Water rights | Public trust

Subscribe to Water rights | Public trust via RSS

We’re offline today because we’re arguing a case in the Hawaii Supreme Court about automatic approval statutes and zoning law. Here’s the summary of the issues, via the Judiciary web site:

This appeal arises out of a decision by the Respondent Planning Commission of the County of Kaua`i (Planning Commission) to deny the Petitioner Kauai Springs, Inc.’s (Kauai Springs) application for three permits related to the continued operation of Kauai Springs’ water bottling facility. The Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (circuit court) reversed in part and vacated in part the Planning Commission’s decision and ordered that all three permits be issued to Kauai Springs. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) subsequently vacated the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case to the Planning Commission for consideration of whether Kauai Springs could satisfy the relevant permit requirements.

In its application, Kauai Springs argues that the ICA gravely erred by: 1)…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Oral Arguments: Inferring Assent To Extend Auto-approval Deadlines

Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected certiorari (remember that under our procedures, you “apply” for cert which is “accepted” or “rejected”), and declined to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision in In re Campbell, No. 30006 (June 13, 2013), the case involving Land Court registration (Torrens title) and mineral and metallic mining rights.

The ICA held than an encumbrance does not exist if it does not appear on a Land Court registered title. In this case, the encumbrance was mineral and metallic mining rights, which the Territory of Hawaii claimed it reserved in a Royal Patent. The ICA concluded that if the Territory did so, its rights were extinguished when in 1938 it appeared in the Land Court to assert its other rights, but failed to raise the mining claims:

We hold that the Original [1938] Decree and the Original Certificate of Title extinguished the express government reservations…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Rejects Cert In Land Court Registration Case

Here’s the State’s Reply Brief supporting its application for cert and responding to the landowner’s BIO in the land court registration case, In re Campbell. The brief argues that “[t]his is no minor land dispute,” and “that the State is very concerned about the ICA Opinion.”

What’s so important about the State’s claimed reservation of mineral and metallic mines that had made it put up this kind of resistance? It’s not like there’s a whole lot of mining potential on Oahu’s north shore (unless its big waves they’re after). Scroll down to page 4 to get to what we suspect is the real gold that’s at stake here: geothermal rights (something Hawaii probably has in abundance):

If this Court grants the State’s application for writ of certiorari, it will have to consider whether minerals and metallic mines were ever part of the “bundle of sticks” conveyed by a…

Continue Reading Final Brief In Land Court Registration Case

Here’s the Response to Application for Writ of Certiorari by the State of Hawaii, which opposes the State’s cert app asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review for grave error the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ opinion in In re Trustees Under the Will of the Estate of James Campbell, No. 30006 (June 13, 2013).

That’s the case in whic the ICA held that the intent of the land court registration provisions (Torrens title) in Chapter 501 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes is to “preserve the integrity of titles,” slip op. at 11, and “a certificate of title is unimpeachable and conclusive except as otherwise provided by law.” Id. That seems straightfoward enough, as any dirt lawyer in a state with a Torrens registration system knows. These systems, in which the state guarantees indefeasable title to the rights and interests reflected in the register, remain active in a…

Continue Reading Response To Cert Application In Land Court Registration Case

Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post for a while, if only because it presents a fascinating issue about the nature of Torrens title (so much so that we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation in the Intermediate Court of Appeals).

The State of Hawaii has filed an Application for a writ of certiorari, asking the Hawaii Supreme Court to review for grave error the ICA’s opinion in In re Trustees Under the Will of the Estate of James Campbell, No. 30006 (June 13, 2013).

In that case, the ICA held that the intent of the land court registration provisions in Chapter 501 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes is to “preserve the integrity of titles,” slip op. at 11, and “a certificate of title is unimpeachable and conclusive except as otherwise provided by law.” Id.  That seems straightfoward enough, as any dirt lawyer…

Continue Reading New HAWSCT Cert Application: State Not Required To Preserve Encumbrances In Land Court Registration

Just over a month ago, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a federal takings case could actually proceed in federal court. Well yesterday, the same court issued a similar opinion in a related case, Town of Nags Head v. Toloczko, No. 12-1537 (Aug. 27, 2013).

We won’t go into detail because this post, by J. David Breemer at Pacific Legal Foundation (who also is counsel for the prevailing property owners) sets it all out very well.  But the decision involves abstention (Federal Courts law school flashback), Williamson County, and  beaches and public trust, so it’s well worth a read on its own.

If that doesn’t grab you, then nothing will!

Town of Nags Head v. Toloczko, No. 12-1537 (4th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013)


Continue Reading 4th Cir (Again): Federal Takings Claim Should Be Heard In Federal Court

This really was a “blockbuster” Term for the Supreme Court and takings law: no less than three cases (and four, maybe five, if you expand it slightly to include property-owner favorable cases such as Lozman and last term’s Sackett), and as Gideon Kanner noted recently, the CLE sessions are flying fast and furiously.

Here’s another one, with a great angle: our ABA colleague Ed Thomas, President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association and the guy who knows just about everything there is to know about disaster preparedness, disaster response, and property rights, is speaking tonight (Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 7:00 pm MT) along with BYU lawprof Lisa Grow Sun, about the Supreme Court’s takings cases:

This session will explore the legal landscape for community development and hazard mitigation/climate adaptation. Specifically, there has been tremendous press coverage of many U.S. Supreme Court decisions this term. One…

Continue Reading Today’s Free Webinar – Mitigation Options Affected by the Supreme Court in 2013: Koontz and Other Game Changers

Here’s one not to miss, not only because it’s free, but because it features our PLF colleague Paul Beard II, arguing and prevailing counsel in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgm’t Dist., No. 11-1447 (June 25, 2013): on Wednesday, July 17, 2013, from 2:00 – 3:30 pm ET, Greenberg Traurig and PLF are sponsoring a live chat:

In Koontz, one of the most important Takings Clause cases in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the doctrine of  unconstitutional conditions established in the Nollan and Dolan cases applies to all land use permit applications – even if the excessive condition leads to a permit denial, and even if the condition involves the payment of money rather than dedication of real property. This extension of Nollan/Dolan principles has far reaching implications for real estate, environmental, and other federal and state permitting actions. The significance and implications…

Continue Reading Upcoming Live Chat: Koontz – How Far Has Nollan/Dolan Been Extended

The Supreme Court has denied cert in Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (cert. petition filed Jan. 17, 2013).

That’s the case in which the Federal Circuit held that a 22-year old takings case was not ripe because even though the agency denied Hage’s every application for a grazing permit, it might issue a special use permit that might allow the use of the water he alleges was taken. The issue in the case was whether it is a taking for the government to cut off physical access to a property owner’s vested right to use water. The Court of Federal Claims awarded $4.2 million in just compensation for the taking of Hage’s water rights. But the Federal Circuit reversed because the case was not ripe.

In a different phase of the case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada recently held that the…

Continue Reading Cert Denied In Western Water Rights Case

Yesterday, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In re Trustees Under the Will of the Estate of James Campbell, No. 30006 (June 13, 2013), a fascinating case involving the nature of Torrens title. In doing so, the court rebuffed the State of Hawaii’s attempted land grab, which would have undermined the sanctity of all Land Court titles, and, in a sense, the very notion of property rights and settled expectations. The ICA also rejected the State’s attempt to transform the “public trust” doctrine into a physical servitude that would have allowed the State to flood land without consequence.

Before we go further, this disclosure: we filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation in the case in support of the property owner.

Torrens (Land Court) Title

With that out of the way, some background. Hawaii is one of the few remaining states retaining…

Continue Reading HAWICA Thwarts State’s Massive Land Grab