Opinion ID: 2629221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review Of Decisions Of The Commission Relating To State Water Resources Trust

Text: Finally, the special public interests in trust resources demand that this court observe certain qualifications of its standard of review.... As in other cases, agency decisions affecting public trust resources carry a presumption of validity. The presumption is particularly significant where the appellant challenges a substantive decision within the agency's expertise as clearly erroneous, HRS § 91-14(g)(5), arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, HRS § 91-14(g)(6). See Save Ourselves [v. Louisiana Env't Control Comm'n], 452 So.2d [1152,] 1159 [(La.1984)]. The public trust, however, is a state constitutional doctrine. As with other state constitutional guarantees, the ultimate authority to interpret and defend the public trust in Hawai`i rests with the courts of this state. See State v. Quitog, 85 Hawai`i 128, 130 n. 3, 938 P.2d 559, 561 n. 3 (1997) (recognizing the Hawai`i Supreme Court as the ultimate judicial tribunal with final, unreviewable authority to interpret and enforce the Hawai`i Constitution). Judicial review of public trust dispensions complements the concept of a public trust.... The duties imposed upon the state are the duties of a trustee and not simply the duties of a good business manager. Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep't, 155 Ariz. 484, 487, 747 P.2d 1183, 1186 (1987), aff'd, 490 U.S. 605 [109 S.Ct. 2037, 104 L.Ed.2d 696] ... (1989). Just as private trustees are judicially accountable to their beneficiaries for dispositions of the res, so the legislative and executive branches are judicially accountable for the dispositions of the public trust. The beneficiaries of the public trust are not just present generations but those to come. The check and balance of judicial review provides a level of protection against improvident dissipation of an irreplaceable res. Arizona Cent. for Law in Pub. Interest v. Hassell, 172 Ariz. 356, 837 P.2d 158, 168-69 (Ariz.Ct.App.1991), review dismissed, 172 Ariz. 356, 837 P.2d 158 (1992) (brackets and citation omitted). .... This is not to say that this court will supplant its judgment for that of the legislature or agency. However, it does mean that this court will take a close look at the action to determine if it complies with the public trust doctrine and it will not act merely as a rubber stamp for agency or legislative action. Kootenai [Envtl. Alliance v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc.], [105 Idaho 622] 671 P.2d [1085,] 1092 [ (Idaho 1983) ] (emphasis added.) See also Owsichek [v. State, Guide Licensing and Control Bd.], 763 P.2d [488,] 494 [(Alaska 1988)] (holding that grants of exclusive rights to harvest natural resources should be subjected to close scrutiny); Weden v. San Juan County, 135 Wash.2d 678, 958 P.2d 273, 283 (1998) (observing that, even absent a constitutional mandate, courts review legislation under the public trust doctrine with a heightened degree of judicial scrutiny, as if they were measuring that legislation against constitutional protections) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Waiahole, 94 Hawai`i at 143-44, 9 P.3d at 455-56.