Opinion ID: 2570404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The LUC improperly delegated its duty to KD.

Text: KD argues, however, that Hawaiian rights are adequately protected because the LUC's Condition No. 18 requires KD to preserve and protect any gathering and access rights of native Hawaiians who have customarily and traditionally exercised subsistence, cultural and religious practices on the subject property. KD further maintains that its conceptual RMP will adequately protect any such rights. This wholesale delegation of responsibility for the preservation and protection of native Hawaiian rights to KD, a private entity, however, was improper and misses the point. These issues must be addressed before the land is reclassified. In Hui Alaloa, this court held that, contrary to statutory mandates, the Maui Planning Commission impermissibly delegated its authority to determine whether a development complied with the policies and objectives of the CZMA to the applicants for a special management area permit. In that case, following testimony on behalf of all the parties, the planning commission granted permits to two developers conditioned upon retention of a qualified archaeologist to conduct a further survey and excavation of the area, and to `prepare a written report to maximize information retention through preservation or salvage of significant archaeological sites and to provide a plan for protecting, restoring, interpreting, and displaying historical resources either preserved on or salvaged from the subject areas.' Id. at 137, 705 P.2d at 1044. The planning commission also directed one petitioner's archaeologist to determine the significance of various archaeological sites, and required both petitioners to eliminate all grading or construction impact on any significant archaeological sites prior to salvage and preservation. Id. On appeal, this court first identified the CZMA's objectives and policies of identify[ing] and analyz[ing] significant archaeological resources; maximiz[ing] information retention through preservation of remains and artifacts or salvage operations; and support[ing] State goals for protection, restoration, interpretation, and display of historic resources. Id. at 135, 705 P.2d at 1043 (citing HRS § 205A-2(c)(2)(A)-(C) (brackets added)). We emphasized that a specific findingthat the developments are consistent with the CZMA's objectives of protecting and preserving historic and pre-historic resourcesmust first be made before a SMA permit can be issued. Id. (citing Mahuiki, 65 Haw. 506, 654 P.2d 874). We therefore concluded that [t]he determination whether the development complies with the policies and objectives of the CZMA regarding historical and archaeological significance was, in essence, left to the applicants contrary to the statutory command governing the issuance of SMA permits. Id. See also Idaho v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 35 F.3d 585, 596 (D.C.Cir.1994) (agency impermissibly abdicated its regulatory responsibility where it allowed a private licensee, alone, to assess the total environmental impact of its activities); Sierra Club v. Sigler, 695 F.2d 957, 962 n. 3 (5th Cir.1983) ([A]n agency may not delegate its public duties to private entities[.]) (Citing Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43, 59 (5th Cir.1974)), rehearing denied, 704 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir.1983); Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. I.C.C., 848 F.2d 1246, 1258 (D.C.Cir.1988) (The Interstate Commerce Commission may not delegate to parties and intervenors its own responsibility to independently investigate and assess the environmental impact of the proposal before it.) (Citations omitted.), certiorari denied, 488 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 783, 102 L.Ed.2d 775 (1989). Here, as in Hui Alaloa, the delegation of the protection and preservation of native Hawaiian practices to KD under KD's RMP was inappropriate. As noted above, the LUC found that KD will develop and implement its RMP, which would in the future  coordinate development with native Hawaiian rights to coastal access for the purpose of traditional cultural practice. [34] The LUC's verbatim adoption of KD's conceptual RMP and KS/BE's future study, without any analysis of the project's impact, violates the LUC's duty to independently assess the impacts of the proposed reclassification on such customary and traditional practices. [35] Moreover, such balancing of the developer's interests with the needs of native Hawaiians should have been performed, in the first instance, by the LUC. Second, as indicated, the LUC granted the boundary reclassification conditioned upon KD preserving and protecting  any gathering and access rights of native Hawaiians who have customarily and traditionally exercised subsistence, cultural and religious practices on the subject property. Pursuant to our decision in PASH, the petitioner's obligation to allow access for traditional and customary practices continues to the extent that these practices can reasonably co-exist with the development of the property. 79 Hawai`i at 451, 903 P.2d at 1272. In the instant case, the boilerplate language in Condition No. 18 confers upon KD the unfettered authority to decide which native Hawaiian practices are at issue and how they are to be preserved or protected. Moreover, Condition No. 18 addresses only such native Hawaiian rights as are left enforceable after the development is complete, at some undetermined time and under indeterminate circumstances. [36] Specific considerations regarding the extent of customary and traditional practices and the impairment and feasible protection of those uses must first be made before a petition for a land use boundary change is granted. The power and responsibility to determine the effects on customary and traditional native Hawaiian practices and the means to protect such practices may not validly be delegated by the LUC to a private petitioner who, unlike a public body, is not subject to public accountability. Allowing a petitioner to make such after-the-fact determinations may leave practitioners of customary and traditional uses unprotected from possible arbitrary and self-serving actions on the petitioner's part. After all, once a project begins, the pre-project cultural resources and practices become a thing of the past. With the aforementioned framework in mind, see supra Section III.B.2., and based on history and precedent, we hold that, insofar as the LUC allowed KD to direct the manner in which customary and traditional native Hawaiian practices would be preserved and protected by the proposed developmentprior to any specific findings and conclusions by the LUC as to the effect of the proposed reclassification on such practicesthe LUC failed to satisfy its statutory and constitutional obligations. In delegating its duty to protect native Hawaiian rights, the LUC delegated a non-delegable duty and thereby acted in excess of its authority. We therefore remand this case to the LUC for the limited purpose of entering specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, with further hearing if necessary, regarding: (1) the identity and scope of valued cultural, historical, or natural resources in the petition area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the petition area; (2) the extent to which those resourcesincluding traditional and customary native Hawaiian rightswill be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and (3) the feasible action, if any, to be taken by the LUC to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist. [37]