As a longtime resident of Moanalua Gardens and an attendee at the June 18 community hearing on water concerns raised by the Red Hill fuel tanks, I came away with little assurance that the Navy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health were interested in community input to prevent a massive disaster.

In the community meeting, Rear Adm. John Fuller made reference to the fact that a task force prepared an Administrative Order of Consent, with which it will comply.

Had it not been for the hearing, I would not have known that the task force that created the order was composed of the Navy, the EPA and the state Department of Health without representation from Oahu’s Board of Water Supply.

Moreover, I learned that this administrative order was a voluntarily negotiated plan between only these three parties.

If we are interested in protecting the people of Hawaii, any attempt by the Navy to negotiate a fix seems disingenuous.

Clearly, the Navy should be expected to provide evidence but should not be asked to voluntarily negotiate its obligations or determine its penalties.

Then in early August, the admiral penned an opinion piece stating that the Navy is a good steward of Oahu’s water supply (“Navy committed to keeping Oahu drinking water from Red Hill safe,” Star-Advertiser, Island Voices, Aug. 2).

He alluded to the “loss” — that is, leakage — of aviation fuel from one of its tanks without pointing out that at least 27,000 gallons seeped out. He stated that the Navy as an organization will be committed to environmental stewardship and to keeping Oahu’s water supply safe to drink.

I was not comforted by his message since so much was left out.

What’s concerning is that the loss of 27,000 gallons of aviation fuel into the ground, euphemistically referred to as a “release,” by the EPA was not a unique and improbable event. There have been several other major incidences over the decades, and even the present leak is continuing.

Clearly, after over 75 years, metal and its supporting concrete barriers are expected to corrode.

The recommendation to use the “best available practical technology” approach based on a two-year study plan for a 20-year repair schedule is at best a stall. Those in the EPA, the DOH and the Navy who endorse such a plan will have long retired and may be living elsewhere by that time. Where is the accountability?

I was most impressed with the technical understanding, no-nonsense clarity and appropriate community-based values of the testimonies provided by Chief Engineer Ernest Lau of the Board of Water Supply and state Sen. Laura Thielen. Listen to them.

Work should start immediately to begin draining the storage tanks and focus on protecting Oahu’s water supply from massive contamination.

To implement the change urged by the 34 testifiers at the community hearing with a nearly singular voice, it is necessary to implement the goals expressed by the Board of Water Supply, allocate funds and staffing and move.

Once there is institutional momentum, there will be greater assurance that regardless of changes in personnel at the EPA, DOH, BWS and the Navy, the preferred future for Hawaii will be achievable.

Even after committing to draining the tanks, we need to use the best available practical technologies to monitor contamination levels, the health consequences of polluted water downstream and identify methods for disaster preparedness.

Hawaii is in a threatened state and it is time to move quickly to protect its people.