Efficient water board crucial to security
Last week's city auditor's report on the Board of Water Supply's management was a clear rejection of spending decisions for the period covered — from fiscal year 1998-99 to fiscal year 2004-05. And although the water board reasonably defends some of those expenditures, there is unarguably room to improve efficiency at our island's sole water utility.
Among the most discouraging elements in auditor Leslie Tanaka's report: The still-unfinished restructuring of the water board workforce, including the hiring of highly paid consultants, sapped resources without delivering significant benefits. The water board spent nearly $75 million on development projects outside its core mission, such as a $1.1 million investment in a training facility designed to generate new business from locales far from Honolulu. The water board acknowledges that this project did not pan out, but maintains that the city has taken over the costs and is putting that office space to use.
The board also countered investment criticisms by saying the acquisition of the Honouliuli water recycling plant is means for banking potable water for the 'Ewa plain. That's fair enough, but the auditor's central argument, that system maintenance should be the main focus, is a valid one. A proper balance between long-term investment and system improvements must be struck.
The board's authorization of extravagant bonuses to top management officials provides some evidence that the balance could be adjusted. Bonuses up to 35 percent were added on to salaries already in six figures.
The board rightly set aside that bonus program. Certainly, it should not be restarted until managers have crossed more jobs off its critical job list.
At the top of the list should be system maintenance. The board hopes its plans for more automated monitoring systems will result in a more robust maintenance schedule, but that doesn't dispel the need to keep up the current system in the meantime.
One critical need that deserved attention in the report was O'ahu's emergency reliance on reservoirs with insufficient storage capacity, according to industry standards. Some added investment here is warranted.
Tanaka has called for more accountability from top officials, and it's hard to argue with that. A utility providing water to an island population owes rate payers as much accountability and efficiency as it can muster.
Correction: A previous version of this editorial contained a different figure for the bonuses paid to Board of Water Supply top executives.
