Opinion ID: 2629221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable-beneficial use

Text: HRS § 174C-49(a)(2) provides that the applicant must establish that the proposed use of water ... [i]s a reasonable-beneficial use as defined in [HRS § ] 174C-3. See supra note 1. The Commission concluded that, inasmuch as the domestic, commercial, industrial, and municipal uses set forth in MR-Wai'ola's water use permit application were consistent with, or more conservative than, the standards utilized by the County, the proposed use, as amended by its decision, was an economic and efficient utilization of water and, therefore, a reasonable-beneficial use. The Commission, however, expressly limited the proposed water use to 655,928 mgd, reasoning that any allocation of water in excess of that granted to Wai'ola under the proposed decision and order would not be an economic or efficient utilization of water because the future developments in question do not have certain land use approvals and therefore do not meet the criteria under sections 174C-49(a)(5) and (6).