State Agencies Must Consider Environmental Harms Before Approving Use of State Lands

For years, Surfrider Kaua‘i and partners have fought to protect the coastline of West Kaua‘i from pesticide use on state land that threatens public health, cultural resources, and the environment. Despite these risks, the Hawai‘i Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) granted an exemption allowing Syngenta (now Hartung Brothers) to spray restricted-use pesticides as part of seed research operations on conservation land in Kekaha, just 400 feet from the ocean. The land had originally been permitted for sugarcane farming in 1982, but its use shifted to chemical-intensive seed production without any updated environmental review.

In 2017, Surfrider Foundation, Ke Kauhulu o Mānā, Hawai‘i Alliance for Progressive Action (HAPA), and Koholā Leo, along with a resident plaintiff, filed a lawsuit challenging BLNR’s exemption. After years of litigation, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in August 2025, finding that BLNR acted improperly and failed to justify its exemption. The Court held that agencies must require an Environmental Assessment before approving or extending land uses on state property when there is a potential for significant environmental effects.

The Court’s decision makes clear that agencies cannot rely on outdated permits to avoid environmental review and that whether an exemption is proper is a legal question, not one agencies can fix after the fact. By requiring full environmental assessment, the ruling affirms the mandates of the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act, which compels agencies to take a hard look at potential and cumulative impacts before granting approvals.

This ruling is a critical victory for West Kaua‘i communities, where residents have long raised concerns about pesticide drift, runoff, and impacts to beaches and cultural sites. It strengthens environmental protections statewide by ensuring that harmful activities cannot proceed on public lands without proper study of their impacts.

Read the Court’s opinion here.