Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Life of the Land v. Ariyoshi

Citation: 8 ELR 20585
No. No. 6872, 577 P.2d 1116/11 ERC 1940/59 Haw. 156, (Haw., 04/26/1978)

The court denies plaintiff's motion for temporary injunctive relief pending appeal from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment for defendants in a suit challenging the adequacy of the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for a state water transmission project. To obtain preliminary relief, plaintiff must first show a likelihood of success, should remand be ordered by this court, on its claim that the EIS is inadequate for failure to provide a cost-benefit analysis. Applying law developed by the federal courts in interpreting § 102(2)(B)of the National Environmental Policy Act, the court finds that the state environmental policy act cannot be read rigidly to require preparation of a cost-benefit analysis to accompany every EIS. Rather, the case law and the regulations of the state Environmental Quality Council require simply that the statement disclose the environmental risks and benefits in sufficient detail to permit an informed judgment by the decision maker. The court cannot find the EIS so deficient in this regard that it fails to pass muster under the "rule of reason." Thus, plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong of the test governing the issuance of injunctive relief, and the motion is denied.

Counsel for Appellant
John F. Schweigert, E. Cooper Brown
1836 Punahoy St., Honolulu HI 69817
(808) 533-7491

Counsel for Appellees
Ronald Y. Amemiya, Attorney General; Laurence K. Lau, Deputy Attorney General
State Capitol, Honolulu HI 96813
(808) 548-4740

Paul R. Mancini, Corp. Counsel; David Nakamura, Deputy Corp. Counsel.
9th Floor, 200 S. High St., Wailuku HI 96793
(808) 244-7740

Shackley F. Raffetto
Mukai, Ichiki, Raffetto & MacMillan
Suite 800, 345 Queen St., Wailuku HI
(808) 244-9007

Francis M. Izumi, Tamotsu Tanaka
Izumi & Tanaka
888 Mililani St., Honolulu HI 96813
(808) 536-9307