Opinion ID: 2581050
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Windward Parties and HTF have standing to appeal issues beyond the setting of the IIFS.

Text: As a threshold matter, Campbell Estate asserts that the Windward Parties and HTF may not even have standing to appeal other issues, i.e., Campbell Estate's transfer of the EP-15/16 permit and the 2,500 gad, once the Water Commission set the IIFS. Specifically, Campbell Estate argues that the Windward Parties and HTF are not aggrieved parties on issues beyond the setting of the IIFS. This argument is without merit. The Water Code provides that [j]udicial review of rules and orders of the commission under this chapter shall be governed by chapter 91. HRS § 174C-12. In a contested case hearing, [o]pportunities shall be afforded all parties to present evidence and argument on all issues involved. HRS § 91-9(c) (emphases added). Any person aggrieved by a final decision and order in a contested case ... is entitled to judicial review thereof under this chapter.... HRS § 91-14. A person aggrieved is a person whose interests were injured. Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawai'i County Planning Comm'n, 79 Hawai'i 425, 434, 903 P.2d 1246, 1255 (1995). However, where the interests at stake are in the realm of environmental concerns, we have not been inclined to foreclose challenges to administrative determinations through restrictive applications of standing requirements. Ka Pa'akai O Ka'aina v. Land Use Comm'n, State of Hawai'i, 94 Hawai'i 31, 42, 7 P.3d 1068, 1079 (2000) (citations, brackets, and quotations marks omitted). In the contested case hearings, the Windward Parties and HTF were granted standing and were permitted to participate in all aspects of the case. Campbell Estate does not challenge the Water Commission's decision to grant standing or allow participation as error. Contrary to Campbell Estate's contention, the Windward Parties' and HTF's standing does not cease upon the establishment of an IIFS, inasmuch as all issues presented before the Water Commission and this court ultimately affect the amount of water released into the windward streams. As such, we hold that the Windward Parties' and HTF's standing continues, as it did in the contested case hearing, beyond the setting of the IIFS. In the alternative, Campbell Estate argues that the Windward Parties failed to exhaust their administrative remedies because they failed to offer any evidence at the hearing on remand. In its D & O II, the Water Commission found that the windward parties had full and fair opportunity to present these issues and did present these issues in the context of this contested case hearing based on the evidence presented. D & O II at 130. Campbell Estate does not expressly challenge the Water Commission's finding. See Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai'i 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002) (Findings of fact, however, that are not challenged on appeal are binding on the appellate court.); Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 135, 839 P.2d 10, 35 (1992) (Alleged error in findings of fact not expressly challenged on appeal will be disregarded in the absence of plain error.). Moreover, a perusal of the record indicates that the Windward Parties addressed the issue in their opening statement and the record contains sufficient evidence for this court to review it. As such, Campbell Estate's argument is without merit. [10]