Opinion ID: 870822
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ICA Dissent

Text: The dissent agreed with the plaintiffs' interpretation of HEPA and HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27, [13] concluding that a SEIS is required when significant changes to the anticipated environmental impacts of a proposed action become apparent such that an essentially different action is being proposed. Significant changes to the anticipated environmental impacts of a development project can arise from changes to the design of the project itself, changes to conditions surrounding the project, or the discovery of new information. In my view, [HEPA and its rules] do not restrict the responsible agency by only permitting it to consider changes to a project's anticipated environmental impacts when the design of a project itself has changed. Rather, in determining whether a[] SEIS is warranted,. . . the agency is authorized to consider not only the potential effects of design changes to the project, but whether changes to the conditions surrounding the project and newly discovered information may significantly affect the project's anticipated environmental impacts. Id. at 468, 209 P.3d at 1282 (Nakamura, J., dissenting). The dissent considered the overriding purpose of HEPA i.e., to ensure that an agency is provided with relevant information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project so that the agency can make informed decisions about the project, id. at 471, 209 P.3d at 1285 (citing HRS § 343-1 (1993))and concluded that [a] proposed project can become `an essentially different action' in terms of its environmental impacts due to changed circumstances surrounding the project or the discovery of new information, even if the project's design has not changed. Id. The dissent additionally reasoned, as discussed infra, that absurd results would stem from the majority's interpretation of HEPA and HAR §§ 11-200-26 and 11-200-27. Id. at 472, 209 P.3d at 1286. Thus, the dissent concluded that, [b]ecause of its erroneous view of the law, the DPP failed to consider appropriate factors and follow correct procedures in deciding not to require a[] SEIS. Id. at 474, 209 P.3d at 1288. The ICA filed its judgment on appeal on June 12, 2009. The plaintiffs filed a timely application for a writ of certiorari on September 8, 2009. [14] Thereafter, this court accepted the plaintiffs' application on October 13, 2009 and heard oral argument on December 17, 2009. [15]