It's good for all parties involved that the intense legal struggle over the Hokuli'a project on the Big Island has been resolved, and by all accounts relatively amicably on all sides.

Indeed, the settlement and the process for consultation and coordination between the developers and various community and interest groups might serve as a model for future projects.

Had there been better conversation at the front end, the need for expensive and divisive lawsuits might never had emerged. But as healthy as such consultation is, it should not be a substitute for rational and enforceable land use planning.

The problem with Hokuli'a is that the luxury home development was being built on lands designated as agricultural by the state. Never mind that there was precious little agricultural activity on the parcel. Or that there are similar projects on nominally agricultural land around the state.

The fact is, as Circuit Judge Ronald Ibarra ruled in 2003, the project should have obtained the proper land use designation from the state before moving ahead.

Since that time, the developers have reached out to the groups who sued to stop the project as well as to other community interests. The developer has committed to a package of benefits and has set in motion an ongoing consultative process.

Based on that, Ibarra lifted his injunction again work continuing on the project.

Thus, the lawsuit against the project becomes moot. And late last week additional federal and state lawsuits against the county by prospective homeowners were also dropped. The homeowners had sued Hawai'i County, saying the county issued building permits and they bought their lots in good faith.

But while the immediate issue appears to have been resolved, there remains a need for an update to overall state land-use policy to keep similar situations from happening in the future.

Clearly there's room for a rational realignment of some marginal agriculturally designated land that likely won't be used for agricultural purposes. At the same time, it must be recognized that one reason for the agricultural designation is to act as a "buffer" around urbanized land.

And the designation also serves as a form of land-banking for future agricultural use.

Developers have a right to know precisely what the rules are, going in. Now, it is up to the state and the Legislature, working with the counties, to make sure this happens.