Two Hawaii Cesspools, a 2005 Deadline and a $148,468 EPA Deal | I. Kitagawa

The Facts

I. Kitagawa and Company owns two Hawaii properties identified in the EPA agreement. One contains a commercial building at 81-6245 Mamalahoa Highway in Captain Cook. The other contains a commercial building at 64-1019 Mamalahoa Highway in Waimea.

EPA alleges that the company owns or operates a cesspool at each property and that both qualify as large-capacity cesspools, or LCCs. Under the cited regulation, that category covers certain cesspools serving multiple dwellings, communities or regions, as well as systems with capacity to serve at least 20 people per day. The agreement says the two systems met the standard because they served multiple dwellings and/or had that capacity; it does not identify which alternative applied at each property or state how many people actually used them.

Inspectors visited the properties on June 4 and 5, 2025. EPA says those inspections indicated that both alleged LCCs were receiving sanitary waste. The agency further alleges that the company failed to close them after the federal deadline of April 5, 2005, with each day of nonclosure constituting a violation.

How a Cesspool Became an Injection-Well Case

The legal terminology is more complicated than the physical system. Federal regulations define a cesspool as a type of drywell: a dug structure completed above the water table. A large-capacity cesspool receives sanitary waste containing human excreta through an open bottom and, in some designs, perforated sides.

Because waste is placed below the surface through that structure, federal rules classify an LCC as a Class V injection well. The Underground Injection Control program regulates such wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Its purpose is preventative: controlling underground injection before it endangers an underground source of drinking water.

What the Record Establishes About the Stakes

The immediate issue is the continued receipt of sanitary waste by systems that federal rules required to be closed. The two properties are commercial, but the agreement does not identify tenants, employees, customers, neighboring residents or anyone else who may have used the buildings or nearby water resources.

Nor does it report groundwater testing, contaminant measurements, a contaminated well, exposure or illness. There is therefore no basis in this source to claim that either cesspool polluted drinking water or caused a health injury.

What the record does establish is why EPA regulates the systems: large-capacity cesspools place sanitary waste underground through open-bottom structures, and the federal program exists to prevent that activity from endangering drinking-water sources. The documented consequence in this proceeding is regulatory rather than medical: a substantial civil penalty, mandatory closure, monthly oversight and potential additional penalties for delay.

The agreement addresses a drinking-water protection risk. It does not document a drinking-water contamination event.

A Deadline That Dates Back Two Decades

The Agreement Turns Closure Into a Verifiable Process

The order does not allow the company simply to announce that the cesspools are gone. I. Kitagawa must close them in accordance with federal requirements and the rules of the Hawaii Department of Health. The agreement provides two broad replacement paths: connection to a municipal or private sewer, or installation of one or more compliant wastewater systems.

Within 30 days after closing each cesspool, the company must submit a final report describing the process and equipment used. It must include photographs, identify the contractors, provide a cesspool backfill report and attach approvals for the closure and any replacement system.

Monthly reports are required from the first 30-day reporting deadline until the final closure report is submitted. Each report must be certified by an authorized company representative as true, accurate and complete to the best of that person’s knowledge and belief.

Delay carries specified costs. Missing a payment or applicable closure requirement can trigger a stipulated penalty of $300 per day for each violation. A late report can cost $100 per day until it is submitted in full. Those amounts would be additional to the $148,468 civil penalty.

The agreement permits extensions for events beyond the company’s control despite reasonable best efforts, including certain unforeseen site conditions or permitting delays. Increased project costs and normal bad weather do not qualify.

What I. Kitagawa Agreed To—and What It Did Not Admit

The company’s president signed the agreement. I. Kitagawa accepted EPA’s jurisdiction, consented to the penalty and compliance conditions, and waived its rights to contest the allegations, request a hearing or appeal the final order.

That consent is not a factual admission. The document says the company neither admits nor denies the specific allegations. It also contains no separate company explanation of the cesspools, their history or the inspection findings.

What the EPA Proceeding Actually Resolves

This is an administrative settlement under the Safe Drinking Water Act, not a judgment reached after a hearing. The parties agreed to resolve the matter without filing a complaint or adjudicating any factual or legal issue.

If the order becomes effective and I. Kitagawa pays the penalty and fulfills the compliance requirements, it resolves the company’s liability for federal civil penalties arising from the facts and violations alleged in the agreement. It does not function as a wastewater permit, and it does not excuse compliance with other federal, state or local requirements.

The agreement also preserves EPA’s ability to enforce the order and pursue remedies for later noncompliance. Failure to close the systems or meet reporting obligations can lead to stipulated penalties or other administrative or judicial action.

What Remains Unresolved

The central factual allegations were never tested in an administrative hearing. The source does not disclose when I. Kitagawa acquired the properties, how long each cesspool served the buildings, how many people used them or why the systems remained in place after the 2005 deadline.

It also provides no breakdown showing how EPA calculated the $148,468 penalty. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires consideration of factors including seriousness, economic benefit, compliance efforts, violation history and financial impact, but the agreement does not assign a dollar amount to any factor.

Most importantly for the surrounding public, the record does not answer whether either system affected groundwater. It establishes the regulatory concern and the required corrective work, not an environmental measurement or health outcome.