COM 0271.146 2012-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

(4) The council acknowledges that inherent in the public trust doctrine is the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle mandates caution and conservation when information is uncertain or unknown, especially when there is a potential risk to long-term human and environmental health; (5) The Intermediate Court of Appeals in Kaua'i Springs Inc. vs. Planning Commission of the County of Kaua'i, dated April 20, 2013, as well as the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit in Missler v. Board of Appeals of the County of Hawai`i, dated April 15, 2013, both recently underscored the importance of the public trust doctrine and its corollary precautionary principle. In Kaua'i Springs the Intermediate Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the county government in its trustee capacity is subject to the precautionary principal and therefore must exercise a higher level of scrutiny in establishing reasonable measures and making appropriate assessments in order to avoid harmful impacts to our public trust resources. In both the Missler and the Kaua'i Springs case, the Court made clear that the public trust doctrine applies where activities aimed at economic commercial gain regardless of whether the property is public or private; (6) The United Nations Biosafety Protocol, with 85 signatory nations, became international law on September 11, 2003. This international protocol, though not signed by the United States, regulates the transboundary movement of transgenic organisms. This international protocol implements the "Precautionary Principle." In this context the Precautionary Principle requires that a new technology poses threats of damage to human or environmental health, the burden of proof is on the promoter of the technology to prove scientifically that the technology is safe, not on the public or governments to prove that the technology is unsafe; (7) The council therefore recognizes the right of the people and their government to guard against the intrusion of potential contaminates without having to first wait for definitive science. As the United States Supreme Court made clear in Maine vs. Taylor (1986) "the constitutional principles underlying the commerce clause cannot be read as requiring the State . . . to sit idly by and wait until potentially irreversible environmental damage has occurred or until the scientific community agrees on what disease organisms are or are not dangerous before it acts to avoid such consequences"; (8) The council believes the federal government has not required safeguards for the research, testing, use, and monitoring of genetically modified transgenic crops, fish, trees animals, and other organisms, and is concerned that federal agencies have allowed genetically modified crops and foods exemptions from scientific tests normally required in the case of products intended for human consumption; (9) The council believes that while there are times when it is preferable that agricultural and environmental policy be controlled at the state and federal levels, in lieu of meaningful protections from either, the council, with this ordinance, is implementing its responsibility to protect the present and long-term health and 2