Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers Hear Conflicting Views on Shoreline Mitigation, Emergency Erosion Bills
Summary
DLNR warned proposed Shoreline Mitigation and emergency erosion bills would shift regulatory roles and weaken protections; residents and shoreline groups urged time‑limited, regulated emergency permits to protect homes and public access amid accelerating erosion in places such as Kahana Bay.
The House Committee on Water and Land heard hours of testimony Thursday on two related bills aimed at shoreline planning and short‑term erosion relief, as residents and conservation officials disagreed over who should hold regulatory power.
Michael Kane, speaking for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, opposed HP 1846 and HP 202205, saying the bills would “reverse the roles of the Office of Planning and DLNR,” making the Office of Planning into a regulator without the rules or authority to do so and risking the prioritization of private land interests over DLNR’s public‑trust mission. Kane cautioned against embedding five‑year emergency permits into statute and said a single word change from “prohibit” to “minimize” for shoreline hardening could undermine Act 16 (2020), a key law protecting coastal resources.
Supporters of the measures — including residents from Kahana and advocacy groups — urged a different urgency. Mihoko Ito, representing the Kahana Bay steering committee, said the bill recognizes that “regional planning is what is required to help these properties” after years of chronic erosion. Spencer Schmerling, a Kahana homeowner, told lawmakers, “Erosion is already threatening our community. We’re losing beach. . . . We need a coordinated long‑term solution now, not repeated emergency responses.”
Bernie Bays, an attorney for the Shoreline Preservation Coalition, argued regional planning must be science‑based and that emergency tools are necessary to prevent “houses from being on the beach” while long‑term solutions are developed. At the same time, DLNR and some committee members warned against ad hoc hardening projects that can create downstream erosion and permanent loss of sandy beaches.
Committee members pressed witnesses on practical tradeoffs: whether the state and private property owners should be held to the same standards; how emergency permits would be time‑limited and monitored; and whether regional mechanisms could resolve conflicts over ownership and maintenance of structures such as groins. DLNR officials pointed to existing emergency permitting authority — citing an instance where they issued an emergency permit in two days for a collapsed sidewalk in Kapi‘olani Park — and said the department is already processing regional planning proposals.
The chair deferred HP 1846 for further work with the bill’s introducer and noted a related Senate bill may move. The committee left open the possibility of future hearings if sponsors can reconcile agency concerns with the request for short‑term, regulated relief.
What’s next: The committee deferred HP 1846 and will coordinate with the bill’s introducer on revised language; HP 202205 was discussed but no final action on that measure was recorded in the transcript.
