right now it's really not. We're not looking that far ahead. You know, Hawaii has rural class water, best in the world, without a necessity of a lot of chemicals to make it drinkable. So, you know, we had an ideal situation with a great aquifer system of providing ideal water for all purposes. But I guess eventually there has to be some effort to look at alternatives such as desalination, where we live, right in the middle of the ocean, there's ample seawater all around us. But, you know, we got to just protect what we have. We have such great asset, and to have one of these beautiful, awesome assets get dispoiled by this carelessness and irresponsibility. You know, that's unforgivable. It's unacceptable. So, that's where our efforts are right now, and I think hopefully it's not too late, but if we can reverse the irresponsible practices of the Navy right now, perhaps we can say what we do have without having to go to extraordinary means. Well put, so we're at the end of our time, and I wanted to ask you guys for any thoughts you would like to leave with our viewers. What message would you leave with them in terms of how they should see this issue, and what they should do about this issue? Francis, you go first. Well, what comes to my mind right now is the image of the tanks. The lining of the tanks are supposed to be one-quarter inch thick. Right now in many spots it's down to one end, and even then the Navy thinks it's good enough, it's safe enough. Picture that when you're considering this issue. We are on the verge of, if not already there, a major calamity. So, people got to act right now. There's no time to dilly-dally, no time to think of other less important things. This is our livelihood. This is our economy. Imagine if Waikiki goes down the tubes because of bad water. Just think about that. Time to act. Yeah, Melanie, Francis makes a good point because we are at Christmas, and this is the Christmas season always reminds me of Charles Dickens and the Christmas Carol and Scrooge, and the whole thing about the ghost of Christmas future, if you remember. So, Francis touched on this, but I want to ask you about it too. What is the ghost of Christmas future if we do nothing? What will happen? Well, if we do nothing, I can see the Navy continuing on its way, and it will, at one point in time, we will have a catastrophic event, and the technical week, or the nozzles, and the technical week, and we will follow the after, and there'll be, you know, half a million people without portable water. It'll be too expensive to get in or actually, you know, hold it in. The Navy will say, you know, Hawaii's no longer useful to us, we'll probably stay away and report, and then leave us without our tourism either, because who wants to come to a Hawaii? So, portable water and Waikiki is on the floor. Yeah, I mean, the time is now, people need to step up. Congress appropriates money to Navy. We got to talk to the congressman. Congress works for us. It works for us. I mean, we always tend to think of these people as being too far out of reach, but we are the citizens who vote from there, and so we are the citizens who need to let them know this is important, and we need to have change. We're not saying Navy go away. In fact, if we make a ton of tanks, we will employ a lot of people. Right now, it just takes four people to run the tank. It took 3,900 to make them, and that was in three years. So, it's going to take a lot of time to dismantle them, not dismantle them, sorry, to clean them up, and then to build new tanks is what they want to do here. And I think there's a lot of unions that have a lot of members make money. The story of Hawaii Day. Well, Melanie Lau and Francis Nakamoto, I really appreciate you coming on. I think it's very important that people speak up on issues like this, and I admire you for doing so. I hope you get some results from the champions out there in government, and I look forward to circling back with you later to see how it all goes. One thing is clear. We can't forget about it. That's clear. Thank you, Melanie. Thank you, Francis. I really appreciate you coming on. Aloha. Thank you very much.