Department of Environmental Services v. Land Use Commission
275 P.3d 809
Haw.2012Background
- DES sought SUP-2 to expand WGSL, a 200-acre municipal landfill on Oahu, to accept MSW and ash/residue.
- Planning Commission approved SUP-2, subject to conditions, including a prohibition on MSW after July 31, 2012 and continued management measures.
- Planning Commission findings acknowledged need for WGSL and that it would take seven-plus years to identify/develop a replacement site.
- LUC adopted the Planning Commission's findings, adding Condition 14: MSW allowed only through July 31, 2012; after that, only ash/residue from H-POWER allowed.
- DES appealed the LUC Order; circuit court affirmed Condition 14; DES was deemed aggrieved and argued the condition was arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence.
- Hawai`i Supreme Court vacated the circuit court judgment, remanding for further LUC proceedings, finding Condition 14 not supported by substantial evidence and thus removable as a material condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Condition 14 supported by substantial evidence? | DES contends no substantial evidence supports the 2012 MSW closure. | LUC asserts condition is within its discretion and supported by the record. | No; not supported by substantial evidence. Remand required. |
| Does LUC have authority to impose restrictive conditions on SUPs? | DES acknowledges general authority but argues condition must be supported by substantial evidence. | LUC may impose restrictions as necessary; Condition 14 is within that authority. | Yes, authority exists, but condition must be supported by substantial evidence. |
| Should the case be remanded to LUC for further proceedings? | DES seeks remand so LUC can reconsider in light of insufficient evidence for Condition 14. | LUC's decision stands with Condition 14 if supported by record; no remand discussed. | Remand warranted to allow LUC to address substantial-evidence deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bustamante v. Massanari, 262 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence must support agency findings; mistakes require remand)
- Sousa v. Callahan, 143 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1998) (reliance on lay testimony; reversal when evidence supports impairment)
- In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai`i 97, 9 P.3d 409 (2000) (substantial evidence standard for agency determinations)
- United Jewish Ctr. v. Town of Brookfield, 827 A.2d 440 (Conn.App. 2003) (remand when agency action lacks evidentiary support)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (remand when record does not support agency decision)
- Lanai Co., Inc. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105 Hawai`i 296, 97 P.3d 372 (Haw. 2004) (remand where substantial-evidence issues affect LUC findings)