Opinion ID: 2515085
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Act 2 is an exercise of legislative power over state lands.

Text: Sierra Club argues that section 1(d) and section 15 of Act 2 authorized Superferry to use State lands at Kahului Harbor that were subject to the operating agreement voided by the circuit court's October 9, 2007 order. Sierra Club further argues that this specific authorization is an exercise of legislative power over State lands. DOT and Superferry argue that Act 2 was not an exercise of legislative power over State lands but rather, an authorization for large capacity ferry vessels to operate during and after the environmental review process. They note that the circuit court reached the same conclusion during the November 14, 2007 hearing to dissolve the injunction and vacate the order invalidating the operating agreement. [7] For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Sierra Club regarding section 15 of Act 2.
Sierra Club's argument that section 1(d)(4) of Act 2 demonstrates an exercise of legislative power over State lands is unpersuasive. Section 1(d)(4) provides: The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the establishment of inter-island ferry service and, at the same time, protect Hawaii's fragile environment by clarifying that neither the preparation of an environmental assessment, nor a finding of no significant impact, nor acceptance of an environmental impact statement shall be a condition precedent to, or otherwise be required prior to: ... (4) The appropriation or expenditure of any funds, the use of state lands, the issuance of any permits, or the entering into of any agreements[.] Act 2, ง 1(d)(4) at 6-7. Section 1(d)(4) attempts to clarify which requirements are applicable to the use of State lands for the establishment of an inter-island ferry service. DOT, Superferry, and the circuit court are correct in that this section of Act 2 is an attempt to exercise legislative power over the existing procedural law and not a direct exercise of legislative power over lands owned or controlled by the State.
Sierra Club's argument that section 15 of Act 2 demonstrates an exercise of legislative power over State lands is more convincing. Section 15 of Act 2 provides, inter alia: Any state lands previously authorized to be used to facilitate or support the operation of a large capacity ferry vessel, shall be authorized to be used to effectuate the provisions of this Act. Act 2, ง 15 at 20. DOT and Superferry argue that rather than exercise legislative authority over State lands, section 15 of Act 2 merely ratified the pre-existing operating agreement between DOT and Superferry, which was an exercise of executive authority. We disagree. On September 7, 2005, DOT and Superferry entered into an operating agreement, which authorized Superferry to use the Facilities for the purpose of operating an interisland ferry system. The Facilities were defined as the Premises, State Equipment and Roadways, together with the pier areas, the pier backup and support areas, passenger terminal building(s), and all other buildings, structures, fixtures and areas thereon or therein, and any space designated for the exclusive or non-exclusive use of [Superferry], access routes, and equipment that the [State] deems is necessary, after consultation with [Superferry], to accommodate [Superferry's] interisland ferry service operations. The Facilities include non-exclusive rights of ingress to and egress from the Facilities for [Superferry], and its employees, customers, guests, contractors, suppliers, furnishers of services, and invitees in such manner and at locations the [State], after consultation with [Superferry], deems appropriate for [Superferry's] operations. The Facilities include the portion of the [Superferry] Equipment defined as the [Superferry] Modifications and do not include the [Superferry] Equipment other than the [Superferry] Modifications. The [State] reserves the right to approve the inclusion of any area, space, improvement, building, structure, pier, pier area, roadway, or access route as part of the Facilities. The Premises were defined as the areas in the [State] commercial harbors, located on the islands of Oahu (Honolulu Harbor), Maui (Kahului Harbor) [sic] Kauai (Nawiliwili Harbor) and Hawaii (Kawaihae Harbor), to and from which [Superferry] may conduct its interisland ferry service operations[.] The operating agreement, therefore, authorized Superferry to use lands under the control of the State, including lands at Kahului harbor. On October 9, 2007, the circuit court declared the operating agreement void [a]s it relates to the Kahului Harbor in Kahului, Maui because it was not preceded by the requisite [EA] which was a condition precedent to approval of the request and commencement of the proposed action. The operating agreement, as it related to the Kahului harbor lands, was void between October 9, 2007 and November 2, 2007, the date that the governor signed Act 2 into law. Section 15 of Act 2 reauthorized Superferry to use the lands at Kahului Harbor. The legal authority provided by DOT's exercise of executive power was removed by the circuit court's October 9, 2007 order rendering the operating agreement void as it related to the Kahului Harbor lands. Without the legal authority provided by Act 2 through an exercise of legislative power, the operating agreement would have remained void and unenforceable. Therefore, we hold that Act 2 was an exercise of legislative power over State lands.