Relating To State Water Code Penalties.
SB1461 revises Hawaii’s State Water Code penalty provisions to make enforcement stronger and more deterrent. The bill expands the list of conduct subject to commission-imposed fines to include violations of the chapter, rules, commission orders, failure to obtain required permits, failure to comply with permit conditions, and failure to comply with standardized water audit requirements. It also establishes a new minimum fine of $50 and raises the current maximum fine from $5,000 to $25,000 per violation, while clarifying that each day a violation continues is a separate offense.
The bill further directs the Commission on Water Resource Management to consider specified penalty factors, including the seriousness and history of the violation, economic benefit gained, corrective action, good-faith compliance efforts, and culpability. It also authorizes the commission or its delegate to set, charge, and collect administrative fines, fees, costs, attorney’s fees, and damages related to violations of the water code. The bill phases in additional increases to the maximum per-violation penalty over time, reaching $30,000 in 2030, $40,000 in 2035, $55,000 in 2040, and $75,000 in 2045.
SB1461 would amend section 174C-15 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, significantly increasing civil and administrative penalty exposure under the State Water Code and broadening the enforcement tools available to the Commission on Water Resource Management. It would affect water users, permit holders, and any persons or entities subject to the chapter’s rules, orders, permit requirements, or audit obligations, while preserving injured persons’ ability to seek other legal or equitable relief. The bill also clarifies how continuing violations are counted and how penalties are assessed, which could affect enforcement timing and the total amount owed for ongoing noncompliance.
The bill appears to reflect a generally supportive enforcement posture, with the stated legislative purpose focused on protecting Hawaii’s water resources and improving deterrence against violations. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from hearings or floor action in the supplied materials. The bill text itself suggests a policy preference for stronger accountability and more structured penalty assessment.
The main points of potential contention are the higher penalty amounts, the treatment of each day of a continuing violation as a separate offense, and the expanded scope of conduct subject to fines. Regulated parties such as water users, permit applicants, and permit holders may view the increased penalties and retroactive-looking continuing-violation framework as more punitive, while the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Commission on Water Resource Management would likely support the added enforcement authority. Another possible issue is the commission’s discretion in determining the earliest known date of a violation and weighing penalty factors, which could raise concerns about consistency or fairness in enforcement.