Opinion ID: 2581050
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The IIFS for Windward Streams

Text: In Waiãhole I, this court vacated the Water Commission's designation of IIFSs and held that the Commission shall, with utmost haste and purpose, work towards establishing permanent instream flow standards for windward streams. In the meantime, the Commission shall designate an interim standard based on the best information presently available. Id. at 156, 9 P.3d at 468. In its D & O II, the Water Commission devoted a considerable number of pages to explain the process it used to set the IIFS. To summarize, the Water Commission first determined two sets of possible pre-ditch stream flows, one based on stream measurements taken in 1911 and the other based on a stream's current base flow plus the ditch's current flow. The possible stream flows were as follows: 1911 Data Base Flow Plus Stream (mgd) Ditch Flow (mgd) Waiãhole 14.4 19.2 [6] Waianu 7.8 Waikãne 6.0 6.7 Kahana 21.0 14.4 D & O II at 106. Second, the Water Commission determined that if it established the IIFS at one-half of the possible pre-ditch stream flows, the results would be as follows: 1911 Data Base Flow Plus Stream (mgd) Ditch Flow (mgd) Waiãhole 7.2 9.6 Waianu 3.9 Waikãne 3.0 3.4 Kahana 10.5 7.2 D & O II at 107. The Water Commission used the half approach based on its finding that, [a]ccording to one Hawaiian historian, no ditch was permitted to divert more than half the flow from a stream. (Handy, E.S.C. and Handy, E.G., Native planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment, 1972, at 58, cited in Kame'eleihiwa, Binder 6A, written direct testimony, reference listed at page 15; Kame'eleihiwa, Tr., 4/3/96, at 14, lines 4-7). D & O II at 67 (emphasis added). However, the Water Commission also found that [i]t is unclear ... whether the limit of half the flow from a stream referred to the original flow of the stream or to the flow where the diversion was taking place. Nor is it clear how it was determined how much of the stream's flow was being diverted. D & O II at 67. The Water Commission then attempted to prevent any limitation on diversions by stating: On the other hand, Watson found that: In certain areas including Koloa on Kauai and Waimea on Oahu, it is well known that old Hawaiian irrigated taro areas of the 1840s were developed up to, and perhaps somewhat beyond, the available water supply. Exhibit N-207, at 150). Therefore, while historically noted, it does not appear that it was a uniform rule that no more than ― of stream flow should be used offstream. D & O II at 67. In reaching its decision, the Water Commission concluded as follows: One Hawaiian approach to diversion of stream waters, which has been cited earlier, appears to limit diversions to no more than one-half of a stream's flow, although much more has been diverted on occasion. As historically noted and earlier cited, there have been diversions limited to half the flow from a stream or place of diversion, and examples of other diversions taking up to or perhaps somewhat beyond the available water supply. However, it does not appear that there was any specific, quantified amount of water that should remain in the stream or be taken for offstream use. Considering the specific facts of this case, not establishing a standard or generalized policy for future decisions, and in accordance with the precautionary principle, a reasonable and practicable approach would be to restore Waiahole, Waianu, Waikane, and Kahana Streams to one-half their pre-Ditch base flow levels which would also exceed their 1960 levels where testimony established the presence of aquatic biota at a higher level than today. The Commission believes that the IIFSs set at such a level would protect aquatic biota in the streams. D & O II at 104-105 (emphasis added). Although the Water Commission determined that setting the IIFS at one-half pre-ditch flows would exceed the levels of the 1960s, the Water Commission made no specific finding as to each stream's flow during the 1960s. [7] Third, the Water Commission calculated the ditch flow that must be added to the stream to reach one-half of the possible pre-ditch flows by subtracting the current base flow from the possible pre-ditch flow. The added flow would be as follows: 1911 Data Base Flow Plus Stream (mgd) Ditch Flow (mgd) Waiãhole 3.3 5.2 Waianu 3.4 Waikane 1.6 2.0 Kahana 0 0 D & O II at 108. Fourth, the Water Commission decided to use the higher of the preceding values. Thus, 6.7 mgd would be added to Waiãhole and Waianu streams (3.3 for Waiãhole and 3.4 for Waianu) based on the 1911 data and 2.0 mgd would be added to Waikane stream based on the base flow plus ditch flow data. Because Kahana stream's base flow of 11.2 mgd exceeded one-half of the estimated pre-ditch flow at 10.5 mgd, water would not be added. Finally, after considering appurtenant rights, riparian uses, and existing uses, the Water Commission added 1.1 mgd to Waiãhole and Waianu streams and .10 mgd to Waikane stream. Thus, the final IIFS was as follows: Waiãhole Stream: 4.8 mgd added to a current base flow of 3.9 mgd totaling 8.7 mgd. Waianu Stream: 3.0 mgd added to a current base flow of 0.5 mgd totaling 3.5 mgd Waikãne Stream: 2.1 mgd added to a current base flow of 1.4 mgd totaling 3.5 mgd Kahana Stream: 11.2 mgd D & O II at 112, 117.
On appeal, the appellants collectively argue that the IIFS for the windward streams, as set by the Water Commission, was arbitrary and capricious, and not based on the best information available. Specifically, the appellants contend that the Water Commission erred by relying on the half approach. Conversely, the Water Commission asserts that [t]he practice of not diverting more than half of a stream's flow fit the specific facts of the present case, and ... provided a reasonable and practicable approach to restore Waiahole, Waianu, Waikane, and Kahana streams to one half their pre-ditch flow levels. We agree with the appellants. We have recognized that agency decisions are afforded deference. Paul's Electrical Service, Inc., 104 Hawai'i 412, 417, 91 P.3d 494, 499 (2004). However, the foregoing deference presupposes that the agency has grounded its decision in reasonably clear FOFs and COLs. In re Wai'ola O Moloka'i, Inc., 103 Hawai'i 401, 432, 83 P.3d 664, 695 (2004). [T]he agency must make its findings reasonably clear. The parties and the court should not be left to guess, with respect to any material question of fact, or to any group of minor matters that may have cumulative significance, the precise finding of the agency. In re Kauai Elec. Div. of Citizens Utilities Co., 60 Haw. 166, 183, 590 P.2d 524, 537 (1978) (quoting In re Terminal Transportation, Inc., 54 Haw. 134, 139, 504 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1972)). See also Kilauea Neighborhood Ass'n v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 Haw.App. 227, 230, 751 P.2d 1031, 1034 (1988) (An agency's findings must be sufficient to allow the reviewing court to track the steps by which the agency reached its decision.); Rife v. Akiba, 81 Hawai'i 84, 87-88, 912 P.2d 581, 584-85 (App.1996) (reviewing the numerous practical reasons for requiring adequate findings and conclusions). Clarity in the agency's decision is all the more essential in a case such as this where the agency performs as a public trustee and is duty bound to demonstrate that it has properly exercised the discretion vested in it by the constitution and the statute. Save Ourselves[, Inc. v. Louisiana Environmental Control Comm'n], 452 So.2d [1152,] 1159-60 [(La.1984)]. Waiãhole I, 94 Hawai'i at 157-58, 9 P.3d at 469-70. Moreover, [a]lthough interim stream standards are merely stopgap measures, they must still protect instream values to the extent practicable. Id. at 155, 9 P.3d at 467; see also HRS § 174C-71(2)(A) (calling for petitions to adopt an interim instream flow standard for streams in order to protect the public interest). Notwithstanding their temporary effect, therefore, interim standards must still provide meaningful protection of instream uses. Waiãhole I, 94 Hawai'i at 151, 9 P.3d at 463. In calculating the IIFS, the Water Commission halved the possible pre-ditch flow based on its finding that [a]ccording to one Hawaiian historian, `no ditch was permitted to divert more than half the flow from a stream.' D & O II at 67 (citing Handy, E.S.C. and Handy, E.G., Native planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment, 1972, at 58, cited in Kame'eleihiwa, Binder 6A, written direct testimony, reference listed at page 15; Kame'eleihiwa, Tr., 4/3/96, at 14, lines 4-7). By using this statement to justify having the instream flow, the Water Commission apparently interpreted this statement to mean that half of a stream flow is sufficient to protect instream values. This assumption appears to be arbitrary and speculative. In addition, the half approach lacks vital information, as evinced by the Water Commission's own finding that [i]t is unclear ... whether the limit of half the flow from a stream referred to the original flow of the stream or to the flow where the diversion was taking place. Nor is it clear how it was determined how much of the stream's flow was being diverted. The Water Commission further found that while historically noted, it does not appear that it was a uniform rule that no more than 1/2 of stream flow should be used offstream. As such, the Water Commission's decision to halve the possible stream flow, based solely on a quotation stating that no ditch was permitted to divert more than half the flow from a stream, left unanswered the question whether instream values would be protected to the extent practicable. We, therefore, hold that the Water Commission's reliance on this approach was erroneous.
The appellants further argue that the Water Commission erred by relying on the 1960 testimonials and disregarding the testimony of three aquatic biologists. [8] The Water Commission contends that the IIFS flow levels established under the half approach exceed the 1960s flows, where testimony established that presence of aquatic biota at a higher level than today. Because the Water Commission failed to make findings of each stream's flow during the 1960s, the Water Commission's conclusion was unsupported by the record's findings. It is well-settled that [a]n appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trial judge. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 117, 839 P.2d 10, 28 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets in original); see also State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai'i 131, 139, 913 P.2d 57, 65 (1996) (It is for the trial judge as fact-finder to assess the credibility of witnesses and to resolve all questions of fact.... As the trier of fact, the judge may draw all reasonable and legitimate inferences and deductions from the evidence, and the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.). Thus, it is the province of the Water Commission to assess the credibility of witnesses, and the Water Commission's findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. In the instant case, the Water Commission deemed credible the testimony that the flow in the 1960s was adequate to support the stream's ecosystem and native Hawaiian customs and practices. We do not regard this assessment as clearly erroneous. The Water Commission, however, failed to make findings of each stream's flow during the 1960s. Without such information, the Water Commission failed to support its conclusion that the current IIFS flow is more than the flow in the 1960s. We therefore remand this issue for further proceedings. If, on remand, the Water Commission is able to support its conclusion with findings quantifying the windward streams' flows during the 1960s, then the 1960s testimonials would be sufficient to set the IIFS at the levels established in the D & O II, inasmuch as: (1) more water would be added to the streams than that which adequately supported the streams' ecosystem in the 1960s, see D & O II at 104; (2) the increase in stream flow over the 1960s stream flow would be beneficial in light of the Water Commission's finding that increasing a stream's flow results in stream habitat improvement, see D & O II at 104; and (3) appurtenant rights, riparian uses, and existing uses would be accounted for by further increases in stream flow, see D & O II at 112. [9] The foregoing would then adequately establish that instream values would be protected to the extent practicable for interim purposes. We take this opportunity, however, to remind the Water Commission that seventeen years have passed since the Water Code was enacted requiring the Water Commission to set permanent instream flow standards by investigating the streams. HRS § 174C-71. In addition, four years have passed since this court held that the Commission shall, with utmost haste and purpose, work towards establishing permanent instream flow standards for windward streams. Waiãhole I, 94 Hawai'i at 156, 9 P.3d at 468. The fact that an IIFS is before this court evinces that this mandate has not yet been completed as of the Water Commission's D & O II.
In Waiãhole I, this court held that pursuant to its duties as trustee, and in the interest of precaution, the Commission should consider providing reasonable margins of safety for instream trust purposes when establishing instream flow standards. The Commission, however, should not concern itself with allocations to a buffer at the outset. Rather, the Commission should incorporate any allowances for scientific uncertainty into its initial determination of the minimum standard. Any flows in excess of this standard shall remain in the stream until permitted and actually needed for offstream use, in keeping with the policy against waste and in recognition that the standard merely states an absolute minimum required under any circumstances. These unallocated flows, however, will not constitute a distinct category or quantity, but will fluctuate according to variations in supply and demand. Id. On remand, it appears that 2.2 mgd were not allocated. The Windward Parties argue that by failing to include the unpermitted 2.2 mgd in the IIFS, the Water Commission fails to protect instream values to the extent practicable. Although nothing in the record indicates that the Water Commission created a separate and distinct category by not including 2.2 mgd of unpermitted water in the IIFS, the Water Commission, nonetheless, failed to make any findings regarding the 2.2 mgd, leaving this court without a means to decide the issue. Thus, we remand this issue for FOFs and COLs on the subject.