Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ocean Recreation Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables statewide ocean recreation bill after widespread opposition and permit concerns
Summary
HB 512, which would expand the state’s ocean recreation management framework, was deferred after extensive opposition from tourism operators, chambers of commerce and community groups; DLNR said the measure would help manage user conflicts but stakeholders warned of legal and permit risks.
The House Committee on Water & Land deferred HB 512 after a large number of opponents testified that the bill’s language was vague and could create new regulatory burdens and legal risk for existing commercial ocean‑use permits.
Megan Statz, DLNR’s boating administrator, said the department already uses Ocean Recreation Management Areas (ORMAs) to manage user conflicts in nine designated sites and that the bill would allow the state to treat more areas within 3,000 feet of the shoreline as ORMAs to address commercial use conflicts. “We also have non‑designated areas,” Statz said. “And those non‑designated areas, we really don't have any kind of major regulations in those areas.” She said a statewide framework would help DLNR manage user conflicts more consistently.
Denver (last name withheld in public remarks), testifying for the Ocean Tourism Coalition, urged opposition. He said many existing commercial permits, particularly operators in Kaanapali, potentially face nonrenewal or litigation and that adding broad new statewide authority without explicitly protecting existing permits could harm businesses. “Given the vague language, we are opposed to this measure at the moment,” he said.
A representative for permittees described ongoing litigation over Kaanapali commercial permits and said a court decision could require environmental review for permits issued decades ago, creating uncertainty for companies whose businesses rely on continuity of permits. DLNR staff told members that court matters are separate from ORMA designation but acknowledged the litigation’s potential to affect permit renewals.
The committee deferred HB 512 to allow additional work on language and to address industry concerns; the chair cited the volume of opposition testimony. No floor vote was taken.
Why it matters: The bill would create a broader legal framework for managing ocean recreation and commercial activity that affects public access, marine resources and economic activity in coastal communities. Opponents say existing permits issued decades ago may face new environmental review requirements; supporters say a statewide ORMA framework is needed to manage conflicts consistently.
Ending: The committee deferred HB 512 for further drafting and stakeholder engagement.
