Opinion ID: 1186369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether HRS ch. 343 Conflicts with the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act

Text: KCP/Waimana and State Defendants [8] argue that HRS ch. 343 conflicts with the HHCA and that EIS requirements do not apply to Hawaiian home lands for that reason. Plaintiffs and Amici argue that there is no conflict between HRS ch. 343 and the HHCA, and that EIS requirements do apply to Hawaiian home lands. This court addressed an analogous issue in State v. Jim, 80 Hawai`i 168, 907 P.2d 754 (1995). In Jim, the defendants were arrested at a shopping center situated on Hawaiian home land and were eventually convicted of criminal trespass in the second degree. Id. at 169, 907 P.2d at 755. The defendants argued that the HHCA prohibits State and county officials from executing the laws on Hawaiian home lands. Id. at 170, 907 P.2d at 756. Thus, the issue was essentially whether the Hawai`i Penal Code applies to Hawaiian home lands. In addressing this issue, we noted that section 206 of the HHCA specifies that [t]he powers and duties of the governor and the board of land and natural resources, in respect to lands of the State, shall not extend to lands having the status of Hawaiian home lands, except as specifically provided by this title. Id. (quoting HHCA § 206, 1 Haw.Rev.Stat. at 208) (emphasis in original). We further noted that a plain reading of HHCA § 206 demonstrates that executive power only in respect to lands of the state, shall not extend to Hawaiian home lands. Id. at 170-71, 907 P.2d at 756-57 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted) (emphasis added). We concluded that the limitation on executive power set out in HHCA § 206 was never intended to limit the police power of the State in the fashion envisioned by the Appellants, and they point to no authority to support their position. Id. at 171, 907 P.2d at 757. Thus, under Jim, police power regulations apply to Hawaiian home lands, and executive officials may enforce them, as long as these regulations do not significantly affect the land. Subsequently, Attorney General's Opinion No. 95-05 addressed the question whether state and federal endangered species laws, imposing civil and criminal penalties, apply to Hawaiian home lands. The Opinion concluded, based on Jim, that these laws also apply to Hawaiian home lands. [9] The present case, like Jim and Attorney General's Opinion No. 95-05, involves regulations enacted pursuant to the state's police power. The police power extends to the public safety, health, and welfare. State v. Ewing, 81 Hawai`i 156, 164, 914 P.2d 549, 557 (App.1996). See also State v. Lee, 55 Haw. 505, 513, 523 P.2d 315, 319 (1974). HRS ch. 343 involves EIS requirements and is therefore a type of environmental regulation. Clearly, environmental regulations are enacted for the purpose of protecting the public safety, health, and welfare. Consequently, the present case is similar to Jim in that HRS ch. 343, like the Hawai`i Penal Code, is a police power regulation. In fact, Attorney General's Opinion No. 95-05 extended the analysis in Jim to encompass the very same category of regulations as HRS ch. 343environmental regulations. Another aspect of this case that is similar to Jim is the fact that HRS ch. 343 does not significantly affect the land. HRS ch. 343 essentially requires decision makers to consider the potential impact of their projects on the environment and to prepare informational documents disclosing these effects. Chapter 343 requires that systematic consideration be given to the environmental and social consequences (in addition to the economic consequences) of proposed state, county, or private actions. State of Hawai`i, Office of Environmental Quality Control, A Guidebook for the Hawai`i State Environmental Review Process 1 (1992) [hereinafter Guidebook ]. It is the purpose of this chapter to establish a system of environmental review which will ensure that environmental concerns are given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations. HRS § 343-1 (1993). The procedure established by HRS ch. 343 focuses on preparation of certain informational documents. The agency or applicant proposing action must prepare an EA that describes the possible environmental effects of the project. HRS § 343-5(b) & (c) (1993). If the agency reviewing the EA determines that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIS must be prepared. Id. An EIS is an informational document ... which discloses the environmental effects of a proposed action, effects of a proposed action on economic and social welfare of the community and State, effects of the economic activities arising out of the proposed action, measures proposed to minimize adverse effects, and alternatives to the action and their environmental effects. HRS § 343-2 (1993). Additionally, various notice and comment procedures apply to both the EA and the EIS. See HRS § 343-5(b) & (c). Thus, it is clear that HRS ch. 343 primarily establishes procedural and informational requirements. While HRS ch. 343 can affect the land to a certain extent, these effects are incidental to the procedural and informational requirements at the heart of HRS ch. 343. As State Defendants and KCP/Waimana point out, the governor, or the governor's authorized representative, has the authority to accept a final EIS for an agency proposal. See HRS § 343-5(b)(1) (1993). Acceptance of a required final [EIS is] a condition precedent to implementation of the proposed action. HRS § 343-5(b) (1993). Thus, they argue, the governor could block a project on Hawaiian home lands by refusing to accept the final EIS. It is true that if a project's final EIS is not accepted, the project cannot go forward. However, [a]cceptability of a statement shall be evaluated on the basis of whether the statement, in its completed form, represents an informational instrument which fulfills the definition of an EIS and adequately discloses and describes all identifiable environmental impacts and satisfactorily responds to review comments. Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR) § 11-200-23(a). See also HRS § 343-2 (1993); Guidebook at 17. In addition, for an EIS to be acceptable, [t]he procedures for assessment, consultation process, review, and the preparation and submission of the statement [must] have all been completed satisfactorily[.] HAR § 11-200-23(b)(1). Thus, the governor's role in accepting an EIS is to ensure that the EIS includes the information required and has been prepared in accordance with the specified procedures. [10] Nonacceptance ( i.e., denial of acceptance) indicates that the procedural and informational requirements of HRS ch. 343 have not been fulfilled. Although nonacceptance has the incidental effect of stalling the proposed project, the principal objective is to ensure that decision makers consider potential environmental impacts and prepare informational documents. Therefore, the effect of HRS ch. 343 on the land is merely incidental to the procedural and informational nature of the statute. In many ways, the requirements of HRS ch. 343 resemble the requirements of the Hawai`i Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA), HRS ch. 91. Attorney General's Opinion No. 63-16 addressed the question whether HAPA applies to DHHL and ultimately concluded that it does. Both HRS ch. 343 and HAPA primarily establish procedural and informational requirements. Violation of the procedures described in HAPA can lead to the invalidation of state agency actions. See, e.g., Aguiar v. Hawaii Hous. Auth., 55 Haw. 478, 522 P.2d 1255 (1974). Thus, projects on Hawaiian home lands could be adversely affected by HAPA. However, this effect would be incidental to the primary purpose of HAPA, i.e., the establishment of fair administrative procedures. Just as the possibility of HAPA incidentally affecting projects on Hawaiian home lands does not prevent HAPA from being applied, the possibility of HRS ch. 343 incidentally affecting projects on Hawaiian home lands should not prevent HRS ch. 343 from being applied. The effect of HRS ch. 343 on the land is also incidental in that the statute does not affirmatively require DHHL to use the land for any particular purposes. Whereas application of other laws, such as zoning ordinances, would require DHHL to use Hawaiian home lands for specific purposes, HRS ch. 343 merely places a hold on particular DHHL projects until DHHL complies with the procedural and informational requirements of the statute. The incidental effect of HRS ch. 343 is even more obvious if the statute is compared to other government actions that have been the subject of Attorney General's opinions in the past. Attorney General's Opinion No. 75-3 dealt with the practice of setting aside land for public use by executive order. The Opinion concluded that setting aside Hawaiian home lands by this procedure conflicts with the HHCA. Clearly, such set asides have a direct and significant effect on the land. Once set aside, the land cannot be used for homesteading purposes and is effectively removed from the Hawaiian home lands program. Similarly, Attorney General's Opinion No. 72-21 dealt with the applicability of county zoning ordinances to Hawaiian home lands. The Opinion concluded that county zoning ordinances do not apply to Hawaiian home lands that are needed for homesteading purposes. Zoning laws affirmatively dictate how the land may be used and would therefore require DHHL to use Hawaiian home lands in a manner consistent with the relevant zoning classification. This would also constitute a direct and significant effect on the land. In contrast to these laws, HRS ch. 343 merely imposes procedural and informational requirements on DHHL projects and only has an incidental effect on the land. It should also be noted that the incidental effect on the land, as discussed above, involves agency proposals under HRS § 343-5(b). In contrast, for applicant proposals under HRS § 343-5(c), the governor is not the accepting authority. For applicant proposals, the agency, not the governor, is responsible for accepting the final EIS. HRS § 343-5(c) (1993). In regard to Hawaiian home lands, the relevant agency is DHHL. Thus, DHHL is the accepting authority for applicant proposals, and because the governor is not involved, there is no conflict with the HHCA. In Jim, this court also examined the overall objectives of the HHCA and stated that the HHCA must be read in light of those objectives. Jim, 80 Hawai`i at 171, 907 P.2d at 757. The court noted that the HHCA... established a public trust for the welfare and rehabilitation of native Hawaiians. See also Ahuna, 64 Haw. at 336-37, 640 P.2d at 1167. Thus, if application of a regulatory law is clearly contrary to the interests of the Native Hawaiian beneficiaries, it conflicts with the HHCA. In the present case, it cannot be said that HRS ch. 343 is clearly contrary to the interests of the Native Hawaiian beneficiaries. Indeed, the beneficiaries have an interest in ensuring that the environment on Hawaiian home lands is not harmed. Thus, it is in the interest of the beneficiaries that the environmental impact of projects be considered and informational documents prepared. HRS ch. 343 is not inconsistent with the interests of the Native Hawaiian beneficiaries. KCP/Waimana and State Defendants also argue that HRS ch. 343 conflicts with section 204 of the HHCA. Section 204 provides in relevant part that all available lands shall... be under the control of the department [of Hawaiian home lands] to be used and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act[.] HHCA § 204, 1 Haw.Rev.Stat. at 205. However, HRS ch. 343 does not significantly interfere with DHHL's control, use, or disposition of Hawaiian home lands because the statute's effect on the land is merely incidental. Thus, section 204 is not violated by application of HRS ch. 343. KCP/Waimana further argue that HRS ch. 343 conflicts with section 4 of the Admission Act, which provides in relevant part that the encumbrances authorized to be placed on Hawaiian home lands by officers other than those charged with the administration of said Act, shall not be increased, except with the consent of the United States[.] Admission Act § 4, 1 Haw.Rev.Stat. at 91. However, again, the effect of HRS ch. 343 is merely incidental; therefore, it cannot be considered an encumbrance on the land. Finally, KCP/Waimana argue that allowing HRS ch. 343 to apply to Hawaiian home lands effectively adds a provision to the HHCA without formally amending it. However, in Jim, this court interpreted the HHCA so as to allow the Hawai`i Penal Code to apply to Hawaiian home lands. The present case does not constitute an amendment to the HHCA any more than Jim did. Consequently, based on the above discussion, there is no conflict between HRS ch. 343 and the HHCA. HRS ch. 343 has, at most, an incidental impact on Hawaiian home lands and is not inconsistent with the interests of the beneficiaries. Thus, HRS ch. 343 applies to Hawaiian home lands, and the circuit court's order should be affirmed.