Part I.  Coastal Zone Management


   205A-1 Definitions

   205A-2 Coastal zone management program; objectives and


   205A-3 Lead agency

 205A-3.5 Public advisory body; establishment; composition

   205A-4 Implementation of objectives, policies, and


   205A-5 Compliance

   205A-6 Cause of action


        Part II.  Special Management Areas

  205A-21 Findings and purposes

  205A-22 Definitions

  205A-23 County special management area boundaries

 205A-24, 25 Repealed

  205A-26 Special management area guidelines

  205A-27 Designation of special management area authority

  205A-28 Permit required for development

  205A-29 Special management area use permit procedure

  205A-30 Emergency and minor permits

205A-30.5 Prohibitions

  205A-31 Repealed

  205A-32 Penalties

  205A-33 Injunctions


        Part III.  Shoreline Setbacks

  205A-41 Definitions

  205A-42 Determination of the shoreline

  205A-43 Establishment of shoreline setbacks and duties and

          powers of the department

205A-43.5 Powers and duties of the authority

205A-43.6 Enforcement of shoreline setbacks

  205A-44 Prohibitions

  205A-45 Shoreline setback lines established by county

  205A-46 Variances

  205A-47 Repealed

  205A-48 Conflict of other laws

  205A-49 Adoption of rules


        Part IV.  Marine and Coastal Affairs

  205A-61 Definitions

  205A-62 Duties and responsibilities of the lead agency

  205A-63 Agency duties to coordinate related programs

  205A-64 Public participation


        Part V.  Other Provisions

  205A-71 Artificial light on shoreline and ocean waters




  Broadband services; exemption from certain permitting requirements from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2017.  L 2011, c 151; L 2013, c 264, §3 (repealed June 30, 2018).

  Department of transportation's bridge rehabilitation and replacement program; temporary exemption from certain construction requirements of this chapter through June 30, 2017 or until completion.  L 2012, c 218.


Cross References


  Kaho‘olawe island reserve, see chapter 6K.

  Climate adaptation, see chapter 225P.


Law Journals and Reviews


  Native Hawaiian Cultural Practices Under Threat.  I HBJ No. 13, at pg. 1.

  Timesharing in the 1990s.  I HBJ No. 13, at pg. 89.

  Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City and County of Honolulu:  The Sufficiency of Legislative Hearings in an Administrative Setting.  12 UH L. Rev. 499.

  Shoreline Setback Regulations and the Takings Analysis.  13 UH L. Rev. 1.

  The Lum Court, Land Use, and the Environment:  A Survey of Hawai`i Case Law 1983 to 1991.  14 UH L. Rev. 119.

  Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Commission:  The Affirmative Duty to Consider the Effect of Development on Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights.  16 UH L. Rev. 303.

  Ala Loop and the Private Right of Action Under Hawaii Constitution Article XI, Section 9:  Charting a Path Toward a Cohesive Enforcement Scheme.  33 UH L. Rev. 367 (2010).

  The Moon Court, Land Use, and Property:  A Survey of Hawaii Case Law 1993-2010.  33 UH L. Rev. 635 (2011).


Case Notes


  Existence of chapter does not preclude private right of action to force beach access.  65 H. 383, 652 P.2d 1130.

  Chapter requires county planning commission to give cultural interests asserted by public interest group "full consideration" and obligates commission to "preserve and protect" native Hawaiian rights to the extent feasible when issuing SMA permits.  79 H. 425, 903 P.2d 1246.

  No private right of action for damages existed for commercial tour boat operators under Kauai county's special management area rules (Hanalei Estuary Management Plan) or under Hawaii administrative rules, chapter 256, entitled "Ocean Recreation Management Rules and Areas", as promulgated under this chapter and chapter 200, respectively, where both rules were not promulgated with the objective of protecting business interests or competition, but rather with the objective of protecting and preserving the environment for the general public.  110 H. 302, 132 P.3d 1213 (2006).

  As this chapter and the Kauai county planning commission's rules did not prohibit developer from proposing the developer's shoreline setback in developer's application for the special management area use permit, and commission was not prohibited from accepting the developer's setback in approving the permit, the commission's use of the developer's setback was consistent with the plain language in the permit order, as also reflected in plaintiff's deed; thus, commission's imposition of developer's setback on plaintiff's land was justified.  115 H. 477, 168 P.3d 929 (2007).

  Where the city council did not delegate the power to determine the effects on archeological resources and the means to protect the resources to a private petitioner, and conditioned the issuance of any development permit for the rail project on its receipt of documentation that a programmatic agreement to minimize and mitigate adverse effects on historic properties as generally described in the final environmental impact statement had been executed, the city and State gave full consideration to cultural and historic values as required under this chapter.  128 H. 53, 283 P.3d 60 (2012).

  Chapter does not apply to any development, existing or planned, for which permits listed in L 1975, c 176, §3 were issued or ordinances were passed prior to December 1, 1975.  4 H. App. 304, 666 P.2d 177.


Previous Vol04_Ch0201-0257 Next