Opinion ID: 6494320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Public Trust Doctrine Under Article XI, Section 1

Text: The public trust doctrine is an ancient principle recognizing that certain resources bestowed by nature are so inviolable that their benefits should accrue to the collective, rather than only to certain members of society. See Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee, 41 U.S. 367, 414, 16 Pet. 367, 10 L.Ed. 997 (1842) (opining that navigable waters and lands under them are not susceptible to private ownership); J. Inst. 2.1.1 (under Roman law, “the following things are by natural law common all—the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the sea-shore”); 2 H. Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae 40 (S. Thorne transí. 1968) (thirteenth-century English common law stated that “[a]ll rivers and ports are public, so that the right to fish therein is common to all persons. The use of river banks, as of the river itself, is also public”). The values vindicated by this doctrine are so universal in their application that, in this jurisdiction, its roots can be traced to the time of the Hawaiian Kingdom, when it was reaffirmed that it was not the King—the sovereign—but “the people of Hawaii [who] are the original owners of all Hawaiian land.” State v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106, 111, 566 P.2d 725, 729 (1977). The Constitution of 1840, the first one to bind Hawaii, expressly provided that “all the land from one end of the Islands to the other” belonged to Kamehameha I, “though it was not his own private property[, for i]t belonged to the chiefs and the people in common, of whom Kamehameha I, was the head.” Fundamental Law of Hawaii 3 (Lor-rin A. Thurston ed., 1904). Hence, lands held in the public domain—those that the populace owned at large—constituted all lands in Hawai'i, and the King “owned” them only for the purpose of benefiting everyone within his Kingdom. This arrangement was changed after the Great Máhele, “a process with multiple divisions or allocations of land,” Native Hawaiian Law: A Treatise 13 (Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie et al. eds., 2016), which ushered in an era where private ownership of Hawaiian lands was allowed. See Zimring, 58 Haw. at 112-13, 566 P.2d at 730-31 (discussing how the King signed instruments transferring ownership of royal lands to the Hawaiian government, the chiefs and konohiki, 6 and the people at large, while retaining for himself and his heirs some designated lands). After the effectuation of the Great Máhele, all lands that were not claimed for private ownership remained in the public domain, subject to the stewardship of the government for the benefit of the people. See id. at 114, 566 P.2d at 731 (“[L]and in its original state is public land and if not awarded or granted, such land remains in the public domain.”). Following the overthrow of the monarchy, the Crown Lands were also added to the public domain. Id. at 113, 566 P.2d at 731. The nature of the public trust in the modern era was expounded upon by this court in Zimring. In that case, lava flows from the 1955 Puna volcanic eruption on the island of Hawai'i resulted in the addition of “approximately 7.9 acres of new land” to the shoreline. Id. at 107, 566 P.2d at 727. These lava extensions were adjacent to private land owned by the defendants. Id. at 107, 566 P.2d at 727-28. The defendants entered the lava extensions and made improvements upon them, at which point the State demanded that they vacate the lava extensions and cease and desist from engaging in any other activities thereon. Id. at 108, 566 P.2d at 728. Thereafter, the State sued the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest to quiet title, and the case was later appealed. Id. at 108-10, 566 P.2d at 728-29. Chief Justice Richardson concluded for the court that the people of Hawai'i are the beneficial owners of public lands. Id. at 125, 566 P.2d at 737. This fundamental principle was acknowledged in the Admission Act, which “provided that the public lands conveyed to the State upon admission ‘shall be held by said State as a public trust for the support of public schools and other public institutions, for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians ..., for making of public improvements, and for the provisions of lands for public use.’ ” Id. (quoting Admission Act, Pub. L. No. 86—3, 73 Stat. 5 (1959)). The Zimring court held that “the equitable ownership of the [lava extensions] and other public land in Hawai'i has always been in its people. Upon admission, trusteeship to such lands was transferred to the State, and the subject land has remained in public trust since that time.” Id (emphases added). The court was clear, however, that the trusteeship that the State assumed was coupled with the associated obligation “to protect and maintain the trust property and regulate its use.” Id. at 121, 566 P.2d at 735. Shortly after Zimring, the concept of public trust was reaffirmed by the framers of the 1978 Constitution: For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State. All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people. Haw. Const, art. XI, § 1 (emphases added). This court has never precisely demarcated the dimensions of the public trust doctrine as incorporated in Article XI, Section 1. Nonetheless, through case-by-case adjudication, this court has carefully applied the fundamental principles inherent in the concept of public trust and, in the process, has addressed attendant duties that the State and its agencies must discharge in instances where it applies. In the context of water resources, this court in In re Water Use Permit Applications (Waiahole I), 94 Hawai'i 97, 9 P.3d 409 (2000), determined that “[t]he plain reading of’ Article XI, Section 1 “manifests the framers’ intent to incorporate the notion of the public trust into our constitution.” Id. at 131, 9 P.3d at 443. Hence, we held “that article XI, section 1 ... adopt[s] the public trust doctrine as a fundamental principle of constitutional law in Hawaii.” Id. at 132, 9 P.3d at 444. Defining the substance of the public trust, the court stated that it “is a dual concept of sovereign right and responsibility.” Id. at 135, 9 P.3d at 447. As a logical extension of this duality, the court concluded, based on the express language of Article XI, Section 1, that the public trust represents the twin “mandate of 1) protection and 2) maximum reasonable and beneficial use.” Id. at 139, 9 P.3d at 451. Applied to water resources, the court found that “the [S]tate has both the authority and duty to preserve the rights of present and future generations in the waters of the [S]tate.” Id. at 141, 9 P.3d at 453. This means that the State and its agencies may not grant or assert “vested rights to use water to the detriment of public trust purposes.” Id Therefore, in planning and allocating various water resources, the State “bears an ‘affirmative duty to take the public trust into account.’ ” Id. (quoting Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Super. Ct., 33 Cal.3d 419, 189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709, 728 (1983)). Waiahole I was an explicit acknowledgement by this court that the public trust doctrine, as incorporated into the Hawaii Constitution, necessitates “a balancing process” between the constitutional requirements of protection and conservation of public trust resources, on the one hand, and the development and utilization of those resources, on the other. Id. at 142, 9 P.3d at 454. This balancing process, however, exists in a framework demanding that “any balancing between public and private purposes [must] begin with a presumption in favor of public use, access, and enjoyment.” Id. The burden of showing that the requisite balance has been properly evaluated “in light of the purposes protected by the trust” rests on “those seeking or approving such uses.” Id. Because of the constitutional stature of the State’s duties under the public trust doctrine, the Waiahole I court described the following standard by which the State’s actions concerning public trust resources are reviewed on appeal: “The duties imposed upon the state are the duties of a trustee and not simply the duties of a good business manager.” Just as private trustees are judicially accountable to their beneficiaries for dispositions of the res, so the legislative and executive branches are judicially accountable for the dispositions of the public trust. The beneficiaries of the public trust are not just present generations but those to come. The check and balance of judicial review provides a level of protection against improvident dissipation of an irreplaceable res. Id. at 143, 9 P.3d at 455 (emphases added) (citation omitted) (quoting Am. Ctr. for Law in Pub. Interest v. Hassell, 172 Ariz. 356, 837 P.2d 158, 168-69 (Ariz.Ct.App.1991)). The compelling duty of the State is “to consider the cumulative impact of existing and proposed diversions on trust purposes[,] to implement reasonable measures to mitigate this impact, including the use of alternative sources,” and to plan and make decisions “from a global, long-term perspective.” Id. Distilled to its essence, “the [S]tate may compromise public rights in the resource pursuant only to a decision made with a level of openness, diligence, and foresight commensurate with the high priority these rights command under the laws of our state.” Id. This court, in In re Wai'ola O Moloka‘i, Inc., 103 Hawai'i 401, 83 P.3d 664 (2004), held that the State has a continuing trust obligation to “ensure the continued availability and existence of its water resources for present and future generations.” Id. at 431, 83 P.3d at 694 (quoting Waiahole I, 94 Hawai'i at 139, 9 P.3d at 451). That ease involved, inter alia, whether a State agency’s grant of a water use permit was proper in light of another State agency’s water reservation. Id. The court determined that the agency’s failure “to render the requisite [findings of fact] and [conclusions of law] with respect to whether [the pennit applicant] had satisfied its burden as mandated by the [State Water] Code” was tantamount to a violation of the agency’s “public trust duty to protect” the reservation of water rights at issue. Id. at 432, 83 P.3d at 695. The Wai'ola 0 Moloka’i court also interlinked two constitutionally based legal principles: the public trust doctrine and the right to exercise Native Hawaiian customs and traditions. According to the court, the applicant was required to prove that “the proposed water use would not abridge or deny traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights.” 7 Id. at 442, 83 P.3d at 705. Because the agency excluded evidence as to the adverse effect of the proposed water use on the traditional and customary Native Hawaiian gathering rights, the court held that the agency failed to “effectively balanc[e] [the] proposed private commercial use of water against an enumerated public trust purpose, namely the protection of native Hawaiians’ traditional and customary gathering rights, as mandated by article XII, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution.” 8 Id. at 443, 83 P.3d at 706 (emphasis added). In Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners, 111 Hawai'i 205, 140 P.3d 985 (2006), this court again expounded upon the duties inherent in the public trust doctrine. There, we held that the duties under the public trust doctrine bind not only the State and its agencies but also the several counties of this State. See id. at 224, 140 P.3d at 1004. Pursuant to the agency’s duty as a public trustee, and as “guardian of the water quality in this [S]tate,” the agency “must not relegate itself to the role of a ‘mere umpire’ ... but instead must take the initiative in considering, protecting, and advancing public rights in the resource at every stage of the planning and decision-making process.” Id. at 231, 140 P.3d at 1011 (alteration in original) (quoting Waiahole I, 94 Hawai'i at 143, 9 P.3d at 456). 9 In In re ‘Iao Ground Water Mgmt. Area High-Level Source Water Use Permit Applications ('I ao), 128 Hawai'i 228, 287 P.3d 129 (2012), this court found that, in instances where an agency lacks data or information to discharge its duties pursuant to the public trust doctrine, the agency “must ‘take the initiative’ to obtain the information it needs. Where the [agency]’s decisionmaking does not display ‘a level of openness, diligence, and foresight commensurate with the high priority these rights command under the laws of our state,’ the decision cannot stand.” Id. at 262, 287 P.3d at 163 (quoting Wai’ola O Moloka‘i, 103 Hawai'i at 422, 83 P.3d at 685). Recently, this court reiterated the independent nature of the duties pursuant to the public trust doctrine in Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Commission of Kaua'i, 133 Hawai'i 141, 324 P.3d 951 (2014). In that case, we observed that, “[a]s the public trust arises out of a constitutional mandate, the duty and authority of the [S]tate and its subdivisions to weigh competing public and private uses on a case-by-case basis is independent of statutory duties and authorities created by the legislature.” Id. at 172, 324 P.3d at 982.
The public trust doctrine under the Ha-wai'i Constitution, and the principles that it embodies, applies to the conservation land— the summit of Mauna Kea—involved in this case. This conclusion is supported by the plain language of Article XI, Section 1, the historical context under which this provision was ratified, and this court’s precedents. 10 Construction of constitutional provisions is largely guided by the same principles that courts use in interpreting statutes. Because of the exalted position that constitutional provisions occupy in the constellation of laws that operate in our State, “we have long recognized that the Hawai'i Constitution must be construed with due regard to the intent of the framers and the people adopting it, and the fundamental principle in interpreting a constitutional provision is to give effect to that intent.” Hanabusa v. Lingle, 105 Hawai'i 28, 31, 93 P.3d 670, 673 (2004) (emphasis added) (quoting Blair v. Harris, 98 Hawai'i 176, 178-79, 45 P.3d 798, 800-01 (2002)). Divining intent, however, always starts with the words of the constitutional provision, and it is an elementary precept that “if the words used in a constitutional provision are clear and unambiguous, they are to be construed as they are written.” Id. (quoting Blair, 98 Hawai'i at 179, 45 P.3d at 801). It is also a settled canon that “the words are presumed to be used in their natural sense unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge them.” Id. at 31-32, 93 P.3d at 673-74 (quoting Blair, 98 Hawai'i at 179, 45 P.3d at 801). Given that our constitutional provisions exist under one instrument, construction of one provision must be in harmony “with other provisions of the instrument.” Id. at 32, 93 P.3d at 674 (quoting Blair, 98 Hawai'i at 179, 45 P.3d at 801). Finally, the circumstances under which the provision was adopted and the “history which preceded it” inform judicial construction of the Hawai'i Constitution. Id. (quoting Blair, 98 Hawai'i at 179, 45 P.3d at 801). Article XI, Section 1 provides that “the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect ... all natural resources, including land.” Further, “[a]U public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.” Haw. Const, art. XI, § 1. Thus, it was the express intent of the legislature that the protections afforded by the public trust doctrine extend to one of our most precious natural resources—land. A conclusion that would exclude public lands from the scope of the public trust doctrine would be contrary to the express statements that all public natural resources are held in trust and natural resources include land. Such a result is to be avoided because, as is true in construing statutes, all words of a constitutional provision must be given effect, and “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.” Blair, 98 Hawai'i at 179, 45 P.3d at 801 (quoting Keliipuleole v. Wilson, 85 Hawai'i 217, 221, 941 P.2d 300, 304 (1997)). This plain language interpretation is amply supported by the history and development of the public trust doctrine in this State. As discussed, lands in the public domain have always been held, from the time of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the post-statehood era, by the sovereign for the benefit of the people of Hawai'i at large, and this arrangement has always required the sovereign, as a public trustee, to protect and maintain those lands. Concluding that the framers of the 1978 Constitution intended to exclude public lands from the protections of the public trust is not reconcilable with the deep roots of the public trust doctrine in this State, the fact that the doctrine has been repeatedly reaffirmed throughout the State’s history, and this court’s unwavering adherence to the values that the doctrine encompasses. Such a conclusion would overlook “the circumstances under which [Article XI, Section 1] was adopted and the history which preceded it.” Hanabusa, 105 Hawai'i at 32, 93 P.3d at 674 (quoting Blair, 98 Hawai'i at 179, 45 P.3d at 801). Indeed, if the public trust doctrine were not intended by the framers of the 1978 Constitution to cover lands in the public domain, they could have disavowed such a view by excluding any references to “land” from the express language of Article XI, Section 1. The framers did not do so but, instead, affirmatively included land as a specific example of public “natural resources” covered by the public trust doctrine. Finally, this court's precedents support the interpretation that the public trust doctrine under Article XI, Section 1 applies to lands in the public domain. As discussed, this court held in Zimring that all lands in the public domain are within the public trust, which means that the sovereign is obligated to protect and maintain them and to regulate their use. Zimring, 58 Haw. at 121, 566 P.2d at 735 (concluding that the State held lava extensions in public trust for the benefit of the populace). Additionally, in Morimoto v. Board of Land and Natural Resources, 107 Hawai'i 296, 113 P.3d 172 (2005), this court implicitly concluded that the public trust doctrine under Article XI, Section 1 applies to conservation district lands. At issue in that ease was the propriety of an agency’s decision to approve a permit to upgrade a road on the island of Hawaii that traverses acres of conservation district lands. Id. at 297-98, 113 P.3d at 173-74. The circuit court concluded, inter alia, that the Board’s decision “d[id] not violate Article [XI], Section 1 of the Hawaii Constitutional Public Trust Doctrine.” Id. at 301, 113 P.3d at 177. In addressing the appellants’ contention that the agency was required to “affirmatively protect public resources, including natural resources,” pursuant to the public trust doctrine, we reviewed the arguments of the appellants in support of this contention and concluded that the arguments were similar to those challenging the agency’s alleged failure to follow its own administrative rules—arguments that the court had already considered and rejected; thus, we determined that the circuit court did not err in concluding that there was no public trust violation on the agency’s part. Id. Importantly, the court did not conclude that the public trust doctrine was not applicable to land. Accordingly, based on the plain language of Article XI, Section 1, the application of principles guiding the interpretation of constitutional provisions, the special history of the public trust doctrine in this State, and this court’s precedents implicating the public trust doctrine in land eases, the summit area of Mauna Kea, as state conservation land, is within the public trust and entitled to the protections that the public trust doctrine provides.
The Board’s error in this case lies in approving the permit before making specific findings and conclusions on whether the proposed use satisfies all requisites of the public trust doctrine. See Wai'ola O Moloka‘i, 103 Hawai'i at 432, 83 P.3d at 695. By doing so, the agency decided the merits of UH’s application without discharging its affirmative duty of “considering, protecting, and advancing public rights in the resource at every stage of the planning and decision-making process.” 1250 Oceanside Partners, 111 Hawai'i at 231, 140 P.3d at 1011 (quoting Waiahole I, 94 Hawai'i at 143, 9 P.3d at 456). That is, the Board issued the permit without “ ‘tak[ing] the initiative’ to obtain the information it needs” in order to reach a well-considered decision. ‘Iao, 128 Hawai'i at 262, 287 P.3d at 163. Relatedly, the Board failed to place on UH the constitutional burden of “justifying] the proposed ... use in light of the trust purposes.” Kauai Springs, Inc., 133 Hawai'i at 173, 324 P.3d at 984. Accordingly, the Board “compromise[d] public rights in the resource” without adhering to a decision-making process consistent with “a level of openness, diligence, and foresight commensurate with the high priority these rights command under the laws of our [S]tate.” Waiahole I, 94 Hawai'i at 143, 9 P.3d at 455 (emphasis added). Further, the Board’s error was not cured merely by conducting a contested case healing, through wMch findings and conclusions concerning the public trust doctrine were made, after the permit had already issued. Under the facts of this case, such a procedure—which may be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as an attempt to legitimize a foregone conclusion— cannot be considered permissible pursuant to the State’s public trust duties when decision-making concerning public-trust resources is involved. Id.; cf. Kilakila ‘O Haleakala v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Res., 131 Hawai'i 193, 214, 317 P.3d 27, 48 (2013) (Acoba, J., concurring) (reasoning that “[a]ny post hoc rationale by the agency to justify its earlier decision will not constitute a determination of [the permit applicant’s] legal rights or privileges” since those rights had already been decided pursuant to the agency’s grant of the permit). Hence, the Board violated Article XI, Section 1 of the Hawai'i Constitution as a matter of law by deciding the merits of UH’s application before conducting a contested case hearing in which the public trust doctrine, and the obligations it imposes on the State, could have been duly considered. See Wai'ola O Moloka‘i, 103 Hawai'i at 432, 83 P.3d at 695 (holding that the agency failed to discharge its public trust obligations by granting water use permits without rendering findings of facts and conclusions of law regarding the applicant’s burden under the public-trust balancing framework); Waiahole I, 94 Hawai'i at 158, 9 P.3d at 470.