Opinion ID: 2581050
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Half Approach

Text: On appeal, the appellants collectively argue that the IIFS for the windward streams, as set by the Water Commission, was arbitrary and capricious, and not based on the best information available. Specifically, the appellants contend that the Water Commission erred by relying on the half approach. Conversely, the Water Commission asserts that [t]he practice of not diverting more than half of a stream's flow fit the specific facts of the present case, and ... provided a reasonable and practicable approach to restore Waiahole, Waianu, Waikane, and Kahana streams to one half their pre-ditch flow levels. We agree with the appellants. We have recognized that agency decisions are afforded deference. Paul's Electrical Service, Inc., 104 Hawai'i 412, 417, 91 P.3d 494, 499 (2004). However, the foregoing deference presupposes that the agency has grounded its decision in reasonably clear FOFs and COLs. In re Wai'ola O Moloka'i, Inc., 103 Hawai'i 401, 432, 83 P.3d 664, 695 (2004). [T]he agency must make its findings reasonably clear. The parties and the court should not be left to guess, with respect to any material question of fact, or to any group of minor matters that may have cumulative significance, the precise finding of the agency. In re Kauai Elec. Div. of Citizens Utilities Co., 60 Haw. 166, 183, 590 P.2d 524, 537 (1978) (quoting In re Terminal Transportation, Inc., 54 Haw. 134, 139, 504 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1972)). See also Kilauea Neighborhood Ass'n v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 Haw.App. 227, 230, 751 P.2d 1031, 1034 (1988) (An agency's findings must be sufficient to allow the reviewing court to track the steps by which the agency reached its decision.); Rife v. Akiba, 81 Hawai'i 84, 87-88, 912 P.2d 581, 584-85 (App.1996) (reviewing the numerous practical reasons for requiring adequate findings and conclusions). Clarity in the agency's decision 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. Save Ourselves[, Inc. v. Louisiana Environmental Control Comm'n], 452 So.2d [1152,] 1159-60 [(La.1984)]. Waiãhole I, 94 Hawai'i at 157-58, 9 P.3d at 469-70. Moreover, [a]lthough interim stream standards are merely stopgap measures, they must still protect instream values to the extent practicable. Id. at 155, 9 P.3d at 467; see also HRS § 174C-71(2)(A) (calling for petitions to adopt an interim instream flow standard for streams in order to protect the public interest). Notwithstanding their temporary effect, therefore, interim standards must still provide meaningful protection of instream uses. Waiãhole I, 94 Hawai'i at 151, 9 P.3d at 463. In calculating the IIFS, the Water Commission halved the possible pre-ditch flow based on its finding that [a]ccording to one Hawaiian historian, `no ditch was permitted to divert more than half the flow from a stream.' D & O II at 67 (citing Handy, E.S.C. and Handy, E.G., Native planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment, 1972, at 58, cited in Kame'eleihiwa, Binder 6A, written direct testimony, reference listed at page 15; Kame'eleihiwa, Tr., 4/3/96, at 14, lines 4-7). By using this statement to justify having the instream flow, the Water Commission apparently interpreted this statement to mean that half of a stream flow is sufficient to protect instream values. This assumption appears to be arbitrary and speculative. In addition, the half approach lacks vital information, as evinced by the Water Commission's own finding that [i]t is unclear ... whether the limit of half the flow from a stream referred to the original flow of the stream or to the flow where the diversion was taking place. Nor is it clear how it was determined how much of the stream's flow was being diverted. The Water Commission further found that while historically noted, it does not appear that it was a uniform rule that no more than 1/2 of stream flow should be used offstream. As such, the Water Commission's decision to halve the possible stream flow, based solely on a quotation stating that no ditch was permitted to divert more than half the flow from a stream, left unanswered the question whether instream values would be protected to the extent practicable. We, therefore, hold that the Water Commission's reliance on this approach was erroneous.