Flying in the face of possible legal action, the Hawaii Superferry will launch two days ahead of schedule tomorrow with $5 one-way tickets for passengers and $5 one-way tickets for vehicles, the company announced yesterday.

Opponents, who plan to seek an injunction against Superferry operations on Monday, reacted angrily, saying the company is defying state laws and acting in bad faith.

"This is really a slap in the face to the residents of Hawai'i and to the state Supreme Court" — which on Thursday ruled that Superferry must conduct an environmental assessment of its operation — said Jeff Mikulina, executive director of the Sierra Club Hawai'i Chapter.

It was unclear yesterday whether the company could begin operations before completion of the assessment, which could take at least six months.

State Department of Transportation Director Barry Fukunaga said the company could start service to Maui and Kaua'i while the environmental assessment is conducted.

"We have no intention of denying them access at this point," Fukunaga said just hours before Superferry announced its accelerated schedule. "The court did not specifically specify that they could not commence operations."

The process to conduct an environmental assessment will likely take months, Fukunaga said. Meanwhile, "there is no restriction on our part or prohibition against them operating," he said.

'ACTING IN BAD FAITH'

Opponents disagreed. "The law couldn't be more clear," Mikulina said. "It requires review before any action happens. They should have done the review years ago."

Attorney Isaac Hall, representing three environmental groups, said he would seek an injunction Monday that would essentially halt the use of any harbor improvements until the environmental review is done.

The company's plans to start operations early "shows they are acting in bad faith," Mikulina said, adding that the environmental groups sent a letter yesterday to Superferry asking it to voluntarily postpone its scheduled Tuesday start. "I guess this was their answer," he said.

Yesterday's announcement of $5 temporary ticket prices follows special trips this week by friends and family of the Superferry's 300 employees.

Some of the 20,000 passengers and people who have toured the Superferry — named the Alakai — said they could not afford the regular one-way adult prices, which run from $44 to $62 plus additional fuel surcharges of $10 to $19 for each adult.

"Demand for these tours and rides has been phenomenal," said Superferry President and Chief Executive Officer John Garibaldi. "We want everyone in Hawai'i to have an opportunity to experience Hawaii Superferry's experience firsthand."

Asked whether he could assure Superferry passengers that their cars, trucks and motorcycles will not be stuck on Kaua'i or Maui from a possible court action that could shut down operations, Garibaldi said, "I think the confidence and the support that we've seen in this community really will send a message about who's out there supporting Hawaii Superferry. It's the resident out there, the resident on each and every island, and they are really excited about our product and want to try it."

Garibaldi declined to say how much the $5 fares would cost Hawaii Superferry in lost revenue. Passengers who already booked trips through Sept. 5 will still get the $5 rate and will receive refunds, Garibaldi said.

"We look at this as an investment in the community, an investment going ahead. ... This is about Hawai'i in the long run."

Across the state yesterday, there was wide reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to require an environmental assessment.

RULING 'VINDICATION'

"Vindication" is how Ron Sturtz of Maui Tomorrow characterized the court's ruling and a separate order issued the same day by 2nd Circuit Judge Joel August requiring the DOT to make improvements to a busy Kahului intersection where vehicles disembarking from the ferry would enter public roads.

Sturtz said the ruling culminated "a long journey that started 2 1/2 years ago." The group and other opponents don't necessarily want to ban the ferry from Hawaiian waters, he said.

"That has never been the case. The point is, a responsible business would have undertaken an EIS early on and found out what the issues were. They claim to have done their own studies, but we've never seen them and they have never involved the public in any way," he said. "Before they set sail, there should be a proper environmental assessment, with public participation and review and comment, and none of that was done."

Lucienne De Naie of the Sierra Club on Maui described the legal battle as "David vs. Goliath" and said the court ruling shows "there is justice left in our country for the little people."

She said the plaintiffs have spent at least $50,000 on legal costs, paid for mostly with donations, and that there is still "a long way to go toward getting a good resolution" to addressing potential impacts from the ferry.

Environmental law expert Denise Antolini called the ruling "historic" and "striking" both in content and for the speed with which it was delivered.

"It is highly unusual for the court to rule so quickly and firmly in a situation where the project was past the eleventh hour. It's remarkable," she said. "It gives me great faith in our judicial system's ability to focus on the legal merits and to stay independent of what are obviously intense economic pressures."

NEED FOR EIS?

Antolini, who heads the Environmental Law Program at the University of Hawai'i's William S. Richardson School of Law, said it was clear to her from the start that state law required an environmental review and that there was strong legal precedent for it.

"There was absolutely no way this project should be exempt in view of the scope of the project and its cumulative impacts. The Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled very early in the history of the EIS law that the focus of the law is to broadly look at the secondary and cumulative impacts of a project, and that that broad look means you cannot fit a camel through the eye of a needle, and that's what the Superferry was trying to do, saying these are just little projects when they were obviously very large projects."

A 1981 Hawai'i Supreme Court ruling in a case involving a water transmission project and the Moloka'i Homesteaders Cooperative clearly set the role of the environmental review law as covering the secondary impacts and socioeconomic consequences of major projects, said Antolini, who worked for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund before joining the UH faculty 11 years ago.

"You can't just look at the impact of digging the ditch; you have to look at what the project is going to do on a larger scale," she said.

"The court has a 25-year tradition of being protective of Hawai'i's fragile environment and enforcing the environmental review law, but in a case like this where the stakes were really high and the ferry had already arrived, it put the court in a very difficult position. The decision reaffirms our faith in the court that they would stick to the law."

Maui Land & Pineapple Co. was among the Hawaii Superferry supporters, investing $1 million in the company to boost its diversified agricultural operations.

David Cole, the company's chairman, president and chief executive officer, said yesterday that it appeared the Superferry was being singled out from cruise ships and other harbor users.

"Conducting a thorough analysis of major capital projects in the context of a comprehensive plan is wise, but these standards should apply to all players, not just the newest, the smallest and the most popular," Cole said.

Reach Dan Nakaso at dnakaso@honoluluadvertiser.com and Christie Wilson at cwilson@honoluluadvertiser.com.