Revisiting Hawaiʻi’s Food Security Strategy: Building on the 2012 Office of Planning Reports

In 2012, the Hawaiʻi State Office of Planning, in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, released a three-volume report:

• Increased Food Security and Food Self-Sufficiency Strategy 
• A History of Agriculture in Hawaii and Technical Reference Document 
• Assessment of Irrigation Systems in Hawaii

The reports were developed to strengthen coordination across state and county agencies and to guide policies that would increase the amount of locally produced food consumed in Hawaiʻi. More than a decade later, the ideas and data in those volumes remain relevant to the ongoing work of improving local food production, supporting farmers, and planning for resilience.

Volume I: Setting the Strategy 

Volume I, Increased Food Security and Food Self-Sufficiency Strategy, outlined a straightforward goal—to increase the share of locally grown food consumed by Hawaiʻi residents. The report estimated that replacing just 10 percent of imported food could retain $313 million in the state economy and create more than 2,000 jobs. 

Its three objectives remain as applicable today as they were then:

1. Increase Demand and Access – expand “Buy Local” programs, farmers’ markets, and farm-to-school initiatives; strengthen consumer confidence through food-safety certification and local branding. 
2. Increase Production – invest in irrigation and agricultural infrastructure, improve access to farmland through Act 90 (2003) transfers, and support regional food hubs and processing capacity.
3. Enhance Policy and Organizational Support – strengthen data collection, market analysis, and coordination among agencies to align investments and programs. 

What made this framework useful was its emphasis on systems thinking—recognizing that food security depends on coordinated action across land use, infrastructure, and economic policy. 

Volume II: Learning from Agricultural Transitions

Volume II traced Hawaiʻi’s shift from plantation agriculture to diversified farming. It documented how changes in land tenure, workforce capacity, pest management, and infrastructure investment influenced agricultural productivity. 

The analysis underscored a continuing truth: long-term food self-sufficiency depends on policy stability, public-private cooperation, and consistent investment in the physical and human resources that sustain farming. 

Volume III: Maintaining Critical Infrastructure 

The third volume, Assessment of Irrigation Systems in Hawaiʻi, compiled an inventory and condition assessment of eleven major irrigation systems statewide. Many were constructed between 1876 and 1920 and later acquired by the State. 

The report identified significant deferred maintenance—more than $111 million (in 2012 dollars) in needed rehabilitation—and demonstrated the broader economic importance of these systems. For example, the Waiahole and Wahiawā systems together supported thousands of jobs and contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural output. 

Given its scope, the report remains one of the most comprehensive evaluations of Hawaiʻi’s agricultural water infrastructure and a useful reference for current planning and budgeting. 

Progress Since 2012 

Many recommendations from the 2012 strategy have been advanced through subsequent work (this is not an exhaustive list): 

• Irrigation rehabilitation projects guided by the Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan and legislative appropriations.
• Continued Act 90 land transfers to expand access for active farmers. 
• Farm-to-school programs that connect local producers with public institutions. 
• Development of regional food hubs and small processing facilities. 
• Expansion of Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) designations by counties and the Land Use Commission. 

These efforts reflect the ongoing contributions of many partners—state and county agencies, farmers, nonprofits, and private organizations—each building on shared goals. 

Looking Ahead 

As climate change, global supply disruptions, and land-use pressures continue to challenge Hawaiʻi’s agricultural system, the 2012 strategy still offers a practical framework for moving forward. Its recommendations point toward three enduring needs:

1. Partnerships – among government, landowners, farmers, researchers, and educators to coordinate efforts. 
2. Resources – sustained funding for infrastructure, workforce development, and maintenance.  
3. Commitment – a long-term, collective focus on implementation rather than reinvention. 

Progress since 2012 shows what can be achieved when these elements align. Continuing that progress will require steady collaboration and shared responsibility.   

The Increased Food Security and Food Self-Sufficiency Strategy remains a useful reference for policymakers, planners, and community organizations working to strengthen Hawaiʻi’s food systems. Its enduring relevance lies in linking land, water, and people through coordinated planning.

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Reaffirms Contested Case Rights and Public Trust Duties in Water Diversion Case

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court’s decision in Kiaʻi Wai o Waiʻaleʻale v. Board of Land and Natural Resources, No. SCWC-23-0000383 (Haw. Sept. 30, 2025), underscores the continuing importance of due process, traditional and customary rights, and the State’s public trust obligations in the management of Hawaiʻi’s water resources.

Background 

The case arose from the Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (BLNR) annual renewal of Revocable Permit No. S-7340, which authorized the Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) to divert up to 40 million gallons of water per day from the Līhuʻe-Kōloa Forest Reserve—commonly known as the Blue Hole Diversion—for hydroelectric generation. 

Two community organizations, Kiaʻi Wai o Waiʻaleʻale and Friends of Māhāʻulepū, challenged BLNR’s renewal of the permit for calendar years 2021 and 2022. They argued that the continuations were issued without findings or conclusions addressing how the diversion served the best interests of the State, and that BLNR’s refusal to hold a contested case hearing violated their constitutional and statutory rights. 

Although the permit expired on December 31, 2022, the petitioners appealed the denials to the Environmental Court, which ruled in their favor. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed, finding the case moot and rejecting the claim to a contested case hearing. 

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the ICA. Key Holdings:

• The Case Was Not Moot. Even though the permit expired, the Court held that two exceptions to mootness applied: (1) The “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception, because revocable water permits are renewed annually and typically expire before judicial review can occur, and (2) The “public interest” exception, because the dispute implicates Hawaiʻi’s public trust in water, an issue of recurring and statewide importance. See Carmichael v. BLNR, 150 Haw. 547 (2022). 
• Petitioners Had Standing. The Court reaffirmed that Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices constitute protected property interests under article XII, section 7 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution. Declarations submitted by the petitioners showed that the water diversions impaired cultural practices such as gathering, hunting, and hula. These interests provided sufficient injury in fact and traceability to establish standing. 
• BLNR Erred in Denying a Contested Case Hearing. Because the petitioners’ traditional and customary rights were at stake, BLNR’s refusal to hold a contested case hearing violated due process under chapter 91, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS). The Court cited Flores v. BLNR, 143 Haw. 114 (2018), explaining that where government action may affect substantial, specific property interests, the agency must afford the affected persons an opportunity for a hearing. 
• BLNR Must Issue Written Findings Under HRS § 171-58(c). The Court emphasized that BLNR has a statutory duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law showing how a permit or continuation “best serves the interests of the State.” Because BLNR renewed the permit without those findings, the Environmental Court properly exercised jurisdiction to review the agency’s compliance. 

Implications for Land Use and Resource Management

This decision reinforces a line of cases requiring procedural transparency and substantive accountability when the State manages public trust resources:

• Revocable permits are not perpetual. Agencies cannot avoid environmental review or contested case procedures by renewing annual permits indefinitely. 
• Traditional and customary rights have procedural weight. When cultural practices are affected, agencies must provide affected practitioners with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
• Public trust duties remain central. The State must affirmatively demonstrate—through findings, not assumptions—how its decisions protect and promote the long-term interests of the people of Hawaiʻi. 

For practitioners, the decision signals that contested case rights may attach to a wide range of discretionary land and water authorizations, particularly where traditional and customary rights or environmental interests are implicated. 

Broader Context 

The opinion arrives as Hawaiʻi continues to grapple with aging water-diversion infrastructure, competing demands between energy production and ecosystem restoration, and ongoing litigation over water use permits across the islands. 

The Court’s reasoning aligns with its decisions in In re Water Use Permit Applications (Waiāhole Ditch), 94 Haw. 97 (2000), and Carmichael, confirming that public-trust obligations apply across all forms of state land and water dispositions—including temporary, revocable ones. 

Takeaways  

Kiaʻi Wai o Waiʻaleʻale serves as another reminder that in Hawaiʻi, water is a public trust resource. When state agencies exercise discretion to authorize its use, they must do so transparently, with full regard for the rights of Native Hawaiian practitioners and the interests of future generations.

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Deadlines and Keeps Cultural-Compliance Dispute Alive

In Mālama Kakanilua v. Director of the Department of Public Works, County of Maui, SCWC-19-0000107 (Sept. 30, 2025), the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued a decision that matters to both lawyers navigating post-judgment procedures and project proponents working on lands with historic and cultural resources. 

Appellate Procedure: Rule 60(b)(6) Motions Toll the Appeal Deadline 

The Court held that a motion for relief under Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6)—the catch-all provision for “any other reason justifying relief from judgment”—tolls the time to file an appeal under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(3).  

Previously, the Intermediate Court of Appeals had dismissed Mālama Kakanilua’s appeal as untimely, reasoning that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion did not extend the deadline. 

The Supreme Court disagreed. It explained that so long as the motion is filed within 30 days after entry of judgment, the time to appeal is suspended until the trial court resolves that motion.  

For lawyers, this clarification provides a safety net. A timely filed Rule 60(b)(6) motion preserves appellate rights, ensuring parties can seek reconsideration of a judgment without forfeiting their opportunity for review. 

Substantive Context: Grading Permit Renewal and Cultural Resource Protections 

The underlying dispute arose from Maui Lani Partners’ grading permit for a residential subdivision in Wailuku. Petitioners argued that the County’s Department of Public Works unlawfully renewed the grading permit without consulting the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), as required under HRS § 6E-42 and corresponding provisions of the Maui County Code. 

They also claimed the County failed to make findings of “good cause” for the permit’s extension. 

The circuit court dismissed the claims, and the ICA affirmed—on procedural grounds. By reversing that dismissal, the Supreme Court revived the appeal and sent the case back to the ICA to decide the merits of the cultural-preservation claims. 

Practical Implications for Project Proponents and Agencies 

While the Court did not reach the underlying environmental and cultural-resource issues, the decision signals that permit renewals and extensions will continue to face close judicial scrutiny when historic-preservation procedures are in question. Project proponents should: 

• Document SHPD consultation under HRS Chapter 6E even when seeking permit extensions rather than new permits. 
• Ensure “good cause” findings are explicit in county records when permits are renewed.  
• Anticipate litigation risks if cultural consultation steps are overlooked, particularly in areas known to contain burials or archaeological sites. 

For government agencies, the decision underscores the importance of clear administrative records and transparent decision-making that demonstrate compliance with both state and local cultural-resource laws. 

Key Takeaway 

The Court’s holding restores an appeal that might otherwise have been lost to a technical deadline—and keeps alive a broader debate about how Hawaiʻi’s permitting systems protect cultural heritage. 

For practitioners, Mālama Kakanilua is a reminder that procedural precision and substantive diligence go hand in hand: the first preserves your client’s right to be heard, and the second ensures that development decisions respect Hawaiʻi’s historical and cultural foundations.

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Affirms Zero Compensation for Temporary Taking of Accreted Lands

On September 17, 2025, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued its opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State, SCWC-19-0000776, addressing whether littoral landowners were entitled to compensation or attorneys’ fees following the Legislature’s 2003 attempt to declare certain accreted beachfront lands public property. The case was argued on January 14, 2025. 

Background 

In 2003, the Legislature enacted Act 73, which declared that all accreted lands not previously awarded were “public lands” and barred private parties from registering or quieting title in them, unless the accretion restored previously eroded land. The purpose was to secure beaches for public trust use and prevent private owners from expanding oceanfront holdings without compensation. 

Three nonprofit corporations organized by Portlock homeowners (the “Ohanas”) had just acquired “beach reserve lots”—narrow strips of land between their homes and the shoreline—from Kamehameha Schools. They sued, claiming Act 73 effected an unconstitutional taking of more than 70,000 square feet of accreted land.  

In 2009, the ICA ruled Act 73 was a taking of existing accreted lands, but not of future accretions. In response, the Legislature passed Act 56 (2012), narrowing the definition of public lands to accreted lands formed after May 20, 2003. 

On remand, the trial court found that the accreted lands had no rental value, awarding zero compensation. It also denied attorneys’ fees, citing sovereign immunity. The ICA affirmed in 2024, and the case reached the Supreme Court on certiorari. 

Legislative Purpose and Intent 

Act 73 reflected two key legislative goals: 

1. Public Trust Protection: The Legislature sought to preserve Hawaiʻi’s beaches for public access, recreation, and customary practices, viewing accreted lands as a natural extension of the shoreline.
2. Clarity of Ownership: Lawmakers aimed to prevent disputes and private appropriation of newly formed beachfront acreage, except where it restored eroded land. 

Supporters emphasized beach access and the public trust. Opponents warned it violated property rights by confiscating accreted land without compensation. Ultimately, the courts agreed with the latter concern.  

Supreme Court’s Decision 

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Recktenwald, affirmed: 

1. Just compensation of $0 was proper because substantial evidence showed the land had no rental value. 
2. Nominal damages were denied because takings claims entitle owners to compensation, not symbolic awards. 
3. Attorneys’ fees are barred by sovereign immunity unless expressly authorized by statute. Article I, section 20 is self-executing for takings claims but does not extend to fee awards. 

Key Takeaways

• Zero compensation is possible where taken property has no market value. 
• No nominal damages are available in takings cases; the constitutional remedy is compensation alone. 
• Attorneys’ fees require statutory authorization; sovereign immunity bars fee awards in inverse condemnation absent legislation. 
• Legislative clarity is critical: Act 73’s overbreadth led to its downfall, while Act 56 attempted a narrower balance between public trust and private rights.

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof in Land Use Boundary Interpretation Cases

On August 28, 2025, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued an opinion in Honoipu Hideaway, LLC v. State of Hawaiʻi Land Use Commission, SCOT-24-0000498, addressing how the Land Use Commission (LUC) must evaluate petitions for district boundary interpretation under Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (HAR) § 15-15-22. 

The Court vacated the LUC’s denial of a landowner’s petition and clarified that the correct burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not a heightened standard.

Background 

Honoipu Hideaway, LLC owns 17.5 acres of littoral property in North Kohala, Hawaiʻi Island. Roughly 4.8 acres of the parcel lie within the Conservation District, as shown on the 1974 LUC district boundary map. 

The owner argued that the map contained a mistake: it followed the alignment of an old dirt road rather than a new road built in 1961, prior to the creation of the first LUC maps. According to the owner, correcting the boundary to reflect the road’s true location would shift 1.8 acres from the Conservation District to the Agricultural District. 

Honoipu petitioned the LUC for a declaratory order under HAR § 15-15-22, which allows boundary interpretation where uncertainty exists in a map. The LUC denied the petition, concluding that the evidence was not “conclusive” or “compelling” enough to prove a mapping error. Commissioners emphasized the high bar for moving land out of the Conservation District and suggested that a formal district boundary amendment would be the proper path. 

The Court’s Decision 

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that the LUC applied the wrong burden of proof. The Court reasoned:  

• Boundary interpretation is not a reclassification; it is a limited tool to resolve uncertainty in maps. Where uncertainty exists, the LUC may determine the correct location of district lines.  
• Under HAR § 15-15-59, the petitioner bears the burden of proof in LUC proceedings. 
• In administrative hearings, unless otherwise specified, the appropriate standard is preponderance of the evidence—meaning the petitioner must show it is more likely than not that their interpretation is correct. 
• The LUC erred by requiring “conclusive” or “compelling” proof, which is a higher standard not authorized by statute or rule. 
• Because the LUC’s use of a heightened standard prejudiced the petitioner’s rights, the Court vacated the order and remanded for new findings under the correct standard. 

Key Takeaways 

1. Preponderance standard governs: Absent rulemaking to the contrary, the LUC must evaluate evidence in boundary interpretation cases using the civil preponderance standard.  
2. Boundary interpretation vs. amendment: Interpretation is only available to resolve uncertainties or mapping errors; broader policy changes must go through the statutory boundary amendment process under HRS § 205-4.  
3. Practical impact: Landowners seeking to correct map errors face a lower evidentiary hurdle than previously suggested by the LUC. However, they still must provide persuasive evidence that an error exists. 
4. Agency discretion limited by law: Agencies cannot unilaterally impose heightened burdens without adopting rules through formal rulemaking.

By requiring the LUC to apply the preponderance standard, the Court ensures that landowners can pursue legitimate corrections to district maps without facing insurmountable evidentiary barriers. At the same time, the opinion reaffirms that genuine reclassifications of Conservation land must proceed through the rigorous boundary amendment process.

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits on Collateral Land Use Challenges, but Preserves Path for Environmental Review Claims

On September 12, 2025, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued its decision in Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. v. State of Hawaiʻi (SCWC-16-0000444), addressing how neighbors may challenge zoning and environmental approvals for major projects. 

The case arose from a dispute over the Central Maui Regional Sports Complex, a 65-acre facility approved by the Maui Planning Commission in 2014 through a county special use permit (CUP). 

Background 

Residents opposed to the sports complex formed Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. (MLN) after the Planning Commission approved the CUP. Instead of intervening in the CUP process or filing a timely appeal under HRS § 91-14, MLN filed suit in circuit court, raising zoning, constitutional, and environmental claims. 

Both the circuit court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed most of the claims, concluding that MLN had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. 

Supreme Court’s Holding 

The Court largely agreed, but clarified important distinctions: 

• Zoning and Due Process Claims: Because MLN members received notice and attended the CUP hearing, they were required to intervene or appeal under HRS § 91-14. The Court reaffirmed that zoning challenges must be pursued through the administrative process, not through collateral lawsuits. 
• Declaratory Judgment Actions: The Court reaffirmed that HRS § 632-1 does not provide an alternative route when HRS § 91-14 offers a special statutory remedy. 
• Constitutional Environmental Claims (Art. XI, § 9): MLN argued that Hawaiʻi’s constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” provided direct access to court. The Court held that, to the extent such claims were based on zoning statutes (HRS chs. 46 and 205), they were still subject to the HRS § 632-1 limitation. But claims premised on HRS ch. 343 (HEPA) could proceed, because the legislature expressly gave courts jurisdiction under HRS § 343-7. 
• HEPA Claims: The Court held that the Planning Commission lacked authority to decide whether DLNR’s environmental review was sufficient. Circuit courts have original jurisdiction over HEPA challenges, and dismissal of those claims was error. 

Key Takeaways

1. Timely Appeals Are Critical: When a permit is issued after a public hearing, opponents must intervene or appeal under HRS § 91-14. Collateral lawsuits are barred. 
2. Declaratory Relief Is Not a Shortcut: HRS § 632-1 cannot be used to sidestep the administrative appeal process. 
3. Environmental Review Is Different: HEPA challenges remain viable in circuit court, even when project permits are otherwise shielded by the exhaustion doctrine. 
4. Article XI, Section 9 Enforcement: Hawaiʻi’s constitutional environmental right continues to provide an independent basis for judicial review, but its scope depends on the underlying statute.  

This decision reaffirms that permits issued after contested case hearings are secure against collateral zoning challenges, provided proper procedures are followed. It underscores the importance of timely participation in administrative hearings, while preserving a pathway for judicial review of environmental assessments under HEPA.

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court: Ritz-Carlton Waikīkī Towers Were Improperly Segmented Under HEPA, and Developer Must Pay Union’s Fees

On February 21, 2025, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued a decision in Unite Here! Local 5 v. PACREP LLC (SCAP-22-0000601), holding that the environmental review for the Ritz-Carlton Residences towers at 2121 and 2139 Kūhiō Avenue in Waikīkī was improperly segmented in violation of the Hawaiʻi Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), HRS chapter 343.

 

The Court later followed up on September 11, 2025, awarding Local 5 more than $112,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs against the project developer, PACREP LLC, under the private attorney general (PAG) doctrine.  

Background 

PACREP LLC and its affiliate PACREP 2 LLC developed the two Ritz-Carlton Residences towers in Waikīkī. The City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) accepted separate Final Environmental Assessments (FEAs) for each tower and issued findings of no significant impact (FONSIs). 

Unite Here! Local 5, a labor union representing hotel and restaurant workers, filed lawsuits challenging the sufficiency of the FEAs under HEPA. Local 5 argued that the two towers should have been reviewed together, because the projects were interdependent: 

• they shared a podium, amenities, and 
• infrastructure, and 2139 could not have been developed without 2121. 

The union also raised concerns that the projects could be converted to permanent residences, undermining promised job creation. 

The circuit court ruled in favor of PACREP and the City, but Local 5 appealed.

The Court’s February 2025 Decision 

Whether PACREP improperly segmented the Ritz-Carlton projects into two separate environmental reviews and whether the case was moot because the towers were already built and sold. 

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that: 

• Not Moot: The case was not moot even though the projects were completed. Courts can still order effective relief, including additional environmental review, and the public interest exception to mootness applied. 
• Improper Segmentation: PACREP improperly segmented the environmental review. Applying the “double independent utility test” adopted in Kiaʻi Wai o Waiʻaleʻale v. Department of Water, 151 Haw. 442, 517 P.3d 725 (2022), the Court found that 2121 was a necessary precedent for 2139 and that both towers should have been analyzed as one project. 
• Remedy: Remedies for HEPA violations are a matter of equitable discretion. Courts need not invalidate permits or order demolition of completed projects, but must ensure that environmental impacts—including economic and social effects—are properly disclosed. The case was remanded to the circuit court to determine whether the FEAs sufficiently analyzed the projects together, and, if not, whether a new EA or EIS is required. In a notable passage, the Court emphasized that PACREP’s concealment of its plans for the second tower from its own consultants and from DPP was “not pono.”   

The Court’s September 2025 Fee Decision 

After prevailing on the main issues, Local 5 moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

• Statutory Claim (HRS § 607-25): The Court denied fees under HRS § 607-25(e)(1), finding the request premature because it remains to be determined on remand whether PACREP lacked required approvals. 
• Private Attorney General Doctrine: The Court awarded fees under the PAG doctrine, which allows fee-shifting where litigation vindicates important public policies. The Court found that: 
• Local 5 was the prevailing party. 
• The case vindicated significant public policies under HEPA and the Hawaiʻi Constitution’s environmental protections.  
• Private enforcement was necessary, as the developer’s improper segmentation would have gone unaddressed without Local 5’s litigation. 
• The ruling benefits the public by clarifying HEPA standards and remedies. 

Because PACREP concealed its plans and bore primary responsibility for the violation, the Court ordered PACREP—not the City—to pay. Local 5 was awarded $112,721.10, consisting of $100,774.65 in attorneys’ fees, $5,692.50 for preparing the fee motion, $5,016.73 in general excise tax, and $1,237.22 in costs. 

Key Takeaways 

1. Segmentation under HEPA: Developers cannot divide interdependent projects into separate environmental reviews. If one project is a necessary precedent for another, they must be analyzed together. 
2. Mootness and Completed Projects: HEPA litigation does not become moot simply because a project is finished. Courts retain equitable discretion to order further review or mitigation.  
3. Economic and Social Impacts: HEPA’s scope includes not just ecological effects, but also economic, social, and health impacts. Job creation claims and potential residential conversions must be properly addressed. 
4. Private Enforcement: Unions, community groups, and other private parties play a role in enforcing environmental laws, and successful litigants may recover attorneys’ fees under the PAG doctrine. 
5. Developers Bear the Risk: Where developers conceal plans or improperly segment environmental review, they may face both litigation risk and fee awards. 

The PACREP decisions reinforce that segmentation is impermissible and that completed projects are not immune from environmental review and costly penalties.