Reppun v. Board of Water Supply
Hawaii Supreme Court
65 Haw. 531, 656 P.2d 57, cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014, 105 S.Ct. 2016, 85 L Ed.2d 298 (1985)
- Written by Nathan Benedict, JD
Facts
Reppun and other taro farmers in Hawaii (Reppun) (plaintiffs) relied upon water from the Waihee stream to irrigate their crops. The Board of Water Supply (BWS) (defendant) reduced the flow of water from the Waihee stream reaching Reppun’s land through a series of dikes and wells. The reduced flow led to an infestation of pythium, a destructive fungus, damaging the taro crops. Reppun sued, seeking to enjoin the BWS from diverting water from the Waihee stream. Reppun argued that he had riparian rights to the natural flow of the Waihee stream and appurtenant rights for all lands that were being used to grow taro at the time of the Great Mahele (King Kamehameha III’s redistribution of land in 1848). The BWS argued that it had purchased the rights claimed by Reppun. The trial court ruled for Reppun, holding that riparian water rights could not be severed from their appurtenant land and that any attempt to do so was a nullity. BWS appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Richardson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
