Ka Makani ‘O Kohala Ohana, Inc. v. County of Hawaii Department of Water Supply
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
295 F.3d 955 (2002)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required the preparation of an environmental-impact statement for all major federal actions that affect the quality of the human environment. In 1987, the County of Hawaii Department of Water Supply (DWS) (defendant) developed a plan, the Kohala Project, to build a water diversion system to transfer 20 million gallons of groundwater per day from the northern region of Kohala to South Kohala. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) provided funding in the amount of $800,000 for preliminary studies regarding the feasibility of the project. Congress allocated $500,000 to the County of Hawaii to be provided as a special-purpose grant for the purpose of conducting an environmental-impact statement. The total amount of federal funding received for the project was less than 2 percent of the total estimated cost of the project. In addition, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided the County of Hawaii with assistance in preparing its application and provided recommendations to ensure the project would be exempt from NEPA requirements in order to expedite the approval process. Neither the USGS nor HUD had any decision-making power or authority over the project. The Kohala project was eventually put on hold due to a poor economic climate.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tashima, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.