Mixed testimony in West Maui over Kahana Bay revetment, regional erosion planning

The Senate Committee on Water and Land heard oral and written testimony March 17 on two related West Maui items: SCR 47, a resolution authorizing a nonexclusive easement for a rock revetment and related public access improvements at the Hololani condominium site in Kahana, and SCR 76, a request that state agencies consult with local stakeholders on a regional Kahana Bay erosion mitigation plan.

Hololani and its project engineer described a long permitting history and framed SCR 47 as the final step in a project that replaced emergency sandbags with a lower‑profile rock revetment and public access stairs. Mihoko Ito, representing Hololani, said the project is fully permitted under federal, state and county approvals and is “legally grandfathered in under the passage of Act 16 from 2020,” and that the Board of Land and Natural Resources previously approved an easement in 2018. Jim Berry, the project engineer, said the design team worked with regulators during an environmental assessment and recommended the hybrid solution of a sheet pile wall backed by a short rock revetment; Berry said the revetment would be more durable and visually less intrusive than the existing sandbag emergency structure.

Supporters and local residents described heavy investment and long effort to reach a regional solution. Speakers representing condo associations and the Kahana Bay Steering Committee said they have funded scientific work (including a draft environmental impact statement) and seek a coordinated, bay‑wide solution that both restores sand to beaches and addresses flooding of the adjacent roadway. Julie Adcock, board president of Po’ Hailani and the steering committee representative, said the group is willing to partner with county government and consider financing mechanisms including a special tax district.

Opponents voiced strong objections. Katie Austin of Lahaina Strong said seawalls and revetments accelerate erosion and destroy beaches, called the Hololani project an inappropriate use of government decision‑making in the wake of the Lahaina wildfire, and urged the legislature to focus on community recovery, not protecting private beachfront investments. Multiple Zoom commenters and in‑person opponents said many owners of affected properties live off‑island and that earlier permit applications had been denied or were controversial; they urged managed retreat or other alternatives rather than hardening the shoreline.

DLNR and OCCL representatives said they would stand on written testimony. DLNR recommended OPSD as the coordinating agency for a regional study rather than a regulatory body acting as coordinator; DLNR staff noted legal and permitting constraints and said OCCL would remain the regulator for conservation district permits and related approvals. Mary Alice Evans of OPSD said managed retreat is a last‑resort option and that OPSD has been studying regional shoreline erosion and options, but that communities should decide if and when retreat is appropriate. DLNR suggested technical amendments to SCR 76 to name OPSD as the coordinator for a regional approach.

Public testimony showed a sharply divided local community. Record counts presented to the committee included about 109 written comments in support and 22 in opposition for SCR 47; oral testimony included condo owners, steering committee members and multiple West Maui residents both for and against the revetment and regional planning.

Clarifying details from the hearing: - Hololani: project has an earlier BLNR approval (2018) and was presented as grandfathered under Act 16 (2020); sandbags have been in place roughly 18 years according to the project team. - The proponents said the public would receive a funded access stairway and drainage improvements as part of the project. - DLNR and OCCL noted prior legal and regulatory steps, including a denied construction right‑of‑entry at a December board meeting, and suggested OPSD lead regional coordination.

No formal votes were taken March 17. Committee members indicated they would schedule decision making for the items on a later date and asked agencies and stakeholders to continue consultations and to provide consolidated proposals and technical amendments for review.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the hearing transcript and are listed in the speakers array.