The Hawai'i Supreme Court sided with environmentalists yesterday in a ruling that could delay Tuesday's much anticipated launch of the Hawai'i Superferry's interisland passenger and vehicle service.

The high court ruled that the state must conduct an environmental assessment related to the ferry service. Armed with the ruling, three Maui environmental groups will seek an order to stop the Superferry.

Superferry officials said in a statement late yesterday that "clearly, we are disappointed" by the ruling.

"For more than three years, Hawai'i Superferry has met all the requirements of the state Department of Transportation, including provisions pertaining to environmental review," the statement said. "The company complied with, and in many instances, exceeded Hawai'i and federal environmental regulations."

The environmental groups hope the Supreme Court ruling will force Superferry operations to be put on hold while the study is conducted, which could take at least six months and as long as three years. The environmentalists argue the ferry, which travels through marine sanctuaries, could harm whales and transport invasive plant species between islands.

Superferry proponents have cited the advantage to consumers of another option for interisland travel. They also pointed out that barges and cruise ships travel between islands without causing major environmental damage.

The high court's decision, however, validated the concerns of environmentalists and several Neighbor Island lawmakers who had unsuccessfully sought an environmental review of the Superferry's impact on state harbors in the last legislative session.

"There's never been any doubt in my mind that Hawai'i Superferry and the Department of Transportation should have conducted an environmental impact statement," said State Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser, D-7th (Kaua'i, Ni'ihau). "It's unfortunate they did not come to that conclusion a few years ago so we would not be here today."

The state Supreme Court issued its stunningly quick decision less than five hours after hearing arguments yesterday and declared that the state Department of Transportation must conduct an environmental assessment of improvements at Kahului Harbor that paved the way for the interisland ferry.

INJUNCTION REQUEST

Maui lawyer Isaac Hall, who represents the three environmental groups that brought the suit, said he will ask a Maui circuit judge to issue an injunction "as quickly as possible" halting the Superferry's use of state harbor lands and the improvements until the study is completed.

The study could take six months to a year and could lead to the more detailed environmental review that could add another one or two years, he said.

Hall said he hopes to get the order before Tuesday, when the Superferry planned to launch its service between Honolulu and Maui and Honolulu and Kaua'i. A second ferry is scheduled to serve the Big Island starting in 2009.

The Superferry expects an average load of 400 passengers and 110 vehicles, although the vessel can carry more than 850 people and 250 vehicles.

Scott Ishikawa, Transportation Department spokesman, said last night the department would withhold comment until it had time to review the ruling with state attorneys.

State and Superferry lawyers urged the high court to uphold a 2005 ruling by Maui Circuit Judge Joseph Cardoza who ruled that the three groups — the Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow Inc. and the Kahului Harbor Coalition — didn't have legal standing to file the suit requiring the environmental evaluation.

In a two-page order, the high court not only agreed with the groups that Cardoza erred but instructed the Maui court to issue a ruling that the environmental study is required.

The environmental groups will seek an injunction that would essentially implement the high court's decision and halt the use of the improvements until the environmental review process is completed.

Deputy Attorney General William Wynhoff argued that the environmental study isn't necessary for the improvements just as they aren't required for cruise ships that visit the harbors with as many as 4,000 people.

The improvements, he told the justices, are "actually in the harbor, which is not a particularly sensitive environment."

Hall argued that although the improvements are in the harbor, they were done for the interisland ferry that would travel through marine sanctuaries with endangered species such as humpback whales and would unload and load cars that might add to traffic congestion.

In addition, there should be a study to determine what impact the ferry might have on introducing invasive plant species from one island to another, he said.

LEGAL STANDING

Superferry lawyer Lisa Munger urged the justices to affirm Cardoza's decision that the Maui groups did not establish that they were directly affected by the ferry and therefore did not have the legal standing to pursue the lawsuit. She said concerns by canoe paddlers and surfers weren't enough to establish the standing for the groups.

Associate Justice Simeon Acoba quizzed her on who would be able to bring a challenge under the environmental laws under her interpretation. She suggested Maui County, which owns nearby harbor roads, or other businesses that use the harbor might have the standing, but conceded that individuals could sue as long as they show they might be harmed by the improvements.

By its order, the high court agreed with Hall that the groups had legal standing to press the case.

Under the ruling, the state must now conduct an environmental assessment to determine whether the harbor improvements may have a "significant" impact on the environment. If it has that potential, a more detailed environmental impact statement must be done to evaluate the impacts.

During the review, the public would have a chance to comment on the potential impact on the environment, one of the points Hall stressed to the justices.

"We're very happy to have an opportunity to participate in this process," Hall said.

Although the case specifically deals only with Kahului Harbor, Hall said the state exempted from the environmental review improvements at other harbors. He said he'll urge the courts to view the entire Superferry project "as a whole," which would mean it could not use the improvements at the other harbors until the environmental review is completed.

A bill in the state Legislature that would have required an environmental study passed the Senate but was killed by the House, after state Rep. Joseph Souki, D-8th (Wailuku, Waihe'e, Waiehu), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, found that it was unfair to single out Superferry when other interisland carriers did not have to do environmental impact statements.

BATTLE OVER BILL

Neighbor Island senators had said that an environmental review could be done without delaying the launch of ferry service, but Superferry developers and the Department of Transportation opposed the bill, claiming it could lead to delays.

State House Majority Leader Kirk Caldwell, D-24th (Manoa), defended the House's position last night, saying lawmakers wanted to give consumers another option for interisland travel. He said the court's ruling may make other business investors pause, since Superferry developers believed they had met all conditions for operation.

"I think the House did the right thing in trying to preserve as many options for the people of this state as possible," Caldwell said.

The bill was seen as a final attempt to force an environmental review given that lawmakers did not know if the courts would rule on the suits brought by environmentalists.

Neighbor Island lawmakers said they were representing activists in their communities who were demanding an environmental review. The Maui, Kaua'i and Big Island county councils also approved nonbinding resolutions calling for a review.

In February, the Environmental Council, which advises the state on environmental issues, released an opinion that the Department of Transportation failed to consider the cumulative effect of the Superferry when it ruled an impact study was not necessary. The opinion was considered largely symbolic.

Reach Ken Kobayashi at kkobayashi@honoluluadvertiser.com and Derrick DePledge at ddepledge@honoluluadvertiser.com.