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



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



(c)  The state water code shall be liberally
interpreted to obtain maximum beneficial use of the waters of the State for
purposes such as domestic uses, aquaculture uses, irrigation and other agricultural
uses, power development, and commercial and industrial uses.  However, adequate
provision shall be made for the protection of traditional and customary
Hawaiian rights, the protection and procreation of fish and wildlife, the
maintenance of proper ecological balance and scenic beauty, and the
preservation and enhancement of waters of the State for municipal uses, public
recreation, public water supply, agriculture, and navigation.  Such objectives
are declared to be in the public interest.



(d)  The state water code shall be liberally
interpreted to protect and improve the quality of waters of the State and to
provide that no substance be discharged into such waters without first
receiving the necessary treatment or other corrective action.  The people of
Hawaii have a substantial interest in the prevention, abatement, and control of
both new and existing water pollution and in the maintenance of high standards
of water quality.



(e)  The state water code shall be liberally
interpreted and applied in a manner which conforms with intentions and plans of
the 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 with
respect to land use planning and policy, commission allegedly imposing a
"directive" on the counties to designate priorities among proposed
uses 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 irrigation
from 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 native
Hawaiians would be adversely affected by permit applicant's proposed use
erroneously shifted the burden of proof to complainants; thus, commission
failed to adhere to the proper burden of proof standard to maintain the
protection of native Hawaiians' traditional and customary gathering rights in
discharging its public trust obligations.  116 H. 481, 174 P.3d 320.