Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community leaders, DLNR spar over permit waivers in coastal‑resilience pilot (HB 2490)
Summary
Supporters urged the committee to pass HB 2490, a pilot coastal‑resilience program for Montukaji Bay; DLNR warned the bill’s proposed blanket waivers of environmental and SMA permits risk bypassing needed review and asked to retain review triggers, prompting the chair to recommend changing 'shall' to 'may.'
Chair Mark Ascham brought HB 2490 before the House Committee on Water & Land as a pilot program intended to restore and protect Montukaji Bay and surrounding shorelines.
Michael Kane of the Department of Land and Natural Resources told the committee the department “recognize[s] the emergency at Montegoji Bay” but said the bill as drafted would waive key state regulatory reviews. Kane said the bill appeared to “exempt them from permits and regulation before we actually see the long term plan,” and urged the committee to require the plan before broad waivers of HRS §343 environmental review, SMA §205A or HRS §183C authority.
Community representatives and the project’s consultant urged the committee to move ahead. Eric Motto, president of the Matukuchi congregation, described shoreline erosion at his site and a decade of local work and spending: “We’ve tried for the last 10 years, and spent close to 1000000 dollars to address this crisis,” he said, and urged a bay‑wide, ecosystem‑scale approach rather than protecting individual parcels.
Ken Chung, who identified himself as a consultant to the congregation, said preliminary work is favoring “nature based and hybrid solutions” but that specific plans are still in development and would be premature to finalize in committee.
The core dispute centered on statutory waivers. DLNR’s Kane flagged the bill’s broad language that would “give carte blanche to do anything” without clarity on who would carry out the projects and what measures would protect historic resources and habitat. In response the chair proposed amending statutory language from a mandatory exemption to discretionary authority — changing language from “shall” to “may” — so DLNR retains the ability to require environmental review where triggers apply.
The committee later adopted a recommendation to pass HB 2490 with amendments, noting the committee report would include DLNR and Office of Planning amendments and that the bill’s effective date would be deferred to a placeholder date for technical reasons. The committee’s action preserves further floor and conference deliberations and leaves permit discretion with DLNR where statutory triggers apply.
