Committee advances beach‑restoration language and agrees to carve out 'tee groins' after contested Kahana Bay testimony

The House Committee on Water & Land passed SB1456 with amendments after a lengthy hearing that focused on proposed beach‑restoration work in Kahana Bay and a county park dune restoration project at Hanakao'o. Testimony came from DLNR, University of Hawaii, condominium associations, and multiple community groups; opinions diverged sharply over proposed stabilizing structures, cost and long‑term liability.

DLNR testified in strong support of the broader bill language that would allow nature‑based restoration such as dune restoration and removal of derelict structures. The Hololani Condominium Association and other property owners described a privately funded regional approach and said they had retained Oceanit for an EIS; they asked for legislative help to move a project that they said had been “stalled.” Hololani said property owners had “hooeyd up” and were prepared to contribute funding and in‑kind support.

Opponents and some community testifiers strongly opposed stabilizing structures — particularly the draft environmental impact statement’s preferred alternative of multiple ‘tee groins’ — citing unresolved issues about feasibility, environmental impacts, public access and long‑term ownership and liability. One witness said the DEIS acknowledged unresolved issues. Several testifiers asked that the bill not appropriate funds for the Kahana Bay groin proposal in its present form and instead prioritize lower‑cost nature‑based dune restoration and pilot projects (for example at Hanakao'o Beach Park).

After testimony, the committee chair proposed specific changes: update TMK references, add Army Corps of Engineers as a consulted party, explicitly exclude tee groins from the pilot‑project language, and add a proposed funding split discussed with the chair of finance — 25% state funds, 25% county funds, and 50% from surrounding property owners (the method for collecting the local share was not specified in committee discussion). The chair said the funding split was a starting point and other committees could alter mechanics.

Project cost estimates offered during testimony varied widely: the DEIS referenced alternatives estimated between roughly $24 million and $40 million for options that included groins; a county dune restoration pilot was discussed with a requested grant of about $250,000. Committee members asked DLNR whether it would take ownership of structures; DLNR said ownership questions were unresolved and depend on applicant proposals and interagency arrangements. Testimony also described beach nourishment (placement of offshore or quarried sand in the littoral cell) and the limits of available sand sources.

The committee adopted the chair’s package of amendments and advanced SB1456 with the stated exclusions and funding framework; the chair noted the bill’s regional solution intent and said he would adjust preamble language and TMKs before finalizing the HD. The bill will proceed with the committee’s clarifications but with open questions on ownership, maintenance and long‑term liability.

Why it matters: The measure addresses an urgent coastal‑erosion area and could set a model for regional shoreline responses; the choices made about hard or nature‑based solutions, funding sources and ownership affect future adaptation policy.

What’s next: The committee passed the bill with technical amendments and exclusions for tee groins; the committee indicated financing shares as a framework and will let later committees refine mechanisms.