I Ola Wailuanui
Today we argued our case in the 1st Circuit District Court on O’ahu as to why the use of these adjacent state parcels for the construction of a hotel should require environmental assessment. Thank you to everyone who came out to support us and listen to the arguments and stand for the restoration of Wailuanuiaho’āno.
Now we wait for the judges ruling 🙏🏽💜
#savewailua #defendwailua #publiclandsinpublichands #wetlands #lokoia #fishponds #wailua #kauai
GARYS COMMENTARY
I had the privilege of attending a court hearing on Oahu last week relating to the proposed Kaua’i Coco Palms Hotel development.
It was a surreal, informative, sad, but yet still hopeful morning.
On one side of the courtroom (literally and figuratively) was the Utah developer’s Hawaiʻi attorney sitting with the attorney for the State of Hawaiʻi representing the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).
They argued strongly in support of letting the developer use State-owned lands to support the resort development in spite of the lack of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by HRS 343 (the primary Hawaiʻi law requiring environmental review), AND in spite of the undisputed fact that the developer does not have an actual legal lease or permit to use the State lands in question.
On the other side sat two public interest attorneys representing community-based interests intent on preserving environmental, cultural, and historical elements connected to the property.
It was mind boggling really.
About 10 community members most of whom had flown over from Kaua’i were in attendance. This was their kuleana. They had worked hard to get this day in court.
Not one person was there supporting the developer’s position against increased environmental review, except of course the State attorney representing the State agency responsible for protecting the environment.
They argued back and forth.
When the public interest attorney stated the property in question was located in an area susceptible to sea level rise and thus in an “especially environmentally sensitive area” - which required by law at the minimum an environmental assessment, the other side actually said the sea level claim “was not supported by expert testimony”.
The parcel of land being discussed is located directly across the street from the beach in a tsunami zone. One doesn’t need an “expert” to determine whether these lands are susceptible to sea level rise.
I’ve personally seen the highway fronting the property covered in sand washed up by the waves after a large storm surge.
The developer and the DLNR attorney both also said the property had an inconsequential impact on the resort development and was used only for parking, thus its use involved minimal environmental impacts. According to them, this was all much ado about nothing.
In reality, the State-owned parcel in question abuts sensitive conservation lands that include a historical fishpond AND the parcel is actively being used as a staging area for the hotel demolition and construction. In addition 50 of the hotel’s required parking spaces are located on these public lands.
The facts are clear and unambiguous. This State-owned land is located in an especially environmentally sensitive area AND part of the resort development, thus an HRS 343 environmental impact review is required.
But “no” said the attorney representing the State agency responsible for protecting the environment in lock-step with the Utah developer’s attorney - both doing their best to beat the community who seek only to protect the public interest.
In spite of the apparent odds, I remain hopeful.
The judge in this case clearly had done her homework, clearly knew the law, and from her actions and comments that day - seemed balanced in her approach to the issues at hand.
In addition, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) and its Chair have shown a willingness to listen to our community, and to enforce the law. At this very moment, they’re investigating this developer for grading, grubbing, and dumping on conservation lands without the required permits. They’re also investigating the cutting down of countless coconut trees on State-owned conservation lands, without permission.
My hope is the judge will rule in support of ordering the BLNR to require an HRS343 environmental review (EA or EIS). My further hope is the BLNR will recognize its first responsibility is protection of the resource, then the publics use, and commercial use shall be considered only if it does not conflict or interfere with public use and resource protection. (1998 DLNR policy)
Note to my friends reading this who have the capacity to help:
While the public interest attorneys work for a very modest fee, Iolawailuanui does have ongoing legal expenses that must be paid and an online contribution of any amount would help tremendously.
Note to those who work with HRS343 -
It is critically important to understand that just because an action is on the "exemption list" doesn't mean it's automatically exempt. "All exemptions under subchapter 8 are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of planned successive actions in the same place, over time, is significant, or when an action that is normally insignificant in its impact on the environment may be significant in a particularly sensitive environment." Section 11-200.1-15
About the Author
Fern Holland, HAPA’s Community Organizer & Scientist
Follow HAPA:
About Hawaiʻi Alliance for Progressive Action
–
The Hawaiʻi Alliance for Progressive Action (HAPA) is deeply committed to championing social, economic, and environmental justice throughout Hawaiʻi. Recognizing the interconnected nature of food systems, we underscore that the challenges plaguing these systems are not isolated from broader social, economic, and environmental concerns. We believe in an integrated approach that addresses these interdependencies to create a just, equitable, and sustainable future for Hawaiʻi.
Contact: info@hapahi.org | (808) 212-9616
