Council authorizes up to $200,000 to retain outside counsel in Hui Mālama Honokōhau Clean Water case despite public opposition

The Hawaii County Council voted 7–2 on Dec. 6 to authorize Corporation Counsel to enter a multi‑year agreement, not to exceed $200,000, with outside special counsel Shlok Ito LLC to defend the county in a citizen lawsuit brought under the Clean Water Act by Hui Mālama Honokōhau.

The measure, Resolution 3‑72‑23, was the subject of lengthy public testimony and council debate. Dozens of residents, fishermen, cultural practitioners and nonprofit representatives urged the council to reject the funding for litigation and instead use taxpayer dollars to upgrade the Kealakehe wastewater treatment plant and stop ongoing discharges into Honokōhau Harbor. "This must stop and I ask for council's help," said Susan Aronson, a Kailua‑Kona resident, who told the council the plant has discharged partially treated wastewater into groundwater and the harbor since 1993.

Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strantz told the council her office recommended retaining outside counsel after assessing internal capacity and expertise. She said discovery in the case is document‑and technology‑intensive and that her office lacks the environmental litigation specialty needed to respond on the timetable imposed by discovery requests. Strantz said the office had engaged in good‑faith negotiations with Earthjustice before the complaint was filed but that talks were unsuccessful. She also cited language in the plaintiffs' filings that seeks daily penalties should the plaintiffs prevail, and said expert and discovery costs are expected as the case proceeds.

Council members split along multiple considerations. Those who supported the measure said the county's litigation posture requires specialized environmental law experience and extra staff capacity to avoid costly default or penalties, and to preserve the county's ability to continue operations while pursuing settlement. "This is not about getting out of improving wastewater systems," a supporting member said during debate; rather, the county needs legal and technical resources to navigate complex federal and state rules and discovery.

Opponents framed the vote as a policy choice. Multiple testifiers and at least two council members argued taxpayer money should prioritize infrastructure improvements and remediation, not defense against a citizen suit. "Don't waste $200,000 of taxpayer dollars — fix the treatment plant," said Mike Nakachi, a Kona resident and longtime Honokōhau boat captain.

The roll call on the motion to adopt Resolution 3‑72‑23 recorded seven votes in favor and two against (Councilmember Evans voted no; Councilmember Inaba voted no with reservations). The resolution authorizes the mayor to enter a multi‑year agreement with the named firm for legal services and expenses up to the authorized amount.

The council discussion also signaled follow‑up expectations: members asked Corporation Counsel to report back on how outside counsel will be used, anticipated costs beyond the $200,000 authorization, and how the county will continue to pursue infrastructure improvements while litigation proceeds. Strantz told members the goal is to preserve the county’s ability to engage in settlement or mediation while addressing technical compliance and discovery needs.

Next steps: Corporation Counsel may execute the agreement and will periodically report to the council on litigation status, discovery needs and any recommended additional actions; council members also indicated they will continue oversight of wastewater improvement plans and funding options.