Will ‘Alakai’ stay, or go?

From tears to tirades, the past six weeks since Hawaii Superferry first sailed from Honolulu to Nawiliwili Harbor has had it all.

Overwhelming some residents, offending others — the ongoing controversy over the state’s stalled inter-island alternative to flying has brought community members to their feet, lawyers to courtrooms and legislators to action.

Kaua‘i lawmakers said yesterday that the situation saddens them and remains primarily the result of Gov. Linda Lingle’s unapologetic administration.

“The situation was caused by a major mistake, a very bad decision, a blunder on the part of the state Department of Transportation,” said state Sen. Gary Hooser, a Kaua‘i Democrat. “And to date, I have not seen any proposals put forth by the department or the Lingle administration intended to resolve the issue.”

A Maui circuit judge’s expected ruling today could determine if the 350-foot “Alakai” catamaran stays in Hawai‘i or seeks a new home. A special legislative session, if called, or an appeal to the state Supreme Court could undercut his decision.

“I’m hoping Judge (Joseph) Cardoza will somehow possess the wisdom to issue a balanced judgment that treats both sides fairly … and results in ending the dispute between the two sides,” Hooser said.

The competing interests, he said, involve the financial impact on business in Hawai‘i and the environmental and community concerns that have been expressed repeatedly on Kaua‘i and Maui.

Kaua‘i Rep. Mina Morita, D-14th District, said the issue will likely persist regardless of how Cardoza rules on whether to let Hawaii Superferry operate during an environmental assessment.

“Either way, no matter what side you’re on, the decision will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court,” she said.

The environmental review is expected to take eight months, which Hawaii Superferry officials have said would cost the business too much in lost revenue to stay afloat if forced to remain idle during the process.

The five justices on the state’s highest court unanimously ruled on Aug. 23 that the state Transportation Department wrongly exempted Hawaii Superferry from an environmental assessment.

“It was like a house of cards. Everything was based on the exemption,” Morita said. “So when the exemption failed … when it was determined to be erroneous … their whole argument collapsed.”

Following the state Supreme Court’s ruling, Morita said, state and federal environmental laws should have been triggered again.

“It’s gotten to such an emotional level that the only thing that we can do is look to the law and what the law says,” she said. “To me the law is very clear on what needs to be done.”

The representative, who chairs the House Energy and Environmental Protection Committee, filed a formal complaint with the Public Utilities Commission on Sept. 27 after an informal complaint was rejected.

Hawaii Superferry is in willful violation of its operating permit — the PUC’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Morita said.

The certificate — the company’s harbors operating agreement with the Transportation Department — contains clauses that call for compliance with environmental laws.

The harbors operating agreement states: “In the event a governmental authority or a court of law determines that an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required regarding Hawaii Superferry’s operations, Hawaii Superferry will comply with all applicable environmental laws …”

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 343 requires an environmental assessment as a “condition precedent to implementation of the proposed action.”

The state Department of Transportation has set aside

$1 million for the firm Belt Collins to conduct the study of $40 million in ferry-related state-funded harbor improvements, including secondary impacts.

“If this is in their operating agreement, why is the state paying for it?” Morita said.

Transportation department officials could not be reached for comment at press time.

“The whole situation makes me really sad. What it has done is destroy people’s confidence in government,” Morita said.

“All of these teenagers and young adults that are very passionate about this issue are probably seeing government at its very worst — all due to people doing political favors rather than what’s in the public interest.”

Although the Lingle administration should accept the ultimate responsibility, she said, “Hawaii Superferry can not walk away from this with clean hands.”

“They actively lobbied,” the representative said. “They wanted certain outcomes.”

Hooser agrees.

“The Superferry followed the direction of the Department of Transportation,” he said. “But having said that, the Hawaii Superferry pushed hard to get that decision. They were fully aware of the laws, the lawsuits and the sentiments of the community the past two years.”

An independent survey conducted Sept. 27 to Oct. 2 by SMS Hawaii, as reported in news outlets, reflects the disparity among the state population, Hooser said.

“There’s a big disconnect in the way people in Kaua‘i and Maui feel and people in Honolulu,” he said.

The survey says more than two-thirds of Maui and Kaua‘i residents polled think an environmental assessment should be done on the Superferry, compared to 36 percent of O‘ahu residents.

Hawaii Superferry suspended service to Kaua‘i on Aug. 28, the day after protests prevented the Alakai from docking at Nawiliwili Harbor.

A restraining order has blocked service to Maui as the court heard a case brought by three environmental groups there.

Superferry critics say the high-speed ferry, capable of carrying more than 800 passengers and 250 cars, will spread invasive species, endanger marine life, clog traffic and further burden rural Neighbor Islands with urban woes such as drugs and homelessness.

Ferry officials have said their voluntary policies, such as boot scrubbers at ports and look-out scouts for humpback whales, will mitigate any negative environmental impacts.

• Nathan Eagle, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 224) or neagle@kauaipubco.com.