Opinion ID: 2519241
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DHHL's application to withdraw water

Text: DHHL additionally asserts that the Commission's approval of KMI's request to divert water cannot be reconciled with the Commission's refusal to grant DHHL's request for water on the grounds that there were very real concerns over sustaining the potable quality of the wells located in the Kualapu`u Aquifer. Although the Commission does not address this point, KMI asserts that the Commission staff's recommendation to reject DHHL's application for additional pumpage was based upon the fact that increased pumpage in the two existing DHHL wells would increase chloride content in not only DHHL's wells, but also the County Department of Water Supply's (DWS) wells. The Commission's staff recommended that increased withdrawals come from new wells located elsewhere in the aquifer. KMI now accuses DHHL of seeking to have KMI's preexisting uses reduced so that DHHL can obtain permits for new uses of water without incurring the expenses of creating new wells in the Kualapu`u Aquifer. For the following reasons, DHHL's argument is without merit. The Commission explained its treatment of DHHL's application in its findings of fact, summarized as follows. DHHL controls 25,383 acres of land on Molokai reserved for Hawaiian homesteaders and services these areas with water drawn from two wells located at a single site overlying the Kualapu`u Aquifer. DHHL previously obtained a permit to withdraw .367 mgd to serve its Hoolehua and Kalamaula homestead areas. On September 13, 1996, DHHL filed an application to increase its pumpage to 1.247 mgd. The Commission staff recommended the denial of DHHL's application on the grounds that the geographic concentration of the DHHL, DWS, and KMI wells militated against granting a permit for the requested new withdrawals of .879 mgd from the existing DHHL wells. . . . The staff suggested that such new withdrawals from the Kualapuu aquifer should be from new wells strategically located elsewhere within the aquifer so as not to interfere with the water quality in the existing wells. Specifically, the staff submittal cautioned that [the] two DHHL wells (Well nos. 0801-01 & 02), the County Department of Water Supply (DWS) well (Well no. 0801-03), and the Kukui Molokai Well 17 (Well no. 0901-01) all reside within one-half mile of each other. In terms of a regional scale, these wells are concentrating pumpage in one spot in the aquifer system. . . . Chloride levels in the two DHHL wells and the DWS well are sensitive to pumping rates. . . . Early low chloride readings from these wells were around 60 mg/1 during the 1980's but have risen above 100 mg/1 during more recent years of the 1990's. On occasion, chloride levels have reached 180 mg/l. The EPA potability guideline for chloride is to 250 mg/l. Therefore, the increases in chloride levels in response to relatively small increases in pumpage from this well field is an indication that localized upconing and interference between these wells is occurring. At a January 28, 1998 public hearing, DHHL proposed reducing its request to .21 mgd, to be taken from its 2.905 mgd reservation. The Commission requested that DHHL arrange for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to determine whether an approximate .2 mgd increase in pumpage would cause chloride levels in the well field to rise to unacceptable levels. DHHL thereafter informed the Commission that the USGS was not able to answer that question, inasmuch as the USGS hydrological model was designed to simulate regional drawdowns and could not predict local scale upconing and drawdowns in the immediate vicinity of a particular well. The Commission also found that chloride increases in one of the DHHL wells was in large part attributable to the commencement of pumping in the [DWS well] in 1991, which raised the level of withdrawal from 0.367 to 0.867 mgd in the immediate area. DHHL asserts that its application now languishes unapproved due to the Commission staff's recommended denial of its application. [8] Obviously, the Commission was concerned with the effect of increased pumpage on the chloride content in the well field. Hence, inasmuch as KMI's application to continue an existing use did not threaten to increase pumpage, the Commission could reasonably have granted KMI's request for existing uses and denied DHHL's request for new uses. Moreover, the Commission correctly recognized that the Code contemplates a preference for existing uses. [9] See HRS § 174C-49(a)(3) (1993) (To obtain a permit pursuant to this part, the applicant shall establish that the proposed use of water . . . [w]ill not interfere with any existing legal use of water . . . . (Emphasis added.)); Waiahole I, 94 Hawai`i at 165 n. 67, 9 P.3d at 478 n. 67 ([T]he Code gives `existing' legal uses priority over `new' uses in the permitting process.); Ko`olau Agric. Co., Ltd. v. Comm'n of Water Res. Mgmt., 83 Hawai`i 484, 492, 927 P.2d 1367, 1375 (1996) (Existing uses are given preferences under the Code. . . .). In accordance with that preference, the Commission declined to uproot a preexisting use in favor of a new use. Therefore, the Commission's decision in that regard does not appear unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. The same cannot be said, however, for the Commission's decision to permit KMI to withdraw 82,000 gd from the aquifer for new uses. As mentioned, the Commission's staff recommended that the Commission deny DHHL's request for new, public uses on the grounds that (1) the DHHL, DWS, and KMI wells all reside within one-half mile of each other[,] (2) the wells are concentrating pumpage in one spot in the aquifer system[,] and (3) increases in chloride levels in response to relatively small increases in pumpage from this well field is an indication that localized upconing and interference between these wells is occurring. Inasmuch as KMI's well is, per the Commission's staff's own recommendation, contributing to the concentrated pumpage, we are compelled to wonder why the Commission did not similarly toll KMI's request for new uses. We do not suggest that the Commission did not have a valid reason for its conclusion or that the Commission was absolutely barred from reaching its result. Rather, the Commission has simply failed to explain the rationale behind the disparate treatment. Due to the apparent contradiction, we remand the issue for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. Clarity, we have said, is all the more essential `in a case such as this where the agency performs as a public trustee and is duty bound to demonstrate that it has properly exercised the discretion vested in it by the constitution and the statute.' Waiahole II, 105 Hawai`i at 11, 93 P.3d at 653 (citing Save Ourselves, Inc. v. Louisiana Envtl. Control Comm'n, 452 So.2d 1152, 1159-60 (La.1984)). See also Waiahole I, 94 Hawaii at 163, 9 P.3d at 475 (A reviewing court must judge the propriety of agency action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency, and that basis must be set forth with such clarity as to be understandable. (Quoting Louisiana-Pac. Corp., W. Div. v. NLRB, 52 F.3d 255, 259 (9th Cir. 1995).) (Quotation marks omitted.)).