Opinion ID: 2581050
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ADC's water use permit.

Text: The appellants argue that, because ADC failed to meet its burden of establishing that its water use was reasonable-beneficial pursuant to HRS § 174C-49(a), the Water Commission erred by issuing ADC a permit. The Water Commission simply proffers that it complied with this court's directive in Waiãhole I. ADC argues that, because it was granted a permit, it is presumed that ADC established that its uses were consistent with state and county general plans and land use designations. ADC further argues that [a]t some point, the cost of obtaining a more efficient system will outweigh the cost of the water that is lost from the system and that [i]t does not serve the public interest to expend this amount of money to recapture a small amount of water. [22] Absent reasonably clear findings that ADC met its burden pursuant to HRS § 174C-49(a), this court cannot affirm the Water Commission's decision to issue ADC a water use permit for systems losses. In Waiãhole I, this court held that the Water Commission must consider the ditch system operator's application, as it would any other proposed `use,' pursuant to the permitting process, and determine whether issuing a permit is appropriate. [23] Waiãhole I, 94 Hawai'i at 173, 9 P.3d at 485. The permitting process requires that the applicant shall establish that the proposed use of water: (1) Can be accommodated with the available water source; (2) Is a reasonable-beneficial use as defined in section 174C-3; (3) Will not interfere with any existing legal use of water; (4) Is consistent with public interest; (5) Is consistent with state and county general plans and land use designations; (6) Is consistent with county land use plans and policies; and (7) Will not interfere with the rights of the department of Hawaiian home lands as provided in section 221 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. HRS § 174C-49(a). The commission shall determine, after a hearing, if required, whether the conditions set forth in section 174C-49(a) have been established[.] HRS § 174C-53 (1993). In establishing reasonable-beneficial use, the applicant must show actual need and the absence of practicable mitigating measures, such as system repairs. Waiahole I, 94 Hawai'i at 161, 9 P.3d at 473. On remand, the Water Commission explained the reasons for system losses and the mitigating measures that ADC performed or planned to perform. The Water Commission then stated that [o]perational losses are a normal component of any water delivery system, and thus the Commission finds it appropriate to issue a use permit to the ADC for operational losses suffered in delivering water to its clients in leeward O''ahu. D & O II at 132. This court agrees with the Water Commission that some losses are unavoidable, e.g., losses due to evaporation. The Water Commission, however, made no findings that ADC met its burden pursuant to HRS § 174C-49(a). In fact, the Water Commission's findings lead this court to believe that ADC did not meet its burden. The Water Commission determined that 1.5 mgd of the 2.0 mgd requested in ADC's application were probably due to leakage and seepage. The Water Commission further found that ADC has not yet addressed the feasibility and costs of lining the remaining unlined portion of the ditch and/or the two reservoirs. D & O II at 132. Without addressing the feasibility of repairing the leaks that cause the 1.5 mgd loss, it is unclear how the Water Commission could determine that a 1.5 mgd loss complied with HRS § 174C-49(a). Accordingly, we vacate ADC's water use permit and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We again leave it to the Water Commission to determine whether issuing a permit for systems losses is appropriate. If the Water Commission answers in the affirmative, it must make findings that demonstrate whether ADC has met its burden pursuant to the permitting process. If the Water Commission answers in the negative, it must somehow account for system losses. In any event, the Water Commission's decision must include provisions that encourage system repairs and limit losses.