Title: In the Matter of Water Use Permit Applications, Petitions for Interim Instream Flow Standard Amendments, and Petitions for Water Reservations for the Waiahole Ditch Combined Contested Case Hearing. ICA mem. op., filed 10/13/2010 [ada].

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW Lorne

‘2+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAM REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'L

‘o00--~

 

 

In the Matter of Water Use Permit Applications,
Petitions for Interim Instream Flow Standard Amendments,
and Petitions for Water Reservations for the Waiahole Ditch,

Combined Contested Case Hearing. al

No, 28108 3

 

aaw

APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSTON ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
(CCH-0A95-01)

 

12:2 nd 62 Auk suse

Por Curiam.’ This is an appeal from # decision and
order of the Commission on Water Resource Managenent (Water
commission). The appeal was filed after the July 1, 2006
effective date of Act 202, 2004 Hawai'i Session Laws (Act 202)
‘that changed the jurisdiction of the suprene court and the
intermediate appellate court.

We hold that pursuant to Hawai" Revised Statutes (HRS)
$$ 602-57(2) (Supp. 2005) and 602-5(a) (1) (Supp. 2005), quoted
infia, jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the Water
connission, filed after duly 1, 2006, is with the intermediate
appellate court, subject to review by the supreme court by
transfer or certiorari.

1. Background

This appeal arises from the Water Commission’ s conbined
contested case hearing on applications and petitions concerning
use of water from the Waighole Ditch system. On Decenber 24,

‘considered by: Moon, C.J-, Levinton, Nakayama, Acoba, and Ouffy, J.
 

* HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WES!

 

1997, the Water Commission issued its final decision and order in
the combined contested case hearing. On appeal of that decision
and order, we partly affirmed and partly vacated the decision and
remanded seven issues for further findings and conclusions. In
xe se Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97, 9 P.3d 409 (2000). on
remand, the Water Commission determined the seven issues and
issued on December 28, 2001 its findings of fact and decision and
order. On appeal of that decision and order, we partly affirmed
and partly vacated the decision and remanded six issues for
further findings and conclusions. In xe Use Permit Applications,
205 Hawai'i 1, 93 P.34 643 (2004). On second remand, the Water
Commission determined the six issues and issued on July 13, 2006
its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order.
Notices of appeal from July 13, 2006 decision and order
were timely filed in the instant case on August 11, 2006 by
appellants Hakipu'u ‘Ohana and Ka Lahui Hawai'i and appellant
Hawaii's Thousand Friends. The appeals were filed pursuant to
HRS § 174C-60 (1993),? which authorizes an appeal of the Water
Commission's final decision and order in a contested case. The

appeals were docketed in the appellate court on October 10, 2006

eHRs § 1740-60 (1993) provides:

contested cases. chapter 91 shall apply except where it
conflicts with this chapter, in such a case, this chapter shall
Spply.. Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, including
chapter $1, any contested case neering under (the State Water
Code) shell be appealea upon the record Girectly to the suprene
court for final decision.
 

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

land were docketed in the supreme court rather than in the
intermediate appellate court because HRS § 174C-60 (1993)
provides for an appeal “to the supreme court.”

TT, Discussion

~The [supreme court and the intermediate appellate

 

court] shall have original and appellate jurisdiction as provided
by law[.]” Hawai'l Constitution, article VI, section 1, Before
July 1, 2006, the supreme court, pursuant to HRS § 602-5(a) (1)
(1993), and the intermediate appellate court, pursuant to HRS §
602-57 (1993), had concurrent appellate jurisdiction to hear and

determine “any appeal allowed by law from any other court or

agency.” Effective July 1, 2006, the intermediate appellate

court, pursuant to HRS § 602-87(1) (Supp. 2005),? retains

 

appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal allowed

by law, but the supreme court, pursuant to HRS § 602-S(a) (1)

 

YuRS § 692-57 (Supp. 2008) provides:

Durisdiction. [Section effective July 1, 2006. For section
effective until Jone 30, 2006, see main volume.) Notwithstanding
Gay other law to the contrary, the intermediate appellate court
fhall have jurisdiction, subject to transfer as provided by
Section 602-58 or review on application for a writ of certiorari
a5 provides in section 602-58:

1)" Zo hear and determine appeals from the district,
family, and cireuit courts and from any agency
when appeals are allowed by law; and

(2) To entertain, in its discretion, any case
submitted without suit when there is a question
Of law that could be the subject of a civil
faction or proceeding in the circuit court, or tax
appeal court, and the parties agree upon the
facts upon which the controversy depends.

3
 

{++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(Supp. 2005),* has appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine
appeals only “by application for a writ of certiorari to the
intermediate appellate court or by transfer as provided by [HRS §

602-58 (Supp. 2005)}." The change in appellate jurisdiction was

 

“aRS § 602-5 (Supp. 2008) provides:

Jurisdiction and powers) filing. [Section effective July 1,
2006. For section effective until June 30, 2006, see mein
Yolune.] (a) the soprene court shall have Jurisdiction and powers
28 feliows

(2) to near and determine al1 questions of lav, or of
fixed law and fact, which are properly brought before
St by application for a writ of certiorari to the
Incermaaiate appellate court or by trensfer as
provides in this chapter;

(2) Fovanswer, in its discretion, any question of law
reserved by a circuit court, the land court, oF the
tex appeal court, of any question or proposition of
Iau certified tose by a federal district or appellate
court if the suprene court shall so provide by rule;

(3) To exercise original jurisdiction in all questions
arising under write directed to courts of inferior
Jerisdiction and returnable before the supreme court,
ar if the suprese court consents to receive the cast
arising under writs of mandamus divested to public
Gkficers to compel them to fulfill the duties of their
Offices; and such other original jurisdiction as may
be expressly conferred by Law

(4) To issue write of habeas corpus, or orders to show
cause as provided by chapter 660, returnable before
the supreme court of a circuit court, and any justice
hay issue writs of habeas corpus of such orders to
Show cause, returnable az above stated;

(5) To make or issue any order oF wrst necessary oF
appropriate in aid of ite jurisdiction, and in such
case, any justice may issue a writ or an order to. show
cause returnable before the supreme court; and

(6) To make and award such judgnents, decree, orders and
mandates, issve such executions and other processes,
nd to such other scts and take such other stepe a2
ay be necessary to carry into effect the powers which
Bre or shall be given to it by law for the promotion
Of justice in matters before it

(b) ALL cases addressed to the jurisdiction of the suprene

court or of the intermediate appellate covrt shall be fled with
the clerk of the suprene court as proved by the rules of court.
‘The clerk shall maintain the Fecord of each case whether addressed
to the Jurisdiction of the suprene ceurt of the Jurisdiction of
the intermediate appellate court.

 

 

 

 

4
 

+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

effected by Act 202. The purpose of Act 202 was

to change the appellate structure of the state courts to require
Sppeals from the circuit coures and decisions of adinistrative
Genesee to be heard by the intermediate sppellate court. Unger
{Ret 202], the Supreme Court will retain original jurisdiction
Gnly in cartein cases ang, in all other cases, will hear appeals
Shy upon acceptance of a writ of certiorari or transter
Spplication from the intermediate appellate court

 

 

Hse. Stand. Comm. Rep. No, 672-04, in 2004 House Journal, at
1667. See also Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2939, in 2004 Senate
Journal, at 1461 (the purpose of Act 202 is “to require that all
appeals from trial courts and administrative agencies be
submitted to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, subject to review
by the Supreme Court through [] transfer or application for a
wit of certiorari”); Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 3131, in 2004
Senate Journal, at 1562 (Act 202 amends the appellate process
“ {bly assigning all appeals from the district, family, and
eirevit courts, civil and criminal, and any agency when appeals
are allowed by law to the Intermediate Appellate Court”).

Act 202 amended the jurisdictional statutes for the
supreme court and the intermediate appellate court (HRS §§ 602-5
and 602-87, se¢ supra notes 3 and 2) as described above

and further amended fifty-three HRS sections* that authorize

 

SwRS $§ 11-51, 40-91, 47-46, 53-6, 91-14, 101-34, 101-52, 124n~
105, 126-24, 1960-8, 2016-57, 2016-58, 232-1, 232-18, 232-22, 232-23,
235/114, 261-13, 269-15, 269°15.5, 269-54, 271-27, 271-32, 271-33,
2716-18, 2716-24, 281-92, 286-60, 377-3, 380-10, 383-41, 363-69, 383-
16, 386-73, 385-73.5, 386-88, 392-21.5, 392-75, /412:2-501, 431 :14-118
a3i:14F-115, 482-9, 485-23, Soi-63, S7i-54, 64-1, 641-11, 641-12,
641-13, 641717, 664-8, 664-25 and 664-36.

5
 

*#* FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

appeals from courts and agencies. Those sections, before
amendment, authorized appeals from courts and agencies “to the
supreme court” and were amended to authorize appeals from courts
and agencies “to the intermediate appellate court”, not to the

supreme court, in accordance with Act 202. The fifty-three

sections supposedly included all HRS sections authorizing appeals

 

from courts and agencies, but -- as we learned when this appeal
was docketed -- did not include HRS $ 174C-60 (1993) that
authorizes an appeal from a Water Conmission case “to the supreme
court.”

An appeal from the Water Commission is an appeal from
an adninistrative agency for which jurisdiction lies with the
intermediate appellate court pursuant to Act 202 and HRS § 602-
57(1) (Supp. 2005). In enacting Act 202, the legislature
undoubtedly intended Water Commission appeals to be heard and
determined by the intermediate appellate court, subject to review
by the supreme court by transfer or certiorari. In enacting Act
202, the legislature's failure to amend HRS § 174C-60 (1993) to
authorize an appeal to the intermediate appellate court rather
than to the suprene court was clearly an oversight. The fact
that HRS § 174¢-60 (1993) authorizes an appeal to the suprene
court does not place Water Conmission appeals, filed after
July 1, 2006, within the jurisdiction of the suprene court.

Jurisdiction to hear and determine Water Commission appeals filed

6
1+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **1
after guly 1, 2006 is governed by the jurisdictional statutes for
the supreme court and the intermediate appellate court, HRS $5
602-5 and 602-57, as amended by Act 202. HRS § 174C-60 (1993) is
inconsistent with those jurisdictional statutes. The
inconsistency is resolved by the provision of HRS § 602-57(1)
(supp. 2005) that states that “notwithstanding any other law to
the contrary,” the intermediate appellate court has jurisdiction
over appeals from “any agency.”

Pursuant to the principle of statutory construction of
amendment by implication, the legislature will be held to have
changed a law that it did not have under consideration while
enacting a later law when “the terms of the subsequent act are so
inconsistent with the provisions of the prior law that they
cannot stand together.” 1A Norman J. Singer, Statutes and
Statutory Construction, § 22:13 (6% ed. 2002). HRS § 174C-60
(1993) is inconsistent with and cannot stand together with HRS $$
602-5 and 602-57, as amended by Act 202,‘ and is deemed amended
by implication, effective July 1, 2006, to authorize appeals from
the Water Commission to the intermediate appellate court, not to

the supreme court.

tups § 1740-60 (2992) 2 alsa inconsistent with HRS § 91-14(b) (Supp.
2005), which, a= amended by Act 202, provides that in agency cases,
Sproccedings for review shall be instituted in the circuit court .’. ., except
where a statute provides for a direct appeal to the intermediate appellate
Court, ‘subject to chapter 602, In such cases, the appeal shall be treated in
fhe some manner a8 an appeal from the circuit court te the intermediate
Sppellate court (.]”

 
   

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
THI. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we hold that pursuant to HRS $§
602-57(1) (Supp. 2005) and 602-5 (a) (1) (Supp. 2008), jurisdiction
to hear and determine appeals from the Water Commission filed
after July 1, 2006 is with the intermediate appellate court,
subject to review by the supreme court by transfer or certiorari.

The clerk of the appellate court is directed to docket

this appeal with the intermediate appellate court nunc pro tune

to October 10, 2006.

rem
Bic Aeleinae rr

\
Peete Cea Oren

a

Goon 6. Adige +