Opinion ID: 2581050
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The transfer of Campbell Estate's permit to BWS complied with the plain language of the law.

Text: The Windward Parties argue that Campbell Estate's transfer of its EP-15/16 water use permit was invalid because the transfer involved a change in water use. [11] The Windward Parties further argue that this transfer was an attempt by Campbell Estate to rid itself of alternative water sources during the remanded hearings. Because Campbell Estate and BWS complied with the plain language of the Water Code, this court cannot hold that the transfer of the EP-15/16 water use permit was invalid. HRS § 174C-59 (Supp.2000) provides: A permit may be transferred, in whole or in part, from the permittee to another, if: 1. The conditions of use of the permit, including, but not limited to, place, quantity, and purpose of the use, remain the same; and 2. The commission is informed of the transfer within ninety days. Failure to inform the commission of the transfer invalidates the transfer and constitutes a ground for revocation of the permit. A transfer which involves a change in any condition of the permit, including a change in use covered in section 174C-57, is also invalid and constitutes a ground for revocation. HRS § 174C-59 (Supp.2000). Thus, a permittee may transfer its permit to another if the conditions of the permit remain the same and the Water Commission is informed within ninety days. Failure to inform the Water Commission invalidates the transfer, which presupposes validity at the time of the transfer. On July 12, 2000, Campbell Estate and BWS entered into an agreement to transfer Campbell Estate's water use permit for 12.154 mgd to BWS. The agreement stated that BWS shall only withdraw water out of EP 15/16 to the extent allowed under the Permit.... The agreement does not involve any changes to the permit. On August 8, 2000, BWS informed the Water Commission of the July 12, 2000 transfer. Because the conditions of the permit remained unchanged upon transfer and the parties notified the Water Commission of the transfer, the parties complied with the plain language of HRS § 174C-59 and, thus, the transfer was valid. At that point, BWS, as a county agency, was free to modify the use of the permitted water, pursuant to HRS § 174C-57(c) (1993), [12] without adhering to the statutory modification process. A concern developed, however, because BWS notified the Water Commission of its intent to change the water use from agricultural to urban in the same August 8, 2000 letter notifying the Water Commission of the transfer. BWS further stated that it planned to supply Campbell Estate with 11.87 mgd. Thus, according to the August 8, 2000 letter, Campbell Estate, with the cooperation of BWS, essentially managed to change 11.87 mgd of its previously permitted 12.154 mgd water use from agricultural to municipal without complying with the modification process as set forth in HRS § 174C-57. Although this raises serious concerns about the propriety of the transfer, Campbell Estate and BWS complied with the plain language of HRS §§ 174C-57 and 174C-59. Thus, because the language of these statutes is unambiguous, this court has no choice but to affirm the transfer. [13] We leave it to the legislature to amend the language if it did not intend this result. The Windward Parties also argue that the transfer was an attempt by Campbell Estate to rid itself of possible alternative water sources to be considered during the remanded hearings. Although the Windward Parties raise a valid point, as discussed infra in section III.C.1., the absence of a permit alone will not render an alternative water source impracticable. Thus, Campbell Estate would still be required to establish that EP-15/16 is impracticable as an alternative water source.