Opinion ID: 2515085
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sovereign immunity has been waived for the underlying action

Text: Under HRS ง 661-1, [26] sovereign immunity is waived in all claims against the State founded upon any statute. HRS ง 661-1(1). In this case, the legislature has waived the State's sovereign immunity for the action underlying this case, through HRS ง 343-7. At the time Sierra Club filed its complaint, HRS section 343-7 provided: (a) Any judicial proceeding, the subject of which is the lack of assessment required under section 343-5, shall be initiated within one hundred twenty days of the agency's decision to carry out or approve the action, or, if a proposed action is undertaken without a formal determination by the agency that a statement is or is not required, a judicial proceeding shall be instituted within one hundred twenty days after the proposed action is started. The council or office, any agency responsible for approval of the action, or the applicant shall be adjudged an aggrieved party for the purposes of bringing judicial action under this subsection. Others, by court action, may be adjudged aggrieved. (b) Any judicial proceeding, the subject of which is the determination that a statement is required for a proposed action, shall be initiated within sixty days after the public has been informed of such determination pursuant to section 343-3. Any judicial proceeding, the subject of which is the determination that a statement is not required for a proposed action, shall be initiated within thirty days after the public has been informed of such determination pursuant to section 343-3. The council or the applicant shall be adjudged an aggrieved party for the purposes of bringing judicial action under this subsection. Others, by court action, may be adjudged aggrieved. (c) Any judicial proceeding, the subject of which is the acceptance of an environmental impact statement required under section 343-5, shall be initiated within sixty days after the public has been informed pursuant to section 343-3 of the acceptance of such statement. The council shall be adjudged an aggrieved party for the purpose of bringing judicial action under this subsection. Affected agencies and persons who provided written comment to such statement during the designated review period shall be adjudged aggrieved parties for the purpose of bringing judicial action under this subsection; provided that the contestable issues shall be limited to issues identified and discussed in the written comment. HRS ง 343-7 (1993) (emphases added). [27] As this court noted in Sierra Club I, [HRS chapter 343] provides for judicial review at various stages of the process: (1) when no EA is prepared, (2) [when] an agency determines that an EIS will or will not be required, and (3) when an EIS is accepted. 115 Hawai'i at 308, 167 P.3d at 301 (citing HRS ง 343-7(a)-(c)). This court has stated that it is well-settled that statutory construction dictates that an interpreting court should not fashion a construction of statutory text that ... creates an absurd or unjust result. Nihi Lewa, Inc. v. Dep't of Budget & Fiscal Servs., 103 Hawai'i 163, 168, 80 P.3d 984, 989 (2003) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting Dines v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., 78 Hawai'i 325, 337, 893 P.2d 176, 188 (1995)). Although the text of HRS ง 343-7 does not explicitly state that suits may be brought against the State, interpreting the text of subsections (a), (b), and (c) as something other than a waiver of sovereign immunity would create an absurd result. HRS ง 343-7 specifies when judicial actions may be initiated to challenge: (1)  the lack of assessment required under section 343-5,  HRS ง 343-7(a) (emphasis added); (2) the determination that a statement is required for a proposed action, HRS ง 343-7(b); or (3) the acceptance of an environmental impact statement required under section 343-5, HRS ง 343-7(c). Under HRS chapter 343, actions initiated by both agencies and applicants require the preparation of environmental assessments. See HRS ง 343-5(b), (c). [28] More significantly, only a state agency can prepare and determine whether a statement is required for a proposed action. See HRS ง 343-5(b), (c). Similarly, the final acceptance of an environmental impact statement rests with the governor, a mayor, or an approving agency. See HRS ง 343-5(b), (c). [29] Through HRS ง 343-7, the legislature authorized judicial review of actions that can only be carried out by state agencies or political subdivisions of the State. See HRS ง 343-7. HRS ง 343-7 also provides that these lawsuits may be brought by parties, other than the agency or the applicant, who may be adjudged aggrieved. HRS ง 343-7(b), (c). This court stated in Sierra Club I that we have interpreted the adjudged aspect of this phrase to mean no more than that a party must show in a court action brought under ง 343-7(a) that they are aggrieved and must be adjudged aggrieved, in concert with a challenge to the lack of an EA statement. [ Sierra Club v.] Hawai`i Tourism Auth., 100 Hawai'i [242,] 262, 59 P.3d [877,] 897 [(2002)] (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). No special finding is requiredโbut a plaintiff must bear the burden of establishing standing as they would in any other matter. See also Kepo'o v. Kane, 106 Hawai'i 270, 285, 103 P.3d 939, 954 (2005). 115 Hawai'i at 328 n. 40, 167 P.3d at 321 n. 40 (emphasis in original). As stated previously, this court found in Sierra Club I that Sierra Club had established procedural standing in this case. Id. at 333, 167 P.3d at 326. Accordingly, HRS ง 343-7 waived the state's sovereign immunity against actions brought to challenge: (1) the lack of an EA, (2) the determination that an EIS is or is not required, and (3) the acceptance of an EIS.