Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives spar over bill to bypass coastal SMA review for Maui projects
Summary
Lawmakers debated HB1823, which would expand exemptions to Hawaii's Special Management Area (SMA) permitting for certain projects in Maui; opponents warned it risks losing federal coastal-zone funding and undermines environmental safeguards, while supporters said it responds to county and court concerns.
Lawmakers on the House floor spent more than an hour debating HB1823, a measure that opponents say would allow projects in coastal Special Management Areas (SMAs) on Maui to proceed without the usual SMA review.
Representative Amato, speaking in opposition, said the bill “would allow any federal, state, county, and even approved private projects to proceed in coastal zones on Maui without SMA review,” and warned it could “risk hundreds of millions of dollars in federal coastal zone funding.” Amato argued that HRS 205A has long protected shorelines and public access and that bypassing SMA review would set “a dangerous irreversible precedent.”
Several other members backed Amato’s concerns, saying the measure could eliminate public input in sensitive coastal areas and possibly encourage litigation. Representative Cochran cited past court losses by Maui County over similar permitting bypasses and noted the pending appeal scheduled before the Hawaii Supreme Court, urging colleagues not to “pass a law to both undermine a recent court ruling and to bypass a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling before it is even made.”
Supporters of the bill framed it as a response to county operational concerns and a court ruling that suggested county defendants could seek legislative relief. Representative Hashim said Maui County requested this relief and quoted the court’s language that defendants “should seek relief from the legislature.” Representative Chun argued the final conference-draft limited the authority being granted and compared the authority to similar powers already conferred on other state entities.
The House recorded multiple members entering written remarks into the journal and many asked that their opposition or support be noted. The measure drew sustained floor debate, with several members urging a recommittal or further safeguards to protect public review and environmental funding.
The debate concluded without a recorded final action on this floor excerpt; the measure was one of several that members noted would receive recorded no votes in the journal entries announced during the voting sequence.
Next steps: HB1823 remained under scrutiny and several speakers requested further written comments to be entered into the record; members flagged potential legal and funding consequences that could affect the bill’s path forward.
