The Honolulu Board of Water Supply was born as a semi-autonomous agency in 1929, ending years of being run by city government. According to agency chronicles, this followed an embezzlement scandal, and when "the public demanded a well-run water system that was above politics," the state Legislature took control of water management and handed it over to the newly created board.

Shifting the function back to Honolulu Hale doesn’t represent any lasting solution for Oahu’s water customers. Despite the water agency’s many problems — billing and customer-service woes that peaked last year — City Council proposals to rein it in through a City Charter amendment or some other means should be forestalled.

But the clock is ticking for board officials to answer the most burning questions posed in a recent report from City Auditor Edwin Young.

First, how do you know the current rate scheme is fair to customers? And how can you improve your rapport with customers?

Last week officials from the water board countered the audit by pointing out the various improvements that have been made since the utility hit a low point more than a year ago. But clearly, the agency needs to grasp just how much ground it lost during that mess, and how many fences it must mend with its customers.

Progress has been made in giving ratepayers bills that reflect actual use, rather than the estimated bills the board issued during frequent failures of its automated meter reading system. But when that technical dysfunction was compounded by a flawed rollout of the new billing system and poor customer service, the result was a public-relations train wreck.

Many customers who for years, even decades, accepted water bills with few questions, are now quite understandably distrusting of the whole enterprise, wondering which of their many charges might have been in error.

That’s why Young was right to observe that the explanation for the rates needs to be made clear now, even if those rates were approved in 2011. Customers are now questioning past history, and the board owes them a plainspoken justification for the rates.

Meetings with Young and the accounting firm that prepared the rate study, Tokumoto & Co., should be held promptly. Young has a year to give his follow-up report to the Council, but some progress reports should be issued along the way.

The board is working to improve its ratepayer communication through enhanced staffing and a new department head who, in an interview with the Star-Advertiser, seemed clear on the concept of customer relations.

Young’s proposal for more established channels for ratepayer communications within the agency is well founded, too. In the months ahead, board manager Ernest Lau said, the staff will complete a study of how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its core accounting tool, the automated meter reader. Surely any improvement program will add to operational costs and future rates, and although Lau has promised that any upgrades would be phased in with an eye on mitigating the impact, the ratepayers should be clued in to the discussion.

The Board of Water Supply ostensibly should be run as a business — self-reliant for its revenues, responsible for its expenses. As any business executive knows, the customer is king — or should be.

Now may not be the time for radical governance changes. There is value having such a precious resource be managed by people without political agendas. But that value is lost if the resource isn’t managed well.

The Board of Water Supply has work to do before the community will be convinced of improvements. The No. 1 hazard going forward is falling into complacency.