HB133 appropriates state general funds to the Hawaii Department of Education to support the establishment of surfing as an interscholastic sport. The bill states that surfing has cultural, social, and economic significance in Hawaii, and notes that although surfing was approved as a high school sport in 2016, only one of five local athletic leagues currently sponsors it. The measure is intended to expand opportunities for students to participate in competitive surfing through school-based programs.
The bill provides $685,870 for fiscal year 2025-2026 and the same amount for fiscal year 2026-2027, to be expended by the Department of Education for this purpose. It takes effect on July 1, 2025. In practical terms, the bill would create or expand state support for interscholastic surfing programs, likely helping with program development, staffing, equipment, and related athletic costs.
Impact
HB133 would amend state spending by appropriating general revenues to the Department of Education for two fiscal years to establish surfing as an interscholastic sport. It does not create a new regulatory framework or alter eligibility rules in the text provided, but it does direct state funds toward school athletics and could increase the number of public high schools and athletic leagues offering surfing. The affected parties are the Department of Education, local athletic leagues, public school students, and potentially coaches, schools, and surfing-related vendors or program partners.
Sentiment
The available legislative history shows strong support and little visible opposition. The bill passed Senate Education, Senate Ways and Means, and both House and Senate conference votes unanimously or near-unanimously, including 5-0, 13-0, 4-0, and 5-0 votes. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement that surfing is an important part of Hawaii’s culture and economy and that state support for school surfing programs is worthwhile.
Contention
The main issue reflected in the bill text is not opposition to surfing itself, but the practical question of whether state funds should be used to expand an interscholastic surfing program. The findings emphasize that only one of five local athletic leagues currently sponsors surfing, implying a gap in access and implementation that the appropriation is meant to address. No committee transcript objections are available, and the unanimous votes suggest that any concerns about cost, program administration, or athletic league participation were either resolved through amendments or were not significant enough to generate recorded opposition.