COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
Part I. Coastal Zone Management
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-6 Cause of action
Part II. Special Management Areas
205A-21 Findings and purposes
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205A-24, 25 Repealed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
Part III. Shoreline Setbacks
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-45 Shoreline setback lines established by county
205A-48 Conflict of other laws
205A-49 Adoption of rules
Part IV. Marine and Coastal Affairs
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 L 2011, c 151; L 2013, c 264, §3 (repealed June 30, 2018).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.
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 Hawai‘i 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 Hawai‘i Case Law 1993-2010. 33 UH L. Rev. 635 (2011).
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.