Opinion ID: 2519241
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission failed to consider the feasibility of alternative sources of water.

Text: DHHL further points out that the Commission failed to provide any indication that it considered the feasibility or practicability of alternative sources of water for KMI's requested uses. [10] The record confirms DHHL's allegation, and that omission requires us to vacate KMI's permits. This court has, on multiple occasions, expounded on the necessity of considering alternative sources of water in balancing the distribution of a scarce public trust resource. In Waiahole I, the Estate of James Campbell (Campbell Estate) was among various applicants before the Commission requesting diversion of water from the Waiahole Ditch. 94 Hawai`i at 164, 9 P.3d at 476. The record indicated that Campbell Estate already possessed permits to pump 35 mgd of ground water from beneath its lands to support its agricultural purposes, but lacked proper pumping mechanisms. Id. The record also contained testimony that it would require millions of dollars to put infrastructure in place to pump water from the Pearl Harbor aquifer wells to the Campbell Estate fields which currently use Waiahole Ditch water. Id. at 164-65, 9 P.3d at 476-77. The Commission expressed findings recognizing Campbell Estate's permits. Id. at 165, 9 P.3d at 477. The Commission also made various general findings on the effects of irrigation on leeward aquifers, the costs of developing other alternative sources, and future growth in water demand. Id. The Commission ultimately decided to conditionally approve the leeward agricultural uses [i]f and until treated effluent or ground water is available[.] Id. This court found the Commission's decision to be unacceptable insofar as the Commission's findings failed to answer, with any reasonable degree of clarity, why it is not practicable for Campbell Estate to use ground water permitted to it and not otherwise in use as an alternative to diverting the sole source of water for windward streams, especially given the still unsettled state of instream flow standards. Id. Accordingly, we vacated Campbell Estate's permit and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Id. On remand, the Commission determined that Campbell Estate had no practicable alternatives and issued Campbell Estate a water use permit for 4.74 mgd. Waiahole II, 105 Hawaii at 16, 93 P.3d at 658. On appeal before this court in Waiahole II, appellants argued that Campbell Estate failed to meet its burden of establishing that no practicable alternative sources of water existed. Id. This court again found the Commission's analysis deficient: In the instant case, the Water Commission entered no FOFs or COLs as to whether Campbell Estate met its burden. Instead, the Water Commission found, based on the testimony of Bert Hatton (Hatton), a Campbell Estate witness, that until the Supreme Court issued its decision in August 2000, Campbell Estate was assured of Waiahole Ditch water, so they did not conduct a systematic study of alternative water sources. During the past 6 months, there have been some informal and very general discussions about possible scenarios if Ditch water were no longer available. D & O II at 93. Informal and very general discussions are insufficient to satisfy Campbell Estate's burden. Id. We subsequently opined that [t]he Water Commission's analysis should have ceased when Campbell Estate failed to meet its burden of establishing that no practicable alternative water sources existed. Id. We thus concluded that, inasmuch as the Water Commission entered no FOFs or COLs as to whether Campbell Estate satisfied its burden of establishing that no practicable alternatives existed, we remand the matter for further proceedings relating thereto. Id. at 17, 93 P.3d at 659. Here, the Commission entered no FOFs or COLs as to the existence or feasibility of any alternative sources of water whatsoever. The Commission has thus failed to hold KMI to its burden of demonstrating the absence of feasible alternative sources of water. See Waiahole I, 94 Hawai`i at 161-62, 9 P.3d at 473-74 (Furthermore, besides advocating the social and economic utility of their proposed uses, permit applicants must also demonstrate the absence of practicable mitigating measures, including the use of alternative water sources.). Such a requirement is intrinsic to the public trust, the statutory instream use protection scheme, and the definition of `reasonable-beneficial' use, . . . and is an essential part of any balancing between competing interests. . . . Id. (footnote and citations omitted). Indeed, the Commission appears to have reserved consideration of feasible alternative sources of water until after the permit has been granted. In its decision and order, the Commission included, as a condition to the granting of KMI's permits, the following contingency: Within twenty-four months of the date of issuance of the aforementioned permits, KMI will prepare and present to the Commission a feasibility study on the development of a new source of nonpotable water near Mahana which can be blended to irrigate the golf course. Such a practice is fundamentally at odds with the Commission's public trust duties. The feasibility of a new source of nonpotable water ( i.e., an alternative source of water) should have been considered prior to the granting of KMI's permit, not after the fact. The Commission cannot fairly balance competing interests in a scarce public trust resource if it renders its decision prior to evaluating the availability of alternative sources of water. Thus, KMI's failure to demonstrate the absence of practicable alternatives should have terminated the inquiry. See, e.g., Waiahole II, 105 Hawai`i at 16, 93 P.3d at 658 (The Water Commission's analysis should have ceased when [the applicant] failed to meet its burden of establishing that no practicable alternative water sources existed.). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Commission has failed in its public trust duty to hold KMI to its burden of demonstrating the absence of other practicable alternatives. The Commission has thereby failed to establish an adequate basis for the amount of water allocated to KMI.