When it comes to meaningful environmental legislation, the 2022 Legislature managed to push several bills across the finish line that were then signed into law by Gov. David Ige.
Here is a synopsis of a few of them.
Pupukea: Act 31 (Senate Bill 3330) requires the Department of Land and Natural Resources to prepare a study of the carrying capacity of parts of the Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District on Oʻahu’s North Shore. According to the findings section of the bill, “[U]nabated levels of human use in certain areas of the Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District, including Shark’s Cove and the Kapoʻo Tidepools, are threatening the health and abundance of the marine life in these sensitive areas, as well as limiting the use and enjoyment of the area by residents.” The DLNR is given $300,000 for the current fiscal year to carry out the study and develop a pilot program to limit human activity in the most sensitive areas.
Invasive Species: Act 138 (SB 3379) appropriates $525,000 for the continued monitoring for invasive species at the state’s ports of entry. Suzanne Case, chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, listed some of the accomplishments of this monitoring program over the last five years. They included development of a response plan for Africanized bees; the interception of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes at the Kahului airport; and a plan for mosquito response at Honolulu Harbor. Case also asked that funds to support the program be given to her department, which oversees the Hawaiʻi Invasive Species Council, rather than the Department of Agriculture. Phyllis Shimabukuro-Geiser, chair of the Board of Agriculture, testified that her department was “well suited to continue the ports-of-entry biosecurity program due to this statutory authority to inspect cargo at airports and marine ports… The department has in place a well-defined plan to expend the appropriated funds.” The appropriation went to the DOA.
Sandbag Burritos: Act 209 (House Bill 2006) attempts to address the problem of large sandbags – also called sandbag burritos – that have been used by owners of eroding coastal properties to protect their homes. The bill does nothing to change the ability of the Board of Land and Natural Resources to issue the emergency permits. All it does is require the board to “include as a condition [of the permit] a requirement for the attachment of identifying information … and the permit number to the sandbag.” BLNR chair Case, the only person to testify on the measure, was less than enthusiastic. Her department, she said had investigated reports of torn bags and other debris that has washed up on the beach. “This debris has typically come from propylene bags and other plastic materials that have not been authorized for use. We are concerned that any identifying tags attached to sandbag burritos might also tear off and become debris.”
Underground Storage Tanks: Act 157 (SB 2600) calls for the phase-out of large capacity underground storage tanks and tank systems that are mauka of the underground injection control line – generally, the boundary between non-potable water sources and underground sources of drinking water. (A large capacity tank system refers to an underground tank farm having any single tank with a capacity greater than 50,000 gallons or having a total tank capacity greater than 100,000 gallons.) The Department of Health is prohibited from issuing a permit for any new large UST mauka of the UIC line as of July 1 and existing permits are not to be renewed. In addition, as of July 1, “no person shall operate a large capacity underground storage tank system mauka” of the UIC line. The only exception is to allow “operations necessary to address maintenance required to safely support defueling, environmental requirements, any operations directly related to defueling,” or any other legal requirement.
Carbon Sequestration: Act 185 (SB 3325) sets up within the DLNR the “Hawaiʻi Carbon Smart Land Management Assistance Pilot Program,” intended to encourage carbon sequestration activities. This is to be achieved by means of contracts that pay program participants who undertake carbon-sequestering practices. The department is instructed to set up compensation rates and incentive contract terms within a year of the first person applying to participate. The original language in the bill called for the program to be run by the Hawaiʻi Green Infrastructure Authority, which testified in strong support. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, however, objected to HGIA being given authority to run the program. “[G]iven the intense land use planning and land management … and the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development’s strong relationships with the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, Hawaiʻi’s four counties, and landowners across the state,” the OPSD testified, it “strongly recommends that the Legislature consider the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development as the coordinating agency.”
The OPSD was given supervisory authority in the first amendment to the bill, but at the end of the day, responsibility for the program was given to the DLNR, which Case, DLNR administrator, had opposed. “The department recognizes the importance of getting this program up and running as quickly as possible and suggests HGIA as the implementing entity is the best way to do that.”
While early versions of the bill called for an unspecified appropriation to support the program, as well as six full-time employees, the final version contains no appropriation or additional personnel.
ADC Transfer: Act 219 (SB 2473) shifts the agency to which the troubled Agribusiness Development Corporation is administratively attached from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. Testimony from DBEDT, the DOA, and ADC were supportive. However, testimony from private organizations and individuals was strongly and unanimously opposed, with most arguing that this would even further detach the agency from the business of agriculture. One individual, Christopher Dean, who submitted testimony captured the sense of most of the others: “I’m in favor of transferring the administrative attachment to the waste basket.” In an effort to address deficiencies identified last year in legislative hearings, Act 219 specifies what should be included in the ADC’s goals and requires updates to its plan every five years. Finally, the act appropriates $500,000 for the current fiscal year for security guard services “to address trespassing, abandonment of vehicles on [ADC] land, and other security issues.”
Coastal Retreat: Act 223 (HB 1436) expands the authority of counties to transfer development rights to facilitate “the potential movement of development away from at-risk areas to locations more appropriate for development.” The counties already had authority to do so to protect “natural, scenic, recreational, and agricultural qualities of open lands” and to “enhance sites and areas of special character or special historical, cultural, aesthetic, or economic interest or value.” This act allows such transfer of rights to protect from development “lands that are vulnerable to impacts and hazards from sea level rise, coastal erosion, storm surge, and flooding associated with climate change.” No testimony was submitted in opposition.
Poaching Fines: Act 35 (HB 1653) increases penalties for the unpermitted taking of aquatic species by allowing fines to be leveled on a per-specimen basis and authorizes the Department of Land and Natural Resources to recommend to the court that defendants not be allowed to enter those areas where aquatic resources are found. For third and subsequent violations by a given individual, fines are up to $15,000 per specimen or its market value, whichever is higher.
Green Jobs: Act 33 (SB 2768) gives to the DLNR $5 million in the current fiscal year to create a Green Jobs Youth Corps along the lines of a training program established in 2020 carried out in partnership with the non-profit organization Kupu.
Cesspool Conversions: Act 87 (HB 1806) amends the law requiring conversion of all cesspools (with few exceptions). Previously, the law specified that the cesspools would need to be either connected to a sewer line or replaced with a septic system or aerobic treatment unit. Now the requirement is that the replacement system be of a type approved by the state director of Health.
Gorse: Act 204 (HB 1179) establishes a pilot program within the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands “to remove and harvest gorse from Mauna Kea and develop it as a marketable product to expand economic opportunities for native Hawaiians.” Although not specified in the act itself, the program involves processing the gorse as well as agricultural byproducts such as mac nut hulls into feed for livestock. An appropriation of $500,000 is provided for the program.
Abandoned Cars: Acts 228, 229, and 297 (HBs 1412, 1413, and 1414) give counties greater powers to address the problem of abandoned vehicles. This may not be the most pressing environmental issue of the day, but it is certainly one of the most visible. The first of these requires counties to set a minimum distance that a vehicle needs to be moved within a given time in order for it not to be deemed abandoned and subject to removal. The second is intended to give counties the authority to require fines and charges related to abandoned vehicles be paid before allowing owners to register additional vehicles or obtain or renew driver’s licenses. The third establishes fines for repeat offenders — $750 for the third offense, and $1,000 for the fourth and additional offenses. There would appear to be a problem with Act 229, however. While the intention was to prevent the owner of an abandoned vehicle from registering other vehicles or transferring ownership of them until outstanding charges and fines were paid, the language of the act itself would seem to prevent them from registering or transferring ownership of the abandoned vehicle itself. It states: “The county director of finance shall deny issuance of a certificate of registration … and prohibit completion of any transfer of ownership … of an abandoned vehicle whose registered owner has outstanding charges and fines relating to the disposition of the abandoned vehicle, including costs for towing, storage, processing, and disposal.” County council members and mayors testified in strong support of all three measures.
— Patricia Tummons
Leave a Reply