7 ms·
A state official refused to release water for West Maui fires
- krasin 3y agoThere's a continuation of the story at https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/state-water-official-who-delayed-water-release-has-been-reassigned/ https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/state-water-official-who-dela... I am not familiar with what happened to make any judgement, just linking the part 2.
- ggm 3y agoThere is a quite common "design feature" in official functions which says if you stick to a rulebook you can be covered for indemnity and if you divert from a rulebook you are on your own. It stops risky behaviour. It is designed to stop things like Chernobyl. In some situations, it turns into a flaw. "Computer says no" This played out in Queensland over a flood which had a dam release issue, and went to law between 2 agencies, the government overall, and the affected businesses and householders who were flooded. The case had to be tried in another states courts, to avoid systematic bias issues. Of course you need to stick to the rulebook. But the rulebook needs to be written to handle unforseen situations, which might be hard, but not impossible. Put it up the food chain, or provide from some limited relief from risk. So, the emergency sirens weren't used because "they aren't for this function" and now we have "can't approve the water release" -Sounds like the reaction of somebody who is concerned they will answer for a decision not explicitly covered in the rulebook. Or, they simply didn't understand their role, and their authority to act. Which of course, should be explained in the rulebook. [edit: people are pointing out there were huge risks in using the sirens, and the rulebook was really explicit, and the community understood their narrow intent. So, its probably a bad example of my hypothesised "rulebook says no" thing]
- threeseed 3y ago> So, the emergency sirens weren't used They weren't used because the website [1] specifically says that in the event of a siren you should "if you in a low laying area near the coastline; evacuate to high grounds, inland". This would directly route people towards the fire not away. And given that tsunamis can sometimes trigger fire it easily could have caused confusion in some. It definitely wasn't a clear decision as some like to make out. [1] https://dod.hawaii.gov/hiema/all-hazard-statewide-outdoor-warning-siren-system/ https://dod.hawaii.gov/hiema/all-hazard-statewide-outdoor-wa...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ggm 3y agoNone of these rulebook cases are. It's clear that some of the risks here were real, but it's also likely some of them are hypothetical. This will be argued out for a long time. What often happens is the rulebook is amended. Add a new siren-tone, modify the instructions to turn on a radio or TV and get more specific advice, something changes, to reflect the new understanding. Or not. Sometimes, you can't fix this. The sirens are for tsunamis and some other system is needed for wildfires. Which risk do you think is more likely, and more consequential in the medium to short term? I don't know, I don't have the answers here. But I do believe, people in Lahaina probably wanted to be alerted, somehow to the risk.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoSo why is this case noteworthy enough for you to elaborate on?
- ggm 3y agoBecause it formed part of the legal defence of a decision to release water, and incur flooding, in consequence of which people went to law. I would imagine, perhaps wrongly, that in the case of Lahaina people who have suffered catastrophic loss will be considering if there was a state, or town, or other official who had a duty of care, and who may be taken to law, or their body taken to law for failure to act. What do you think?
- MichaelZuo 3y agoWhat are you asking me to think in regards to? Can you clarify your first paragraph and separate out each claim?
- ggm 3y ago> So why is this case noteworthy enough for you to elaborate on? What did this question mean?
- emodendroket 3y agoI do find it somewhat plausible the explanation that sounding the sirens could cause people to seek higher ground when that was basically the worst thing they could do.
- ggm 3y agoYes. It's absolutely plausible.
- lurking_swe 3y agoi call BS. it’s plausible, until you take into account that this emergency occurred in the middle of the night when many residents were asleep. And cell towers were offline by this point, so there was literally no other way to alert people in west maui. The risk that some residents are stupid enough to run into a fire uphill seems WAY better than letting one thousand plus people die in their sleep.
- macinjosh 3y agoI am sure once outside the nature of the emergency would become clear. They are people not lemmings.
- emodendroket 3y agoWhy are you sure of this? If it were so readily apparent just by looking what difference would the sirens make?
- geph2021 3y agoif you stick to a rulebook you can be covered for indemnity and if you divert from a rulebook you are on your own I think a solution to this "flaw" could be for government/officials to have a version of the business judgement rule[1] to shield them from liability, especially when operating under emergency situations. 1 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/business_judgment_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/business_judgment_rule
- SoftTalker 3y agoSimilar to aircraft and ship captains. They operate under a litany of rules, but in an emergency they are recognized as the person in control and they may deviate from rules as necessary based on their experienced and professional judgement.
- dghlsakjg 3y agoIt’s even codified. Rule number 2 in the colregs (ship right of way rules: collision regulations) is that nothing in the rule book exonerates you from responsibility to avoid la collision if you can. In other words, if breaking the rules is the prudent thing to do, you aren’t just empowered to break the rules, you are required to. There is no such thing as stand your ground rules at sea.
- derekp7 3y agoBut is the captain shielded from liability if they make the wrong judgement call when deviating from the rule book in an emergency, and protected when following the rules? Or are they judged for making the wrong decision regardless if they were following the rules or not? Or third option, if in an emergency they are protected no matter what decision they make, as long as the decision could be considered reasonable based on information available, even if not optimal based on hindsight? Of those I like 2 and 3 the best. For 2, it can help influence them to make better decisions (i.e., seek more training ahead of time). For 3, it seems to be the most fair to the person in charge.
- kgilpin 3y ago
- kappuchino 3y agoI'm only commenting on this passage: >> the emergency sirens weren't used because "they aren't for this function" and now we have ... I think the sirens were a good call and a bad example of what you want to state. Becuase it is established that people (would) associate the sirens with a tusnami warning. Their anticipated action would under this assumption to seek higher ground. Where the fire was. (See for yourself: https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/15vfw26/to_accuse_an_emergency_service_worker_for/ https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/15vfw26/...) I'm from germany and here sirens here have been assigned with the "turn the fucking radio on NOW" behaviour. In my city there is a siren drill every other month to get you aware, my city only skipped it out of sensibility one time for the ukranian refugees directly after the war to give them some peace. For more emergent situations we have Emergency Apps like "Nina" and "KatWarn" + Mobile Push Systems to alert you precisely about the kind of emergency/danger you are facing. My city for example has a WW2 Bomb found every other week, meaning thousands of people get evacuated for a time and need get informed.
- michaelmrose 3y agoWouldn't they likely have seen the smoke instead of hanging out in there houses until it was too late to leave. People that are out and moving can choose to move in the right direction but people who are stationary are just waiting to die from a crisis they don't understand is happening. I think it was the wrong call.
- lolinder 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37230146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37230146 We have a commenter here who lived on Maui who says that the behavior on hearing the siren is hard coded, not something people second guess. If you hesitate when there's a tsunami, you die. Personally, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this, not living on Maui, so I'll defer to the locals rather than the armchair emergency response managers.
- 8note 3y agoBy the time you can see the slightly denser smoke, you're stuck in traffic headed towards the fire, no?
- legitster 3y ago> There is a quite common "design feature" in official functions which says if you stick to a rulebook you can be covered for indemnity and if you divert from a rulebook you are on your own. The reason that I don't find discussions of the Trolley Problem very interesting is that we as a society have largely solved for it already: If you take responsibility and change the default state, it is your fault - if you leave it alone, it is nobody's.
- aCoreyJ 3y agoMaking a decision isn't solving the trolly problem though
- lazide 3y agoIf you don’t ‘touch it’ by getting involved, society has generally agreed it isn’t your trolley problem. Which is nice, at least.
- someplaceguy 3y agoNice for you and the one guy stuck in the other track, but not for the 100 people that would be hit by the trolley if you didn't do anything... :)
- lazide 3y agoSounds like those folks should hire someone to give a damn instead of trying to guilt random passerby’s into saving them!
- justinclift 3y ago> the emergency sirens weren't used Are you meaning in Queensland or Maui?
- ggm 3y agoMaui. A good case is being made that this was the right decision. I don't live there and I think thats something locals should say. So, I'm reading this and reflecting more than writing.
- xwdv 3y agoIt was absolutely the right decision. If you sound sirens for anything you’ll sound them for everything and they lose impact.
- userbinator 3y agoThis seems to be a natural consequence of training people to follow rules unquestioningly; their thinking skills atrophy, to the point that they won't be able to do anything else.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- stock_toaster 3y agoI believe there is more going on than meets the eye here. > This is a classic case of disaster capitalism: a small elite > group using a profound human tragedy as their window to roll > back a hard-won grassroots victory for water rights, while > removing civil servants who pose a political inconvenience > to the administration’s pro-developer agenda. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii-fires-maui-water-rights-disaster-capitalism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii...
- 2-718-281-828 3y ago> It is designed to stop things like Chernobyl. how is this applicable to chernobyl?
- threeseed 3y agoReading the article this seems perfectly fine. "DLNR delayed releasing water requested by West Maui Land Co. to help prevent the spread of fire, sources familiar with the situation said." The priority should be to stop the spread of fire not prevent houses being burned down.
- baggy_trough 3y agoNormally one wants to stop the spread of fire to prevent houses from being burned down.
- threeseed 3y agoNo. The priority is to save lives. Using water to help isolate an area that is used for evacuation is much more important than saving a few houses which are likely to be insured and can be simply rebuilt.
- baggy_trough 3y agoThey go together usually.
- dave78 3y agoYour comment seems woefully out of touch given what happened in Hawaii. Water was not denied because "saving lives was more important than saving houses". ~1000 people burned to death and the fire department requested more water to help fight the fire and they were put off for 5 hours, by which time the pipes that could transport the water were ruined.
- wunderland 3y agoHas it really killed that many people? I thought it was only 100+ but maybe the nearly 900 missing person are presumed dead now?
- dave78 3y ago
- Alupis 3y ago> But the governor said conflicts over water are being reshaped in an age of climate change and wildfires. Now the conflict includes opponents who do not want water to be used to fight fires, the governor said. "Age of climate change and wildfires". As-if that's what's going on here... "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." - Oscar Wilde
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- AlbertCory 3y ago> "There are currently people still fighting in our state giving us water access to fight and prepare for fires even as more storms arise" I don't know what this sentence even means. I guess there are small farmers who think the big landowners should suffer small fire, rather than using up scarce water that they want. I guess that's a reasonable position, as long as the fires are small.
- Hizonner 3y agoWhat's a "cultural practitioner"?
- version_five 3y agoIs there anything to indicate they were deliberately acting against the interests of those affected, or is it just a lot of armchair quarterbacking. It's very easy to retrospectively judge people for decisions they had to make in a fog of war.
- constantly 3y agoMy question too. The person who “refused to turn on the alarms” got raked over the coals by would-be Monday Morning Quarterbackers. Then it turned out that officials actions were the right ones, even in retrospect, and people accusing them were just out for a viral quote. It was disgusting. I’m reserving any judgment on this story, no matter how incendiary the headline, until more facts come out.
- dekhn 3y agoNote this is a general thing in the media: after any event, attempt to find the proximal cause and concentrate the blame there (often using the "evil corporation narrative"). Some articles are slightly better in that they attempt to identify root causes and advocate for policy changes to address them.
- justinclift 3y agoSeems to be clarified in: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii-fires-maui-water-rights-disaster-capitalism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii... (as per cratermoon's post, which seems stuck at the bottom on this page though)
- bradleyjg 3y agoIn the case of the alarms they were trading off the alarms potentially saving lives vs the alarms potentially costing lives. It was a tough call. In the case of the water they were trading off the water potentially saving lives vs the water being available to grow taro. It was not a tough call and the dude got it wrong.
- 3y ago
- snissn 3y agoany other HNers on maui? It's pretty small here and it would be nice to meet more people
- jambalaya 3y agoDo you know about the maui tech meetup in kihei?
- gumby 3y agoThis reminds me of people pillorying the emergency director for not sounding the alarm sirens...yet when you look at it, he did exactly the right thing. The water situation is not obvious and I imagine hard to decide about in the middle of a crisis.
- xvector 3y agoMaybe it's just me, but I feel like the people of Maui are demonstrating a particular lack of critical thinking and a stronger-than-usual mob mentality.
- brightball 3y agoHow is the water situation not obvious?
- gumby 3y agoMost of the article is about exactly that. For some additional context: I know from living in California, and before that Australia, that there is a tension between protecting property structures (or merely forestalling their fate) vs a more macro use of resources to contain the spread. This is the same impetus that will cause a firebreak to be cut through a forest even if it requires the use of eminent domain. This same calculus leads to the opposite class of decision in urban areas: firefighting used to be a subscription service (in parts of the USA it still is) but the problem is that if your neighbor doesn't have insurance your house could be at risk. So it made more sense to be tax supported and cover people who "don't subscribe". In the urban case the amount of water is typically low (single structure fire). In a case like this one you have to figure out where to invest your resources and it isn't always obvious. As the article points out, past misuse (protection of cash crops over the livelihood of workers) has complicated the process of making these decisions in real time.
- matrix12 3y agoPlus the "shelter in place" directive this seems very bad.
- cratermoon 3y agoWhy was there no water to fight the fire in Maui? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii-fires-maui-water-rights-disaster-capitalism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii...
- greatpostman 3y agoWord is the police blocked traffic on one of the roads, which stopped people from escaping and causing fatalities. Reminds me of ventilators from covid
- jeron 3y agoThere is blood on this person’s hands and I hope they know that
- croddin 3y agoBlocking the water use is not ok. It seems especially sad for this to happen to a coastline city. If freshwater is not available can saltwater be used in an emergency? Or do they need the water pressure/pumps? It would be more corrosive to equipment but could be cleaned after.
- justinclift 3y agoSeems like seawater was indeed used for the helicopters: Many Maui Komohana communities refuse to accept WML’s rewriting of history. They know, for example, it was actually high winds that prevented helicopters from fighting the fires, and when they were ultimately used, seawater proved more accessible. From: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii-fires-maui-water-rights-disaster-capitalism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii... The Guardian article seems to paint things in a very different light to the OP article.
- water9 3y agoIf only there were some other source like the Pacific Ocean on all sides
- bakugo 3y agoMost people paying attention already figured out by now that the fires were started and kept burning intentionally by the government, but I guess it doesn't matter because who's gonna do anything about it?
- nonrepeating 3y agoI haven't seen any evidence of this, at all.
- mark_l_watson 3y agoReally sad for the locals. It seems like the local and state governments made several mistakes, and very unusually the federal government did nothing.
- McSwag 3y agoAttempts to redirect blame to faulty procedures and policies is starting to seem like a weak argument when it really comes down to poor leadership and lack of foresight, which is a stretch to pin on a single person. That said, I think the intentional choice to not use sirens was likely a good call in this case and an example of good leadership. If the community is conditioned to recognize the sirens for tsunami’s only maybe that’s where the reform should start. If they CAN be used for other things, can they have different sounds for different things. It doesn’t need to be complicated.
- drewbug01 3y agoI’m waiting to read an official report on the matter, and I think it’s prudent everyone else do so as well. For instance, some sources[1] indicate that: > Tremble’s letter said it is unknown whether filling the reservoirs at 1 p.m. would have ultimately made a difference. And there’s this whole whiff of “kooky liberals prioritizing silly native crops over fire prevention” in the coverage about the issue, which certainly makes me suspicious as well. I suspect time will show that the decision was not at all clear-cut and all relevant details are not yet known. 1. https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/08/16/hawaii-news/request-was-made-to-divert-water-to-fight-maui-fire/ https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/08/16/hawaii-news/reques...
- more_corn 3y agoI smell a lawsuit.