|
CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman, do you have a question?
<br />MS. JARMAN: Thank you very much. That was very interesting, I enjoyed reading your
<br />amendments. In terms of the Public Trust Doctrine, I have a little bit different understanding
<br />of it than you do, and I'm very much a proponent of the Public Trust Doctrine. If you read that
<br />constitutional provision - -and my understanding of the Public Trust Doctrine - -it really only
<br />applies to public natural resources. So, that would be any natural resources owned by the
<br />County or the State; or because we do own the resources of the ocean, it really only applies to
<br />those resources. I have, say 50 acres of farm land, and I have a lot of koa trees or whatever, the
<br />Public Trust Doctrine doesn't apply to my property. Is that your understanding?
<br />MS. WILLE: I would say you are taking the two ends of the continuum, and it's something in
<br />the middle. If you read the Waiahole case on water - -and I'm talking off the top of my head, I
<br />haven't read the case lately - -the Court said, no, we also have to take into consideration that if
<br />you are diverting, it was a sugar company, that we also have to take into that framework of
<br />analysis, that if you have this private right to water, what is the impact to future generations.
<br />It's not saying what your decision is, it's just saying you have to take into account how
<br />decisions in terms of development approvals are made. It doesn't go into your land, but I
<br />would say it allows for, or requires, consideration for how that impacts us as a whole. If you
<br />cut down all the windbreaks and all the trees - -as in Waimea, it's getting cut more - -we're
<br />getting more and more drought. All that farmland, it's all moving up. Should that be taken
<br />into consideration, that cumulative impact, and what we do now affects the future. I think I'm
<br />a step ahead, but not as far as, okay, we can come in and stop you on your koa trees. But, if
<br />you come in and you are wanting a permit, and you are developing, should we - -the whole area
<br />above Kona, we're all sort of running on horizontal lines, and we're cutting this all up - -what is
<br />that impact, what is the cumulative impact?
<br />MS. JARMAN: That is very different from the Public Trust Doctrine. Even in the Waiahole
<br />case, they were talking about water, which the court has said is a public natural resource. But,
<br />the State law allows people to actually take water for their private use, if you get permits. The
<br />Public Trust Doctrine really only applies to public natural resources, so in a sense it doesn't
<br />solve the problem that you are talking about in your Article XVIII. It seems to me that if the
<br />Public Trust Doctrine has been incorporated into our Constitution and the Supreme Court has
<br />said that it applies to Counties as well as to the State, then we don't really need to have it,
<br />except that it is nice to put it in there to reiterate it, so people don't have to go both to the
<br />Constitution and to our Charter to see it. But, that first statement in XI, or is it Article XII in
<br />the State Constitution, will you please re -read it.
<br />MS. WILLE: "For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political
<br />subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources,
<br />including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and
<br />utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and the furtherance
<br />of the self - sufficiency of the State."
<br />MS. JARMAN: It seems to me, that statement is the statement you want to get at in terms of
<br />your Article XVIII, the Public Trust Doctrine. To me, that is the clear statement of what you
<br />19
<br />
|