Opinion ID: 2629221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Miscellaneous issues relating to MR-Wai'ola's permit

Text: The Commission discussed at length its conclusion that MR-Wai'ola's proposed water use would not abridge or deny traditional and customary gathering rights of native Hawaiians. In particular, the Commission reviewed its obligation to protect native Hawaiians' rights secured by article XII, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution and this court's decision in Public Access Shoreline Hawai`i (PASH) v. Hawai`i County Planning Commission, 79 Hawai`i 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (1995). The Commission considered the following three questions in determining whether the proposed water use interfered with native Hawaiian rights: (1) whether traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights were exercised in the project area; (2) the extent to which, if such rights were being exercised, they would be affected by the proposed action; and (3) the feasible measures, if any, that could be undertaken by the Commission to protect these rights. Based on the evidence adduced at the contested case hearing, the Commission determined that the Intervenors had sufficiently demonstrated that native Hawaiians were actually exercising traditional and customary practices on the shoreline and nearshore area makai [22] of the proposed well site in Kamiloloa. The Commission, however, concluded that no evidence was presented that the drilling of the well would affect the exercise of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights and, therefore, that the decision to grant a water use permit for the proposed well was consistent with article XII, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution and the relevant case law. With respect to the protection of native Hawaiian rights under HRS § 174C-101, see supra note 4, the Commission similarly concluded that MR-Wai`ola's proposed water use would have a minimal impact, if any, on the limu, fish, and other marine species traditionally and customarily gathered and consumed by native Hawaiians. Although the Commission rejected the Intervenors' argument that the withdrawal of groundwater in the Kamiloloa aquifer would reduce the amount of groundwater discharge into the nearshore area makai of the project area, thereby adversely affecting the marine life traditionally and customarily gathered by native Hawaiians, the Commission nevertheless acknowledged its legal mandate to protect the reasonable exercise of traditional and customary native Hawaiian practices: Because the project may have an impact, albeit minimal, if any, on the traditional and customary native Hawaiian practices, the Commission imposes[,] as a condition of this permit[,] a well monitoring program as set forth in the decision and order. The well monitoring program will provide data to calibrate the ground-water models presented as to the possible effect of the well pumping on the reduction and resulting distribution of groundwater in the Kamiloloa Aquifer, which could possibly affect the marine life in question. Subject to the foregoing, the Commission concluded that MR-Wai'ola's proposed water use, as amended by its decision, would not abridge or deny traditional or customary Hawaiian rights, customs, practices, or appurtenant water rights, or any other rights referred to in or protected by Part IX of the state Water Code, the common law, or the Constitution of the State of Hawai`i.
Inasmuch as MR-Wai`ola's water use application involved the integration of land use planning and water resource management, the Commission's decision emphasized that the availability of water was critical to the success of MR's plans for economic development. As such, the Commission invoked its authority under HRS § 174C-49(d), see supra note 1, to provide for a municipal reservation in the Kamiloloa aquifer system in order to insure the proper utilization and allocation of water on Moloka'i. The Commission concluded that the reservation of water would not be limited to any one user but would be set up for municipal uses as defined in the Water Code. The Commission maintained that a municipal reservation would effectuate one of the express purposes of the Code, which was to facilitate longrange planning as a means of facilitating proper water resources management.
Inasmuch as the evidence adduced at the contested case hearing indicated that the proposed use might have an effect on Moloka'i's water resources, the Commission imposed a condition on MR-Wai`ola's water use permit to protect these water resources, pursuant HAR § 13-171-20(e) (1996). [23] Specifically, the decision provided for the installation of an observation well in Kakalahale, which is located between the proposed well site and the Kamiloloa shoreline, to monitor (1) the effect of the additional pumping in the Kamiloloa aquifer system and (2) the reduction of groundwater discharge into the nearshore environment by logging water-level data. The data would be used to extrapolate tidal functions in order to establish long-term water-level trends. The Commission believed that the well monitoring program ... [was] reasonable and proportional to the effect that the proposed use of 655,928 gpd ... [would] have on the water resources. Moreover, the Commission expressly retained jurisdiction over MR-Wai`ola's water use permit and reserved the right to modify the operation of the Kamiloloa-Wai'ola well in the event of a significant and unexpected drawdown in the well, thereby causing a reduction in groundwater discharge into the nearshore environment. Additional contested FOF and COL appear in the relevant discussion sections of this opinion.