Opinion ID: 2544453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Allocation of Responsibility for Repair and Maintenance of the Pipes

Text: As an alternative basis for establishing responsibility for the repair and maintenance costs of the pipes, the Association argued that responsibility should be based on the amount of water flowing from each of the parties' respective properties. The Association and WRC each presented expert testimony concerning the relative amounts of runoff attributable to each property. The County did not put forth any evidence concerning the allocation of water runoff from the various properties. The court adopted the methodology of WRC's expert and largely accepted his figures. COL Nos. 9 and 10 stated: 9. The [c]ourt recognizes that neither Mr. Nance's [WRC's expert] nor Mr. Gray's [the Association's expert] allocation methodology is flawless. However, Mr. Nance's analysis is based on use, while Mr. Gray's peak flow analysis is based on a hypothetical 50-year rainfall event. While the peak flow analysis is relevant to pipe system design, the issue facing the [c]ourt is allocation of responsibility for repair/replacement and maintenance based on use. Thus, the [c]ourt concludes that Mr. Nance's analysis is the most reasonable allocation method proffered by the parties. 10. [The Association], County and WRC are responsible for the current and future repair, maintenance and/or replacement of the 24 and 54 drainage systems located under the Wailea Elua property and the 18 and the two 36 drainpipes located under Wailea Alanui in the following proportions: [twenty-four inch (north) drainpipe system WRC 0.8667% County 49.2406% Association 49.8926% fifty-four inch (south) drainpipe system WRC 71.758% County 8.340% Association 20.029%] (Emphasis in original.) The only difference between the trial court's conclusion and the conclusion reached by WRC's expert was that the expert had assigned approximately 6.1% of the runoff in the south drainpipe system to the Fairways Subdivision, which is not owned by WRC. The trial court apparently added this 6.1% to WRC's allocation of responsibility because the percentage it attributed to WRC is the total of the runoff from all of WRC's properties and Fairways Subdivision combined, while the runoff percentages assigned to the County and the Association do not differ from those attributed to the road and Wailea Elua, respectively. The trial court also entered the following FOFs: 21. Unless significant rainfall occurs, runoff water from [Fairways Subdivision] property and the Grand Champions condominium project [a neighboring property not involved in this case] is absorbed into the ground of the [Golf Course]. 22. Runoff water from the [Golf Course] property; properties designated as MF-12, 13, and 8; and Wailea Alanui flows into the [south drainage system] located under the Wailea Elua property. During periods of significant rainfall runoff water from [Fairways Subdivision] and the Grand Champions condominium project combines with the golf course runoff water and flows into the [south] drainage system. 23. Runoff water from the [Golf Course] and Wailea Alanui enter the [north drainage system] which runs under the Wailea Elua property. During periods of significant rainfall, runoff water from [Fairways Subdivision] combines with the golf course runoff water and flows into the [north] drainage system.