Relating To Search And Rescue.
SB130 would require Hawaii government entities to seek reimbursement for at least half of search and rescue expenses when a person needs rescue after either leaving a hiking trail to enter public or private property that is closed to the public and properly signed, or entering a hiking trail that is closed to the public and properly signed. The bill amends Hawaii’s reimbursement statute for search and rescue operations to make recovery mandatory in these specified situations, rather than merely permissive in broader cases of dangerous conduct.
The measure is aimed at hikers who ignore posted closure notices or leave designated trails and then require rescue. It reflects the Legislature’s finding that search and rescue costs are borne by public agencies and that some states already allow cost recovery from rescued parties in similar circumstances. The bill also preserves existing law for other search and rescue situations by leaving the broader reimbursement framework in place, while adding a specific mandatory reimbursement trigger tied to trail and property closures with signage.
SB130 would amend section 137-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by narrowing and strengthening reimbursement authority for search and rescue expenses in certain hiking-related incidents. Under the bill, government entities would be required to seek reimbursement for all or part of the costs, but not less than half, when the rescue resulted from a person entering closed trails or closed areas marked with notice. This would affect state, county, and potentially other public safety agencies that conduct search and rescue operations, as well as rescued individuals and any responsible entities that may be billed.
The bill appears to have a generally fiscally conservative and public-safety-oriented rationale, emphasizing personal responsibility and the burden placed on government resources by avoidable rescues. The text suggests support for the concept by citing similar laws in other states and framing the measure as a cost-offsetting tool. No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or formal vote sentiment to assess beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main point of contention is likely whether hikers should be billed for rescue costs when they ignore closure signs or leave trails, and whether mandatory reimbursement could discourage people from seeking help or create fairness concerns in emergency situations. Another possible issue is the practical enforcement of signage requirements and determining when a closure was adequately posted. Supporters would likely emphasize deterrence, taxpayer protection, and accountability, while opponents may argue that search and rescue should remain a public safety function not conditioned on later cost recovery.