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. It stops risky behaviour. It is designed to stop things like Chernobyl.<p>In some situations, it turns into a flaw. "Computer says no"<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Or, they simply didn't understand their role, and their authority to act. Which of course, should be explained in the rulebook.<p>[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]
Is 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.
This 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.<p>The water situation is not obvious and I imagine hard to decide about in the middle of a crisis.
There's a continuation of the story at <a href="https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/state-water-official-who-delayed-water-release-has-been-reassigned/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.civilbeat.org/beat/state-water-official-who-dela...</a><p>I am not familiar with what happened to make any judgement, just linking the part 2.
> "There are currently people still fighting in our state giving us water access to fight and prepare for fires even as more storms arise"<p>I don't know what this sentence even means.<p>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 <i>are</i> small.
Reading the article this seems perfectly fine.<p>"DLNR delayed releasing water requested by West Maui Land Co. to help prevent the spread of fire, sources familiar with the situation said."<p>The priority should be to stop the spread of fire not prevent houses being burned down.
Attempts 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.<p>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.
Word is the police blocked traffic on one of the roads, which stopped people from escaping and causing fatalities. Reminds me of ventilators from covid
Blocking 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.
> 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.<p>"Age of climate change and wildfires". As-if that's what's going on here...<p><i>"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."</i><p>- Oscar Wilde
I’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:<p>> Tremble’s letter said it is unknown whether filling the reservoirs at 1 p.m. would have ultimately made a difference.<p>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.<p>I suspect time will show that the decision was not at all clear-cut and all relevant details are not yet known.<p>1. <a href="https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/08/16/hawaii-news/request-was-made-to-divert-water-to-fight-maui-fire/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/08/16/hawaii-news/reques...</a>
Why was there no water to fight the fire in Maui? <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii-fires-maui-water-rights-disaster-capitalism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/17/hawaii...</a>
Most 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?