Court Opinion

ID: 9550792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:42:36.084433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:28.087715
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
MARUMOTO, J.
This phase of the case is limited to two points mentioned *262in the foregoing per curiam, the points being: first, whether HRS § 7-1 was material to the determination of the water rights of the parties, and, second, whether the landowners in Hanapepe Valley, who were entitled to appurtenant water rights, had the right to divert such appurtenant water to watersheds beyond the Hanápepe Valley.
I discussed my view on the second point in my dissent reported at 54 Haw. 201, 504 P.2d 1356, and it is the view presented in the supplementary briefs with more elaboration.
I did not discuss the first point in my dissent, for the reason that I did not think that it was an issue on appeal. However, assuming that it was a proper issue on appeal, I think that HRS § 7-1 does not support the holding of the court in Part II of the opinion of the court at 54 Haw. 180, 504 P.2d 1335, that it reserved the title to flowing water to the State for the common good. On the point, I concur in the historical analysis in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Levinson.