§174C-2  Declaration of policy.  (a)  Itis recognized that the waters of the State are held for the benefit of thecitizens of the State.  It is declared that the people of the State arebeneficiaries and have a right to have the waters protected for their use.

(b)  There is a need for a program ofcomprehensive water resources planning to address the problems of supply andconservation of water.  The Hawaii water plan, with such future amendments,supplements, and additions as may be necessary, is accepted as the guide fordeveloping and implementing this policy.

(c)  The state water code shall be liberallyinterpreted to obtain maximum beneficial use of the waters of the State forpurposes such as domestic uses, aquaculture uses, irrigation and other agriculturaluses, power development, and commercial and industrial uses.  However, adequateprovision shall be made for the protection of traditional and customaryHawaiian rights, the protection and procreation of fish and wildlife, themaintenance of proper ecological balance and scenic beauty, and thepreservation and enhancement of waters of the State for municipal uses, publicrecreation, public water supply, agriculture, and navigation.  Such objectivesare declared to be in the public interest.

(d)  The state water code shall be liberallyinterpreted to protect and improve the quality of waters of the State and toprovide that no substance be discharged into such waters without firstreceiving the necessary treatment or other corrective action.  The people ofHawaii have a substantial interest in the prevention, abatement, and control ofboth new and existing water pollution and in the maintenance of high standardsof water quality.

(e)  The state water code shall be liberallyinterpreted and applied in a manner which conforms with intentions and plans ofthe counties in terms of land use planning. [L 1987, c 45, pt of §2; am L 1999,c 197, §1]

 

Case Notes

 

  As water code expressly reserves the counties' authority withrespect to land use planning and policy, commission allegedly imposing a"directive" on the counties to designate priorities among proposeduses did not usurp counties' land use planning and zoning authority.  94 H. 97,9 P.3d 409.

  Commission did not err in excluding golf course irrigationfrom the category of "agricultural use".  94 H. 97, 9 P.3d 409.

  Commission on water resource management's conclusion that"no evidence was presented" to suggest that the rights of nativeHawaiians would be adversely affected by permit applicant's proposed useerroneously shifted the burden of proof to complainants; thus, commissionfailed to adhere to the proper burden of proof standard to maintain theprotection of native Hawaiians' traditional and customary gathering rights indischarging its public trust obligations.  116 H. 481, 174 P.3d 320.