Opinion ID: 6493113
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission Erred In Calculating HC & S’s Acreage.

Text: Hui/MTF argues that the Commission erred in including fields 921 and 922 when calculating HC & S’s acreage. Hui/ MTF alleges error on two grounds: first, the Commission wrongfully took judicial notice of facts affecting an alternative water source for the fields, and second, the soil quality of fields 921 and 922 is poor and it is unreasonable to provide fresh water to cultivate them. As the Commission found, fields 921 and 922 are sandy “scrub land” that HC & S had never cultivated until sometime between 1995 and 1997 when it entered into an agreement with Maui Land and Pine (“MLP”), under which MLP delivered wastewater from its pineapple cannery to irrigate the fields for seed cane. After the close of evidence, the Commission took judicial notice of newspaper reports that: (1) MLP announced that it would cease pineapple operations, (2) Halii-maile Pineapple Company would “revive” the fresh fruit operations, and (3) this “should not result in a restoration of the wastewater source.” Hui/MTF argues that it was error for the Commission to take judicial notice of these three “facts”. Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 201, limits the scope of judicial notice to facts “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” HRE Rule 201(b). In this case, the Commission took judicial notice of facts presented in two newspaper articles. There is precedent for taking judicial notice of facts as reported by newspapers. Application of Pioneer Mill Co., 53 Haw. 496, 497 n. 1, 497 P.2d 549, 551 n. 1 (taking judicial notice that a land court judge had announced his candidacy for public office, based upon newspaper articles submitted by the parties). In this case, however, the Commission went further than taking notice of facts reported in newspapers: it predicted the impact of those facts on HC & S’s water supply. HRE Rule 201 does not permit the Commission to take judicial notice of a possible effect of a change in ownership in the pineapple cannery. First, this prediction fits neither prong of the relevant rule of evidence; the effect of the change of ownership on HC & S’s water supply is neither “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction” nor “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” HRE Rule 201(b). Second, the prediction that wastewater will no longer be available is purely speculative. In fact, one of the Commission’s FOF contradicts this speculation, stating “due to the shutdown of MLP’s cannery operation, MLP mill wastewater will only be able to supply approximately half of the irrigation requirements of Fields 921 and 922 in the future.” Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the company that “revived” operations also “revived” the practice of providing wastewater to HC & S. Hui/MTF are correct that the Commission’s taking judicial notice in this instance was improper. Hui/MTF also argues that the Commission erred in permitting HC & S to include fields 921 and 922 in its acreage because it is marginal farm land, or, as found by the Commission, “sandy ‘scrub land.’ ” Hui/MTF argues that the burden is on HC & S to show “the propriety of draining water from public streams” to irrigate this land which had been uncultivated until a wastewater source was available. The Commission found that fields 921 and 922 are similar to field 920, another “sandy ‘scrub land’ ” field on which HC & S ceased cultivation because it “has a very sandy soil and has consumed more water than other fields.” The Commission also explicitly excluded field 920 from HC & S’s acreage and water duty calculations, “because it has consumed more water because of the porosity of its sandy soil and its use for seed cane.” HC & S points to testimony from HC & S’s agronomist that HC & S is able to grow sugar on those fields because the sandy area has loam soil underneath it, thus permitting HC & S to achieve “good crop growth.” Though HC & S draws the court’s attention to this testimony in its briefing, this testimony is not included in the Commission’s FOP/ COL D & 0. In fact, the Commission found no explicit facts regarding the propriety of cultivating the fields; instead the Commission included fields 921 and 922 in HC & S’s acreage without explanation. As evinced by HC & S’s and the Commission’s treatment of field 920, the wisdom of irrigating fields 921 and 922 with Ná Wai ‘Ehá water is questionable. The record does not contain sufficient analysis to support the conclusion that fields 921 and 922 should be treated differently from field 920. Similarly, the record does not contain sufficient analysis showing that the Commission considered these fields with “a level of openness, diligence, and foresight” required when authorizing the diversion of our public trust res. On remand, the Commission must reevaluate its determination that HC & S should be permitted to divert Ná Wai ‘Ehá water to irrigate fields 921 and 922.