Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hepa Fisheries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers split on HEPA changes after aquarium‑trade litigation; committee advances narrower EIS fix
Summary
Senators and dozens of witnesses debated whether to change how the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act applies to fisheries after litigation tied to aquarium‑trade permits; committees deferred a broad exemption and advanced a narrower, technical fix to let ongoing operations continue while agencies determine HEPA requirements.
Senators, agency officials, environmental groups and commercial fishers spent hours on Feb. 12 debating how the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) should apply to fishing permits after litigation that centered on aquarium collectors.
Committee members deferred a broadly worded measure, Senate Bill 22, which would have amended HRS Chapter 343 and exempted an entire industry from environmental review. Supporters, including fishing‑industry advocates, said state fishery management through the Department of Land and Natural Resources and its Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) already monitors and regulates fisheries and that requiring EAs or EISs for many commercial marine licenses (CMLs) could be disruptive or unaffordable for small operators.
Randy Cates, who said he requested SB22, warned the committee that “every fishery in the state will be forced to do that EIS,” and that the cost and time would harm local commercial fishing. He added that many states manage fisheries through resource agencies rather than an EIS process.
Environmental groups opposed the broad exemption. Kylie Wager Cruz of Earthjustice said the court rulings that required HEPA review for aquarium permits were intended to ensure public input and consideration of cultural and environmental impacts. “Exempting an entire industry at this point, we think is too far of a broad brush,” she said.
DLNR and the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development (OPSD) urged a narrower approach. OPSD told committees it preferred a bill that provided a temporary or targeted mechanism to allow previously authorized or permitted activities to continue while agencies determine whether HEPA review is required, rather than a blanket industry exemption.
Senators moved the narrower, technical fix forward. A separate measure, drafted to allow activities to continue while the approving agency determines whether an environmental review is required, passed committee with amendments and was referred to the Judiciary Committee for legal review. The committee report will also capture an OPSD technical amendment to limit the measure to the agency’s permitting statutes rather than a blanket exclusion.
Testimony illustrated the stakes and uncertainty. Aquarists, aquarium‑industry representatives and some former aquarium collectors described permits and EIS work that took years and substantial money; fishermen and community organizations described risks to local food supply, small livelihoods and cultural practices. Several speakers urged the Legislature to await pending court decisions or to craft narrower, programmatic NEPA‑style reviews rather than a sweeping exemption.
Committee chairs said the narrower approach aims to reduce immediate disruption to businesses regulated under long‑standing permitting programs while preserving pathways for judicial review and public input where the law requires it. The broader fisheries exemption (SB22) was deferred for further consideration.
The narrower measure will now proceed to the Judiciary Committee for legal review; sponsors and agencies signaled they would continue interagency consultations and consider programmatic or de minimis exemptions where appropriate.
