Court Opinion

ID: 9550791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:42:36.080642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:26.792552
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.

Subsequent to the filing of the decision in this case on January 10,1973 (54 Haw. 174, 504 P.2d 1330 (1973)), petitions for rehearing were filed by some of the parties. By order of this court dated June 18, 1973, all the parties were requested to file supplementary briefs directed to the issues (1) whether HRS § 7-11 was material to the determination of the water rights of the parties, and (2) whether owners of parcels of land in the Hanapepe Valley, who were entitled to appurtenant water rights for taro raising at the time of the Mahele or the Land Commission Award, were entitled to apply the appurtenant water rights to parcels of land other than that to which the court found the right was appurtenant.
Arguments of the parties were heard at the rehearing had on September 18, 1973. After careful consideration of the briefs and arguments presented at the rehearing, we find no reason to change the decision filed herein.

 The pertinent portion of HRS § 7-1 reads:
“.... The people shall also have a right to drinking water, and running water, and the right of way. The springs of water, running water, and roads shall be free to all, on all lands granted in fee simple; provided, that this shall not be applicable to wells and water-courses, which individuals have made for their own use.”