In Hawaii, the concept of water rights is fundamentally tied to the public trust doctrine and the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, which governs the management and disposition of state lands, including water resources. When considering the allocation and use of water, particularly surface water, the State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) plays a pivotal role. HRS §174C-31 outlines the conditions under which a permit for the withdrawal of water is required. This statute establishes a permitting system for all new withdrawals of water, with certain exceptions. The question probes the understanding of when a permit is absolutely mandated, focusing on the distinction between existing, legally recognized uses and new appropriations or significant alterations to existing uses. The underlying principle is that all water resources are held in trust for the benefit of the people of Hawaii, and their use must be managed sustainably and equitably. This requires a regulatory framework that oversees any activity that could impact the quantity, quality, or availability of water for present and future generations. The absence of a permit for a new or substantially altered water withdrawal would constitute a violation of this regulatory scheme, irrespective of whether the water is for agricultural, industrial, or municipal purposes. The key is the nature of the withdrawal itself and its compliance with the established permitting process.

The Hawaii Water Code, specifically HRS Chapter 174C, establishes a comprehensive framework for water resource management. A key aspect of this code is the concept of “reserved water rights” for Native Hawaiians, which are recognized and protected. While the State of Hawaii, like other Western states, operates under a prior appropriation system for surface water, the management of groundwater and the recognition of traditional and customary rights introduce unique complexities. HRS §174C-3 defines water resources broadly to include both surface and ground waters. The protection of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights in water is a fundamental principle, often requiring a balancing act with other water uses. This balancing is frequently adjudicated through contested case hearings before the Commission on Water Resource Management. The concept of “beneficial use” is central to the prior appropriation doctrine, but in Hawaii, this must be interpreted in light of constitutional protections for native Hawaiian rights. The State’s approach emphasizes integrated water resource management, considering all water sources and uses, including the cultural and historical significance of water. The protection of instream uses, which are crucial for maintaining ecological health and supporting traditional practices, is also a significant component of Hawaii’s water law. The State’s regulatory authority extends to the allocation and management of all water resources, with a mandate to protect public health and safety, promote the conservation of water resources, and ensure the protection of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights.

The Hawaiian Islands, with their unique geological formations and reliance on both surface and groundwater resources, present a complex legal framework for water management. Central to this framework is the concept of the public trust doctrine, which, as interpreted in Hawaii, extends to the protection of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights. When considering the allocation and management of water resources, the Hawaii Water Code, specifically HRS Chapter 171, outlines the powers and duties of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. This board is tasked with managing state lands, including water resources, for the benefit of the people of Hawaii. The doctrine of customary and traditional rights, recognized in the Hawaii Constitution, requires that these rights be protected and not unreasonably diminished. In situations involving competing demands for water, such as agricultural use versus maintaining stream flows for ecological and cultural purposes, the Board must balance these interests. The legal standard for diminishing such rights often involves demonstrating a compelling public purpose and ensuring that the diminution is the minimum necessary to achieve that purpose, while also considering the cumulative impact on the resource and the rights holders. The concept of “reasonable-beneficial use” is a cornerstone of water law, but in Hawaii, this is further nuanced by the constitutional mandate to protect traditional and customary practices. Therefore, a proposal to divert water for a new large-scale agricultural project that would significantly reduce stream flow in a valley historically used for traditional aquaculture and religious ceremonies would likely face rigorous scrutiny under the public trust doctrine and the constitutional protection of native Hawaiian rights, requiring a strong showing of necessity and minimal impact on existing cultural practices.

In Hawaii, the concept of correlative rights, particularly as applied to groundwater, is crucial. While surface water rights are often governed by riparian or prior appropriation principles, groundwater is generally managed under a system that recognizes the common source. When a landowner drills a well and extracts groundwater, they have a right to a reasonable and beneficial use of that water, but this right is limited by the correlative rights of other landowners who also draw from the same aquifer. This means that no single user can extract water in a manner that unreasonably depletes the common supply to the detriment of others. Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 175, concerning ground water, and the Hawaii Administrative Rules, particularly those administered by the Commission on Water Resource Management, outline the framework for managing groundwater resources. This framework emphasizes preventing waste, unreasonable use, and unreasonable diminution of the supply. Therefore, a landowner’s right to extract groundwater is not absolute; it is constrained by the need to ensure the continued availability of the resource for all users sharing the aquifer. This principle underpins the regulatory approach to groundwater management in Hawaii, aiming for equitable distribution and sustainable use.

The question revolves around the concept of Native Hawaiian water rights and their relationship to modern water management in Hawaii, specifically concerning the Public Land Development Corporation (PLDC). Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, the PLDC was established to facilitate development on public lands. However, the exercise of water rights, particularly those derived from traditional and customary practices of Native Hawaiians, is a paramount consideration in Hawaii’s water law. Article XI, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution recognizes and protects traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights, including those related to water. This constitutional provision mandates that the State shall protect and promote the health of the environment and shall also protect traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights. When public lands, which may be subject to Native Hawaiian water rights, are considered for development under entities like the PLDC, the State must ensure that these rights are not infringed upon. This involves a careful balancing act, often requiring the State to demonstrate that development plans do not impair existing Native Hawaiian water uses or the cultural and subsistence practices associated with them. The State’s duty to protect these rights is a fundamental aspect of Hawaii water law, predating and often superseding other land use considerations, unless a compelling public interest can be demonstrated and accommodated without undue harm to the protected rights. Therefore, the PLDC’s authority to develop public lands is inherently constrained by the State’s constitutional obligation to protect Native Hawaiian water rights.

Hawaii’s water law is rooted in the doctrine of customary and traditional native Hawaiian rights, alongside statutory provisions. The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, concerning public lands, and HRS Chapter 174C, the State Water Code, are foundational. The concept of “appurtenance” is critical, meaning water rights are often tied to the land. When land is subdivided or transferred, the water rights associated with that land may be subject to specific rules. In Hawaii, the State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) is the primary agency responsible for administering water resources. The Public Trust Doctrine, as interpreted by Hawaii’s courts, mandates that the state protect and conserve water resources for the benefit of present and future generations, encompassing traditional and customary practices. This doctrine is not a static concept but evolves through case law. The CWRM’s authority extends to the regulation of both surface and ground water. The process for seeking new water use permits or modifications to existing permits involves public notice and hearings, allowing for input from various stakeholders, including those asserting traditional and customary rights. The concept of “imposition of conditions” on water use permits is a key tool for the CWRM to ensure compliance with the Public Trust Doctrine and other statutory requirements. These conditions can relate to the quantity of water, the timing of use, or measures to protect stream ecosystems and traditional practices. Understanding the interplay between common law principles, statutory mandates, and the unique cultural context of Hawaii is essential for navigating its water law.

In Hawaii, the concept of water rights is intrinsically linked to the public trust doctrine and the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, which governs the management and disposition of state lands, including water resources. When considering the transfer of rights to water resources, particularly those historically managed by the state, the process is not a simple sale or conveyance. Instead, it involves a careful consideration of public interest, existing water rights, and the potential impact on the environment and future generations. HRS Chapter 171, while primarily dealing with state land, also touches upon the management of associated resources like water. However, the specific allocation and regulation of water use, especially for non-traditional purposes or large-scale commercial ventures, often falls under the purview of the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) and is guided by HRS Chapter 174C, the Hawaii Water Code. This code establishes a comprehensive system for water resource management, including permitting, water use and development plans, and the protection of water sources. The question hinges on the understanding that water, as a public resource in Hawaii, cannot be privately owned in the same way as land. Therefore, any “transfer” of rights to utilize water is more accurately described as a permit or a lease, subject to stringent state oversight and public benefit considerations, rather than a fee simple ownership transfer. The process would involve an application to the relevant state agency, likely the CWRM, demonstrating a beneficial use that aligns with public policy and the Hawaii Water Code’s objectives, including the protection of traditional and customary rights and instream flow standards. The state retains ultimate sovereignty over water resources.

The question revolves around the concept of Native Hawaiian water rights and their recognition within Hawaii’s water code, particularly in relation to the reservation of water for traditional and customary practices. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §174C-3 defines water use and establishes a state water code. However, the recognition and quantification of Native Hawaiian water rights are primarily rooted in Article XI, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution, which mandates the protection and regulation of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights, including those related to water resources. This constitutional provision is further interpreted and applied through judicial decisions, such as the landmark *Love v. Maeda* case, which affirmed that the state has a duty to protect these rights. The State Water Code, while comprehensive, must be administered in a manner consistent with these constitutional mandates. Therefore, when the Commission considers applications for new water diversions, it must ensure that existing and potential Native Hawaiian water rights, particularly those associated with traditional and customary practices like loʻi cultivation, are not adversely affected. This involves a careful balancing of competing water uses and a recognition of the paramount importance of protecting these constitutionally protected rights. The process requires the Commission to consider the historical and cultural significance of water sources and their use by Native Hawaiians, ensuring that any new appropriations do not diminish the ability of Native Hawaiians to continue their traditional and customary practices. The State Water Code, specifically HRS §174C-10, outlines the process for water use applications and the considerations the Commission must undertake, including the protection of traditional and customary rights.

Hawaii’s water law framework, particularly concerning surface water, is rooted in the concept of the public trust doctrine and the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, which governs state lands and resources, including water. The State of Hawaii, through its Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), manages and regulates the use of water resources. When considering the dedication of state land for a public purpose, such as agricultural development, the paramount consideration is the public interest in the water resources associated with that land. This involves a careful balancing of competing uses and ensuring that the dedication does not impair existing or future beneficial uses, especially those vital to the state’s ecological health and cultural heritage. The concept of “appurtenant rights” also plays a significant role, referring to water rights that are historically tied to specific lands, often established through ancient Hawaiian customs or early plantation agreements. These rights, while recognized, are not absolute and are subject to the overarching public trust obligations. Therefore, any proposed dedication must undergo a rigorous review process to ascertain its consistency with the public trust, considering factors like the quantity of water available, the potential impact on stream ecosystems, traditional and customary practices, and the overall benefit to the state’s population. The DLNR’s decision-making process is guided by these principles, aiming to achieve sustainable water management that serves the broad public good.

Hawaii’s water law, particularly concerning groundwater, operates under a system that balances competing uses and recognizes the unique hydrological characteristics of the islands. The concept of “reasonable and beneficial use” is central, but its application is nuanced. When considering the allocation of groundwater, especially in areas with established water use permits, the doctrine of prior appropriation, as modified by Hawaii’s unique legal framework, plays a significant role. Specifically, Chapter 171 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) and related administrative rules govern the management of water resources. The State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) is the primary agency responsible for this management. In situations where a proposed new use of groundwater might impact existing permit holders or the sustainability of the aquifer, the CWRM must consider the potential adverse effects. This includes evaluating the aquifer’s recharge rates, the existing demand, and the potential for saltwater intrusion, a critical concern in island aquifers. The legal standard for approving new permits or modifications to existing ones often requires demonstrating that the proposed use will not unreasonably harm existing users or the environment. This involves a careful assessment of the hydrological data and the legal rights of all parties. The burden of proof often lies with the applicant to show that their proposed use meets the legal requirements. The concept of “vested rights” is also important, referring to water uses established prior to the formalization of the water code, which are generally respected but still subject to regulation for the common good and resource protection. The CWRM’s decision-making process involves public hearings and consideration of scientific evidence, ensuring a comprehensive review of any proposed water allocation changes.

The Hawaii Water Code, specifically HRS Chapter 174C, establishes a comprehensive framework for water resource management. A critical aspect of this framework is the process for obtaining a water use permit. When a permit application is submitted, the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWM) must evaluate it against several statutory criteria to ensure that the proposed use is consistent with the public interest and the sustainable management of Hawaii’s finite water resources. Key considerations include the applicant’s ability to utilize the water efficiently, the potential impact on other users and the environment, and the consistency of the proposed use with the state water code and any applicable county land use plans. HRS §174C-23 outlines the factors the commission must consider when issuing or denying a permit, emphasizing the need to protect existing water rights and prevent waste. The commission also has the authority to impose conditions on permits to mitigate potential adverse effects. The question probes the understanding of the procedural and substantive requirements for obtaining a water use permit in Hawaii, focusing on the Commission’s mandate to balance competing interests and ensure responsible water allocation.

Hawaii’s water law is rooted in the doctrine of correlative rights for groundwater, particularly in managing subterranean water resources. This doctrine posits that landowners overlying a common aquifer have a correlative right to a reasonable share of the groundwater. When an aquifer is being depleted due to excessive pumping, the state, through the Commission on Water Resource Management, can implement regulations to ensure the sustainability of the resource. These regulations often involve establishing groundwater management areas and imposing restrictions on pumping based on the principle of reasonable and beneficial use, as codified in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 174C. The concept of “waste” is central; any use of water that is not reasonable and beneficial is considered waste and can be prohibited or regulated. In situations of competing demands and limited supply, the Commission must balance the needs of various users, including agriculture, municipal supply, and ecological flows, while adhering to the correlative rights of overlying landowners. The Commission’s authority extends to issuing permits for water use and enforcing regulations to prevent over-extraction, thereby protecting the aquifer for present and future generations. The allocation is not strictly pro-rata based on land ownership but considers the reasonable and beneficial use by each user within the context of the aquifer’s sustainable yield.

The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 (HHCA) is a federal law that established a program to provide opportunities for native Hawaiians to lease and purchase land. Water rights are intrinsically linked to land use and development, particularly within the context of the HHCA. The Act, as amended, and subsequent interpretations by Hawaii’s courts have established specific considerations for water allocation and management for beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission. When the State of Hawaii, through its agencies like the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), manages water resources that may be utilized by native Hawaiian beneficiaries under the HHCA, it must do so in a manner that respects and, where applicable, prioritizes the water needs of these beneficiaries. This includes ensuring that water reservations or allocations made for the benefit of native Hawaiians are not diminished or impaired by other water uses or permits issued by the state. The principle is that water is a vital resource for the cultural, subsistence, and economic well-being of native Hawaiians, and the state has a trust responsibility to protect these interests. Therefore, any proposed water use that could impact existing or potential water reservations for HHCA beneficiaries requires careful review and adherence to the statutory and case law governing the HHCA and water rights in Hawaii. This involves considering the historical context of water use by native Hawaiians and the specific provisions within the HHCA that aim to restore and enhance their access to land and its associated resources, including water.

The concept of a “water development plan” in Hawaii, particularly as it relates to the Hawaii Water Code, involves a comprehensive strategy for managing and developing water resources to meet the needs of the state. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 174C, the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) is tasked with developing and implementing such plans. These plans are crucial for balancing competing water uses, including agriculture, municipal supply, industry, and environmental protection, especially in a state with unique hydrological systems and limited freshwater resources. The development process typically involves extensive data collection, scientific analysis, public participation, and consideration of existing water rights and permits. A key aspect is the establishment of sustainable yield for aquifers, which guides the allocation of water and prevents over-extraction. The plans also address infrastructure needs, conservation measures, and the protection of groundwater and surface water quality. The statutory framework emphasizes a holistic approach, recognizing the interconnectedness of water resources and the need for long-term planning to ensure the availability of water for future generations, while also respecting the traditional Hawaiian concepts of water management and stewardship. The question tests the understanding of the primary objective and scope of these water development plans as mandated by Hawaii’s water law.

The Hawaiian Supreme Court case of *In re Water Use Permit Applications* (also known as the “Hakalau” case) established a critical principle regarding the Hawaiian Water Code, HRS Chapter 174C. This case affirmed that the state, through the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM), has a fiduciary duty to protect and preserve the natural resources of Hawaii, including its freshwater resources, for the benefit of present and future generations. This duty is rooted in the Hawaiian Constitution and the public trust doctrine. When considering applications for water use permits, the CWRM must undertake a comprehensive review that prioritizes the protection of instream flows, groundwater reserves, and the ecological integrity of water systems. This includes assessing the potential impacts of proposed diversions on stream ecosystems, native Hawaiian water rights (appurtenant rights), and the overall sustainability of water resources. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate that their proposed use is consistent with the public trust and will not harm these essential public interests. Therefore, any permit issuance must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the water resource can sustain the proposed withdrawal without detriment to the public’s right to the continued availability and quality of water. This proactive and protective approach is fundamental to water management in Hawaii, distinguishing it from many other states where water rights may be more strictly tied to riparian or prior appropriation doctrines without the same level of inherent public trust consideration. The concept of “beneficial use” in Hawaii’s water law is interpreted through this lens, meaning a use must not only be economically or socially advantageous but also ecologically sound and consistent with the state’s trust obligations.

Hawaii’s water law is deeply rooted in the concept of public ownership of water resources, as established by the Hawaii Constitution and further refined through legislative action and judicial interpretation. The state’s approach prioritizes beneficial uses and the protection of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights. When considering the transfer of water use permits, particularly from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, the Hawaii Water Code, specifically Chapter 171 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), and its administrative rules, such as the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 13-169, are paramount. These provisions mandate a rigorous review process that balances competing demands and ensures that any reallocation serves the public interest. Key considerations include the impact on existing water users, the environment, and the economic and social welfare of the state. The Land Use Commission’s role in land use district reclassifications, which often precedes water use permit modifications for non-agricultural purposes, is also critical. The commission must consider the State Water Code and its objectives when making land use decisions that affect water availability and allocation. Therefore, a permit holder seeking to convert agricultural water to a non-agricultural use, such as a resort development, must navigate both the Water Code’s permitting process and potentially the Land Use Commission’s approval, demonstrating that the proposed new use is a beneficial use and does not unduly harm public trust resources or existing rights. The analysis involves a comprehensive assessment of the proposed use’s impact on the watershed, stream flows, groundwater recharge, and the potential for cumulative impacts from other water uses. This comprehensive review aims to ensure sustainable water management for the benefit of all present and future users in Hawaii.

The question probes the nuanced application of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, specifically concerning the management and disposition of state submerged lands and the associated water resources. HRS § 171-58 governs leases of submerged lands and lands bordering navigable waters. It mandates that any lease of such lands must contain provisions for the protection of public rights in navigation, fishing, and recreation. Furthermore, HRS § 171-59 requires that leases of submerged lands for aquaculture purposes must include terms ensuring the protection of marine life and the ecological integrity of the area. When considering a lease for a private marina development on state submerged lands in Hawaii, the primary legal obligation is to ensure that the development does not unduly impede public access and use of the waters, which are considered public trust resources. This includes maintaining navigable channels, ensuring continued public fishing access, and preserving recreational opportunities. The Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) has the authority to impose conditions on such leases to achieve these objectives. The concept of “reasonable use” is central, balancing private development interests with the public’s inherent rights to the state’s aquatic resources. Therefore, a lease for a private marina would be most appropriately conditioned to protect public fishing rights and maintain navigability for recreational boating, as these directly relate to the public’s established rights on navigable waters and submerged lands.

In Hawaii, the doctrine of correlative rights governs groundwater use among overlying landowners. This doctrine, as applied in the state, emphasizes that each landowner with land overlying a common groundwater source is entitled to a reasonable share of the water. This right is not absolute and is subject to the correlative rights of other overlying owners. When a groundwater source becomes insufficient to meet the reasonable needs of all overlying landowners, the available water must be equitably apportioned among them. This apportionment is based on the concept of “reasonable use,” which considers factors such as the landowner’s needs for beneficial use, the size of their overlying property, and the productivity of the aquifer. The state, through its water management agencies, plays a crucial role in determining and enforcing these apportionments to prevent waste and ensure the sustainability of the resource. Unlike riparian rights, which are tied to surface water flowing in a watercourse, correlative rights pertain specifically to groundwater beneath the surface. The principle aims to balance individual property rights with the collective need for a shared resource, preventing a “first in time, first in right” scenario that could deplete the aquifer for later users. The allocation is not based on the amount of water extracted but rather on the equitable distribution of the available supply.

The Hawaii Water Code, specifically Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, establishes the framework for the management and disposition of state lands, including water resources. While HRS Chapter 171 deals with state land management broadly, the allocation and regulation of water use are primarily governed by HRS Chapter 174C, the Hawaii Water Code. This chapter establishes a comprehensive system for water resource management, including the designation of water management areas, the issuance of water use permits, and the protection of water sources. The concept of “appurtenant rights” in Hawaii, stemming from ancient Hawaiian customs and predating the Territory of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii, refers to water rights that are tied to the use of land, particularly agricultural land that was historically irrigated. These rights are considered a form of riparian or prior appropriation right, depending on the specific historical context and the nature of the water source. When considering the transfer of state land that includes appurtenant water rights, the State, through the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), must balance the disposition of state land with the ongoing protection of these vested water rights. The process involves ensuring that any new use or transfer does not diminish or impair existing appurtenant water rights. This often necessitates careful consideration of water availability, the historical patterns of use, and the legal protections afforded to these rights under Hawaiian law. The State’s role is to manage these resources for the benefit of all, which includes respecting established rights while also promoting sustainable water use for future generations. The question probes the specific legal mechanism by which the State of Hawaii manages the disposition of state lands that are subject to pre-existing appurtenant water rights, emphasizing the legal obligations and considerations involved.

In Hawaii, the concept of customary and traditional native Hawaiian rights to water is a significant consideration in water allocation and management, as established by the Hawaii Constitution and subsequent case law. Article XI, Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution recognizes and protects traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights. This includes the right to gather, cultivate, and utilize traditional Hawaiian plants and resources, which are inherently linked to water access and use. The State Water Code, particularly Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 174C, mandates that water management plans consider these rights. When a proposed water use or diversion impacts areas where such rights are exercised, a thorough assessment must be conducted to ensure these rights are not unreasonably diminished or infringed upon. This often involves consultation with Native Hawaiian practitioners and organizations, and the establishment of mechanisms to ensure continued access and use. The burden of proof can shift, requiring the applicant for a water use permit to demonstrate that their proposed use does not adversely affect existing customary and traditional rights. The allocation process, therefore, is not solely based on economic efficiency or existing non-native uses but must incorporate a holistic approach that respects the cultural and historical connection of Native Hawaiians to water resources. This principle is a cornerstone of water law in Hawaii, distinguishing it from many other U.S. states where water rights are primarily governed by prior appropriation or riparian doctrines without the same explicit constitutional protection for indigenous rights.

The Hawaiian Water Code, specifically HRS Chapter 171, governs the management and disposition of state lands, including water resources. Under this chapter, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) has the authority to manage and control state waters. When considering the dedication of state water for a specific use, particularly for agricultural purposes on ceded lands managed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), the BLNR must balance various public trust obligations and statutory requirements. HRS §171-58 addresses the leasing of state lands for agricultural purposes, and while it doesn’t directly mandate a specific dedication process for water separate from the land lease, the overarching principles of water management under HRS Chapter 171 and the public trust doctrine are paramount. The dedication of water resources, especially those historically used or considered culturally significant, requires a careful assessment of existing rights, potential impacts on other users and the environment, and adherence to the public trust duties, which include the protection of traditional and customary Hawaiian practices. The BLNR’s decision-making process for dedicating state water involves public hearings and consideration of the proposed use’s consistency with the Hawaii Water Plan and other state resource management objectives. The allocation and dedication of water are administrative actions taken by the BLNR, not judicial decrees or legislative mandates in this context. The concept of “beneficial use” is central to water rights in Hawaii, but the dedication of state water for a specific purpose by the state itself, as a proprietor, is an administrative act of management under its sovereign powers. Therefore, the BLNR’s administrative action is the mechanism through which state water is dedicated for such purposes, subject to review and public input.

The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 (HHCA) established a unique framework for managing lands set aside for native Hawaiians. A key aspect of this act, and its subsequent interpretations, relates to the allocation and management of water resources within these lands. The Act grants the Hawaiian Homes Commission broad authority over these lands and their appurtenant resources, including water, for the benefit of native Hawaiian beneficiaries. This authority is distinct from the general water rights framework governed by Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 171 and the Public Land Development Corporation. When considering water rights on Hawaiian Home Lands, the specific provisions of the HHCA and the trust responsibilities of the Commission take precedence. The principle of “beneficial use” is central to water law in Hawaii, but its application on Hawaiian Home Lands must be understood within the context of the HHCA’s mandate to provide homes and opportunities for native Hawaiians. This includes ensuring that water is available for agricultural, residential, and other purposes that support the beneficiaries’ well-being. The concept of “vested rights” is also critical, as existing water uses established prior to or under the HHCA may be protected. However, the Commission’s duty to manage water for the long-term benefit of native Hawaiians means that new allocations or modifications to existing rights must align with this trust obligation. Therefore, any analysis of water use on these lands must first consider the HHCA’s specific provisions and the Commission’s fiduciary duties, which may supersede general state water law principles in certain circumstances.

The concept of appurtenance in Hawaii water law dictates that water rights are generally tied to the land they serve. When land is subdivided, the water rights associated with that land are typically divided proportionally among the new parcels. This principle is rooted in the historical development of water use in Hawaii, particularly concerning ancient Hawaiian water rights (kōhō wai) and their subsequent evolution under the Territory and State. The subdivision of a parcel of land that has a decreed water right from a surface stream, for instance, does not automatically extinguish or diminish the total volume of that decreed right. Instead, the right is apportioned. If a parcel with a decreed flow of 100 inches from a stream is subdivided into two equal parcels, each new parcel would generally be entitled to 50 inches, assuming the original right was fully transferable and appurtenant to the entire parcel. This apportionment ensures that the historical beneficial use of the water is maintained across the divided landholdings. The State of Hawaii, through the Commission on Water Resource Management, oversees the allocation and management of water resources, ensuring that any subdivision or transfer of water rights adheres to established legal principles and does not adversely impact existing uses or the resource itself. The principle of appurtenance is a cornerstone in resolving disputes and ensuring equitable distribution of water in scenarios involving land division.

The question probes the understanding of the Hawaii Water Code’s provisions regarding the establishment of water management areas and the subsequent process for obtaining water rights within those areas. Specifically, it tests knowledge of the requirement for a permit for any new appropriation of water after a water management area has been declared, as stipulated in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 174C. The establishment of a water management area signifies the state’s intent to regulate water use more stringently to protect water resources. Once an area is designated, any withdrawal or diversion of water that constitutes an “appropriation” under the code requires a permit from the Commission on Water Resource Management. This permit process involves an application that must demonstrate compliance with the principles of beneficial use and the overall water resource management plan for the area. The concept of “vested rights” is also relevant, as existing users prior to the designation of the area may have certain rights that are recognized, but new uses or expansions of existing uses are subject to the permitting regime. The core principle is that the Commission has the authority to manage and allocate water resources within designated areas to ensure their sustainability and equitable distribution, necessitating a formal application and approval process for any new or altered water use.

Hawaii’s water law framework, rooted in the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 174C, the Water Code, establishes a comprehensive system for managing the state’s precious water resources. A key principle is the recognition of water as a public resource, managed by the state for the benefit of all its citizens. The concept of “beneficial use” is central, meaning water can only be appropriated for purposes that are deemed useful and advantageous to the public interest. This includes uses like agriculture, municipal supply, industry, and recreation. The law also distinguishes between different types of water, such as surface water and groundwater, and outlines specific procedures for obtaining water use permits. The state’s authority to regulate water is broad, encompassing the allocation, protection, and conservation of these resources. This regulatory power is exercised through agencies like the Commission on Water Resource Management. The doctrine of correlative rights, often applied to groundwater, suggests that landowners overlying a common groundwater source have a right to a reasonable share of that water, but this right is subject to the overarching public trust doctrine and the state’s regulatory authority to prevent waste and ensure equitable distribution for the greatest public good. The state’s ability to impose conditions on water use permits, including metering, reporting, and limitations on the amount of water that can be withdrawn, is a critical tool for achieving these management goals. The prohibition against waste is a fundamental tenet, ensuring that water resources are not depleted unnecessarily.

Hawaii’s water law, rooted in both common law riparian principles and statutory provisions, emphasizes the protection of water resources for public use and the environment. The concept of “water is life” is central, influencing how rights and uses are adjudicated. When considering the transfer of water rights, particularly from agricultural to non-agricultural uses, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, specifically concerning state land and the disposition of natural resources, plays a crucial role. The Public Land Development Corporation (PLDC) under HRS §171-12, and its subsequent amendments, outlines the process for leasing state lands and appurtenant water rights. Any proposed lease or transfer that significantly alters existing water use patterns, especially if it impacts traditional and customary practices or public trust resources, requires rigorous environmental review under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), HRS Chapter 343. The Land Use Commission, established under HRS Chapter 205, also has jurisdiction over land use changes, which are intrinsically linked to water allocation. Therefore, a proposed transfer of water rights associated with agricultural land leased from the state for development into a new resort, while potentially permissible under certain conditions, must navigate these overlapping regulatory frameworks. The State Land Use Commission’s approval for a district boundary amendment, coupled with the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ (DLNR) consent to amend the lease terms to allow for the new use and associated water diversion, would be paramount. The core legal principle is that such transfers are not automatic and are subject to public interest review, ensuring that the allocation serves the broader community and environmental needs, rather than solely private economic gain. The DLNR, as the custodian of state lands and waters, must ensure that any such disposition aligns with the state’s long-term resource management goals and respects existing water rights, including those of native Hawaiians.

Hawaii’s water law, rooted in both common law principles and unique statutory frameworks, emphasizes the public trust doctrine and the concept of appurtenance. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 171, the state manages and disposes of public lands, including water resources. The doctrine of correlative user, often applied in groundwater disputes, suggests that landowners overlying a common groundwater source share the right to a reasonable and beneficial use of that water, provided it does not unreasonably impair the rights of other overlying owners. This doctrine is particularly relevant when considering the allocation of limited groundwater resources in arid or semi-arid regions of Hawaii. The concept of “reasonable and beneficial use” is paramount, meaning that water must be used for a purpose that is economically, socially, and environmentally sound, and that avoids waste. The state’s Land and Natural Resources Board has significant authority in determining these uses and allocating water rights, often through a permit system. The question probes the foundational principle guiding the allocation of groundwater among multiple overlying landowners in Hawaii, which is the correlative user doctrine, as it directly addresses the equitable distribution of a shared resource.

Hawaii’s water law system, rooted in the Public Trust Doctrine and codified in various statutes, emphasizes the protection of water resources for the benefit of the present and future generations. The Hawaii Water Code, specifically Chapter 174C of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, establishes a comprehensive framework for water management. A key aspect of this code is the process for designating water management areas and the subsequent regulation of water use within these areas. When considering the allocation of water resources, particularly in situations involving competing demands from agriculture, municipal supply, and environmental flows, the concept of “beneficial use” is paramount. Beneficial use, as defined and interpreted under Hawaii law, encompasses not only direct economic uses but also the preservation of instream uses for ecological, recreational, and aesthetic purposes. The determination of what constitutes a beneficial use is a complex, fact-specific inquiry made by the Commission on Water Resource Management. This process involves balancing competing interests and ensuring that water is used in a manner that maximizes public welfare while minimizing waste and protecting the environment. The Commission’s decisions are guided by principles of sustainability and the overarching mandate to manage water resources prudently. Therefore, any proposed water use must demonstrate its beneficial nature and its compatibility with the overall water management plan for the designated area.

In Hawaii, the concept of water rights is deeply intertwined with the Public Trust Doctrine and the specific provisions of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 174C, the State Water Code. The State Water Code establishes a comprehensive system for the management and regulation of water resources, including the establishment of water management areas and the issuance of water use permits. A crucial aspect of this system is the recognition that all waters are public waters and subject to regulation for the benefit of the people of Hawaii. When considering the allocation of water resources, especially in the context of competing demands such as agriculture, municipal use, and environmental flows, the concept of “reasonable and beneficial use” is paramount. This principle, derived from common law and codified in HRS § 174C-3, guides the Commission on Water Resource Management (CWM) in its decision-making process. The Commission must balance the needs of various users while ensuring the protection of instream uses, including the maintenance of ecosystems and traditional and customary practices. Furthermore, HRS § 174C-5 requires the Commission to consider the protection of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights in its water management decisions. This includes the recognition of rights to use water for traditional practices and cultural purposes. The question probes the understanding of how the State Water Code prioritizes and balances these competing interests, particularly when a proposed new use might impact existing allocations or the environment. The correct answer reflects the statutory mandate to consider the public interest, reasonable and beneficial use, and the protection of native Hawaiian rights when evaluating water use applications.

The concept of customary and traditional native Hawaiian rights to water is a cornerstone of Hawaii water law, as codified in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §171-58 and further elaborated through judicial decisions and administrative rules. These rights are not based on a fixed quantity of water but rather on the historical patterns of use and the cultural and subsistence needs of the Hawaiian people. When assessing the prioritization of water use, especially during times of shortage, Hawaii law mandates that customary and traditional rights be given significant consideration, often ranking them above other categories of water use. This prioritization is rooted in the recognition of these rights as inherent and pre-existing the modern water code. The Public Land Development Corporation (PLDC), now known as the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA), and its predecessors, have historically been involved in land and water management. However, their authority and actions concerning water rights are subject to the overarching principles of Hawaii water law, including the protection of native Hawaiian rights. Therefore, any allocation or reallocation decision must first satisfy these established customary and traditional uses before considering other beneficial uses. The Public Land Development Corporation, in its historical role, would have been obligated to ensure that its development projects did not infringe upon these protected rights, and in instances of conflict or scarcity, the customary and traditional uses would take precedence in any allocation framework.