Opinion ID: 2629221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Kakalahale monitoring well

Text: The Intervenors urge that the monitoring well program mandated by the Commission's decision neither addresses Dr. Tamaru's concerns regarding the effect of a reduction in groundwater discharge into the nearshore environment on various marine species nor incorporates his recommendations for a coastal monitoring program. The Intervenors contend that, assuming arguendo that the well monitoring program would ameliorate any negative effects of pumping 655,928 gpd in Kamiloloa, the program nonetheless does not support the issuance of a water use permit in the present matter, because the Code mandates that the applicant establish the seven conditions, enumerated in HRS § 174C-49(a), see supra note 1, requisite to obtaining a water use permit prior to the issuance of a permit. In other words, the Intervenors argue that the Commission's approach of monitoring potential harms caused by pumping 655,928 gpd in Kamiloloa and permitting the filing of a petition to reduce the permitted allocation in the event of any negative effects on the nearshore environment impermissibly relieved MR-Wai`ola of the obligation to meet its statutory burden of proof. In addition, the Intervenors assert that the Kakalahale well is demonstrably useless, because its location renders it incapable of gauging any negative effects that MR-Wai`ola's proposed pumping in the Kamiloloa aquifer system may inflict upon DHHL's wells in Kualapu`u. The Intervenors point out that the Kakalahale well is located in the Kamiloloa aquifer, approximately two miles southeast of the Kualapu'u wells, which, they argue, contravenes both DHHL's and MR-Wai`ola's experts' recommendation that a monitoring well be located in Kualapu'u. In further support of the foregoing, the Intervenors point to the Commission's FOF No. 90, which expressly stated that [t]he Kakalahale well will not serve this purpose because it is not located properly in relation to [the] transition zone that underlies the DHHL wells in Kualapu`u. MR-Wai`ola counters that the Intervenors' argument is misplaced because they misapprehend the purpose of the Kakalahale well. MR-Wai`ola concurs, as did the Commission, that the Kakalahale well would not be useful in measuring the effects of the proposed well on DHHL's wells in Kualapu'u. MR-Wai`ola points out, however, that the purpose of the monitoring program at the Kakalahale well was not to gauge the impact of the proposed well on DHHL's existing wells in Kualapu'u; rather, the purpose of the monitoring well was to measure the impact of the proposed well on the groundwater discharge into the nearshore environment within the Kamiloloa aquifer system, which could affect the marine life along the Kamiloloa shoreline and, in turn, native Hawaiians' gathering practices. Inasmuch as the Kakalahale well is located approximately a mile and a half to the southwest of MR-Wai`ola's proposed well, between the proposed well and the Kamiloloa shoreline, MR-Wai`ola argues that the monitoring well would be useful for its intended purpose. We agree with MR-Wai`ola that the Intervenors misconstrue the stated purpose of the monitoring well, as set forth in the Commission's COL No. 28, which provides as follows: Even though the Commission finds that the impacts are minimal and the proposed use is in the public interest, the Commission believes that it has a 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 ground water in the Kamiloloa Aquifer, which could possibly affect the marine life in question. (Emphasis added.) It is true that, in its FOF No. 90, the Commission expressly found that the Kakalahale well was not suitable to serve as a deep monitoring well for purposes of obtaining data with respect to the availability of freshwater in the Kualapu`u aquifer system and the thickness of the transition zone, because the well was not located properly in relation to [the] transition zone that underlies the DHHL wells in Kualapu`u. As such, assuming arguendo that the Commission had imposed, as a condition of MR-Wai`ola's water use permit, a monitoring program utilizing the Kakalahale well to measure data relating to DHHL's wells in Kualapu`u, such a condition would have been clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record, see HRS § 91-14(g)(5) (1993), and the Commission's own findings. The Commission's COL No. 28, however, unequivocally sets forth the stated purpose of the Kakalahale well, which was to gauge the impact of the proposed well on the nearshore environment where native Hawaiians exercise traditional and customary gathering practices, and not to monitor DHHL's existing wells in Kualapu`u. In light of the foregoing, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in imposing a well monitoring program as a condition to granting MR-Wai`ola a water use permit in the present matter and utilizing the Kakalahale well for such purpose. D. HRS § 174C-58(4) Is A Statutory Mechanism By Which To Enforce Allocations Of Water Anticipated By The Commission To Be Used Within Four Years Of Issuing A Water Use Permit. OHA argues that the Commission erred in granting a water use permit for 338,279 gpd of water that would not be utilized by MR-Wai`ola within four years of the permit's issuance. OHA contends that HRS § 174C-58(4), see infra note 39, provides a clear process for revocation after four years of nonuse[ ] and circumstances under which the four-year period might be extended. Thus, OHA suggests that the Commission's decision simply assumes the authority to nullify the processes and standard of HRS § 174C-58(4) at any time a permit is issued via a water use permit that allows for nonuse beyond four years. OHA further argues that, even if HRS § 174C-58(4) authorized the Commission to issue a permit for nonuse beyond a four-year horizon, it nevertheless erred in finding good and sufficient reasons for doing so in the present matter. More specifically, OHA contends that the Commission erroneously predicated its decision to grant MR-Wai`ola a permit for four years of nonuse upon (1) the availability of water in the Kamiloloa aquifer, (2) the alleged minimal harm to native Hawaiians' traditional and customary gathering practices, and (3) the need to facilitate long-range planning. In support of the foregoing, OHA essentially reasserts its argument that the Kamiloloa and Kualapu'u aquifers are hydrologically connected, see supra section III.A.1, and that the Commission failed adequately to protect native Hawaiians' traditional and customary gathering rights, see supra section III.C.1. With respect to the Commission's reference to long-range planning as a justification for granting a permit for four years of nonuse, OHA acknowledged that, although long-range planning is not a condition requisite to obtaining a water use permit under HRS § 174C-49(a), it may perhaps constitute a special circumstance[ ] to justif[y] a waiver of enforcement responsibilities. MR-Wai`ola responds that the Commission correctly interpreted HRS § 174C-58(4) as an enforcement, and not a planning, tool. MR-Wai`ola contends that HRS § 174C-31 (1993), which mandates the development of the Hawai`i water plan, encourages long-range planning and that, where development plans span a thirty-year horizon, it is incongruous to limit water planning to only four years. Moreover, MR-Wai`ola argues that the Commission's decision to grant allocations of water in excess of a four-year time frame is consistent with the MCGP, MCP, and MWG, all of which advocate planning windows in excess of four years. [38] Finally, although MR-Wai`ola acknowledges that [g]ranting water rights for merely conjectural needs may encourage those with money to monopolize water, [thereby] forcing others to purchase water from the water speculator to the speculator's own profit, it posits that the circumstances here do not lend themselves to water speculation for profit, because there is no competition for water in the Kamiloloa aquifer system. As such, MR-Wai`ola maintains that restricting the issuance of a water use permit to four years is neither economically efficient, consistent with good planning, nor does it promote sound water management principles. We agree with MR-Wai`ola. HRS § 174C-58(4) (1993) [39] provides that the commission may suspend or revoke a [water use] permit for [p]artial or total nonuse ... of the water allowed by the permit for a period of four continuous years or more. (Emphasis added.) It is well established that, `[w]hen construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself.' Gray, 84 Hawai`i at 148, 931 P.2d at 590 (citations omitted). The legislature's use of the term may plainly and unambiguously indicates that the suspension or revocation of a water use permit based on partial or total nonuse is permissive, rather than mandatory. Cf. Metcalf v. Voluntary Employees' Benefit Ass'n of Hawai`i, 99 Hawai`i 53, 67, 52 P.3d 823, 837 (2002) (Inasmuch as [the statute] employs the term `may,' it is plainly meant to indicate permissive use[.]). In addition, HRS § 174C-58(4) expressly provides that [t]he Commission and the permittee may enter into a written agreement that ... any period of nonuse may not apply towards the four-year revocation period. Thus, the Code both expressly and impliedly authorizes the Commission to issue a water use permit that allocates water in excess of a four-year time frame. We believe that the foregoing interpretation is consistent with the Commission's conclusion that HRS § 174C-58(4) constitutes an enforcement, rather than a planning, tool. HRS § 174C-2(b) (1993) [40] declares that [t]here is a need for a program of comprehensive water resources planning to address the problems of supply and conservation of water. The Hawai`i water plan, as set forth in HRS § 174C-31, mandates that the water resource protection plan include existing and contemplated uses of water, as identified in the [WUDPs] of the State and the counties, their impact on the resource, and their consistency with objectives and policies established in the water resource protection and water quality plans[.] HRS § 174C-31(d)(3) (emphasis added); see also HRS § 174C-31(f)(2) (Each county [WUDP] shall include but not be limited to ... [f]uture land uses and related water needs ....) (emphasis added); HAR § 13-170-2(a), supra note 27 (The Hawai`i Water Plan shall serve as a continuing long-range guide for water resource management.) (Emphasis added.). That being the case, the Code and the subsequently adopted Hawai`i water plan unequivocally envision a long-range comprehensive water resource plan for both the State's existing and contemplated water needs. Accordingly, reading HRS § 174C-58(4) in pari materia with HRS § 174C-2(b), HRS § 174C-31, and HAR § 13-170-2(a), see HRS § 1-16 (1993), we believe that it would be incongruousand even absurdto interpret HRS § 174C-58(4) as proscribing the allocation of water for future development beyond a four-year time horizon. To the contrary, we interpret HRS § 174C-58(4) as an enforcement mechanism by which the Commission may suspend or revoke a water use permit upon knowledge that a permitted allocation of water, which the Commission has expected to be used within a four-year time frame, has not been utilized. In the present matter, the Commission granted MR-Wai`ola a water use permit for 655,928 gpd for approved existing and future ( i.e., new) uses. The Commission, however, concluded that the circumstances of the present matter warranted an allocation of approximately 338,279 gpd for future uses that would not be utilized within the first four years of the permit's issuance. [41] Specifically, in its COL No. 34, the Commission reasoned as follows: Although the Commission is not limited by law to allocations based on a four[-]year time frame, the Commission does believe that granting water use permits in excess of the four year time frame must be made on a case by case basis based on the facts of each case. In this case, the fact [that] the application had all land use approvals for the water uses granted in this decision and order, the need to facilitate long-range planning, the lack of competition for the water in the Kamiloloa Aquifer System, the small amount of water already allocated, and the determination that the effect of this proposed use, as modified by this decision and order, will be minimal on the Kamiloloa Aquifer, the adjacent Kualapu`u Aquifer, and the nearshore resources, all support the allocation of water beyond the four[-]year time frame. This case should not be considered as a binding precedent for any future case as the Commission shall consider each case on its individual circumstances. The Commission's COL No. 35 further supports our interpretation of HRS § 174C-58(4), insofar as it expressly provides that any party or the Commission itself can initiate a revocation action in the event that Wai`ola does not utilize the four year projected use  (emphasis added), which conspicuously refers to the 317,649 gpd allocated by the Commission to be utilized within four years of issuing MR-Wai`ola a water use permit. That being the case, inasmuch as (1) the Code and the Hawai`i water plan envision a long-range comprehensive program for the State's water resources and (2) the record before us supports the Commission's conclusion that the circumstances of the present matternamely, the fifteen to twenty-year horizon to implement MR-Wai`ola's economic development planwarrant an allocation of water in excess of a four-year time frame, we hold that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in allocating 338,279 gpd for future uses to be utilized beyond the first four years of the issuance of MR-Wai`ola's water use permit. E. Pursuant To HRS § 174C-49(c), MR-Wai`ola May Transport Water Outside The Aquifer Of Origin. The individual appellants raise different arguments relating to whether MR-Wai`ola, by virtue of owning land in the Kamiloloa aquifer system, has correlative rights to transport water from the proposed well in Kamiloloa to various existing and future service areas outside of Kamiloloa. DHHL concedes that the Code embraces the common law doctrine of correlative rights, as set forth in HRS § 174C-49(c), see supra note 1, but contends that such rights are conditional and subject to superior claims. DHHL argues that, because MR-Wai`ola failed to satisfy the conditions, as set forth in HRS § 174C-49(a), see supra note 1, requisite to obtaining a water use permit, MR-Wai`ola has no correlative rights to export water from the aquifer of origin. By contrast, OHA and the Ritte intervenors assert that MR-Wai`ola has no correlative rights to transport groundwater, because the proposed well is within a designated WMA and, therefore, the Code supercedes the common law doctrine in such areas. The Ritte intervenors also argue that the Commission's reliance on this court's holding in City Mill Co., Ltd. v. Honolulu Sewer and Water Commission, 30 Haw. 912, 1929 WL 3028 (1929), is misplaced, insofar as the doctrine of correlative rights applies only to artesian waters i.e., naturally pressurized groundwater that flows to the surface without pumping from a well. Finally, the Ritte intervenors maintain that, if the doctrine of correlative rights applies to non-artesian waters, the doctrine is nonetheless limited to the use of groundwater on lands overlying the source. As such, the doctrine does not permit the diversion of water from one parcel of land to another, and, thus, the Commission erred in granting MR-Wai`ola a water use permit that, in effect, authorized it to transport water from Kamiloloa to other service areas on Moloka`i. MR-Wai`ola responds that the appellants fail to demonstrate that the Commission's finding that it has correlative rights to export groundwater from the Kamiloloa aquifer system in any way prejudiced their collective water rights in the Kualapu'u aquifer. [42] Notwithstanding the foregoing, MR-Wai`ola contends that this court need not reach the appellants' arguments, inasmuch as the Commission's decision was not premised on MR-Wai`ola's correlative rights; instead, the Commission granted MR-Wai`ola a water use permit on the basis that MR-Wai`ola had met its burden of establishing the conditions requisite to obtaining a water use permit as set forth in HRS § 174C-49(a). As such, whether MR-Wai`ola has correlative rights to transport groundwater from the aquifer of origin is immaterial to the Commission's decision. In Waiahole, this court revisited its holding in City Mill and the applicability of the common law doctrine of correlative rights to non-artesian waters. 94 Hawai`i at 176-80, 9 P.3d at 488-92. Wai&amacr;hole extended the correlative rights rule, as enunciated in City Mill, to all groundwater resources in Hawai`i as follows: As a preliminary matter, we affirm the Commission's conclusion that the rule of correlative rights applies to all ground waters of the state. [Citation and footnote omitted.] As the Commission observed, although the facts of City Mill involved artesian waters specifically, the decision offers no sound basis for distinguishing artesian water from any other category of ground water, including the dike-impounded percolating waters involved in this case. [Footnote omitted.] Modern hydrology has erased the traditional distinctions among ground water categories. See [A. Dan] Tarlock, [ Law of Water Rights and Resources ], § 4:5 [ (2000) ]. Present knowledge and necessity have also compelled states to abandon the absolute dominion or common law rule, which imposed no limitation on a landowner to drain percolating water to the injury of his or her neighbors. See id. §§ 4:7 to 4:18; City Mill, 30 Haw. at 926-33 (recognizing the general trend away from the rule of absolute ownership). The City Mill court avoided the issue, stating that the common law rule may, or it may not, be applicable to waters merely oozing in or seeping through soil. 30 Haw. at 924. Presented with it here, we adopt the correlative rights rule in City Mill in relation to all the ground water resources of our state. To the extent that previous cases may be construed as following the absolute dominion rule for certain ground water categories, see Davis v. Afong, 5 Haw. 216, 222-23 (1884); Wong Leong v. Irwin, 10 Haw. 265, 270 (1896), they are hereby overruled. Id. at 178, 9 P.3d at 490. Correlative rights, however, extend only to uses on lands overlying the water source, and, therefore, [p]arties transporting water to distant lands are deemed mere `appropriators,' subordinate in right to overlying landowners. [43] Id. (relying on Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, 74 P. 766, 772 (1903)) (emphasis added). Moreover, Waiahole established that the relevant Code provisions, and not the common law doctrine of correlative rights, apply to WMAs: Finally, although the common law rules of riparian and correlative rights impose certain restrictions on the export of water out of the watershed or to nonoverlying lands, the Code expressly provides: The common law of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, the Commission shall allow the holder of a use permit to transport and use surface or ground water beyond overlying land or outside the watershed from which it is taken if the commission determines that such transport and use are consistent with the public interest and the general plans and land use policies of the State and counties. HRS § 174C-49(c). The foregoing provisions, therefore, reflect the legislative purpose of substituting, in designated management areas, a comprehensive regulatory system based on permits issued by the Commission in place of the common law regime of water rights administered by the courts.... Id. at 179, 9 P.3d at 491 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Inasmuch as the entire island of Moloka`i has been designated a WMA, the common law doctrine of correlative rights is inapplicable to the present matter. That being the case, the Commission erred in concluding that MR-Wai`ola has correlative rights to make reasonable use of the water.... Even if MR-Wai`ola had correlative rights with respect to their lands in Kamiloloa, however, such rights would not have included the right to transport groundwater outside the Kamiloloa aquifer system. Wai&amacr;hole, 94 Hawai`i at 178, 9 P.3d at 490. Nevertheless, assuming that the Commission renders similar findings on remand with respect to MR-Wai`ola's satisfaction of the conditions requisite to obtaining a water use permit, as set forth in HRS §§ 174C-49(a)(4), (5), and (6), MR-Wai`ola has the right to transport groundwater beyond the Kamiloloa aquifer system, pursuant to HRS § 174C-49(c). As previously mentioned, the right to transport water outside the watershed of origin is contingent upon a finding by the Commission that such transport and use are consistent with the public interest and the general plans and land use policies of the state and counties. See HRS § 174C-49(c), supra note 1. Although the Commission did not expressly invoke HRS § 174C-49(c) to establish the prerequisite for permitting MR-Wai`ola to transport or use... ground water beyond overlying land or outside the watershed from which it is taken, the Commission nevertheless made the necessary findings in the context of determining that MR-Wai`ola's application satisfied the conditions prescribed by HRS §§ 174C-49(a)(4), (5), and (6). In particular, the Commission expressly found that the proposed use was consistent with the public interest, as required by HRS § 174C-49(a)(4), when it favorably considered the impact of the proposed use on Moloka`i's economy and natural environment. See FOF Nos. 111-168; see also supra note 33. Moreover, the Commission expressly found that the proposed use was consistent with state and county general plans and land use designations, see HRS § 174C-49(a)(5), and county land use plans and policies, see HRS § 174C-49(a)(6). See FOF Nos. 182-200. As discussed supra in section III.B.3, the Commission did not clearly err in rendering the foregoing FOFs; accordingly, and notwithstanding that the Commission erroneously characterized MR-Wai`ola as having correlative rights to make reasonable use of its permitted water, the Commission's FOF with respect to HRS §§ 174C-49(a)(4), (5), and (6) establish the findings, as set forth in HRS § 174C-49(c), requisite to allowing MR-Wai`ola to transport and use groundwater outside the Kamiloloa aquifer system. F. The Commission Erred In Granting An Interim Water Use Permit For MR-Wai`ola's Proposed Future Uses. The Kahae intervenors argue that the Commission erred in granting an interim water use permit, pursuant to HRS § 174C-50(e) (1993), [44] inasmuch as MR-Wai`ola had applied for a water permit for a new use, pursuant to HRS § 174C-49(a). [45] The Kahae intervenors further contend that, by granting an interim permit, the Commission impermissibly shifted the burden of establishing the conditions set forth in HRS § 174C-49(a) to the opponents of the application, thereby giving MR-Wai`ola the benefit of the doubt as to the potential effect of the future withdrawal of groundwater from the Kualapu'u aquifer. MR-Wai`ola concedes that the Commission erred in granting an interim permit for a new use and that the Commission should have issued a permanent permit. [46] MR-Wai`ola, however, contends that the Kahae intervenors incorrectly assume that, because the Commission issued an interim permit, it must have reviewed MR-Wai`ola's application for a water use permit under HRS § 174C-50, rather than HRS § 174C-49(a). In this connection, MR-Wai`ola asserts that the Kahae intervenors' argument ignores the Commission's COL No. 5, which expressly and unequivocally states that the Commission, in fact, reviewed MR-Wai`ola's application pursuant to HRS § 174C-49(a) and that MR-Wai`ola bore the burden of proof with respect to the seven conditions contained therein. Pursuant to HRS § 174C-48(a), see supra note 17, [n]o person shall make any withdrawal, diversion, impoundment, or consumptive use of water in any designated [WMA] without first obtaining a permit from the commission.... See also HRS § 174C-53(a) (pertaining to new uses) and HRS § 174C-53(b) (pertaining to existing uses), supra note 5. As discussed supra in section III.B, HRS § 174C-49(a), see supra note 1, prescribes the conditions requisite to obtaining a water permit for a new use, which include, inter alia, that the applicant ... establish that the proposed use of water ... [w]ill not interfere with any existing legal use of water. See HRS § 174C-49(a)(3). By contrast, HRS §§ 174C-50(a) and (e), see supra note 44, provide that [a]ll existing uses of water in a designated [WMA] ... may be continued after [the effective date of designation] only with a permit and that [t]he commission shall issue an interim permit; provided that the existing use meets the conditions of subsection (b). (Emphasis added.) Based on the foregoing, the Code provides, pursuant to HRS § 174C-50, for the issuance of an interim use permit only for existing legal uses. It is apparent from the Commission's FOFs that MR-Wai`ola's application was correctly construed as seeking a new use of water, pursuant to HRS § 174C-49. Moreover, as duly noted by MR-Wai`ola in its answering brief, the Commission's COL No. 5 expressly stated that MR-Wai`ola's application was for a new use governed by HRS § 174C-49, which place[d] the burden on [MR-Wai`ola] to establish that the proposed water use [met] all of the ... seven criteria by a preponderance of the evidence. Quite perplexing in light of the foregoing FOFs and COLs, however, the Commission set forth the following in its decision: The Commission approves the issuance of an interim water use permit for the Kamiloloa-Wai`ola Well (Well No. 0759-01) for the reasonable-beneficial use of 655,928 gpd as listed in Exhibit 1, the Table of Allocations Approved, subject to the standard water use permit conditions of Attachment E, and the following special conditions: A. This interim water use permit shall cease to be interim and shall become subject to [HRS] § 174C-55, [47] upon the administrative review of the quantity within 5 years, provided that all of the use (including the review of the quantity which shall not be greater than the amount initially granted) remain the same. (Emphases added.) Furthermore, in its answering brief, the Commission seems to reaffirm the validity of its decision to issue an interim use permit by stating that the decision and order contain additional elements that ensure a just and reasonable situation.... The additional elements are that the Commission ... issues an interim water use permit for only five years even though the Commission has the latitude to issue a permit for a longer time.  (Emphasis added.) Simply put, we are unable to glean from the FOFs, COLs, or any other part of the record before us the Commission's reasons for issuing an interim use permit in the present matter. Although the proposed well would accommodate both existing and future uses e.g., 146,370 gpd from the proposed well would service existing customers on Moloka`iMRWai`ola's water use application seeks to establish a new groundwater source from which to make such uses. Currently, MR-Wai`ola does not control any source of potable groundwater to service its existing customers on Moloka'i. Rather, as we have noted, MR-Wai`ola purchases water from the County, DHHL, and KMI. Consequently, the proposed well in Kamiloloa would enable MR-Wai`ola to service its existing and future customers directly without an intermediary wholesaler. [48] We therefore hold that the proposed well in Kamiloloa constitutes a new use, irrespective of whether a portion of the water derived therefrom would be utilized for existing purposes; accordingly, the Commission erred in granting MR-Wai`ola an interim use permit, ostensibly pursuant to HRS § 174C-49(a).