Diamond v. Dobbin., 319 P.3d 1017

Background

This case concerns shoreline certification under Hawaii’s coastal zone laws, with the DLNR’s BLNR denying and then amending a shoreline certification for a Kauai property owned by Dobbin and Wagner and contested by Diamond and Blair.
The shoreline is defined by the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, evidenced by vegetation or debris, and the shoreline certification process is governed by HRS §205A-42 and HAR §13-222-10/26-.
Galloway’s 2005 shoreline certification application and a 2008 application by Dobbin/Wagner prompted site inspections, maps, and public notices; Petitioners challenged the DLNR’s location of shorelines and the use of vegetation as shoreline evidence.
The BLNR issued a June 25, 2009 certification based on Wagner’s map and a 2008 site visit; Petitioners appealed, but the circuit court vacated/ remanded portions of that decision in April 2010.
On remand, the BLNR issued an Amended Decision in May 2010 with revised findings; Petitioners again challenged the Amended Decision as inconsistent with the remand and governing law.
The Hawaii Supreme Court ultimately vacated the ICA’s ruling and remanded to the circuit court with instructions to remand to the BLNR for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether historical evidence must be considered in shoreline determinations.	Diamond argues the BLNR must assess historical wash data beyond the current year.	Dobbin/Wagner contend only the current year’s data and expert determinations should drive the shoreline.	Shoreline determinations must consider historical evidence, not limited to the current year.
Whether the BLNR’s Amended Decision complied with remand and Diamond I objectives.	Petitioners contend the Amended Decision misapplied the law and relied on artificially induced vegetation.	Dobbin/Wagner argue the Amended Decision reflects comprehensive, multi-factor analysis.	Amended Decision violates Diamond I and remand instructions; must align with proper statutory interpretation and case law.
Whether the BLNR erred in considering evidence and testimony (e.g., Wichman) in a contested case.	Wichman testimony and historical declarations are relevant and admissible evidence.	BLNR deemed some evidence unreliable or non-expert-format.	BLNR erred in disregarding admissible historical testimony; evidence must be weighed appropriately.
What standard governs appellate review of agency findings and conclusions here.	Petitioners seek proper deference to the BLNR’s findings.	BLNR should be afforded deference; agency expertise supports the decision.	Court applies clearly erroneous standard to findings and de novo review to conclusions; not a blanket deference.
Whether the ultimate shoreline location remains valid or must be remanded further.	Shoreline should reflect the furthest reach evidenced by vegetation or debris as required by statute.	Current location was based on multi-variable considerations.	Because of legal and factual errors, remand to BLNR is required for proper determination.

Key Cases Cited

Ashford v. Agsalud, 50 Haw. 314 (Haw. 1968) (shoreline defined by upper wash evidenced by vegetation or debris line)
Sotomura v. County of Hawai‘i, 55 Haw. 176 (Haw. 1973) (public boundary along upper wash; long-standing public right to shoreline)
Diamond v. Board of Land & Nat. Resources (Diamond I), 112 Haw. 161 (Haw. 2006) (vegetation vs debris line for shoreline; ancestry of definitions in HRS 205A-1; multi-factor approach not to allow artificial vegetation lines)
Paul v. Department of Transportation, 115 Haw. 416 (Haw. 2007) (presumption of agency validity; heavy burden on challengers; deference standards in administrative review)
Kilauea Neighborhood Association v. Land Use Commission, 7 Haw. App. 227 (Haw. App. 1988) (requirement for reasoned findings and trackability of agency reasoning)
Ashford (republication of related authorities), 50 Haw. 314 (Haw. 1968) (reliable precedent for kama‘aina reputation evidence in boundary disputes)