For those of you who attended the Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, thank you. Here are the materials I mentioned in my session on Water, Water, Everywhere: Coastal Zone Management Permits; Hawaii’s Floodway, Floodplain and Coastal Inundation Zone Requirements, plus a few others I did not have time to cover:
- Summary of the Leslie case and commentary – one of last year’s “big cases” applying the CZMA, and what is “development” under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205A-22. My amicus brief in that case can be downloaded here.
- Summary of Diamond case and commentary – 2006’s second “big case” about the CZMA; the “shoreline” issue determined in that case was about the baseline for setbacks, not ownership.
- The three most important administrative law 2006 HAWSCT opinions (standing, “property,” and what is a “contested case”).
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) – government’s ability to regulate does not equal the ability to affect ownership rights without just compensation.
- Boone v. United States, 944 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1989) – guess what, Kaiser Aetna meant what it said.
- Alameda Gateway, Ltd. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 757 (1999) – Kaiser Aetna really meant what it said – just because a navigable ship repair facility in San Francisco Bay is subject to regulation does not mean property rights are affected.
- State of Hawaii Office of State Planning; Guide to State Permits and Approvals for Land and Water Use and Development (Draft 1995) (600kb pdf) – detailing the 55 or more permits that may be applicable to Hawaii property (at least circa 1995).
- Items I didn’t have time to talk about, but are worth mentioning:
- Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council, 70 Haw. 361, 773 P.2d 250 (1989) – intervenors in SMA permit applications don’t get a contested case in Honolulu.
- County of Kauai v. Pacific Standard Life Ins. Co.,65 Haw. 318, 653 P.2d 766 (1982) (Nukolii) – under the regulatoryscheme applicable to the Nukolii parcel, the SMA permit would have beenthe “last discretionary act” (and therefore the official assurances onwhich the landowner had a right to rely) if the election had not beencertified. Because it had been certified pre-SMA permit approval, theelection was the “official assurance,” so any reliance was premature.
- Participant’s Guide to the SMA Permit (10mb pdf)
- Hawaii Hazard Mitigation Forum
- NOAA Hawaii Coastal Zone Evaluation report (2004) (pdf)