Judge Overturns Kauai County Pesticide And GMO Law

On August 25, the federal district court for Hawaii vacated Kauai County's Ordinance 960, which imposed mandatory disclosure obligations regarding the use of certain pesticides and the cultivation of genetically modified crops ("GMOs"). The Court's ruling is important because it is the first major decision to address a county's ability to regulate GMO cultivation and pesticide use.

Last year, Kauai County passed a law requiring all commercial agricultural entities to make certain disclosures regarding the growing of GMOs and the use of restricted use pesticides. The law also imposed buffer zones prohibiting the use of certain pesticides within varying distances of neighboring properties. A group of agricultural companies filed suit against the law claiming that it was preempted by both state and federal law. The court vacated the law finding that Hawaii state law preempted the County Ordinance. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Cnty. of Kauai, No. 14-00014 (D. Haw. Aug. 25, 2014). The court rejected the federal preemption argument.

The district court recognized that "the State of Hawaii has established a comprehensive framework for addressing the application of restricted use pesticides and the planting of GMO crops." Op. at 2. Though the court determined that the County possessed authority to enact regulations that affect agriculture, it found that the challenged law exceeded such authority.

The court first addressed the pesticide provisions of Ordinance 960 by comparing them to the corresponding state law. In Hawaii, a local law is preempted where it "legislates in an area already staked out by the legislature for exclusive and statewide statutory treatment." Id. at 15 (citing Richardson v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 868 P.2d 1193, 1207 (Haw. 1994)). The court found that the Hawaii Pesticide Law (HRS §§ 149A-31 through 149A-37) evidenced the legislature's intent to establish a statewide regulatory system because it empowers the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to enforce the law and promulgate regulations through a comprehensive legal framework that does not include participation of counties or local governments. Id. at 19-20. Because the state law addressed recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as use restrictions, the court found that the County law impermissibly overlapped with the state law and was thereby preempted.

The court employed the same analysis in finding that the GMO provision of Ordinance 960 was preempted by state law...