Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 226
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 226-1 (2026)

  Findings and purpose

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART I.  OVERALL THEME, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

 

     §226-1  Findings and purpose.  The legislature finds that there is a need to improve the planning process in this State, to increase the effectiveness of government and private actions, to improve coordination among different agencies and levels of government, to provide for wise use of Hawaii's resources and to guide the future development of the State.

     The purpose of this chapter is to set forth the Hawaii state plan that shall serve as a guide for the future long-range development of the State; identify the goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the State; provide a basis for determining priorities and allocating limited resources, such as public funds, services, human resources, land, energy, water, and other resources; improve coordination of federal, state, and county plans, policies, programs, projects, and regulatory activities; and to establish a system for plan formulation and program coordination to provide for an integration of all major state, and county activities. [L 1978, c 100, pt of §2; am L 1984, c 236, §1; am L 1986, c 276, §1; am L 1988, c 70, §1]

 

Cross References

 

  Health planning and resources development, see chapter 323D.

  Statewide transportation planning, see chapter 279A.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1960–1989 · leading case: Kaiser Hawaii Kai Dev. Co. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244 (Haw. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaiser Hawaii Kai Dev. Co. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 777 P.2d 244 (Haw. 1989). · cites it 4× “[2] HRS § 226-1 (Supp. 1988) clearly establishes the legislature's concern for comprehensive long range planning.”
Demond v. Univ. of Hawaii, 503 P.2d 434 (Haw. 1972). “1955 § 226-1, nothing in the record suggests that it is appropriate to do so in this case.”
Re App. C/C Clerk Re Regis. Buda, 352 P.2d 846 (Haw. 1960). “1955, § 226-1; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 16. In view of such status, we are of the opinion that his failure to expressly refer to himself as a legal voter in taking this appeal is immaterial.”
In re the Appeal of Chung, 352 P.2d 846 (Haw. 1960). “1955, § 226-1; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 16. In view of such status, we are of the opinion that his failure to expressly refer to himself as a legal voter in taking this appeal is immaterial.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.