HB491 would amend Hawaii’s public land leasing law to bar the State from issuing or extending leases of public lands, including submerged lands, to lessees that are not in good standing with the State. The bill defines lack of good standing to include arrears in money owed to the State, noncompliance with environmental maintenance or remediation orders or agreements, and violations of state or federal environmental laws. It also requires the Office of the Governor to certify that a prospective lessee, including a federal agency, is in good standing before certain leases may be issued or extended.
The bill also creates a transition rule for existing lessees: if a current lessee is found not to be in good standing on the effective date, the lessee would have up to three years, or until the lease ends, whichever comes first, to cure the violation by paying amounts owed, completing remediation, or satisfying adjudicated criminal penalties, or else the lease would be terminated. The measure expressly preserves the State’s existing right to terminate leases on other grounds and exempts leases and dispositions made by the Department of Transportation. The bill’s effective date is set far in the future, July 1, 3000.
Impact
HB491 would amend section 171-36, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by adding a new restriction on public land leases tied to financial compliance, environmental compliance, and criminal penalties. It would expand the State’s leasing oversight by requiring gubernatorial certification of good standing for covered lessees and by authorizing termination of existing leases if violations are not cured within the specified period. The bill would affect private individuals, corporations, and federal agencies seeking leases of state public lands, while leaving existing lease-termination rights and Department of Transportation leasing actions intact.
Sentiment
The bill text reflects a generally strong enforcement-oriented sentiment, emphasizing that the State should act like a private landlord and lease only to parties that meet financial, contractual, environmental, and legal obligations. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. Based on the bill’s framing, the measure appears intended to appeal to accountability and environmental compliance concerns.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the new disqualification standard and the inclusion of federal agencies, which could raise concerns about state-federal leasing relationships and the practical administration of certification by the Governor’s office. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of existing lessees, since it could lead to lease termination if violations are not cured within three years, and its reliance on environmental-law violations or unresolved remediation obligations may be viewed as either necessary enforcement or overly punitive depending on the stakeholder. The Department of Transportation exemption may also be notable if other state agencies or lessees seek similar carveouts.