Wednesday, June 12, 2024
Hawai'i Free Press

Current Articles | Archives

Monday, December 3, 2012
ICA Mandates 'Contested Case' for Water Disputes
By Robert Thomas @ 7:26 PM :: 6083 Views :: Environment, Land Use

HAWICA: Water Commission Needs To Conduct Contested Case When Amending In-stream Flow Standards

by Robert Thomas,

Guess what? The Water Commission got it wrong again. The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals held in this unpublished memorandum order that the Commission must hold a "contested case" hearing upon demand when the Commission sets "interim in-stream flow standards" under the Water Code (in other words, how much water should be allocated to whom and where for particular streams).

The dispute in this appeal was whether the process to establish those standards is about setting policy -- meaning the Commission need only hold a legislative-type public hearing -- or determined particular parties' rights -- in which case a trial-like contested case is required. The ICA concluded it was the latter.  There are three instances when an agency must hold an adjudicatory hearing: when required by the agency's own rules, when required by a statute, or when required by due process because the party asking for a contested case has some "property interest" that could be affected by the agency's decision.

Here, there isn't a rule or a statute requiring the Commission to conduct a trial to set interim in-stream flows, so the court analyzed whether the parties demanding a contested case had some constitutional rights at stake. Referencing a recent Hawaii Supreme Court decision from the same petition which the ICA characterized as holding that "the Commission's decisions setting or amending the IIFS can affect constitutionally protected property interests," the ICA concluded that the ability to "live, work, and play" in the areas of the streams at issue, and the native Hawaiian rights that stem therefrom, are a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. These rights are "new property" entitlements (see Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972))  because they have a statutory basis in the Water Code. Because setting in-stream flows might affect these rights, the Commission needed to hold an adjudicatory hearing if asked.

Thought 1: Water rights in Hawaii are supposed to be about the "public trust" as well as private rights. But decisions like these mean that for the public to have its voice heard when the Commission establishes stream flows, it must do so in the context of an adjudicatory hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act. Which means you aren't testifying unless you are a percipient or expert witness. You have no stake in the outcome unless you formally intervene in a timely fashion and establish that you have some material stake in the outcome. You can't contact the agency members ex parte. The material the Commission can consider is limited to the (admittedly very expansive) rules of evidence. We're not sure how these limitations can be squared with the public's right to participate in setting stream flows which, after all, are supposed to be for public benefit. Implicit in these type of decisions are that certain private rights are more important than the public's general rights. Which may not be a bad thing.

Thought 2: The Hawaii Supreme Court has a very strong body of decisional law concluding that all sorts of expectations are constitutionally-protected property. This case adheres to that line of cases, so is not really surprising. 

Disclosure: we represent one of the many parties to this appeal, but did not take a position on these issues.



TEXT "follow HawaiiFreePress" to 40404

Register to Vote


Aloha Pregnancy Care Center


Antonio Gramsci Reading List

A Place for Women in Waipio

Ballotpedia Hawaii

Broken Trust

Build More Hawaiian Homes Working Group

Christian Homeschoolers of Hawaii

Cliff Slater's Second Opinion

DVids Hawaii


Fix Oahu!

Frontline: The Fixers

Genetic Literacy Project

Grassroot Institute

Hawaii Aquarium Fish Report

Hawaii Aviation Preservation Society

Hawaii Catholic TV

Hawaii Christian Coalition

Hawaii Cigar Association

Hawaii ConCon Info

Hawaii Debt Clock

Hawaii Defense Foundation

Hawaii Family Forum

Hawaii Farmers and Ranchers United

Hawaii Farmer's Daughter

Hawaii Federation of Republican Women

Hawaii History Blog

Hawaii Jihadi Trial

Hawaii Legal News

Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rental Alliance

Hawaii Matters

Hawaii Military History

Hawaii's Partnership for Appropriate & Compassionate Care

Hawaii Public Charter School Network

Hawaii Rifle Association

Hawaii Shippers Council

Hawaii Together


Hiram Fong Papers

Homeschool Legal Defense Hawaii

Honolulu Navy League

Honolulu Traffic

House Minority Blog

Imua TMT

Inouye-Kwock, NYT 1992

Inside the Nature Conservancy

Inverse Condemnation

July 4 in Hawaii

Land and Power in Hawaii

Lessons in Firearm Education

Lingle Years

Managed Care Matters -- Hawaii

Missile Defense Advocacy

MIS Veterans Hawaii

NAMI Hawaii

National Parents Org Hawaii

NFIB Hawaii News

NRA-ILA Hawaii


OHA Lies

Opt Out Today

Patients Rights Council Hawaii

Practical Policy Institute of Hawaii

Pritchett Cartoons

Pro-GMO Hawaii

Rental by Owner Awareness Assn

Research Institute for Hawaii USA

Rick Hamada Show

RJ Rummel

School Choice in Hawaii

Talking Tax

Tax Foundation of Hawaii

The Real Hanabusa

Time Out Honolulu

Trustee Akina KWO Columns

West Maui Taxpayers Association

What Natalie Thinks

Whole Life Hawaii