Also known as H.B. 3149, this began as a measure that, by defining non-structural commercial uses of shorelines as not being development, would have exempted such uses from county regulation under the Coastal Zone Management Act (chapter 205A of Hawaii Revised Statutes). The bill, introduced by Rep. Peter K. Apo, was a response to a situation on Kaua’i. There, boaters taking tours along Na Pali Coast used public shoreline areas in Hanalei Bay to load and unload their passengers. When the county tried to regulate them, the boaters sued. Although the county won, the case is on appeal, and boaters continued to operate in the interim without permits.
The bill was heard at a joint meeting of the House committees on Planning, Energy and Environmental Protection (Mark Andrews, chair) and Water and Land Use (David Hagino, chair). It turned out to be one of the longest – and most rancorous – of any held on environmental issues this session. (The boaters’ behavior was reprehensible; they did every thing short of throwing spitballs at people who testified against the bill.)
For the next few days, no one knew what the committees would decide – or if they’d decide anything at all. But by the time the bill passed over to the Senate Natural Resources Committee (Richard Matsuura, chair), the intent of the bill had been reversed.
After the hearing in Matsuura’s committee, the bill was changed again – although just what the intention was is unclear. In any event, later developments made the issue of Matsuura’s intent moot. The final version of the bill states that development includes “nonstructural commercial uses, unless specifically exempted by ordinances adopted by the legislative body of the respective county.” That leaves open the question of whether Kaua’i’s County Council will permit boaters the exemption. Given the lack of cooperation between the council and the county administration, no one is taking any bets. But at least the Legislature has made clear its intent to regard nonstructural commercial uses of shoreline areas as development subject to CZM regulation.
There is, however, one troubling footnote. Exempted from the definition of development are “nonstructural public recreational uses which do not constitute commercial activity.” This could have far-reaching implications for heavily used recreational areas, such as Hanauma Bay. If the City and County of Honolulu should desire to regulate the number of visitors there, beyond the regulation of commercial tour operators, its hands might be tied by this provision.
Volume 1, Number 1 July 1990