Title: Hui Kakoo Aina Hoopulapula v. Board of Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by J. Acoba, with whom Judge Del Rosario joins [pdf].

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAWLIBRARY

*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter
SSS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T
---000--~
HUI KAKO'O AINA HO'OPULAPULA, a domestic non-profit
WAIMANA ENTERPRISES, INC.; and

corporatic:
ALBERT S. N. HEE, Appellants-Appellants,

 

BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF
HAWAI'I; DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
HAWAT'T ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC.,

STATE OF HAWAT"
@ Hawai'i corporation, Appellees-Appellees.
SSS
No. 27159 gj

8
&
s
=
2
s

 

Orns

APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT =
iF

(CIV. NO. 04-1-00051K)
2

SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

MOON, ¢.d., LEVINSON, J., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE CHAN, IN
PLACE OF DUFFY, J., RECUSED; ACOBA, J., CONCURRING AND
DISSENTING SEPARATELY, WITH WHOM CIRCUIT JUDGE
DEL ROSARIO, IN PLACE OF NAKAYAMA, J., RECUSED, JOINS

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.

In this secondary appeal, appellants-appellants Waimana
+ and Hui Kako'o Aina

 

Enterprises, Inc. (Wainana), Albert S.N. Hi
Ho'opulapula (Hui Kako'o) (hereinafter, collectively, Appellants]
appeal from the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit's February 4,
2005 final judgment’ entered in favor of appellees-appellees

 

‘The Honorable Ronsld Ibarra presided over the underlying proceedings.

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Hawaiian Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO), Department of Land

and Natural Resources (DLNR), and Board of Land and Natural

 

Resources (BLNR) [hereinafter, collectively, Appellees) and ti
circuit court's April 1, 2005 orders denying the Appellants
post-judgment motions for relief. Eesentially, the circuit court
dismissed Waimana’s and Hee’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
concluding that Waimana and Hee [hereinafter, collectively,
Waimana Parties) were collaterally estopped from litigating
whether they have standing in the instant matter. As to Hui
Kako'o, the cixcuit court ruled, inter alia, that Hui Kako'o
lacked standing in the instant matter and that it failed to
follow specific procedures promulgated by the DLNR in requesting
a contested case hearing, thereby precluding judicial review
pursuant to Hawai'l Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(a) (1993),
quoted infra.

on appeal, the Appellants claim, inter alia, that the
circuit court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to
review their appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we
conclude that the Appellants’ contentions lack merit inasmuch as
a contested case hearing did not occur in the instant case,
thereby precluding judicial review pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s February 4, 2005 final
judgment and April 1, 2005 orders denying the Appellants’ post-

judgment motions for relief.

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

The parties to the instant appeal, except for Hui
Kako'o, have been involved in extensive litigation for more than
a decade regarding HELCO’s plans to expand the Keahole Generating
Plant, an electric generating station, on the ieland of Hawai'i,
resulting in several dispositions by this court. See, eg.
/ ra » 102

Hawai'i 257, 75 P.3d 160 (2003) (hereinafter, HELCO]; Keahole

Ref, Coalition, Inc. v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., 110 Hawai'L

 

419, 134 P.3d 585 (2006) (hereinafter, Maimana 1); Waimana
Enters. inc of Land & Natural Ree., No. 26539 (Haw. May
25, 2006) (mem.); Wasmans 2. Inc. v. Bd. o} & Natural
Rea., No. 26559 (Haw. Nay 25, 2006) (mem.). As discussed more

fully infra, the instant case concerns HELCO’s request to the
BLNR for a long-term water lease at the Keahole Generating Plant.
A. Factual Backeround

on February 24, 2004, HELCO sent a letter to the DINR,
requesting the issuance of “a loog-term lease of water [from the
Keauhou aquifer] for the use of brackish water for its industrial
use and fire suppression needs at its Keahole Generating Plant
site” on the island of Hawai'i. HELCO requested the sale of a

long-term water lease at a public auction pursuant to HRS

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

§ 171-58(c) (1993).? By letter dated March 8, 2004, the DLNR
informed HELCO that the BLNR would consider HELCO’s request at
the BLNR’s public meeting on March 12, 2004, which was

eubsequently placed on the agenda as “Item D-16."

At the March 12, 2004 meeting, a BLNR staff member

 

recommended that the BLNR “authorize the sale of a water 1
public auction.” At that point, counsel for Waimana Parties,
Deborah Jackson, came forward to provide testimony to the BLNR.

According to the minutes of that meeting, Jackson informed the

BLNR that,

4m pecenber 2002[,"] her colleague, Michelle Luke (,]
Eequested contested cage searing on behalf of her
Clientel, lass, Waians Parties) At that neetingl, duce, a
Becenber' 12,2603 SuNR meeting.) the (BLNR] decided to grant
{a revocable permit for water ise to HELCO for the Heshole
Generating Plast]: Ne. Jackson contends the (BLVR) issued
HELCO a revocable permit based on 2 199¢ Environmental

 

 

 

 

» ups § 171-58(e) provides:

Disposition of wa
public auction a8 provic

Eemporary
Conditions whieh will best serve the intereste of the state

  

 

[ease shall be subject co disapproval by the legislature by
two-thirds yote of either the senate or the house of
Scprenescacives Or by tajority vote of both in any zeguiar
or special session next following the date of disposition:
provided further that after e certain land or vater Use has
Been authorized by the board subsequent to public hearings
land conservation district use. application and eavirconental
inpact statement approvala, water used in nonpolluting ways,
for nonconeumptive purposes Because it is returned to the
jane strean or cther besy of waver fron which ie was drawn,
feeentially not affecting the volume and quality of water or
Biota in the stream or other body of water, may also be
Teased by the board with the prior approval of the governor
and the prior authorization of the legislature by concurrent
Fesolution:

 

 

 

It appears that the reference to ‘Decenber 2002" should be “Decenber
2002."
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Impact Statement (G15). She went on to inform the (BLAR
that.) subsequent to their Decenber 12, 2003 meeting(s] the
[wand Use Commission (UC)} ordered HELCO to prepare a new
BIS. Because the new EIS has yet to be prepared, Mo.
Jackson feels the (SLNR) should not render a decision on
thin matter today, inetead(,] the (BLNR] ehould wale until
che’ new BIS Ss prepares.

  

 

Consequently, Jackson requested the BLNR to defer "decision
making at this time until the [new] EIS is completed." Jackson
then informed the BLNR that, if “they are inclined to make a
decision today[,] they should reject” HELCO’s request for a long-
term water lease. Finally, Jackson stated that, if the SINR

accepted HELCO’s request, she will “ask for a contested case

hearing."

Dickie Nelson, the vice-president of Hui Kako'o,* next
testified on behalf of Hui Kako'o against HELCO’s request for a

long-term water lease. The meeting minutes reveal Nelson stated

that

acres of Iand in Keahole of which 153 acres
abut HELCO["s) power plant. He feels these lands shoula be
fade available fo Native Hawaiians on [the Department of
Hawaiian Hone Land's (DMML)] wastlist. He noted hie
organization[, Lie.) Hui fako'o], hae serious concerns
Fegarding the potential impacts that this water lei

have on their fenbers{') rights to lease these lands.
feels there have not Decc'edequate studies done on the
impacts of the water (lease). Mr. Neleon noted [chat] Kicah
Kane[, the executive officer of DHHL,] spoke in support of
this iten on behalf of the DHHL and those individuals who
already have honestead leases. In contrast {, weleon)
Fepresents those individuals on the SHH waitlist

 

 

may

  

 

Nelson also requested the BINR to “defer this matter until more

information can be provided,” stating further that, if a decision

 

 

* Hui Kako'o “is an organization that represents the benefici
native Hawaiians on the Hawaiian Home Lands wait lists” FOP No. 13”

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

ie made today, he would request a contested case hearing to
receive more information.

Inmediately thereafter, the BLNR convened in an
‘Executive Session" with deputy attorney general Yvonne tzu to
discuss the Appellants’ oral requests for a contested case
hearing as well as the impact of the BIS. After less than ten
minutes, the BLNR reconvened and stated that ‘a contested case
hearing is not available.* HELCO’s request for a long-term water
lease was thereafter unanimously approved by the BLNR.

B. Procedural History

on April 12, 2004, the Appellants jointly filed a

notice of appeal with the circuit court pursuant to HRS § 91-

24(a)° and Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72 (2005).¢ The

 

 

© wag § 91-34, entitled *sudicial review of contested cases, provides

in relevant part:

(a) Any person aggrieved by a final decision and order ina
contested case or by a preliminary ruling of the nature tha
Seferral of review pending entry of a subsequent tinal’

Et deprive ea z
bus

fothing in this section ehall be deaned to prevent Fesort to
Gther seane of review, redress, relief, or trial de nov,
Gneluding the right of trial by jury, provided by law
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the
Contrary, Zor the purposes of this section, the term "person
aggrieved” shall include an agency that is'a party to &
Cdatested case proceeding before that agency or ancther
agency.

 

 

 

(emphasis added.)
+ Wmcp mule 72 provides in relevant part:

(a) Yow taken. here a right of redeternination or review
in a circuit court is allowed by statute, any person
adversely affected by the decision, order or action of =
Governmental official or body other than a court, may appeal
fron euch decision, order or action by filing a notice of
(continued...)

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

Se

notice of appeal indicated that the Appellants were appealing

from the BLNR’s “action” taken at its March 12, 2004 meeting with

 

respect to the authorization of the sale of the long-term water

 

lease by public auction,
On July 13, 2004, Waimana Parties filed a “Motion for

Stay of Decision Dated March 12, 2004." Essentially, Waimana

Parties requested the circuit court to enter an order staying the

to HELCO pending resolution

 

issuance of the long-term water le.
of the instant appeal.” on duly 19, 2004, Hus Kako'o similarly

filed a “Motion for Stay of Decision Dated March 12, 2004,

equesting the same relief as Waimana Parties. Mainena Parties
subsequently Joined in Hui Kakoo’s motion on July 23, 2004, and
Hui Kako'o joined in Waimana Parties’ motion on August 4, 2004

A hearing on the motions for stay was held on August 11, 2004.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court orally denied

the motions."

continves)
‘appeal in the circuit court having jurisdiction of the
satter. Xs used in this rule, the term ‘appellant’ neans
any peraon or persons filing @ notice of appeal, and
vappeliee” seans every governtental body or official (other
Ehan a court) whose decision, order or sction 2 appealed
from, and every other party to the proceedings

 

(amphasis in original.)

* Barlier, on July 1, 2004, a public auction vas held for the sale of
the long-term water lease, and HELGD purchased the lease.

* on August 30, 2008, the circuit court entered ite written order
denying the actions for acay

 
+** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

Sse
In the meantime, Hui Kako'o filed its opening brief

with the circuit court on August 9, 2004, Hui Kako'o contended,
fnter alia, that the BLNR (1) erred in denying its oral request
for a contested case hearing and (2) failed to comply with HRS
§ 172-58(c), see supra note 2, before authorizing the sale of the

long-term water lease. On the same day, Waimana Parties filed

 

their opening brief with the circuit court, raising, in essence,

the same contentions as Hui xako'o.
on August 26, 2004, HELCO filed a motion to dismiss
Wainana Parties’ appeal, in which the BLNR and the DLNR joined on
Septenber 3, 2004. HELCO asserted that, inasmich as the circuit
court had already ruled in the "1994 Remand order“? that Waimana

+ Im @ Novenber 9, 1994 remand order, the circuit court entered the
following relevane conclusions relating to Wainana’s lack of standing to
Chalienge NELCO'e conservation istrict use application (COUA) with the Bim
SRL S295.t co wedernise and expand the Keshole Generating Plant (hereinafter,
fhe 1994 Remand Order]:

 

(6) Although kaimana argues it is a native Hawaiian
Controlled entity whose economic’ interests, enviroonental
SRterests ana interests in ceded lands are at stake and
that, eherefore, it has constitutionally protected property
Gbterests, tne [eircuse) court concludes otherwise: as an
tntity neither physically located near the site of HELCO’s
proposed expansion nor whose purpose is to protect
Rnviroonental or Hawaiian interests, Wainana’s interest in
Contesting the CDUA appears. to be purely econonic, an
Sheerest shich the DIN® recognized in recomending Wainana’
[ntervention in the CDUA proces
{weisana} is an energy company. It has conducted
Studies and obteined @ lease for development of
Generator station at an alternative site, Kavaihec,
Egat may be superior to the Keahole site. Expansion
Of the Keahole generating station may suppress
Gevelopment of [wainana’s] project.
(6) Waimana Goes not have a due process right to contested
Gate hearing because ita economie interest does not
Constitute *property” within the meaning of the due process
Clauses of the federal and state constitutions;

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

(continued...)

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

lacked standing to challenge issues relating to the expansion of
the Keahole Generating Plant, it follows that Waimana and

Waimana’s privy, Hee," are precluded from litigating the issue

 

whether they have standing in the instant matter. Thus, HELCO
maintained that the circuit court lacked appellate jurisdiction
to consider Waimana Parties’ present appeal.

On September 10, 2004, Hui Kako'o filed a memorandum in
opposition to HELCO’s motion to dismiss Waimana Parties’ appeal.
Hui Kako'o asserted that HELCO “nisconstrue(d] the dispositive
legal issue in this administrative appeal (,] which is whether the
(BLNR] properly complied with the statutory provisions of [ERS)

§ 171-58 (c) prior to the approval of the [long-term] water lease
to HELCO." Moreover, Hui Kako'o argued that “standing should not

be a barrier to the right of appeal.’ (Capital letters altered.)

 

*(.-scontinuea)
(8) Not having a right to a contested case hearing by
eatute, rule(,] or by the constitution, Waimana lacks

tanding to file this Appeal pursuant to [HRS §) 91°4(a) [,

see supra note 5]

Wajmana I, 110 Hawai‘ ac 422-23, 134 P.34 at 588-08 (e11ipees and eephases
omitted)" Waimana did not appesl the 1994 Remand Order, which was
incorporated in a final judgment entered by the circuit court; thus, it did
not challenge the circuit court's devermination that it lacked standing. Sa,
ae 423, 134 P.3d at 569.

 

   

 

Hee ‘is the president, incorporater{,] and majority shareholder of
Waimana(.]*

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

on Septenber 13, 2004, Waimana Parties filed their

memorandum in opposition to HELCO’s motion to dismiss their

 

appeal. Waimana Parties contended that, ‘Iw]here a party
dismissed from an action, based upon a determination that the
party lacks standing, res judicata unequivocally does not apply.

A hearing was held on HELCO’s motion to dismiss Waimana
parties’ appeal on Septenber 20, 2004. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the circuit court instructed the parties to submit
proposed findings and conclusions on their respective positions
regarding standing as well as the merits of the appeal.

Also on Septenber 20, 2004, the BLNR and the DLNR
jointly filed their answering brief to Waimana Parties’ opening
brief. The BLNR and the DLNR contended that the circuit court
lacked jurisdiction because Wainana Parties did not meet the
requirenents of HRS § 91-14, Specifically, the BLNR and the DLNR
argued that Waimana Parties have not been “specially, personally
and adversely affected by special injury or damage to his [or
her] personal or property rights" and that they “did not

participate in a contested case nor [were they] entitled to a

 

contested c

 

fe." On the same day, the BINR and the DLNR jointly
filed their answering brief to Hui Kakoo’s opening brief. The
BUNR and the DINR asserted that the circuit court lacked
jurisdiction because Hui Kako'o, like the Waimana Parties, did

not meet the requiremente of HRS § 91-24. Specifically, the BLNR

 

and the DINR argued that Hui Kako'o was not “personally

-10-
 

*** FOR PUBLICATION **
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

aggrieved" by the BLNR’s decision authorizing the issuance of the
long-term water lease and that Hui Kako'o did not participate in
a contested case nor was it entitled to one, ‘The BINR and the
DINR algo contended that, notwithstanding the lack of
jurisdiction, the BLNR fully complied with the requirements of
URS § 172-58(c).

HELCO also filed its answering brief to Hui Kakoo's
opening brief on September 20, 2004. HELCO contended, inter
alia, that Hui Kako'o lacked standing to bring the instant
appeal. Moreover, HELCO asserted that the BLNR’s decision
authorizing the issuance of the long-term water lease on March
12, 2004 did not arise from a contested case hearing.
Specifically, HELCO alleged that it was undisputed that “the
BLNR’s March 12, 2004 public meeting was not a contested case
hearing[] and that Hui Kako'o did not comply with Hawai'i

Administrative Rule[s] (HAR) § 13-1-29["] by submitting a timely

 

29 provides in relevant pare:

(a) A hearing on a contested matter my be requested by
‘the board on its ova motion or upen the written
petition of any government agency or any intel
Person who then properly qualifies to be adm
Party. “An oral or written request for a cont
Gese hearing must be made by the close of the public
hearing (3f one ie required) or the board meeting a©
which the matter is scheduled for disposition (if a5

Public hearing is required). in either situation, the

mae sail a ei

 

 

EL ‘or the board meetin shever
‘The time for aking an orai_or written
request and submitting a written petition say be
waived by the Board
(continued...)

sane
 

* FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

written petition to the BLNR for a contested case hearing.”

Consequently, HELCO maintained that the circuit court lacked
appellate juriediction to entertain Hui Kakoo's appeal.

on the same day, HELCO filed its answering brief to
Waimana Parties’ opening brief. HBLCO alleged, inter alia, that
Waimana Parties “lack standing to challenge issues relating to
the Keahole (Generating Plant].* HELCO basically reiterated the
arguments it had made in support of its motion to dismiss Waimana
Parties’ appeal, to wit, that, inasmuch as the circuit court had
earlier ruled in the 1994 Remand Order that Waimana lacked
standing to challenge issues relating to the expansion of the
Keahole Generating Plant, it follows that Waimana and Waimana’s
privy, Hee, are precluded from litigating whether they have
standing in the instant matter. HELCO also contended, as it did
in its answering brief to Waimana Parties’ opening brief, that
the BINR’s decision authorizing the issuance of the long-term
water lease on March 12, 2004 did not arise from a contested case
hearing. Specifically, HELCO argued that the BLNR’s March 12,
2004 meeting was not a contested case hearing and that Waimana
Parties did not comply with HAR § 13-1-29 by submitting a timely
written petition to the BLNR for a contested case hearing. Thus,
HELCO contended that Wainana Parties’ “procedural default [vals

fatal to their appeal.”

 

3 (. continued)
(eephasis added.)

o225
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

On October 11, 2004, the circuit court heard oral
argument on the Appellants’ appeal, at which time the parties
essentially reiterated the argunents made in their briefings to
the circuit court. At the conclusion of the hearing, the cireuit
court stated that it would take the matter “under submission.”

On October 28, 2004, the circuit court entered its

 

order granting HBLCO’s motion to dismiss Waimana Parties’ appeal
and the BLNR’s and the DLNR’s joinder therein. on Novenber 3,
2004, the circuit court entered its findings of fact (FOPa),
conclusions of law (Cols), and order affirming the BINR's March

12, 2004 decision. The circuit court entered the following

 

elevant. FOF:

37, on March 12, 2008, the BLNR held @ duly-noticed
necting to consider HELCO's request for approval of an
auction for the lease for brackish water from the Keauhou

 

18. (The Appellants] appeared at the meeting and
requested a contested case hearing.

35. “mui Kako 1 an organization that represents the
beneficiaries and native Hawaiians on the Hawaiian Home
Lands walt list

20. Hui Kako'o failed to present any testimony or
other evidence to the BLNR during the March 12, 2008 meeting
that they (and{.] in Mui Kakoo's case, its members) actually
Used the area surrounding the Keahole generating station for
native Havaiian traditional and customary practices.

21, Mul Kako'o failed to present any evidence in this
appeal £0 prove that ite menbere actually used the area
Surrounding the Keahole generating station for native
Hawaiian traditional and customary practices.

22. Rui Kako'o did not present any testimony or other
evidence to the BLM® denonstrating any harm to the
environsent from HELCO's use Of the Brackish water from the
Keauhou aquifer.

23.” The SLNR denied the [Appellants’) requests for a

ed case he:

 

 

 

 

 

  

   

-13-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

25. Pursuant to public notice, the public auction for
the [long-term water] lease was held on July 1, 2008, HELCO
was the prevailing bidder and the lease vas executed with
HELO on July 29, 2004

 

(Emphasis added.) The circuit court also entered the following

relevant CoLs

2, (WRG) § 91-24(a) sete forth the following
jurisdictional requirenents for an agency appeal: (1) the
Proceeding that resulted in the unfavorable agency action
ust have been a “contested case” hearing that vas "required
By law’ and “determines the rights, duties, and privileges
Of specific parties"; (2) the agency action must’ represent a
Sine! decision and order or 2 sprelisinary ruling" that
such deferral of review would deprive the claimant of
Adequate vellet; (3) mane .

‘and have been involves "int a

QShtested case hearing; and (4) the claimant's legal
‘ues, the claimant

 

 

 

 

Snterest must have been injured
have standing to appeal. "Bub. ward
wait conm'n], 79 Hawai: 425, 432, 903

 

Prtd ise, 1352 (1998) (BASIE
5." iui Kako'o has failed to demonstrate that it has
standing to appeal the BLNE's March 12, 2004 decision.
G. ful kakc'o has failed tn its burden to denonstrate

that if has standing to appeal the BLNR's March 12, 2004
Gecision

 

ia! ‘a’ person or entity asserting standing mst prove

standing at the beginning of the ca

at's ‘Touriem AUCs 2 100
Hawaii 242, 257, 59 P3677, 652 (2002). ful Kako'o (and
iwainana Parties]} tailed to prove standing at the beginning
of the case.

13 ius Kako'o failed to produce evidence to show
that i or ite menbers have any "personal" interest as
ative Hawaiians who traditionally ané customarily exercised
practices for subsidence, cultural, or Feligicus purposes

as Hui Kako'o failed to assert before the
uur, or thereadter, to adduce evidence that te members had
actually exereised traditional and custonary native Hawaiian
practices that could be affected by the lease of the
brackish water.

[5. "itul Kakoo'® arguments to [the circuit] court for
‘the £428 time on appeal and unsupported by evidence] chat
[ts menbers may" exercise such practices is insufficiest as
a natter of law to confer standing.

$e, sven assuming that #ul xako'o has standing to
bring thie appeal, the BLYR’s March 12, 2004 [Gecision) mu
still be affireed:

37. ui Rakoo’# appeal of the BLIR’s March 12, 2004
approval of the sale of the lease at public auction does not
arise fron a “contested case’ hearing pureuant to the
jurisdictional requirenents of HRS § 91-14(a), and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o14-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

accordingly, thie [clourt lacks appellate jurisdiction to

bear thelr appeal.
18. The BLIR's March 12, 2004 public meeting w

 

 

4 contested case hearing.
3. i ©
ed wi Sai-2s BY aubeitting = Wr
‘he BLIR ested fe
March 12 eluents om ictal

‘Solbnared Sua fom Sa a aS
a

20. The BLNR was algo not required “by law" to
conduct a contested case hearing where, ae here, the BLNR's
faction involved the custodial managenent of pubiie property
fee ‘vs stat jawai't Deptt 1
Beall, 6e wav. 632, 673 F.2d 2030 (2983) (noting chat
internal management of an agency necessarily includes the
custodial management of public property entrusted to the
fagency, and hoiding that'a contested case hearing wat not

‘require by law" for BLNR decisions relating to such
wnanagesent) {.)

21. HELCO’s lease request was granted pursuant to HRS
4271-58, That statute does not require or suggest that «
contested case hearing is required Before the SLVR nay
exercise its custodial function to grant water rights by
Tease at public auction. [iil Kakoo) has tailed to
Genonstrate any statutory basis for a contested case
esting

22. the [circuit clourt further finds that the
Appellante were not constitutionally entitled to a contested
cate hearing,

 

 

 

 

 

36, “wouco satisfied its burden to prove that ite
request to the SLNR for an auction for a [long-term wacer
Tease} from the Keauhou aquifer was consistent with the
public trust doctrine.

 

(rine sunk fully complied with uRs

 

san-ssiedi.i
(Emphases added.)

On November 5, 2004, Waimana Parties filed a motion for
clarification of the circuit court’s order granting HELCO’s
motion to dismiss Waimana Parties’ appeal. Waimana Parties

requested the circuit court to disclose:

(2) (tIhe factual and legal basis upon which thle
cireuit clourt apparently detersined that’ [vainana] lacked
standing to bring this administrative appeal;

(2) ‘(rIhe factual and legal baste upon which thle
cixeuit clourt apparently deterninea that’ [Heel lacked
standing to bring thie administrative appeal; and

 

-1s-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

a

(3) (the Leentitication of any factual findings or
egal conclusions derived from outside the submissions on
HeLeo’s motion and che argument at (the) hearing on
Septenber 20, 2004() thle circuit clourt considered and
Felied upon in granting HELCO’s Motion to Dismiss (.]

(iumbering altered.) Wainana Parties alternatively requested the
circuit court to enter findings and conclusions with respect to
its order granting HELCO’s motion to dismiss. On Novenber 30,
2004, the circuit court entered its order denying Waimana
Parties’ motion for clarification, stating that:

mcP Rule £2 (a) [(2005)") does not require the court to
Wisue {Pore] ‘and (cote) with respect to motions to dismise
for lock of jurisdiction because appellants lack standing as
Avaatter of law; and findings and conclusions are not
aetessary in relation to (waimana Parties}, a6 tne record in
this agency appeal clearly sete forth the basis for the
Court's order The court iagued (FOPe) and [Cols] relating
fot: akoove] appeal on November 3, 2008.

 

   

on February 4, 2005, the circuit court entered final judgment in
favor of the Appellees and against the Appellants.
on February 23, 2005, Hui Kako'o filed a motion for

relief from the circuit court’s FOFs, COLs, and order affirming

 

the BLNR’s March 12, 2004 decision pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b) (6)
(2005), which Waimana Parties joined on March 9, 2005. Hui

Kako'o stated that:

1S wacP Rule 52(a) provides in relevant part that *{FOPs) and [cous]
are unnecttsary on decisions of motions under Rules 12 ((noticns pleading
see eiettefensea)] or se fiotions for summary juégeent)] or any other notion
SECS s provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule.” Subdivisions
‘Sy and {c) are not relevant to the instant case.

2 gacp Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part that, *[oln sotion and

pon such terme as are just, the court may relieve s party oF a party's legal
Woletestative tron a final Judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
eee eee Te “any other reason justifying relief fron the operation of

 

the Judgment .*

-16-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Im lece than three sonths after the [circuit] court
saved its order in the instant appeal, the BNR granted a
[contested case hearing) to challenge the proposed issuance
of a water lease under (WS) § 172-88.— On J
fhe BLAR, in consultation with the office of

 

   

 

fe Aetorney,

General, ‘authorized a hearing officer to conduct

     

Diversion and Portions of a
Kaua't Zeland Utilities Cooper Clearly, the
BLUR’s inconsistent positions ave resulted in the denial of
Wai Kakoo'a due process righte toa full and fair
opportunity to be neard ana to eneure that ite
Constitutional rights are protected.

    

 

on the same day, Waimana Parties filed their motion for relief
from the February 4, 2005 final judgment pursuant to HRCP Rule
60, primarily raising the same contentions as Hui Kako'o.

on March 4, 2005, HELCO filed ite memorandum in”
opposition to Waimana Parties’ motion for relief. HELCO

jons cited by [Waimana

 

contended, inter alia, that “(tihe
Parties) for relief from the final judgment do not relate to the

dismissal of their appeal for lack of standing, and they cannot

 

be ‘conferred’ standing based upon a subsequent proceeding before
the BLNR in an unrelated matter(, d.e., the KIUC matter) .”

altered.) Moreover, HELCO pointed out that,

 

(Capital Lette
although a contested case hearing had been requested in the KIUC
matter, the BLNR had not yet ordered one. On the same day, HELCO
filed its memorandum in opposition to Hui Kakoo’s motion for
relief, essentially asserting the same argunents it had advanced
against Waimana Parties.

Also on Mach 4, 2005, the BLNR and the DINR jointly

filed their memorandum in opposition to Hui Kakoo's motion for

-17-
+** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter
i
relief, The BLNR and the DLNR contended that Hui Kakoo’s failure
to submit @ subsequent written petition for a contested case

an independent basis upon

 

hearing pursuant to HAR § 13-1-29 we
which the circuit court could, and did, affirm the BLNR’s March
12, 2004 decision. The BLNR and the DLNR also maintained that
the KIUC matter was irrelevant to the instant case inasmuch as
“{e]here is no basia for [Hui Kako‘o] to contend or (the circuit
clourt to conclude that [the] KIUC [matter] is the same as this
case." On the same day, the BLNR and the DLNR jointly filed
their memorandum in opposition to Waimana Parties’ motion for
relief. Again, the BLNR and the DINR contended, inter alia, that
the KIUC matter was irrelevant to the instant case

The circuit court held a hearing on the Appellants’
motions for relief on March 14, 2005. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the circuit court orally denied the Appellants’ motions
for relief. On April 1, 2005, the circuit court entered two
separate written orders denying Hui Kakoo’s and Waimana Parties’
motions for relief

prior to the circuit court’s entry of the April 1, 2005
orders, Hui Kako'o filed its notice of appeal on March 3, 2005,
and Wainana Parties filed their notice of appeal on the same day.
‘The foregoing set of appeals was assigned appeal No. 27159. On
April 29, 2005, Hui Kako'o filed a second notice of appeal, and
Waimana Parties filed their second notice of appeal on the same

day, ‘The second set of appeals was assigned appeal No. 27276.

wie.
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

Both sets of appeals were consolidated under appeal No. 27159 by
this court on July 14, 2005.
IT, STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

“The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a
question of law that is reviewable de nove under the right/wrong
standard.” Qames Funding Corp, v. Mores, 107 Hawai'i 95, 98, 110
P.3d 1042, 2045 (2005) (internal quotation marks, brackete, and
citations omitted). If a court lacks jurisdiction over the
subject matter of a proceeding, any judgment rendered in that
proceeding is invalid. Therefore, such a question is valid at
any stage of the case, and though a [circuit] court is found to
have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal,
not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in
jurisdiction." Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 76 Hawai'i 128,
133, 870 P.24 1272, 1277 (1994) (internal quotation marks,
original brackets, and citation omitted).
B. Findings of Fact

This court reviews the circuit court’s FOFs under the
clearly erroneous standard. Usoka v. Szymanski, 107 Hawai'i 386,
393, 114 P.3d 892, 899 (2005) (citations omitted).

Ala] [F08) is clearly erroneous when,
despite evidence to support the finding, the
appellate court is left with the definite and
Firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence
that a mistake has been committed. An) (POF)
is also clearly erroneous whea the record lacks
substantial evidence to support the finding. We
have defined substantial evicence ae credivie

 

nis.
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

evidence which se of sufficient quality and
probative value to enable a person of Feasonable
Eaution to support s conclusion.

mer v. , 104 Hawai'i 43, 51, 85 P.3d 150, 158 (2004)
(quoting Beneficial Hawai'i, Inc. v. Kida, 96 Hawai'i 289, 305, 30
P.3d 895, 911 (2002)).

Cc. Conclusions of Law

‘This court reviews the circuit court’s COLs de novo.
Ud. at 51, @5 P.3d at 158 (citation omitted). "A COL is not
binding upon an appellate court and is freely reviewable for its
correctness." Allstate Ing. Co, v, Ponce, 105 Hawai'i 445, 453,
99 P.3d 96, 104 (2004) (citations and internal quotations marks
omitted). Moreover, ‘a COL that is supported by the [circuit]
court's FOFs and that reflects an application of the correct rule
of law will not be overturned." Id. (citation omitted, internal
quotation marke, and original brackets omitted) .

TIT. DISCUSSION
‘As this court has previously stated:

preliminarily, we reiterate the well-settied principle
that appellate courte have an independest cbligaticn to
Insure they have juriediction to bear and Geternine each

   

 

case. Kerian'v. tanaka, 7 Haw. 1, 15, 85€ P.24 1207, 1215,
(1993), Starer—Moniz, 69 Haw. 370, 342, 742 P.2d 373, 375,
(i987); “Hacon'y- Harlin, 6@ Haw. 64a, 650, 727 P.24 1127,

2129. (i9e6). Tals duty arises from the equally
Svell-settied rule that the legislature may define and Limit
the right of appeal because the renedy of appeal ie not a
Connon law right and it exists only by authority of
statutory or constitutional provisions(.]* in re Attorney's
$9 Hawai's ty 4, 32 P-3d 647, 650 (2001)
(citations onitced)- In light of the legislature
prerogative of fixing the limits of appellate Jurisdiction,
fn appealing party's."
roseduree ibe ie obuaae
Grattatior! v. stare, 79 Hawai'i 10, 13, 697 P.24 937, 940,
(3995) (emphasis sazea)

  

   

-20-
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

SS

Inte Doe, 102 Hawai'i 246, 249, 74 P.3d 998, 1001 (2003)
(brackets in original), Consequently, we firat address the
Appellees’ contention that the Appellants’ failure to comply with
the specific procedures promulgated by the DNLR, namely, HAR

§ 13-21-29, in requesting a contested case hearing precludes
judicial review pursuant to HRS § 91-24(a).

“HRS § 91-14(a) provides the means by which judicial
review of administrative contested cases can be obtained. Among
ite prerequisites, the section requires that a contested case
must have occurred before appellate jurisdiction may be
exercised." Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77
Hawai'i 64, 67, 882 P.2d 1210, 1213 (1994) (citation omitted) .

Im addition, “[a]ppellants seeking judicial review under HRS

§ 91-14 must also follow agency rules ‘relating to contested case
Proceedings . . . properly promulgated under HRS [c]hapter
sil.J'" Id. at 67-68, 881 P.2d at 1213-14 (quoting Simpson v._

Dep‘t of Land & Natural Res., @ Haw. App. 16, 24, 791 P.2d 1267,

1273 (1990) (third set of brackets and ellipsis in original),
421 Hawai'i 124, 139 P.3d 712 (2006)); PASH, 79 Hawai'i at 433,
903 P.ad at 1254.

In Simpson, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA)
held that a public hearing required by law is not a contested

case where (1) the agency has properly promilgated specific

 

procedures for a contested case hearing and (2) a party has

-aa-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

eee
failed to follow such procedures. Id, at 24-25, 791 P.2d at
1273, In that case, the petitioner had applied for a mooring
permit from the DLNR and participated in a public hearing

required by law. id. at 18, 791 P.2d at 1270. The petitioner,

 

however, did not request a contested case hearing pursuant to the
DLNR‘s agency rules regarding contested case proceedings,
specifically, HAR § 13-1-29, gee gupra note 11. Id, at 19, 792
p.2d at 1271. After the BLNR denied the petitioner's application
for a mooring permit, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal to

‘The circuit court dismissed the appeal

 

the cireuit court. Id.
on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction inasmuch
as there was no final decision from a contested case. Id, at 19-
20, 791 P.2d at 1272.

on appeal, the ICA agreed with the circuit court that
the petitioner's appeal was not from a contested case. Id. at
is, 791 B.24 at 1270. Specifically, the ICA concluded that,
inasmuch as the petitioner failed to request 2 contested case
hearing as required by HAR § 13-1-29, there was no contested case
from which the petitioner could appeal, pursuant to HRS
§ 91-14(a). Id. at 24, 791 F.2d at 1273. The ICA went on to

state:

-22-
 

FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

SS

‘The basic purpose of [elubchapter § of the (DLKR’s
“ules of bractice and Procedure*') is to provide the

(SuwR) an opportunity to establish an adequate foreal record
for judicial review of its deciaion and order. ‘Since [the
petitioner] aid not request a contested case bearing,

Fecord of the proceedings before the Bosra in sparse
inadequate for' judicial review. Transcripts of witne:
testimony at the public hearing, exhibite, if any, presenved
at the hearing, and the Board's findings of fact’ anu
conclusions of aw are lacking. In fact, it is difficult to
Getermine from the record who, other than [the petitioner:
testified at the public’ hearing. The Board's decision
and order seem to be based entirely on a staff planners
vunazy of the proceedings and recomendations.” Tas, we
hold that the public hearing before the Board was not a
“contested case hearing’ in accordance wien the DLR’

Rules. To hold otherwise would vitiate the right of
‘agencies to make and enforce such rules

 

 

Id. at 24-25, 791 P.2d at 1273 (bold emphasis added) .

 

s ritle 13, chapter 1 of the HAR is entitled “Rules of Practice and
Procedure" (Rules). In turn, subchapter s, encitied "Contested Case
Proceedings," is contained in title 13, chapter 1 of the HAR. HAR § 13-1-29
Ae contained in Title 13, chapter 3, subchapter 5.” The ICA noted that che
“DLNR had adopted the Rules establishing formal procederes for contested case

proceedings. The Rul
SL, are part of the public record." 1a. at 24, 791 Pad ar i273 lespheste

‘aaded) =

 

 

= Me note that, four years after Simson was decided by the ICA, this
court in Bele Defense fund criticized gimpgon's decision to reverse and remand
"he case to the circuit court in light of the DLNR's and the BLIR's fallure co
inform the petitioner “of hia right to request @ ‘contested case hearing’ and
the tine within which such request must be sade-" Simpson, 8 Haw, App. at 26,

‘79% P.ad at 1274. In Bele Defense Fund, thie court stated that,

[a] though the TcA found that the circuit court lacked
Jurisdiction because (the petitioner] id not participate ia
43 contested case, it nonetheless reversed the Gismiseal of
(the petitioner's) claim and Fenanded with direction ¢o
Yenand the satter to the Dik for # contested case rearing.

disaise the appeal. “Requiring a Fenand to the DINR vith
instructions to provide « contested cae hearing directly
contradicts the proper finding of a lack of jurisdiction in
Simson. Jurisdiction is the base requireneat for any court
considering and resolving an appeal of original action,

fe 20u) et <

 

 

 

 

onsiac ease raedier

Setlons—“wishoue Taneegieetg Sumisaal of the-anneel or
ko -consider the case further:

77 Hawai'i at 69.10, 681 P.2d at 1215 n.20 (citation and internal quotation
(eontinued..-)

 

-23-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

oo

Likewise, in this case, HAR § 13-1-29 is the applicable
agency rule delineating the specific procedures for requesting a
contested case hearing. As previously stated, HAR § 13-1-29

provides in relevant part

(a) A hearing on a contested matter may be requested by
the board on ite ava motion or upon the written
petition of any government agency or any interested
Rerecn who then properly qualifies to be admitted as a

‘An oral of written request for a contested
wFing muse be made by the close of the public
hearing [if one ie required) or the board veeting at

Thich the matter ie scheduled for disposition (Jf no

Jublic hearing ie required). In either situation, the

person or agency requesting the contested case hearing
Zile (er mail and postmark) a written petition

ith the board not later than ton days after the close

Ue'the public hearing or the board meeting, whichever

Ge applicable. the time for waking an oral or written

Fequest and submiteiag a written petition may be

waived by the bosrd.

(Bold and underscored emphases added.) The parties agree that

   

 

 

  

the Appellants made oral requests for a contested case hearing
prior to the close of the Maxch 12, 2004 meeting before the BLNR.
However, as the Appellees point out and the Appellants do not
Gispute, the Appellants failed to subsequently submit a written
petition to the BLNR, requesting a contested case hearing

Indeed, the circuit court's unchallenged FOF No. 24 indicates
that ‘Hui Kako'o failed to subsequently file (or mail and

postmark) a written petition with the BLNR for a contested case

(.- continued)
marks omitted) (bold and underecored emphases added); ee Bush, 76 Hawai'i at
30 P28 at 3260, (holding that judicial review by the circuit court of

Fra genial of the appellante’ request for a contested case hearing as
Kae SSCL ew of the merite cf the agency's decision “is unattainable due to
Sor of subject satter Juriediction’). In fact, this court recently
SretGhnea Simson sco the extent that ic required’a renand to the DLNR with
SHeCRucticaatts provide a contested case hearing when it lacked jurisdiction
GE'S "So-s Manlakepupy, 123 Hawal's at 136, 199 P.34 at 724.

 

 

 

 

 

-24-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

a SSSSsSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

hearing as required by (HAR] § 13-1-29." As euch, FOF No. 24 is
binding on this court. See In re Lock Revocable Livine Trust,
109 Hawai" 146, 154, 123 P.3d 1242, 1249 (2008) (POPs not
challenged on appeal are binding on the appellate court); Okada
1. v Water Supply, 97 Hawai'i 450, 458, 40 P.ad
73, 81 (2002) (same). Although the circuit court did not enter
any findings relating to Waimana Parties’ failure to subsequently
file (or mail and postmark) a written petition with the BLNR for
@ contested case hearing as required by [HAR] § 13-1-29, Waimana
Parties do not point to any evidence in the record that they
followed their oral request for a contested case hearing with a
subsequent written petition “not later than ten days after the

close of the (March 12, 2004] board meeting[.

 

* accordingly,
inasmuch as the DLNR had properly promulgated specific procedures
for a contested case hearing, see supra note 14, and the
Appellants failed to follow the requisite procedures, there was
no contested case from which the Appellants could appeal,
pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a).

Nonetheless, the Appellants contend on appeal that

their non-compliance with the DLNR’s specific procedures for a

 

contested case hearing should be excused because such compliance
would have been "futile." Although this court has recognized

that, *[w]henever exhaustion of administrative remedies will be

futile(,] it is not required{,]" Poe v, Hawai'i Labor Relations

Bd., 97 Hawai'i 528, 536, 40 P.3d 930, 938 (2002) (internal

-25-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

quotation marke, original brackets, and citations omitted), it

submitting a written petition requesting a

 

cannot be said th:
contested case hearing after the BLNR's oral rejection of the
Appellants’ earlier oral requests would have been a futile act.
Gf. Boe, 97 Hawai'i at 531, 40 P34 at 933 (holding that a
spublic employee pursuing an individual grievance exhausts his or
her administrative renedies when the employee completes every
step available to the employee in the grievance process and a
request to the employee’s exclusive bargaining representative to
proceed to the last grievance step, which only the representative
« jertake, would be futile*) (emphases added); Winslow v.
State, 2 Haw. App. 50, 56, 625 P.2d 1046, 1052 (1981) (holding
that the “appellant could not be required to exhaust contractual
remedies in an action againet the union where no such renedies
actually exist”) (emphasis added). Here, it appears, based upon
a review of the events that occurred at the March 12, 2004
meeting, that the BLNR's consideration of the Appellants’ oral
requests were somewhat perfunctory, At that meeting, the
Appellants orally requested contested case hearings. The BLNR
then convened in an “Executive Session" with deputy attorney

general Yvonne Izu to discuss the oral requests. The minutes of

 

the March 12, 2004 meeting reveal that the Executive Session
lasted no more than ten minutes. ‘The minutes also indicate that
the BLNR had several remaining items on its agenda to address
during the March 12, 2004 meeting. Consequently, given the

-26-
 

FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

nunber of other items on the meeting's agenda that required the
BLNR’s attention, coupled with the seemingly cursory
consideration of the Appellants’ oral requests for a contested
case hearing, it cannot be said that the BLNR had ample time to
fully consider the merits of the Appellants’ oral requests.
Moreover, HAR § 13-1-29(a) appears to recognize that a

denial of a timely oral or written request will be reconsidered

 

by the BLNR upon the filing of a written petition that compli

with the requirements set forth in subsection (b) of HAR

 

§ 13-1-29."" As previously stated, HAR § 13-1-29(a) require

that *[a]n oral or written request for a contested case hearing

 

must be made by the close of the . . . board meeting at which the
matter is scheduled for disposition” and that, “[iln either
situation, [i.e., orally or in writing,] the person .

ted case hearing mst file. . . a written

 

requesting the cont
petition with the board not later than ten days after the close

of the . . . board meeting." HAR § 13-1-29, however, is silent

 

 

jubsequent written petition

% WAR § 13-2-29(b) provides chat ehe
‘concise statements” of

requesting a contested case hearing contain

 

 

(2) The legal authority under which the proceeding
hearing or action is to be held or nade;

@ oner's interest that maly] be

 

(3) The disagreenent, denial, or grievance wnich i
being contested by the petitione:

(4) The Basic facts and issues raised) and

(5) The reliet fo which the party or petitioner
seeks or deens itself entitied

 

 

-27-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

with respect to the conditions under which a written petition is
required, i.e., upon either the grant or denial of an oral
request or only upon the denial of an oral request. Based on a
plain reading of HAR § 13-1-29, a written petition is required

even if the oral request is granted. However, requiring a
already

 

petitioner to file a written petition after relief hi
been granted is nonsensical."” Thus, given the substantive
requirements for a written petition, it is apparent that HAR

§ 13-1-29 anticipates exactly what occurred in this case -- an
oral request and insufficient tine to deliberate, resulting in a
perfunctory ruling. The filing of a subsequent substantive
written petition would not only allow the petitioner ancther
opportunity to convince the BLNR of his or her position, but
would allow the BLNR to more carefully and deliberately
reconsider its ruling and reverse itself, if appropriate. In
that regard, the BLNR’s oral rejection of an oral or written
request for a contested case hearing presented by the close of a
board meeting cannot be said to be absolute or final. To
conclude otherwise would effectively void the latter portion of

HAR § 13-1-29(1), which mandates the filing of “a written

 

© tm fact, HAR § 13-1-29 appears to anticipate such a scenario by
providing the SLR with auchority to waive the tine requirenent for making an
Brel or written request and subniteing a written petition. WAR § 13-1-29(a)
(ine time for making an oral or written request and submitting a written
petition may be waived by the board.*)

 

 

-28-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

petition with the board not later than ten days after the close

of the public hearing or the board meeting." In other words, if

 

the BLNR’s oral rejection of a petitioner's oral or written

 

request made by the close of a public hearing or a board meeting
is deemed conclusive, then HAR § 13-1-29's requirement that the
oral or written request be followed by a written petition would
be superfluous or of no significance. Consequently, any
interpretation that the BLNR’s oral rejection ie absolute or
final in the context of HAR § 13-1-29 would ignore the “cardinal
rule of statutory construction that courts are bound, if rational
and practicable, to give effect to all parts of a statute, and
that no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as
superfluous, void, or insignificant if a construction can be
legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all
words of the statute." Coon v. City & County of Honolulu, 98
Hawai'i 233, 258, 47 P.3d 348, 374 (2002) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted); see Medeiros v. Hawai'i Dep't of
Labor & Indus. Relations, 108 Hawai‘i 258, 265, 118 P.3d 1201,
1208 (2005) (stating that “(t]he general principles of
construction which apply to statutes also apply to administrative
rules* (citation omitted))

Finally, as previously stated, because it cannot be

said that the BLNR had ample time to fully consider the merits of

 

a

 

the Appellants’ oral requ it follows that the Appellants

-29-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

a
should be afforded another opportunity to provide more

information to the BLNR, However, HAR § 13-1-29 already provides
the Appellants a second opportunity to submit additional

information in order to convince the BLNR of their position. Had

 

the Appellants presented 2 subsequent written petition
permitted by HAR § 13-1-29, they could have taken advantage of
the opportunity to state, inter alia, their “interest that aly)
be aftected{,]* HAR § 13-1-29(b) (2), i.e., their basis for
standing. Consequently, “the source of the alleged ‘futility’
[was] not the administrative process but, rather, the part [ies]

Inxe Doe

 

who [were] seeking relief [, i.e., the Appellants)
Children, 105 Hawai'i 38, 60, 93 P.3d 1245, 1167 (2004) (holding
that the complainant could not avail herself of the “futility
exception" because she could have requested an impartial due
process hearing but chose not to do so). Accordingly, we hold
that the Appellants failed to comply with the specific procedures
promilgated by the DNLR, specifically, HAR § 13-1-29, in
requesting a contested case hearing and that such failure

precludes judicial review pursuant to ERS § $1-14(a).“*

 

% tm light of this court's holding, this court need not address the
renainder of the Appellants’ contentions.

-30-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court’s
February 4, 2005 final judgment and April 1, 2005 orders denying

Appellants’ post-judgment motions for relief.

on the briefs: Yorn
Dawn N.S. Chang, .
for appeliante-appellante Pec P/ Liriano
Hui Kekolo Aina Ho'opulapula
Michele-Lynn 2. take and Delf
Leshan D. Jayasekers
(of Richards & Luke), for
appellante-appellants
Waimana Enterprises and
Albert 8. N. Hee

 

Warren Price, III and
Robert A. Marks (of Price
Okamoto Himeno & Lum),

and John T. Komeiji and
Brian A. Kang (of Watanabe
Ing & Komeiji), for appellee-
appellee Hawaii Electric
Light Company, Inc.

Sonia Faust and Linda L. W.
Chow, Deputy Attorneys General,
for appellees-appellees Board

of Land and Natural Resources,
Department of Land and Natural
Resources, State of Hawai'i

“1