Opinion ID: 2629221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: State and county general plans and land use designations and county land use plans and policies

Text: HRS §§ 174C-49(a)(5) and (6) mandate that the applicant establish that the proposed use of water ... [i]s consistent with state and county general plans and land use designations and county land use plans and policies, respectively. The Commission concluded that MR's existing uses were consistent with state and county general plans and land use designations and the county land use plans and policies. The Commission, however, found that several of MR's proposed future uses were not consistent the foregoing conditions and, therefore, did not meet the conditions set forth in HRS §§ 174C-49(a)(5) and (6). In its analysis, the Commission also elaborated on its authority to grant allocations of water beyond a four-year time horizon, pursuant to HRS § 174C-58(4), see infra note 39. More specifically, the Commission explained that the four year non-use limitation... is primarily an enforcement tool. The Commission reasoned that [o]ne of the goals of the [ ] Code is to facilitate long-range planning for the economic and efficient utilization of water and that the circumstances in this case present good and sufficient reasons for authorizing an allocation beyond the four year period where the Applicant has received all land use approvals. Further elaborating, it concluded that, [a]lthough the Commission is not limited by law to allocations based on a four year time frame, the Commission does believe that granting water use permits in excess of the four year time frame must be made on a case by case basis based on the facts of each case. In this case, the fact the applicant had all land use approvals for the water uses granted in this decision and order, the need to facilitate long-range planning, the lack of competition for the water in the Kamiloloa Aquifer System, the small amount of water already allocated, and the determination that the effect of this proposed use, as modified by this decision and order, will be minimal on the Kamiloloa Aquifer, the adjacent Kualapu'u Aquifer, and the nearshore resources, all support the allocation of water beyond the four year time frame. This case should not be considered as a binding precedent for any future case as the Commission shall consider each case on its individual circumstances. Moreover, the Commission reiterated that, in the event that Wai'ola did not effect its four-year projected use, HRS § 174C-58 provides for the revocation of the water use permit.