Hawaii’s Thousand Friends has been at the forefront of environmental litigation since its inception in 1980, successfully fighting legal cases focusing on land use planning, the Public Trust Doctrine, and native land and water rights. The following are some of the key legal decisions HTF influenced.
Sharks Cove
Sharks Cove on O`ahu’s North Shore is a global treasure, a fragile costal ecosystem and part of the Pupukea Marine Live Conservation District is threatened by a 3-acre, $18 million dollar 34,500 square foot commercial tourist-oriented development across from this marine protected area.
Hawaii’s Thousand Friends has joined Save Sharks Cove Alliance, Malama Pupukea-Waimea and three individuals as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, filed in February 2019, to protect the heavily visited critical beach, ocean and tide pool from the mauka development of numerous 1 and 2-story retail and office buildings, a 126-space parking lot, anticipated 926 new daily vehicle trips (337,990 trips per year) to Kamehameha Highway, and increased pollution of nearby “Class AA” marine waters of Sharks Cove.
In 2018 of the 6 million tourists who visited O`ahu, an estimated 51% visited the North Shore, over 3 million tourists a year. The proposed development will result in an 11% increase in tourists, and congestion, to Sharks Cove area.
Sharks Cove is within the Special Management Area (SMA) and is required to be consistent with the Oahu General Plan. Our lawsuit lays out why the City Council granted SMA Permit is not consistent with the General Plan.
Our lawsuit outlines how the proposed development violates the Hawai`i Constitution Article X1-Section 1, Section 7, Section 9 and the Public Trust Doctrine.
The lawsuit outlines how the proposed development is not consistent with the North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan.
The lawsuit outlines the improper acceptance of an inadequate EIS and much more.
Read the full lawsuit.
Download a 6 page summary.
Hawaii’s Thousand Friends has joined Save Sharks Cove Alliance, Malama Pupukea-Waimea and three individuals as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, filed in February 2019, to protect the heavily visited critical beach, ocean and tide pool from the mauka development of numerous 1 and 2-story retail and office buildings, a 126-space parking lot, anticipated 926 new daily vehicle trips (337,990 trips per year) to Kamehameha Highway, and increased pollution of nearby “Class AA” marine waters of Sharks Cove.
In 2018 of the 6 million tourists who visited O`ahu, an estimated 51% visited the North Shore, over 3 million tourists a year. The proposed development will result in an 11% increase in tourists, and congestion, to Sharks Cove area.
Sharks Cove is within the Special Management Area (SMA) and is required to be consistent with the Oahu General Plan. Our lawsuit lays out why the City Council granted SMA Permit is not consistent with the General Plan.
Our lawsuit outlines how the proposed development violates the Hawai`i Constitution Article X1-Section 1, Section 7, Section 9 and the Public Trust Doctrine.
The lawsuit outlines how the proposed development is not consistent with the North Shore Sustainable Communities Plan.
The lawsuit outlines the improper acceptance of an inadequate EIS and much more.
Read the full lawsuit.
Download a 6 page summary.
Waiahole Ditch Case
The Waiahole case arose from the efforts of small family farmers and Native Hawaiians, led by citizen groups Hakipu`u `Ohana, Ka Lahui Hawai`i, Kahalu`u Neighborhood Board, Makawai Stream Restoration Alliance and a coalition of supporters (collectively the "Windward Parties"), to restore streams originally diverted by Central O`ahu sugar plantations. O`ahu Sugar's 1993 announcement of its closure in 1995 sparked a monumental legal battle over the diverted water -- in the words of the Hawai`i Supreme Court, a case of "unprecedented size, duration, and complexity." The Windward Parties sought to return diverted flows to the streams to restore native stream life, such as `o`opu, `opae and hihiwai; protect traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices; support the productivity of the Kane`ohe Bay estuary; and preserve traditional small family farming, including taro cultivation. But large scale agricultural and development interests, including Campbell Estate, Robinson Estate, Kamehameha Schools, Dole/Castle & Cooke, and others, joined by the State, pushed to continue the flow of Windward water to leeward lands to subsidize golf course irrigation, short-term corporate agriculture, and housing development.
The Hawai’i Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in support of HTF’s public trust doctrine arguments in the Waiahole Ditch Contested Case. The court concluded that the doctrine “applies to all water resources” in Hawai’i, above and below the surface of the ground, and that under the doctrine “the state has both the authority and duty to preserve the rights of present and future generations in waters of the state.”
The Hawai’i Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in support of HTF’s public trust doctrine arguments in the Waiahole Ditch Contested Case. The court concluded that the doctrine “applies to all water resources” in Hawai’i, above and below the surface of the ground, and that under the doctrine “the state has both the authority and duty to preserve the rights of present and future generations in waters of the state.”
Waiahole Case Links
Supreme Court Waiahole Ditch Water Contested Case Decision (2000)
Supreme Court Waiahole Ditch Water Contested Case Dissenting Opinion
Appeal from the Commission on Water Resource Management
An Administrator's View of Hawaii's Public Trust Doctrine - by Colin Kippen
Court’s Waiahole Decision ‘Inspiring,’ Says Public Trust Expert Jan Stevens
Economic Impact of the Waiahole irrigation System (Dept of Ag 2012)
Public Trust Resources At Issue In Dispute Over Waiahole Water
Supreme Court Waiahole Ditch Water Contested Case Dissenting Opinion
Appeal from the Commission on Water Resource Management
An Administrator's View of Hawaii's Public Trust Doctrine - by Colin Kippen
Court’s Waiahole Decision ‘Inspiring,’ Says Public Trust Expert Jan Stevens
Economic Impact of the Waiahole irrigation System (Dept of Ag 2012)
Public Trust Resources At Issue In Dispute Over Waiahole Water
2015 Kyo-ya Case
After the Oahu Department of Planning and Permitting Director granted a variance to Kyo-ya Resort & Hotel, that would allow a new hotel to encroach into the shoreline setback, Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club of Hawaii, Michelle Matson and KAHEA appealed the Directors decision to the Oahu Zoning Board of Appeals.
On 9/23/15 the case argued that the variance granted to Kyo-ya for a 26-story hotel/condo tower would allow the hotel to encroach 60-feet into the 100-foot shoreline setback zone which was against Waikiki Special Design District guidelines and law. The Honolulu City Council established the Waikiki Special Design District in 1976 in response to rapid development of Waikiki. The Waikiki Special Design District was created to protect Waikiki’s Hawaiian identity and of the “need to step back tall buildings from the shoreline to maximize public safety and the sense of open space and public enjoyment associated with coastal resources.”
After losing our two-year appeal before the Zoning Board of Appeals we appealed to Circuit Court, which also ruled against us. So we appealed to the Hawai`i Supreme Court.
On 9/23/15 the Hawai`i Supreme Court ruled that the Director did not meet the requirements to grant a variance and reversed the circuit court’s judgment, the Zoning Board of Appeals Order and the Directors Decision. This ruling has prevented Kyo-ya Hotel in Waikiki from encroaching into the shoreline setback.
Download Supreme Court Ruling
2014 Kauai Springs Case
Hawaii’s Thousand Friends filed an amicus curae in the Kauai Springs case before the Hawaii Supreme Court. The case regarded the continued [expanded] operation of the Kauai Springs’ water bottling facility on land in Koloa, Kaua’i, the majority of which was on land designated agriculture, and the use of stream water in its bottling operations.
In 2/28/14 the Supreme Court ruled to remand the case to the Planning Commission for further proceedings consistent with its opinion noted “…this court has recognized . . . a distinct public trust encompassing all the water resources of the State” that “The public trust doctrine applies to all water resources without exception or distinction” and that “The public trust is … the duty and authority to maintain the purity and flow of our waters for future generations and to assure that the waters of our land are put to reasonable and beneficial uses.”
Download Hawaii Supreme Court decision
2010 Ala Loop Case
Ala Loop Homeowners, an unincorporated association on Hawai`i island, brought this lawsuit against Wai’ola Waters of Life Charter School after the school proposed a 28-acre parcel of land located in the agricultural district land on Ala Loop Road to establish a working farm and a campus for its school. The association contended that the proposed use could not proceed without a special permit issued by the Land Use Commission pursuant to HRS §205-6.
After losing in the Third Circuit Court the Ala Loop Homeowners appealed to the Hawai`i Supreme Court.
HTF filed an amicus curae (friend of the court) in the appeal arguing that private citizens have standing and a private right to action to sue in circuit court to enjoin violations of HRS Chapter 205 a.k.a. State Land Use Law where a proposed development lacks an approval or permit required under that Chapter.
In 2010 the Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the entry of default and vacated the circuit court’s First Amended Final Judgement entered on 12/12/05, and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The high court concluded that Ala Loop had a private right of action under Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawai`i Constitution to enforce its chapter 205 claims against Wai`ola and vacated the 4/22/2009 Judgement of the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
In that decision Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald cited Hawai`i Constitution Article XI, Section 9 that says “each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment” and “any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private."
Download HTF amicus curiae
Download Hawaii Supreme Court decision
2006 Hokuli’a Case
HTF filed an amicus curae in a Hawaii Supreme Court case, contending that Oceanside a.k.a. Hokuli`a had no vested right to develop its Hokuli’a property (single-family residences) in an agriculture district on the Big Island in violation of HRS Chapter 205, as it had not obtained the necessary last discretionary permit from the State Land Use Commission.
In its amicus curae, HTF noted that: “The Court’s support for public enforcement of state laws governing land development is fully consistent with, and is indeed mandated by, the policy set forth in Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawai’i Constitution, adopted in 1978, providing that ‘[e]ach person has a right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources’ and providing further that ‘[a]ny person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable imitations and regulations as provided by law.’”
This case concluded in 2006 with a settlement among the various parties.
Download Hokuli`a: The Costs and Consequences of Fake Farms (PowerPoint Presentation)
Download Hokuli`a: The Costs and Consequences of Fake Farms (Article)
2001 Irwin Memorial Park
State of Hawai’i Aloha Tower Development Corporation (ATDC)
This green oasis in front of the Aloha Tower was donated to the Territory of Hawai’i by Helene Irwin Fagan who bought the land in 1930 for the purpose of creating a landscaped companion to Aloha Tower and beautification of the Honolulu Waterfront.
After she purchased the land for the purposes of the Park, she conveyed the Park to the Territory of Hawaii to always remain a public park.
During World War II Mrs. Fagan granted the Territory permission to use Irwin Memorial Park for much needed parking for the war effort. This temporary agreement did not negate or relinquish the status of the area as a park.
When Hawai‘i became a state in 1959 Hawai‘i Irwin Memorial Park became a part of the state park system. In 1999 Irwin Memorial Park was recognized as an historic site and listed on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places.
In 1987, the State Legislature established the quasi-public Aloha Tower Development Corporation (ATDC). The law creating the authority and ATDC Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 206J-6(c) requires that Irwin Memorial Park be retained as a park. “Irwin Memorial Park shall be retained as a public park subject to the reservations and conditions set forth in the deed of Helen Irwin Fagan to the Territory of Hawaii”
Contrary to state law and all agreements since 1930 the ATDC sought to turn Irwin Memorial Park into a parking lot.
In 2001 Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Scenic Hawaii, The Outdoor Circle, Historic Hawaii Foundation, and Life of the Land were granted legal standing to fight ATDC’s attempt to remove development restrictions on Irwin Park.
In 2002 Hawaii Land Court Judge Gary Chang issued the following ruling:
Helene Irwin Fagan’s Restrictions & Conditions contained in the Indenture from Helen Irwin Fagan to the Territory of Hawaii 11/7/1930 and Executive Order #472 issued 3/13/31 are still valid and remain in full force and effect. The Territory did not acquire any interest in Mrs. Fagan’s reversionary interest in the Property and ATDC is not entitled to any relief pursuant to its Petition filed herein. The subject deed restriction shall not e expunged from Land Court Certificate of Title. The property is, and remains, subject to the restriction that it be used as a public park to beautify the entrance to Honolulu Harbor.
Download Irwin Park land court ruling (PDF).
2001 Protect Puako v. County of Hawaii
Hawaii’s Thousand Friends files amicus brief in Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuit
In 2000 Protect Puako, consisting of area residents and landowners, filed a lawsuit against Bridge `Aina Le`a, which planned to develop 3,000 acres of land at Puako. The complaint alleged that the developer failed to comply with the States Environmental Impact Statement disclosure laws.
In an attempt to chill residents free speech Bridge `Aina Le`a sent letters to plaintiffs threatening to sue if Protect Puako did not back off. In January 2001, Bridge `Aina Le`a filed a counterclaim against Protect Puako and sought written depositions of people supporting Protect Puako including information on their finances and contacts.
Protect Puako’s attorney argued in court that the counterclaim amounted to a SLAPP suit.
In 2001 Hawaii’s Thousand Friends filed a Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) amicus brief in support of Protect Puako because under state law everyone has the freedom to voice their opinion and take action to enforce laws.
Unfortunately, Hawaii at that time Hawaii did not have anti-SLAPP laws meaning that this SLAPP case could drag on and on causing the community much anxiety, fear and expense.
In 2001 after Jim Paul took over the case Brideg `Aina Le`a dropped its counterclaim against Protect Puako.
As a result of this SLAPP lawsuit against Protect Puako the legislature passed Hawaii’s anti-SLAPP law, HRS 634F Citizen Participation in Government in 2002.
1990 Fred Benco Clean Water Act
Enchanted Lake Pumping Station City and County of Honolulu Out-of-court settlement resulted improvements to prevent leaching and discharging sewage into stream.
1990 – 1991 Camp Kailua City and County of Honolulu
Cynthia Thielen Tom Grande Circuit Court, State Supreme Court.
Circuit Court twice rules in HTF’s favor. City appeals to Supreme Court. Supreme Court upheld HTF argument that the City and County had to do an Environmental Assessment and obtain a Special Management Area Permit before they could demolish Camp Kailua buildings.
1988 -1994 EarthJustice Defense Fund (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund)
Clean Act Water lawsuits:
1. Paul Atchitoff BYUH and Zions Securities
Denise Antolini After a trial an out-of-court Consent Decree and financial settlement was reached for defendants to develop of a new wastewater plant and pay $2.5 million toward the creation of community-based Hawai’i La’ieikewai Association.
2. City and County of Honolulu Honouliuli
Wastewater Treatment Plant. After a 5 week trial the court ordered the City to pay $700,00 in fines, develop facilities to treat 1.3 million gallons of water per day for reuse and pay $10,000,000 to create the Mamala Bay Study Commission to study the effects of sewage treatment plants on the marine ecosystem.
3. Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
HTF argued against Environmental Protection Agency granting the City a waiver from treating sewage at secondary level instead of the present primary. EPA granted waiver.
4. Kailua Wastewater Treatment Plant
Out-of-court settlement includes: disinfecting outflows and upgrading operations; a Consent Decree guides the use of the $3.5 million dollar settlement and a volunteer Kailua Bay Advisory Council to generate expert studies on water problems, do water testing and to propose remedial measures for Waimanalo, Kailua and Kane’ohe bays.
1986 Peter Adler Clean Water Act Hawai’i Kai Sewage
(mediation)Treatment Plant
City and County of Honolulu – Out-of-court settlement.
1986 Martin Wolff Waiola
City and County of Honolulu, Circuit & Supreme Court.
Circuit Court supports HTF argument that 5000 unit development circumvents Development and General Plans but Supreme Court rules HTF is not the proper organization to bring the case because HTF is not a tax payer organization even though lower courts approved HTF as a qualified party. City did not get needed federal funding for the project.
1982 Kathy Albu
Luluku banana farmers before the Land Use Commission
HTF was instrumental in negotiating relocation of the Luluku banana farmers to Maunawili Valley. Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) In support of the Honolulu Development Plans.
1983 Barbara Beck Kawainui Marsh/Maunawili Sewer Interceptors
City and County of Honolulu
Out-of-court settlement resulted in project being rerouted outside of Marsh.
After the Oahu Department of Planning and Permitting Director granted a variance to Kyo-ya Resort & Hotel, that would allow a new hotel to encroach into the shoreline setback, Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club of Hawaii, Michelle Matson and KAHEA appealed the Directors decision to the Oahu Zoning Board of Appeals.
On 9/23/15 the case argued that the variance granted to Kyo-ya for a 26-story hotel/condo tower would allow the hotel to encroach 60-feet into the 100-foot shoreline setback zone which was against Waikiki Special Design District guidelines and law. The Honolulu City Council established the Waikiki Special Design District in 1976 in response to rapid development of Waikiki. The Waikiki Special Design District was created to protect Waikiki’s Hawaiian identity and of the “need to step back tall buildings from the shoreline to maximize public safety and the sense of open space and public enjoyment associated with coastal resources.”
After losing our two-year appeal before the Zoning Board of Appeals we appealed to Circuit Court, which also ruled against us. So we appealed to the Hawai`i Supreme Court.
On 9/23/15 the Hawai`i Supreme Court ruled that the Director did not meet the requirements to grant a variance and reversed the circuit court’s judgment, the Zoning Board of Appeals Order and the Directors Decision. This ruling has prevented Kyo-ya Hotel in Waikiki from encroaching into the shoreline setback.
Download Supreme Court Ruling
2014 Kauai Springs Case
Hawaii’s Thousand Friends filed an amicus curae in the Kauai Springs case before the Hawaii Supreme Court. The case regarded the continued [expanded] operation of the Kauai Springs’ water bottling facility on land in Koloa, Kaua’i, the majority of which was on land designated agriculture, and the use of stream water in its bottling operations.
In 2/28/14 the Supreme Court ruled to remand the case to the Planning Commission for further proceedings consistent with its opinion noted “…this court has recognized . . . a distinct public trust encompassing all the water resources of the State” that “The public trust doctrine applies to all water resources without exception or distinction” and that “The public trust is … the duty and authority to maintain the purity and flow of our waters for future generations and to assure that the waters of our land are put to reasonable and beneficial uses.”
Download Hawaii Supreme Court decision
2010 Ala Loop Case
Ala Loop Homeowners, an unincorporated association on Hawai`i island, brought this lawsuit against Wai’ola Waters of Life Charter School after the school proposed a 28-acre parcel of land located in the agricultural district land on Ala Loop Road to establish a working farm and a campus for its school. The association contended that the proposed use could not proceed without a special permit issued by the Land Use Commission pursuant to HRS §205-6.
After losing in the Third Circuit Court the Ala Loop Homeowners appealed to the Hawai`i Supreme Court.
HTF filed an amicus curae (friend of the court) in the appeal arguing that private citizens have standing and a private right to action to sue in circuit court to enjoin violations of HRS Chapter 205 a.k.a. State Land Use Law where a proposed development lacks an approval or permit required under that Chapter.
In 2010 the Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the entry of default and vacated the circuit court’s First Amended Final Judgement entered on 12/12/05, and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The high court concluded that Ala Loop had a private right of action under Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawai`i Constitution to enforce its chapter 205 claims against Wai`ola and vacated the 4/22/2009 Judgement of the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
In that decision Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald cited Hawai`i Constitution Article XI, Section 9 that says “each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment” and “any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private."
Download HTF amicus curiae
Download Hawaii Supreme Court decision
2006 Hokuli’a Case
HTF filed an amicus curae in a Hawaii Supreme Court case, contending that Oceanside a.k.a. Hokuli`a had no vested right to develop its Hokuli’a property (single-family residences) in an agriculture district on the Big Island in violation of HRS Chapter 205, as it had not obtained the necessary last discretionary permit from the State Land Use Commission.
In its amicus curae, HTF noted that: “The Court’s support for public enforcement of state laws governing land development is fully consistent with, and is indeed mandated by, the policy set forth in Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawai’i Constitution, adopted in 1978, providing that ‘[e]ach person has a right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources’ and providing further that ‘[a]ny person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable imitations and regulations as provided by law.’”
This case concluded in 2006 with a settlement among the various parties.
Download Hokuli`a: The Costs and Consequences of Fake Farms (PowerPoint Presentation)
Download Hokuli`a: The Costs and Consequences of Fake Farms (Article)
2001 Irwin Memorial Park
State of Hawai’i Aloha Tower Development Corporation (ATDC)
This green oasis in front of the Aloha Tower was donated to the Territory of Hawai’i by Helene Irwin Fagan who bought the land in 1930 for the purpose of creating a landscaped companion to Aloha Tower and beautification of the Honolulu Waterfront.
After she purchased the land for the purposes of the Park, she conveyed the Park to the Territory of Hawaii to always remain a public park.
During World War II Mrs. Fagan granted the Territory permission to use Irwin Memorial Park for much needed parking for the war effort. This temporary agreement did not negate or relinquish the status of the area as a park.
When Hawai‘i became a state in 1959 Hawai‘i Irwin Memorial Park became a part of the state park system. In 1999 Irwin Memorial Park was recognized as an historic site and listed on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places.
In 1987, the State Legislature established the quasi-public Aloha Tower Development Corporation (ATDC). The law creating the authority and ATDC Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 206J-6(c) requires that Irwin Memorial Park be retained as a park. “Irwin Memorial Park shall be retained as a public park subject to the reservations and conditions set forth in the deed of Helen Irwin Fagan to the Territory of Hawaii”
Contrary to state law and all agreements since 1930 the ATDC sought to turn Irwin Memorial Park into a parking lot.
In 2001 Hawaii’s Thousand Friends, Scenic Hawaii, The Outdoor Circle, Historic Hawaii Foundation, and Life of the Land were granted legal standing to fight ATDC’s attempt to remove development restrictions on Irwin Park.
In 2002 Hawaii Land Court Judge Gary Chang issued the following ruling:
Helene Irwin Fagan’s Restrictions & Conditions contained in the Indenture from Helen Irwin Fagan to the Territory of Hawaii 11/7/1930 and Executive Order #472 issued 3/13/31 are still valid and remain in full force and effect. The Territory did not acquire any interest in Mrs. Fagan’s reversionary interest in the Property and ATDC is not entitled to any relief pursuant to its Petition filed herein. The subject deed restriction shall not e expunged from Land Court Certificate of Title. The property is, and remains, subject to the restriction that it be used as a public park to beautify the entrance to Honolulu Harbor.
Download Irwin Park land court ruling (PDF).
2001 Protect Puako v. County of Hawaii
Hawaii’s Thousand Friends files amicus brief in Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuit
In 2000 Protect Puako, consisting of area residents and landowners, filed a lawsuit against Bridge `Aina Le`a, which planned to develop 3,000 acres of land at Puako. The complaint alleged that the developer failed to comply with the States Environmental Impact Statement disclosure laws.
In an attempt to chill residents free speech Bridge `Aina Le`a sent letters to plaintiffs threatening to sue if Protect Puako did not back off. In January 2001, Bridge `Aina Le`a filed a counterclaim against Protect Puako and sought written depositions of people supporting Protect Puako including information on their finances and contacts.
Protect Puako’s attorney argued in court that the counterclaim amounted to a SLAPP suit.
In 2001 Hawaii’s Thousand Friends filed a Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) amicus brief in support of Protect Puako because under state law everyone has the freedom to voice their opinion and take action to enforce laws.
Unfortunately, Hawaii at that time Hawaii did not have anti-SLAPP laws meaning that this SLAPP case could drag on and on causing the community much anxiety, fear and expense.
In 2001 after Jim Paul took over the case Brideg `Aina Le`a dropped its counterclaim against Protect Puako.
As a result of this SLAPP lawsuit against Protect Puako the legislature passed Hawaii’s anti-SLAPP law, HRS 634F Citizen Participation in Government in 2002.
1990 Fred Benco Clean Water Act
Enchanted Lake Pumping Station City and County of Honolulu Out-of-court settlement resulted improvements to prevent leaching and discharging sewage into stream.
1990 – 1991 Camp Kailua City and County of Honolulu
Cynthia Thielen Tom Grande Circuit Court, State Supreme Court.
Circuit Court twice rules in HTF’s favor. City appeals to Supreme Court. Supreme Court upheld HTF argument that the City and County had to do an Environmental Assessment and obtain a Special Management Area Permit before they could demolish Camp Kailua buildings.
1988 -1994 EarthJustice Defense Fund (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund)
Clean Act Water lawsuits:
1. Paul Atchitoff BYUH and Zions Securities
Denise Antolini After a trial an out-of-court Consent Decree and financial settlement was reached for defendants to develop of a new wastewater plant and pay $2.5 million toward the creation of community-based Hawai’i La’ieikewai Association.
2. City and County of Honolulu Honouliuli
Wastewater Treatment Plant. After a 5 week trial the court ordered the City to pay $700,00 in fines, develop facilities to treat 1.3 million gallons of water per day for reuse and pay $10,000,000 to create the Mamala Bay Study Commission to study the effects of sewage treatment plants on the marine ecosystem.
3. Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
HTF argued against Environmental Protection Agency granting the City a waiver from treating sewage at secondary level instead of the present primary. EPA granted waiver.
4. Kailua Wastewater Treatment Plant
Out-of-court settlement includes: disinfecting outflows and upgrading operations; a Consent Decree guides the use of the $3.5 million dollar settlement and a volunteer Kailua Bay Advisory Council to generate expert studies on water problems, do water testing and to propose remedial measures for Waimanalo, Kailua and Kane’ohe bays.
1986 Peter Adler Clean Water Act Hawai’i Kai Sewage
(mediation)Treatment Plant
City and County of Honolulu – Out-of-court settlement.
1986 Martin Wolff Waiola
City and County of Honolulu, Circuit & Supreme Court.
Circuit Court supports HTF argument that 5000 unit development circumvents Development and General Plans but Supreme Court rules HTF is not the proper organization to bring the case because HTF is not a tax payer organization even though lower courts approved HTF as a qualified party. City did not get needed federal funding for the project.
1982 Kathy Albu
Luluku banana farmers before the Land Use Commission
HTF was instrumental in negotiating relocation of the Luluku banana farmers to Maunawili Valley. Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) In support of the Honolulu Development Plans.
1983 Barbara Beck Kawainui Marsh/Maunawili Sewer Interceptors
City and County of Honolulu
Out-of-court settlement resulted in project being rerouted outside of Marsh.