[hokuula]

Here is the link to the actual opinion http://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SCO...

The HSC held that Native Hawaiian rights would not be substantially impacted by the TMT, which was an issue in the administrative hearing that took place from 2016-2017, and what was being appealed in this HSC case.

What was procedural was the previous administrative hearing was ruled invalid because BLNR granted the permit before convening the hearing, so those that wanted to voice their grievances weren't given a real opportunity to. HSC said that violated due process and remanded the case for a second administrative hearing. It is this second hearing, regarding the TMT building permit, that this court case deals with.

The judge in the administrative hearing, a retired state judge, found that there would be no substantial impacts to natural resources, most importantly water resources, but also cultural and archaeological resources. The University of Hawaii brought in a hydrologist with expertise in local (Big Island) water resources to demonstrate why and the hearing officer (the administrative judge) accepted that based on the hydrologists scientific expertise in local water issues. It was then found to be a valid conclusion when appealed to the HSC.

If you want to read the conclusion of the hearing officer in the administrative hearing, her findings of fact and conclusions of law can be read here https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/07/783-Hearing-Officer... (long: 305 pages). This was what BLNR used to grant the permit. And as a matter of it being so thorough and as a matter of everyone being a chance to voice their opinion, the HSC upheld the permit and the conclusions of the hearing officer.