1. Life of the Land

1. John F. Schweigert, Honolulu, HI
2. E. Cooper Brown, Honolulu, HI

1. George R. Ariyoshi, Governor of the State of Hawai‘i
2. Board of Water Supply for the County of Maui
3. Mel Bartolome, Individually and in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Water Supply
4. Wailea Development Company
5. Seibu Fudosan K. K., a Japanese Corporation registered to do business in the State of Hawai‘i

1. Ronald Y. Amemiya, Atty. Gen., Honolulu, HI
2. Laurence K. Lau, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, HI
3. Paul R. Mancini, Corp. Counsel, Dept. of Corporation Counsel, County of Maui, Wailuku, HI
4. David Nakamura, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Dept. of Corporation Counsel, County of Maui, Wailuku, HI
5. Shackley F. Rafetto, Mukai Ichiki Rafetto & MacMillan, Wailuku, HI
6. Francis M. Izumi, Izumi & Tanaka, Honolulu, HI
7. Tamotsu Tanaka, Izumi & Tanaka, Honolulu, HI

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4332 et seq.
• Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act (“HEPA”), Hawai‘i Revised Statute (“HRS”) § 343-1 et seq.

1. The appellant sought an injunction pending its appeal in the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i. The appellant had filed a complaint asserting that the appellees had submitted an inadequate Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the construction of the Central Maui Water Transmission System (“system”). The appellant questioned the adequacy of the EIS in considering the primary and secondary impacts of the system project (“Count I”), in discussing alternatives to the project (“Count II”), and in fully examining the cost and benefits of the project (“Count III”). The trial court had granted partial summary judgment to the appellees for Count I and II, and the trial court granted the appellees motion to dismiss Count III. The appellant sought an injunction pending its appeal, which the trial court denied.
   
2. The purpose of the system was to transfer water from a private source in Waiehu to the public in south Maui. The appellant contended that the appellees’ action would irrevocably deny water from one area of Maui and divert water to help facilitate development in the Makena-Wailea area of Maui, and the EIS for the system does not sufficiently inform the decision-maker.
   
3. The appellees contended that the EIS for the system was inadequate because it does not discuss a cost-benefit analysis. The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i found that a cost-benefit analysis was not necessary to serve the purpose of an EIS. HEPA does not expressly require a cost-benefit analysis, and the Environmental Quality Commission (“EQC”) Regulations imply that a cost-benefit analysis in an EIS is discretionary. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i found that the appellant had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success for injunctive relief.
   
4. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i DENIED the appellant’s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal.