Committees advance bill letting DLNR adopt nonresident user fees for selected state parks and trails

The House Committee on Tourism and the Committee on Water and Land advanced Senate Bill 439 (SD1) on March 20, authorizing the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) to adopt rules imposing user fees that apply solely to nonresident visitors at selected state parks and trails.

Why it matters: supporters said dedicated park revenues would help underfunded state parks and allow DLNR to maintain and operate more sites; opponents warned the approach could raise constitutional questions about differential fees and travel privileges.

Agency testimony and revenue estimates Dawn Chang (DLNR) told members the department supports the intent of SB439 and is already performing much of what the bill contemplates, including assessing fees at some parks. DLNR said it is considering seasonal surge pricing and dynamic pricing models in addition to adjustments tied to inflation.

In response to member questions, DLNR said it currently charges $5 at some locations and that, using conservative estimates, adding visitor fees at five targeted parks could generate about $10,000,000 in additional revenue annually. DLNR said fees collected are deposited into the parks special fund, which supports maintenance and operations across the 55 state parks that generally do not all generate fees.

Legal and constitutional concerns Tom Yamachika of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii warned of potential constitutional issues, saying courts have allowed park entry fees when they are tied directly to a park’s upkeep but that a regime of differential nonresident fees applied across many sites “starts to look like a differential tax” and could raise privileges-and-immunities concerns under U.S. constitutional law.

Public comment and committee action Ted Bohlen (Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition) said park fees are meritorious but stressed that SB439 is not a substitute for a broader funding measure for statewide stewardship. DLNR said its rules are drafted with case law in mind (the transcript cites a Haulama Bay-related precedent) and that the department believes its current approach is constitutional; DLNR also noted the department has not faced a legal challenge to current nonresident fees in recent years.

The committees approved SB439 SD1 with amendments that encourage DLNR to consider seasonal pricing for trails and parks and forwarded the measure for additional processing.

Ending note DLNR and members said more detailed, park‑level revenue estimates and administrative rules will be needed to implement any expanded nonresident fee program. The department committed to supplying requested data to the committee after the hearing.