Opinion ID: 2629221
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This court's decision in Waiahole

Text: In Waiahole, this court held that the public trust doctrine applied to all water resources, unlimited by any surface-ground distinction. 94 Hawai`i at 133-35, 9 P.3d at 445-47 (affirming Robinson, 65 Haw. at 674, 658 P.2d at 310, wherein the court stated that a public trust was imposed upon all the waters of the kingdom). In so doing, this court traced the historical development of the public trust doctrine in Hawai`i and reasoned therefrom that article XI, sections 1 and 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution, see supra note 3, adopted the public trust doctrine as a fundamental principle of constitutional law in Hawai`i and that the legislature, pursuant to the constitutional mandate of article XI, section 7, incorporated public trust principles into the Code. Id. at 130-32, 9 P.3d at 443-45. Moreover, in holding that the Code does not supplant the protections of the public trust doctrine, this court recognized that [e]ven with the enactment and any future development of the Code, the doctrine continues to inform the Code's interpretation, define its permissible `outer limits,' and justify its existence. Id. at 133, 9 P.3d at 445. In addressing the substance of the state water resources trust, this court identified three valid trust purposes, which the Commission was duty-bound to protect against competing interests in the State's water resources: (1) water resource protection, which includes the maintenance of waters in their natural state as a distinct use and disposes of any portrayal of retention of waters in their natural state as `waste'; (2) domestic use protection, particularly drinking water; and (3) the exercise of native Hawaiian and traditional and customary rights. Id. at 136-38, 9 P.3d at 448-50. This court held, however, that, while the state water resources trust acknowledges that private use for `economic development' may produce important public benefits and that such benefits must figure into any balancing of competing interests in water, private commercial use is not a public trust purpose. Id. at 138, 9 P.3d at 450. This court opined that if the public trust is to retain any meaning and effect, it must recognize enduring public rights in trust resources separate from, and superior to, the prevailing private interests in the resources at any given time. Id. (Emphasis added.) Consequently, this court affirmed the Commission's conclusion that the public trust doctrine effectively prescribes a `higher level of scrutiny' for private commercial uses ... [and] that the burden ultimately lies with those seeking or approving such uses to justify them in light of the purposes protected by the trust. Id. at 142, 9 P.3d at 454. This court has described the public trust relating to water resources as the authority and duty to maintain the purity and flow of our waters for future generations and to assure that the waters of our land are put to reasonable and beneficial uses. Id. at 674, 658 P.2d at 310 (emphases added). Similarly, article XI, section 1 of the Hawai`i Constitution requires the state both to protect natural resources and to promote their use and development. The state water resources trust thus embodies a dual mandate of 1) protection and 2) maximum reasonable and beneficial use. The mandate of protection coincides with the traditional notion of the public trust developed with respect to navigable and tidal waters. As commonly understood, the trust protects public waters and submerged lands against irrevocable transfer to private parties, see, e.g., Illinois Central [Railroad Co. v. Illinois], [146 U.S. 387, 452-53, 13 S.Ct. 110, 36 L.Ed. 1018 (1892),] [ ] or substantial impairment, whether for private or public purposes, see, e.g., State v. Public Serv. Comm'n, [275 Wis. 112, 81 N.W.2d 71, 74 (1957) ] [ ]. In this jurisdiction, our decisions in McBryde [ Sugar Co., Ltd. v. Robinson, 54 Haw. 174, 504 P.2d 1330 (1973) ] and its progeny and the plain meaning and history of the term protection [footnote omitted] in article XI, section 1 and article XI, section 7 establish that the state has a comparable duty to ensure the continued availability and existence of its water resources for present and future generations. Id. at 138-39, 9 P.3d at 450-51. In Hawai`i, the water resources trust also encompasses a duty to promote the reasonable and beneficial use of water resources in order to maximize their social and economic benefits to the people of this state. Id.; see also article XI, section 1 of the Hawai`i Constitution, supra note 3 (For the benefit of present and future generations, the State ... shall promote the development and utilization of these [water] resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State.). As we have mentioned, however, maximizing the water resource's social and economic benefits includes the protection of the resource in its natural state. Thus, unlike other jurisdictions, this court noted that the object is not maximum consumptive use, but rather the most equitable, reasonable, and beneficial allocation of state water resources, with full recognition that resource protection also constitutes `use.' Id. at 140, 9 P.3d at 452. Finally, with respect to balancing the foregoing mandates of the state water resources trust, this court held that the trust embodies the following fundamental principles. Id. at 141-43, 9 P.3d at 453-55. First, the state has both the authority and duty to preserve the rights of present and future generations in the waters of the state, which, in effect, precludes any grant or assertion of vested rights to use water to the detriment of a public trust purpose. Id. This authority empowers the state to revisit prior diversions and allocations, even those made with due consideration of their effect on the public trust. Id. at 141, 9 P.3d at 453. Second, [t]he state [ ] bears an `affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.' Id. at 141, 9 P.3d at 453 (quoting National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 33 Cal.3d 419, 189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709, 728, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977, 104 S.Ct. 413, 78 L.Ed.2d 351 (U.S.Cal.1983)) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). Third, there are no absolute priorities between broad categories of [trust] uses under the water resources trust, precisely because all public trust purposes must be protected; thus, the Commission must weigh competing public and private water uses on a case-by-case basis[.] Id. at 142, 9 P.3d at 454. That being the case, the Commission, as the primary guardian of public rights under the trust, must take the initiative in considering, protecting, and advancing public rights in the resource at every stage of the planning and decisionmaking process. Id. at 143, 9 P.3d at 455. In sum, the state may compromise public rights in the resource pursuant only to a decision made with a level of openness, diligence, and foresight commensurate with the high priority these rights command under the laws of our state. Id.