243 P.3d 273
Haw. Ct. App.2010Background
- HCDA was established in 1976 to redevelop underdeveloped areas, including the Kakaako District which encompasses the Harbor.
- In 1990, title to lands within the Kakaako District, including the Harbor, was conveyed to HCDA under Act 86 (HRS § 206E-31).
- Prior to 1990, DOT operated and managed all Hawaiian harbors, including the Harbor.
- In 1991, Act 272 amended parts of HRS Chapter 266 to affirm DOT care and control of all commercial harbors, while HCDA was to redevelop the Kakaako District.
- KOA filed suit in 2007 challenging HCDA’s proposed transfer of Harbor management from DOT and related HCDA rules; the circuit court granted summary judgment for the State, dismissing KOA’s complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who has authority over the Harbor, HCDA or DOT? | KOA argues DOT has exclusive authority under 266-1/266-2. | State Defendants contend HCDA has jurisdiction via 206E and related statutes. | HCDA has jurisdiction over the Harbor. |
| Does 266-2(b) 'notwithstanding' clause control over HCDA statutes? | KOA says DOT prevails despite HCDA statutes. | State argues conflict is resolved by statutory interpretation favoring HCDA as more specific. | Notwithstanding language does not defeat HCDA under the specific-vs-general approach. |
| Does HCDA have rulemaking authority over Harbor under 206E-4(5)? | KOA claims no express basis for HCDA rulemaking over Harbor. | DOT/HCD A statutes empower HCDA to make rules for its projects, including Harbor. | HCDA may enact rules governing the Harbor under 206E-4(5). |
| Are DOT's powers restricted by 206E when interpreting Harbor jurisdiction? | KOA contends DOT’s powers are not to be restricted by HCDA statutes. | 206E restrictions apply; HCDA jurisdiction over the Harbor is consistent with the long-term redevelopment mandate. | DOT's jurisdiction is restricted by 206E; HCDA authority over Harbor stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Batson, 99 Hawai'i 118 (Haw. 2002) (rule of reading statutes in pari materia; specific over general when irreconcilable)
- Unite Here! Local 5 v. City & County of Honolulu, 123 Hawai'i 150 (Haw. 2010) (statutory interpretation framework for ambiguity and legislative intent)
- State v. Reis, 115 Hawai'i 79 (Haw. 2007) (conclusions of law reviewed de novo; standard for appellate review)
- State v. Klie, 116 Hawai'i 519 (Haw. 2007) (notwithstanding language and probationary sentencing; statutory interpretation context)
- Smith v. State, 103 Hawai'i 228 (Haw. 2003) (analysis of 'notwithstanding' clauses and hierarchy of conflicting statutes)
- Haole v. State, 111 Hawai'i 144 (Haw. 2006) (agency rulemaking authority must align with statutes; implied powers limited)