Opinion ID: 2519241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commission impermissibly shifted the burden of proving harm from KMI to Caparida and Kuahuia.

Text: Caparida and Kuahuia assert that the Commission erred because it impermissibly shifted the burden of proving harm to those claiming a right to exercise a traditional and customary native Hawaiian practice. KMI asserts that it satisfied its burden of proof through the testimony of its expert witnesses. The Commission entered, based on this testimony, the following FOF No. 163: Assuming all other things being constant, if there is no increase in the amount of water being pumped by Well 17, there will be no decrease in the amount of water that discharges into the marine environment as a result of the continued pumpage of Well 17 at status quo levels. Hence, there would be no impact on the marine environment as it now exists as a result of KMI's continued pumpage of Well 17 at status quo levels. Article XII, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution provides: The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights. The protection of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights is also provided for in the Code under HRS §§ 174C-2(c) and 174C-101(c) and (d) (1993). [19] Additionally, this court has upheld the exercise of Native Hawaiian and traditional and customary rights as a public trust purpose. Waiahole I, 94 Hawai`i at 137, 9 P.3d at 449 (citing Haw. Const. art. XII, § 7; Public Access Shoreline Hawai`i v. County Planning Commission ( PASH ), 79 Hawai`i 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1163, 116 S.Ct. 1559, 134 L.Ed.2d 660 (1996); Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., 66 Haw. 1, 656 P.2d 745 (1982)). Although the state water resources trust acknowledges that private use for economic development may produce important public benefits and that such benefits must figure into any balancing of competing interests in water, it stops short of embracing private commercial use as a protected trust purpose. Id. at 138, 9 P.3d at 450. Therefore, to the extent that the public trust . . . establishes use consistent with trust purposes as the norm or `default' condition, . . . it effectively prescribes a `higher level of scrutiny' for private commercial uses. Id. at 142, 9 P.3d at 454 (footnote omitted). In this regard, the burden ultimately lies with those seeking or approving such uses to justify them in light of the purposes protected by the trust. Id. The Commission found and concluded in its Decision and Order that [t]he gathering of crab, fish, limu, and octopus are traditional and customary practices that have persisted on Moloka`i for generations. The population of the island of Moloka`i consists primarily of Hawaiians, many of whom rely on the natural resources of the land and ocean[] for such subsistence activities that include gathering of marine resources including fish, shellfish, `ula, he`e and limu to feed their `ohana (extended family). The Commission also found and concluded that groundwater is a source of nutrients for such plants as the limu, and fresh water is a necessary and integral part of the live food pyramid for certain fish species that feed on phytoplankton. Additionally, there are springs located throughout the shoreline that create a nursery habitat of indeterminate size. However, the Commission concluded that it is impossible to determine what the precise effect will be if the freshwater is reduced by a certain amount, because you don't know which springs the reduction is going to affect[,] and it is difficult to determine the exact percentage of freshwater required to create and maintain a viable and healthy nursery habitat. Possibly, [s]mall nursery habitats may spring up wherever freshwater comes up from the ground, and collectively form a large nursery habitat. Caparida and Kuahuia contended before the Commission, as they do here, that a reduction of marine life, if severe enough, will diminish their ability to practice their traditional and customary native Hawaiian gathering rights even if access is not impaired by KMI's proposed use. In response, however, the Commission merely observed that the [p]otential adverse impacts of the current level of ground water pumpage on the ground water flux at the coastline in support of [the] natural habitat should already be visible. As such, the [e]vidence does not show that nearshore resources are in decline, that ground water flux has changed over the course of historic pumpage, or that any such change should be considered anything more than one of a number of potentially causative factors if the biological resources do indeed decline. Indeed, in its COL # 40, the Commission concluded that no evidence was presented that the use of water from Well 17 would adversely affect the exercise of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights. Nor does the Commission conclude that any evidence was presented that the existing or proposed uses would adversely affect any access to the shoreline or the nearshore areas. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the allocation will not in any way diminish access for traditional and customary native Hawaiian practices in the project area, shoreline, or nearshore areas. In Wai`ola, this court reviewed a similar decision made by the Commission. [20] Therein, we held that an applicant for a water use permit bears the burden of establishing that the proposed use will not interfere with any public trust purposes; likewise, the Commission is duty bound to hold an applicant to its burden during a contested-case hearing. 103 Hawai`i at 441, 83 P.3d at 704. This obligates the applicant to demonstrate affirmatively that the proposed well would not affect native Hawaiian's rights; in other words, the absence of evidence that the proposed use would affect native Hawaiian's rights was insufficient to meet the burden imposed upon [the applicant] by the public trust doctrine, the Hawai`i Constitution, and the Code. Id. at 442, 83 P.3d at 705 (emphases added and omitted). Through the foregoing, we determined that the Commission's conclusion of law was unsupported by any clearly articulated FOF and erroneously placed the burden on the Intervenors to establish that the proposed use would abridge or deny their traditional and customary gathering rights. Id. Similarly, the Commission's FOF # 163 and COL # 40 in the instant case are insufficiently clear when read with its FOF # 154 and # 155, which found the following: 154. There is a statistical curve which those in fisheries refer to as the maximum sustainable yield. This is a general curve which could be used to show overall productivity for fish, rather than a specific species of fish. The object is to stay just below the curve so that the resource is continuously being naturally replenished. If you are below the curve, you could increase the amount of freshwater being taken out of the aquifer. But if you are above [the] curve or the maximum sustainable yield, the result will be a change in the habitat. The difficulty is determining where one is on the curve. One way to determine this is monitoring. A decrease of abundance will signal a change of habitat. 155. With baseline information, how much water may be withdrawn without negative effects could be better determined. Baseline information does not currently exist. (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, the Commission's conclusion that no evidence was presented to suggest that the rights of native Hawaiians would be adversely affected erroneously shifted the burden of proof to Caparida and Kuahuia. See Wai`ola, 103 Hawai`i at 442, 83 P.3d at 705. Accordingly, we hold that the Commission failed to adhere to the proper burden of proof standard to maintain the protection of native Hawaiians' traditional and customary gathering rights in discharging its public trust obligation. See id. at 443, 83 P.3d at 706.