At first glance, a regulatory enforcement action filed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for unclosed large-capacity cesspools (LCCs) might not seem to rank among the most egregious forms of corporate misconduct. Yet in the case of Bank of Hawaii acting in its capacity as Trustee of the Kukuiolono Park Trust Estate, the official Consent Agreement and Final Order (“CAFO”) reveals a situation that offers an unsettling window into how corporations—under the pressures and incentives of neoliberal capitalism—sometimes disregard critical regulations intended to protect public health and the environment. According to the EPA’s allegations, the Respondent continued to operate at least three large-capacity cesspools on two different parcels of land long after they were banned under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These cesspools, designed to absorb untreated sanitary waste, present a known threat to underground sources of drinking water, a precious resource upon which local communities and ecosystems depend.

A psychopath might ask, “Why does it matter that a few illicit cesspools remained open?” After all, in the pantheon of environmental crimes, this might sound trivial. The kicker however, is not just that the facilities were operating illegally, but that this operation continued for years beyond the federal prohibition of large-capacity cesspools in 2005. The Bank of Hawaii, in its trustee capacity, oversaw the properties that included a public park, a historic golf course, and rental dwellings—i.e., spaces with a steady flow of visitors, workers, and residents. Instead of proactively closing or replacing these cesspools by the designated deadlines, the Respondent allegedly let them remain in use, effectively allowing untreated human waste to seep into the ground and risk contaminating drinking water sources.

The EPA responded with a mere $58,000 civil penalty.

While these cesspools may not represent a massive profit-driven industrial operation, the story woven from the complaint illuminates a potent convergence of financial incentives, regulatory oversight gaps, and broader systemic issues. The fact that these cesspools were allowed to operate illegally for so long suggests failings in corporate governance or, at best, a lax approach to compliance obligations—failings that are neither isolated nor unique. This case, looked at through a more expansive lens, highlights the interplay of corporate accountability, regulatory capture, and the abiding impetus to minimize costs in order to maximize returns.

What follows is an extended investigative article that uses the allegations set forth in the EPA’s Consent Agreement and Final Order as our factual bedrock. We will delve into how these actions—and, perhaps more disturbingly, the long period of noncompliance—shed light on profit-maximization strategies gone awry, systemic regulatory lapses, and the rippling impact these failures can have on the health and welfare of local communities. Given that the Bank of Hawaii is a significant financial institution trusted with safeguarding assets, one might expect the organization (even when acting solely as a trustee for a charitable trust) to uphold environmental regulations scrupulously. Yet the allegations point to a notably different reality, raising pressing questions about responsibility, oversight, and the true costs of corporate misconduct.

Throughout the article, we will explore the broader significance of this case: the environmental stakes, the economic fallout for local communities reliant on groundwater, the moral and ethical implications for a society that prizes corporate social responsibility, and the ways in which neoliberal capitalism and deregulation can combine to produce real dangers for public health. By the end, we will see how the allegations in the CAFO are emblematic of a deeper, pervasive dynamic—one in which large institutions balance the “cost of doing business” against the well-being of people and the environment.

---

1. Corporate Intent Exposed

The CAFO provides the clearest articulation of the alleged misconduct: the Bank of Hawaii, acting as Trustee of the Kukuiolono Park Trust Estate, operated and maintained at least three large-capacity cesspools on two parcels of land in Kalaheo, Kauai. Large-capacity cesspools (LCCs) are specifically regulated because they dispose of untreated waste directly into the subsurface, thereby posing a threat to underground sources of drinking water—a critical resource for communities, especially those on islands with limited freshwater resources.

From the factual allegations summarized by the EPA, one detail looms large: by 2005, LCCs were officially illegal. The SDWA regulations and subsequent clarifications from the EPA demanded that owners or operators of such cesspools close them by April 5, 2005. The stated purpose of these rules was unambiguous: LCCs risk contaminating groundwater with pathogens and nitrates. Untreated sewage, after all, is rife with disease-causing organisms. The presence of these cesspools so long after the ban is jarring precisely because it implies the Bank of Hawaii, in its trustee role, either knew or should have known that these systems were noncompliant.

This knowledge is crucial for understanding the alleged “intent.” The complaint does not accuse the Bank of Hawaii of explicitly planning to endanger public health. What it shows, however, is a seeming willingness to let the cesspools remain operational until forced otherwise. During that interim, raw sewage from a public golf course comfort station, a pavilion, and a group of residential dwellings continued to flow into the ground. According to the allegations, no adequate or timely efforts were made to install legal wastewater treatment alternatives—like a septic system or a connection to a municipal sewer.

Why This Matters

From an investigative standpoint, these are not casual oversights. An institution that manages millions in assets and has a fiduciary responsibility to a trust estate presumably employs skilled legal counsel, compliance officers, and risk managers.

If that corporate apparatus determined that the simplest, cheapest approach was to continue operating large-capacity cesspools, we have a stark example of corporate calculus: weigh regulatory penalties and negative publicity against the potential costs of retrofitting or closing an illegal wastewater system.

In the larger scheme, the Bank of Hawaii’s alleged willingness to maintain these cesspools, despite well-known prohibitions, points to a broader pattern under neoliberal capitalism—where the pursuit of profit or the minimization of expenditure can overshadow adherence to environmental regulations. Whether this was a deliberate strategy or a slow-moving compliance failure, the outcome remains the same: a potential threat to the public’s drinking water and a breach of trust in corporate accountability.

Deeper Shades of Misconduct

The most fucked up part of this story is the timeline. The EPA makes it clear that LCCs were banned and had to be shut down by a particular date, yet these large-capacity cesspools were discovered many years later. This prolonged period of noncompliance suggests that either no one at the Bank of Hawaii’s trustee department was paying attention—implausible for an institution known for financial diligence—or that the institution assessed the risk and proceeded anyway.

In an era when “corporate social responsibility” is part of the standard vocabulary, the allegations against the Bank of Hawaii’s trustee operations serve as a strong cautionary tale. If a prominent financial institution in Hawaii can fail so blatantly in meeting an environmental regulation, what does that say for countless other corporations, big and small, that weigh their compliance obligations in the same scale as their annual budgets?

---

2. The Corporations Get Away With It

One question that looms in the wake of any enforcement action is: “Why were they able to do it for so long?” Though the final settlement imposes a $58,000 civil penalty on the Respondent, it is legitimate to ask if that sum is proportionate to years of alleged noncompliance or the potential threat to underground drinking water. For a major financial institution (even acting in a trustee capacity for a not-for-profit entity), a five-figure penalty often pales in comparison to daily financial operations.

The Loopholes and Tactics

While the CAFO does not describe elaborate schemes involving shell corporations or systematic document falsification, the simple act of not complying highlights a well-worn corporate tactic: do nothing until you must. In effect, ignoring a ban for years can be understood as a cost-benefit calculation, one that thrives when the risk of detection or the magnitude of the penalty is insufficient to incentivize immediate action.

If the Bank of Hawaii had decided proactively to close or upgrade these cesspools, it would have had to absorb all the associated costs (consultants, engineers, possible connection fees to municipal sewer lines, and so forth). By postponing that expense—allegedly for nearly two decades—they effectively reaped the benefit of that saved capital or used it for other purposes, all while these illegal cesspools continued to threaten Hawaii’s subterranean water resources.

Corporate Complacency and Regulatory Capture

Deregulation and lax oversight are central tenets of neoliberal capitalism, where the onus often shifts to private enterprises to self-regulate. In theory, institutions like the EPA exist to prevent precisely these abuses. However, the fact that the LCCs were undiscovered, unaddressed, or unresolved for so long points to potential underfunding or understaffing at regulatory agencies—common across many sectors. When regulators lack the resources for constant vigilance, or when the processes of enforcement are drawn out and weigh heavily on “voluntary compliance,” it is unsurprising that some corporate actors choose to operate in the gray zone until forced to stop.

Another factor to consider is the ephemeral line between corporate lobbying and regulatory capture, which occurs when the regulated industry exerts sufficient influence on the regulatory agency to shape or delay enforcement. The CAFO in this case does not allege such direct activity by the Respondent. However, the broader corporate environment is suffused with examples of industries successfully lobbying for lenient deadlines, exceptions, or minimal penalties for noncompliance—another dimension of how “corporations get away with it.”

Enforcement as an Afterthought

In many instances, enforcement relies on citizen complaints or chance inspections. For large-capacity cesspools, the impetus often stems from local environmental activism or from EPA’s targeted enforcement sweeps. Yet if such sweeps occur infrequently, or if oversight is hamstrung by limited funding, property owners operating illegal cesspools can easily remain in violation for years.

This phenomenon is not just a theoretical possibility; the case of Bank of Hawaii and the Kukuiolono Park Trust Estate underscores that large, well-resourced entities sometimes slip under the radar. These episodes produce a sense of impunity: corporations can settle once confronted, pay what might be perceived as a modest fine, and move on. For local communities reliant on pristine water sources, this belated compliance provides little solace.

---

3. The Cost of Doing Business

Within the universe of corporate compliance, any fine or required remediation is often viewed through the lens of “the cost of doing business.” This is not hyperbole but a well-established phenomenon wherein major corporations adopt a calculated approach: if it costs less to pay the penalty than to comply upfront, why comply until absolutely necessary?

Economic Fallout

In the specific case of these large-capacity cesspools, the short-term economic fallout might not appear cataclysmic. The final penalty stands at $58,000, and the Bank of Hawaii, acting as trustee, must presumably shoulder additional expenses to close the cesspools, install compliant wastewater systems, or connect to municipal sewers. The complaint and the settlement agreement do not mention direct compensation for any local community members who might have faced water contamination issues. Yet the potential hidden costs to local communities are more elusive and not easily captured by a penalty figure.

Imagine a scenario where contamination from these cesspools gradually seeped into groundwater reserves and compromised drinking water quality. The community—and potentially other private property owners—would bear the medical costs of waterborne diseases, any necessary water treatment or filtration, and the intangible economic losses of decreased property values. These broader, more diffuse costs are rarely measured and are often externalized onto local communities and governments.

Profit-Maximization Strategies

A key concept in neoliberal capitalism is the relentless pursuit of efficiency and profit. In that framework, budgets for routine monitoring, environmental compliance, or preventive maintenance may be trimmed—or at least delayed—if they are viewed as “non-essential expenditures.” While some corporations and trusts invest heavily in sustainable operations and compliance, many others remain content to let hazards persist until forced to fix them.

Operating an illegal cesspool for years can, in that sense, be recast as a cost-saving measure: no immediate outlay for compliance, no ongoing expenses for modern sewage systems, and limited risk if detection or penalty is perceived to be low. This approach is not unique to LCCs. Across industries, parallel strategies are employed, from neglecting air-pollution controls to ignoring worker safety measures. “Profit maximization” becomes the rationale, overshadowing any moral or ethical responsibility.

Financial Institutions in the Hot Seat

One might ask why a bank, specifically, is implicated in such a scenario. After all, the Bank of Hawaii presumably has no direct involvement in the day-to-day operation of a wastewater system. Yet as the trustee for the Kukuiolono Park Trust Estate, it stood in a position of responsibility and oversight. Holding a fiduciary duty normally includes protecting the trust’s assets. Environmental compliance, ironically, should be one way to safeguard those assets, as ignoring or delaying compliance might expose the trust to liability.

However, a narrower interpretation of “fiduciary duty” may focus primarily on immediate financial returns rather than the intangible and longer-term risk of environmental harm or regulatory crackdown. This tension is emblematic of how corporate institutions—especially those bound by fiduciary mandates—sometimes weigh compliance differently from the public interest.

---

4. Systemic Failures

Is this case just an isolated incident involving a local trust estate and a couple of banned cesspools? Or is it a microcosm of a much larger crisis? When we talk about “systemic failures,” we reference the structures in society—legal, political, economic—that allow such alleged misconduct to continue for years.

Underfunded Regulators and Fragmented Oversight

One glaring systemic issue is the underfunding of environmental agencies. While the EPA has broad statutory authority, it often faces budgetary constraints that limit staff, inspection capacity, and monitoring programs. The disparity between the large number of potential regulated facilities and the limited oversight resources can allow violators to slip through the cracks.

Moreover, regulation of something like large-capacity cesspools involves coordination among multiple jurisdictions—federal, state, and local. In Hawaii, for example, the Department of Health (DOH) has various rules for individual wastewater systems, but the primary enforcement authority for LCCs remains with the EPA. This can create bureaucratic gaps where responsibilities overlap or fall between agencies, delaying effective intervention.

Limited Legal Repercussions

The fine for the Bank of Hawaii’s trustee operation—$58,000—points to another systemic failure: the potential insufficiency of penalties to deter misconduct. If a major corporation can treat fines as a line item in its ledger, the deterrent effect diminishes. Organizations may view delayed compliance as a rational economic decision, especially if the expected penalties or risk of detection remain lower than the cost of implementing environmentally responsible solutions.

Additionally, the settlement does not automatically create a precedent that drastically hikes penalties for future violations, especially if such adjustments would require legislative or regulatory changes. Thus, the system perpetuates the very pattern it aims to stop: ignoring compliance, polluting, and paying minimal fines when eventually caught.

The Broader Moral Hazard

Systemic failure also has a moral and cultural dimension. In a social climate of deregulation, corporations often operate under the assumption that the government’s role is limited, and that self-regulation—driven by public relations concerns or market pressures—will suffice. Yet, as the allegations demonstrate, self-regulation can break down when the cost to the community (e.g., potential groundwater contamination) does not impose an immediate financial burden on the organization.

When left unchecked, this dynamic contributes to wealth disparity, as corporations externalize public-health and environmental costs. While the estate or trustees might have temporarily saved money, local communities risk bearing the brunt of contamination, medical costs, and property devaluation. This phenomenon is not just about cesspools in Hawaii; it encapsulates how corporations in many sectors weigh private benefit against communal risk under neoliberal capitalism.

---

5. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

To fully understand how alleged misconduct of this nature persists, we must address the uncomfortable notion that such behavior is not a glitch in the system but rather a core feature of it. Under neoliberal capitalism, market forces often take precedence over almost every other consideration—public health, fair labor practices, and environmental stewardship included.

The Profit Motive in Regulatory Compliance

Far from being an aberration, the Bank of Hawaii’s alleged delay in closing these LCCs can be seen as part of a broader pattern of corporate greed. In the relentless pursuit of higher returns, corporations have a habit of sidelining obligations that do not generate immediate revenue. Environmental regulations, especially those perceived as infrastructural costs (like building or installing wastewater treatment upgrades), become easy targets for deferral.

Wealth Disparity and Corporate Corruption

When examining the structural reasons behind these violations, one finds that power imbalances play a significant role. Wealth disparity enables bigger corporate entities to navigate or resist compliance more effectively than smaller, under-resourced entities. The latter might lack the financial capacity to pay for legal teams that can negotiate settlement terms or ensure minimal penalties.

Moreover, these patterns often border on corporate corruption. While the term “corruption” can evoke visions of bribery or overt illegality, it can also manifest in the normalized practice of gaming the system—disregarding environmental regulations, lobbying for reduced oversight, and treating legal fines as negligible overhead. The moral lines blur when a corporation knowingly breaks the law and continues to profit from that defiance.

Not a Single Bad Actor

This isn’t just about one financial institution. The CAFO’s details on the Bank of Hawaii’s trustee operations merely serve as a case study. Across the United States—and indeed, globally—similar patterns appear in industries like oil and gas, agriculture, manufacturing, and technology. The specifics may differ, but the underlying calculus is similar: comply if it’s cheap or if the penalties for noncompliance outweigh the costs of ignoring the law.

This pattern also signals that the system might be working exactly as designed within a neoliberal framework. By emphasizing market-driven decision-making, the system inherently encourages corporations to weigh the price of potential fines against compliance costs. If the expected penalty is lower, corporate logic dictates that ignoring the law (at least temporarily) might be the “rational” choice.

---

6. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Whenever corporate misconduct becomes public knowledge, an all-too-familiar sequence of events tends to unfold. Typically, an entity issues carefully crafted statements, claims a commitment to sustainability, and announces some form of remedial action. In the Bank of Hawaii’s case, while the formal CAFO includes a settlement and agreement to close the cesspools, one can imagine the broader public relations responses that often accompany such developments.

“We Take Environmental Compliance Seriously”

This is the standard refrain. Even though the allegations suggest a prolonged period of noncompliance, the public statement that frequently accompanies a case settlement will emphasize that the corporation values environmental protection. The gap between rhetoric and reality is rarely addressed head-on. Instead, the statement tends to outline steps to address the problem—steps that, in this situation, revolve around closing and remediating the illegal cesspools—and tries to shift the narrative to a forward-looking perspective of “we’re learning and improving.”

Downplaying the Severity

Another staple of corporate crisis management is to frame the misdeeds as the result of oversight, misunderstanding, or logistical complications—rather than as a deliberate choice. While the CAFO indicates that these cesspools were in operation for years, a typical PR tactic might stress the “complexities” of wastewater management on remote or rural properties, the “challenges” of ensuring compliance across multiple sites, or the “difficulties” in coordinating with local authorities.

No matter the explanation, the aim is to reduce moral outrage. Corporate communications may attempt to portray the alleged wrongdoing as an inadvertent slip, not an intentional gamble that compromised local resources.

Portraying the Company as a Victim or a Responsible Actor

In some cases, large institutions attempt to cast themselves as unwitting victims of overly complex regulations, a labyrinth of permit requirements, or contradictory mandates between federal and state agencies. The idea is to evoke sympathy—“we did our best, but the system is confusing.” Another angle, though less likely here, would be to highlight philanthropic or community efforts unrelated to the violation, effectively changing the subject to a more positive brand image.

The Bigger Picture: PR and Neoliberal Capitalism

Public relations damage control is deeply woven into the fabric of neoliberal capitalism. In a marketplace where reputation influences consumer choices and investment decisions, corporations invest heavily in carefully constructed images of responsibility. Yet repeated patterns of delayed compliance, penalty settlements, and “mea culpa” statements reveal a formula:

1. Delay compliance while reaping cost savings.
2. Get caught or settle once the violation becomes known.
3. Pay a modest penalty.
4. Invest in PR to ensure minimal reputational damage.

Rinse and repeat. For many corporations, the cost of the occasional PR crisis is simply one more factor in the overall cost of doing business.

---

7. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

Perhaps the most disquieting aspect of this case is the tension it exposes between corporate power and the public interest. An institution like the Bank of Hawaii holds enormous sway—economic influence, legal expertise, and extensive resources—while individual community members who might suffer from contaminated water have relatively little leverage.

Skewed Incentives

Why would a financial institution, even in its trustee capacity, be motivated to ignore environmental regulations? The short answer: money. The trustee’s fiduciary obligation is nominally about protecting the trust’s assets—assets that might be diminished by the upfront costs of compliance. Yet one might argue that a truly rigorous fiduciary viewpoint would have recognized the long-term liability of ignoring the LCC ban and the moral imperative to protect the environment for the trust’s beneficiaries and the community at large.

In the real world, however, compliance is often approached as an expense to be delayed or minimized, especially when no immediate crisis is visible. If the cesspools were not overflowing or causing immediate, visible harm, the impetus to act likely felt less urgent. Corporate power thrives on the ability to define priorities without significant external checks.

Eroding Trust in Corporate Social Responsibility

Stories like this undercut the notion that corporations can regulate themselves purely out of good faith. Even institutions that tout community engagement or philanthropic credentials may exhibit glaring lapses in fundamental compliance with basic health and safety regulations. At some level, this erodes public trust—when push comes to shove, many corporations place self-interest above the common good.

The Role of Communities

Communities often remain at the mercy of how effectively public agencies monitor and enforce environmental laws. If agencies are underfunded, or if the laws lack teeth, the public interest suffers. In Hawaii, with its fragile ecosystems and reliance on underground aquifers, the stakes are especially high. Communities on small islands lack the fallback options of large-scale alternative water sources. When pollution occurs, remediation costs and public health consequences can be immense.

---

8. The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

While the Bank of Hawaii case does not detail specific health ramifications from these cesspools, the potential hazards are well-documented in general. Cesspools can release pathogens—bacteria, viruses, and parasites—into the soil. Over time, these contaminants may migrate into groundwater. High nitrate levels in drinking water, often associated with sewage infiltration, can cause serious health problems such as methemoglobinemia (also known as “blue baby syndrome”) in infants.

Health and Economic Consequences

Even if no major outbreak was traced back to these cesspools, the mere risk is a grave concern. Drinking water contamination can strain local healthcare systems, depress property values, and undermine community well-being. Residents in areas with known contamination or even rumored contamination may face anxiety, stigma, and financial burdens when trying to sell or insure their properties.

For workers, especially those employed at the golf course or living in the residential dwellings near the cesspools, there may be heightened concerns about exposure. Although normal usage might not present immediate physical contact with the raw sewage, any malfunction or overflow could lead to dire consequences. Moreover, employees or residents who realize their environment is being illegally managed may feel a sense of betrayal, knowing the corporate trustees were obligated to protect and maintain the premises in a safe, lawful manner.

Local Communities and the Tourist Economy

Kauai is renowned for its natural beauty, drawing visitors from around the globe. Local communities often rely on tourism as a significant economic driver. If potential visitors perceive that environmental standards are lax, or water resources are at risk, that could undercut an economy already vulnerable to global tourism trends.

Furthermore, the entire community might be forced to absorb extra remediation costs if contamination is discovered. Public funds or increases in local taxes might be needed to test water supplies and implement safety measures. All of this underscores the broader social injustices that arise when a corporation fails to internalize the costs of its environmental impact, passing the risks and potential cleanup bills to the public.

The Psychosocial Dimension

In the grand tapestry of environmental misconduct, the human dimension is too often overlooked. When corporations choose inaction, local residents may be left questioning whether their well-being matters at all. The sense of disenfranchisement grows with each instance of corporate negligence. Distrust in government enforcement can also fester if the community perceives that regulators cannot or will not act swiftly enough. These psychosocial ramifications—stress, disillusionment, and fear—feed back into the broader system, engendering a cycle of frustration and reduced civic engagement.

---

9. Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

While the Bank of Hawaii’s trustee case is specific to a Hawaiian setting, similar stories of alleged corporate environmental violations abound worldwide. In multiple jurisdictions, corporations flout environmental regulations—whether related to water pollution, illegal deforestation, or toxic emissions—and often receive penalties that many consider inadequate.

The Neoliberal Context

The neoliberal economic model, which emphasizes privatization, deregulation, and market-based solutions, sets the global stage for such episodes. Across continents, corporations and governments alike tout “competitive advantage” and “economic growth,” sidelining or delaying robust environmental protections to avoid perceived economic disruption. This deference to the marketplace can prioritize immediate gains for a corporate few over the public welfare of many.

For years, the assumption was that multinational corporations, if left to flourish, would lift all boats through job creation and investment. Instead, local resources are often exploited, and environmental damage accumulates—much of it irreversible. Within this framework, the Bank of Hawaii’s trustee matter emerges as a local manifestation of a much bigger global phenomenon: corporate missteps enabled, in part, by structural pressures toward profit maximization and insufficient deterrence.

Widespread Legal and Cultural Shifts

On the brighter side, many regions are witnessing a cultural and legal pivot. Stakeholders, including investors, consumers, and activists, increasingly demand that companies meet higher standards of environmental stewardship. Shareholder activism—once niche—has grown into a powerful force compelling corporate boards to adopt stricter environmental and social practices. Class-action lawsuits over environmental harm are becoming more frequent. Moreover, governments in some jurisdictions are experimenting with new models of governance that embed “rights of nature” or require corporations to measure and disclose their environmental impacts transparently.

Still, gaps remain. Enforcement remains uneven, penalties are sometimes small, and large corporations often wield disproportionate influence. The allegations against the Bank of Hawaii’s trustee role reflect an entrenched reality: that without robust oversight and cultural change, local communities and ecosystems will continue to bear the brunt of corporate inaction.

Cases as Catalysts

Enforcement actions like this one can become catalysts for broader discussions. The trust estate’s illegal cesspools may spur local communities, environmental groups, and policymakers to re-examine wastewater regulations across the state. They can pressure other institutions or estates to proactively close any unauthorized cesspools, spurring a wave of compliance. This phenomenon underscores the paradox that emerges from each scandal: though harmful, these events sometimes provide the impetus for reforms that might otherwise languish.

---

10. Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

Given the broad array of systemic, corporate, and regulatory challenges showcased by this case, what can be done to prevent future misconduct? The solution, as with most systemic issues, lies in multifaceted reforms—spanning legislation, enforcement, community activism, and consumer awareness.

Strengthening Enforcement and Penalties

One of the most direct ways to deter corporate wrongdoing is to ensure that penalties meaningfully exceed the cost of compliance. If fines are too small, corporations may continue to view them as acceptable costs. In this instance, a $58,000 penalty might not suffice to deter a well-capitalized trustee or corporate entity overseeing multiple properties. Future policies could impose punitive damages proportional to the duration and severity of the noncompliance, effectively eliminating the cost-benefit incentive to stall.

Additionally, ramping up inspections and surprise audits could help catch violations earlier. Regulators require the resources to carry out this function effectively. Therefore, increasing funding and staffing for agencies like the EPA and state-level entities is paramount.

Mandatory Transparency and Disclosures

A system that requires proactive disclosure of wastewater treatment systems, compliance status, and any known violations would shift the burden from the public to the operator. If property owners or trustees were compelled by law to disclose their on-site sewage disposal methods annually, local communities and advocacy groups could track potential compliance issues in real time.

Transparency also pairs well with consumer power. If prospective renters, visitors, or investors can easily identify which institutions maintain illegal wastewater systems, those institutions could face reputational harm, driving them to remedy problems swiftly.

Boosting Community and Worker Protections

Empowering local communities to act as watchdogs is another crucial step. In many places, whistleblower laws protect employees or local residents who expose environmental violations. Strengthening such protections encourages individuals to speak out without fear of retaliation. Community-based monitoring programs—where local stakeholders receive training and resources to test their water or investigate nearby sites—can further democratize oversight.

A Shift in Corporate Culture

Reforming the mindset that sees compliance as an optional expense is also essential. Companies that adopt genuine corporate social responsibility policies—going beyond philanthropic gestures—can integrate environmental and social considerations into their core strategies. This approach entails rethinking fiduciary duties so that “maximizing shareholder value” no longer serves as a carte blanche to ignore or minimize environmental responsibilities.

Encouraging Ethical Investments

Institutional investors and shareholders are increasingly applying “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) criteria when deciding where to invest. By shifting capital toward enterprises with strong environmental track records, the financial sector can penalize egregious violators and reward responsible operators. Over time, this shift can alter corporate behavior, as companies adapt to attract and retain investment.

Consumer Education and Action

Finally, consumer advocacy groups can play a significant role in forcing change. Educating the public about issues like illegal cesspools, groundwater protection, and the human health impacts of unregulated waste disposal can generate political and social pressure. When the general public recognizes that big-name institutions are violating essential health and safety rules, they become more likely to demand accountability.

---

EPA’s source file for this pollution: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-11/uic-09-2024-0016-cafo-bank-of-hawaii-trustee-kukuiolono-park-trust-estate.pdf