Relating To State Water Code Penalties.
SB204 amends Hawaii’s State Water Code penalty provisions in section 174C-15, HRS. The bill expands the list of conduct that can trigger a penalty 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 changes the penalty structure by adding a minimum fine, preserving and amending the maximum fine per violation, and clarifying that each day a violation continues is a separate offense.
The bill further requires the Commission on Water Resource Management to consider specified aggravating and mitigating factors when setting penalties, including the nature and history of the violation, economic benefit gained, corrective action, good-faith compliance efforts, and culpability. It also makes the commission’s authority to set, charge, and collect administrative fines mandatory rather than discretionary, while preserving the ability to seek fees, costs, damages, injunctions, and other legal or equitable relief. The act is set to take effect on July 1, 2025.
SB204 would strengthen enforcement of Hawaii’s water resource laws by increasing the potential financial consequences for violations and broadening the range of enforceable misconduct under the State Water Code. It would amend HRS §174C-15 to create clearer rules for continuing violations, authorize penalties from the earliest known date of violation, and require the Commission on Water Resource Management to use a more structured penalty framework. The bill would directly affect regulated water users, permit holders, and others subject to the State Water Code, while giving the commission more explicit enforcement tools.
The bill’s stated purpose and description indicate a generally supportive, enforcement-oriented approach focused on protecting Hawaii’s water resources and improving deterrence. The available materials do not include committee testimony, votes, or recorded debate, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or amendment controversy in the provided record. Overall, the bill appears framed as a technical but substantive strengthening of water-code enforcement authority.
The main points of potential contention are the increased penalty exposure, the addition of a minimum fine, and the rule that each day of a continuing violation counts as a separate offense, which could significantly raise liability for regulated parties. Another possible issue is the shift from discretionary to mandatory administrative fine collection, which gives the commission less flexibility and may be viewed as more aggressive enforcement. The bill also expands the universe of punishable conduct, including permit-related failures and water audit noncompliance, which could draw concern from water users and permit holders subject to compliance burdens.