Opinion ID: 2629221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reservations of water are aquifer-specific.

Text: The Ritte intervenors, with whom OHA and the Kahae intervenors join, contend that the Commission's conclusion that DHHL's reservations were aquifer-specific and, therefore, that MR-Wai`ola's proposed water use in the Kamiloloa aquifer system would not interfere with DHHL's reservation rights in the Kualapu'u aquifer system was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to Hawai`i law. [24] More specifically, the Ritte intervenors assert that the concept of separate aquifer systems, upon which the Commission predicated its decision, was incongruous with the hydrological evidence adduced at the contested case hearing i.e., that the Kamiloloa and Kualapu'u aquifer systems were hydrologically connected and, thus, that a drawdown of water from one aquifer would, of necessity, affect the other. The Ritte intervenors posit that the Commission formulated the sixteen aquifers on Moloka'i based on topographical distinctions for administrative convenience and, in so doing, deprived DHHL of the effective use of its 2.905 mgd reservation in the Kualapu`u aquifer system, as guaranteed by HAR § 13-171-63, see supra note 13. The Commission responds that, although neither the HAR nor the Code expressly define the term reservation, the relevant sections that utilize the term imply that reservations are indeed aquifer-specific. The Commission argues that the HAR expressly entitle DHHL to a designated quantity of water in a particular aquifer and that, inasmuch as [a]ctual use of reserved water requires a water use permit, a reservation of water is almost [on] the same footing as another party's application for water. Similarly, MR-Wai'ola discounts the appellants' argument that, hydrologically speaking, the sixteen aquifers of Moloka'i are connected and, therefore, actually constitute a single overarching aquifer. In this regard, MR-Wai'ola contends that each aquifer has its own sustainable yield [25] of water and that the Code authorizes the Commission to establish each hydrologic unit [26] and sustainable yield through the adoption of the State Water Resources Protection Plan. As such, MR-Wai'ola maintains that, in order to change the boundaries of hydrologic units and sustainable yields, the Commission would have to conduct a separate rule-making process, and, therefore, that to accept the appellants' argument ( i.e., that the Kamiloloa and Kualapu'u aquifers are, in fact, a single aquifer) would circumvent the Hawai`i Administrative Procedures Act and rewrite rules without going through the proper process. Finally, MR-Wai'ola asserts that, assuming arguendo that the Kualapu'u and Kamiloloa aquifers were a single aquifer, the combined sustainable yields could nonetheless accommodate DHHL's 2.905 mgd reservation in addition to the permitted allocation of 655,928 gpd to MR-Wai`ola. Although we agree that the HAR denominate aquifer-specific reservations of water to DHHL, we hold that such a limitation for purposes of water resource management does not divest DHHL of its right to protect its reservation interests from interfering water uses in adjacent aquifers. Pursuant to HRS § 174C-5 (1993), [t]he general administration of the state water code shall rest with the commission on water resource management. Moreover, [t]he commission shall adopt and enforce such rules as may be necessary or convenient to administer the Code. HRS § 174C-8 (1993). Pursuant to the foregoing enabling statutes, the Commission adopted HAR § 13-170-2 (1996), [27] which mandates that the Commission formulate the Hawai`i water plan in order to protect, conserve, and manage the waters of the state. HAR § 13-170-2(c) further provides that, [i]n preparing the Hawai`i water plan[,] each county shall be divided into sections [ (aquifers) ] which shall conform as closely as practicable to hydrologic units and that [t]he Plan shall describe and inventory the ... [s]ustainable yield. See supra note 27. The HAR also require the counties, in developing their own water use and development plan, to utilize the hydrologic units designated statewide by the commission for the presentation of data and analyses. HAR § 13-170-32(a) (1996); see also HAR §§ 13-170-30 and 13-170-42 (1996). With respect to interpreting the HAR, [t]he general principles of construction which apply to statutes also apply to administrative rules. As in statutory construction, courts look first at an administrative rule's language. If an administrative rule's language is unambiguous, and its literal application is neither inconsistent with the policies of the statute the rule implements nor produces an absurd or unjust result, courts enforce the rule's plain meaning. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 1357 v. Hawaiian Tel. Co., 68 Haw. 316, 323, 713 P.2d 943, 950 (1986) (citations omitted). Moreover, an administrative agency's interpretation of its own rules is entitled to deference unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the underlying legislative purpose. Id. Lee v. Elbaum, 77 Hawai`i 446, 457, 887 P.2d 656, 667 (App.1993). Furthermore, insofar as an administrative hearings officer possesses expertise and experience in his or her particular field, the appellate court `should not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency[.]' Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Board of Water Supply, 97 Hawai`i 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81, reconsideration denied, 101 Hawai`i 233, 65 P.3d 180 (2002). In the present matter, HAR § 13-171-63, see supra note 13, expressly reserves 2.905 mgd of groundwater for DHHL in the Kualapu'u aquifer system. On its face, HAR § 13-171-63 is unambiguously aquifer-specific in that the Commission dedicated a precise quantity of water in a particular aquifer for an enumerated purpose. In promulgating HAR § 13-171-63, the Commission, using the best available information, see HAR § 13-170-2(c)(3) supra note 27, ascertained the sustainable yield in the Kualapu'u aquifer and designated a reservation of water in such quantity as was deemed necessary for purposes that were consistent with the use of Hawaiian home lands, pursuant to HHCA § 221 and HRS § 174C-101(a). See HAR § 13-171-60(b) (1996). That being the case, insofar as (1) the Commission, as the agency authorized to administer the Code, determines the contents of the Hawai`i water plan, which includes the designation of hydrologic units and sustainable yields, and (2) the Commission's interpretation of its own rules is entitled to `deference unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the underlying legislative purpose,' Lee, 77 Hawai`i at 457, 887 P.2d at 667, we believe that it is within the Commission's authority to limit reservations of water to specific aquifers. Moreover, assuming arguendo that the Commission's designation of the sixteen aquifers on Moloka`i was strictly topographical i.e., without consideration of any sub-surface geological barriers that divide the bodies of underground waterwe do not believe that this court should redefine what constitutes an aquifer, or DHHL's aquifer-specific reservations for that matter, based purely on the hydrological data on the record before us. Quite simply, the Commission possesses the expertise and experience in its particular field and, thus, is in a better position to amend the HAR if necessary. Cf. Ko`olau Agricultural Co., Ltd. v. Commission On Water Resource Management, 83 Hawai`i 484, 493, 927 P.2d 1367, 1376 (1996) (The Commission, by virtue of its agency expertise, is certainly in a better position than the courts to evaluate scientific investigations and research to determine whether a water resource may be threatened by existing or proposed withdrawals and diversions of water. (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Thus, in light of the foregoing, the Commission's designation of aquifer-specific reservations, as set forth in HAR §§ 13-171-61 through 63, although based in part on topographical distinctions, was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, HAR § 13-171-63 does not divest DHHL of its statutory and public trust rights to protect and preserve its reservation interests from interfering uses in adjacent aquifers. See HRS § 174C-49(a)(7), supra note 1 ([T]he applicant must establish that the proposed use of water ... [w]ill not interfere with the rights of the [DHHL] as provided in section 221 of the [HHCA].); HRS § 174C-49(e), supra note 1 (All permits issued by the commission shall be subject to the rights of the [DHHL] as provided in section 221 of the [HHCA], whether or not the condition is explicitly stated in the permit.); HRS § 174C-53(b), supra note 5 ([T]he commission need consider only those objections filed by a person who has some property interest in any land within the hydrologic unit ... or who will be directly and immediately affected by the water use proposed in the application....); HRS § 174C-101(a), supra note 4 (Decisions of the commission on water resource management ... shall, to the extent applicable and consistent with other legal requirements and authority, incorporate and protect adequate reserves of water for current and foreseeable development and use of Hawaiian home lands as set forth in section 221 of the [HHCA].). To hold otherwise would cripple DHHL's ability to contest proposed uses in adjacent aquifers that could significantly diminish its ability to utilize its reservations in the future simply because the proposed use was outside the Kualapu'u aquifer; such an interpretation defies not only legal but also scientific logic. That being the case, MR-Wai`ola had the burden of establishing, pursuant to HRS § 174C-49(a)(7), that the proposed use would not interfere with DHHL's 2.905 reservation of water in the Kualapu'u aquifer system. Likewise, the Commission was duty bound to hold MR-Wai'ola to its burden under the Code and the public trust doctrine. See further discussion infra in section III.A.3.c.