SB210 would change Hawaii’s public lands laws to sharply limit state land dispositions involving the United States military. The bill states a legislative finding that military use of public lands has been inconsistent with the principle of malama aina and cites the histories of Kahoolawe, Makua, Waikane, and Pohakuloa as examples of environmental harm and unexploded ordnance concerns. Based on those findings, the bill’s core purpose is to prohibit new or renewed land dispositions to the military that allow or facilitate military training activities on the subject lands.
The bill amends the state’s public land disposition statutes to bar the Board of Land and Natural Resources, effective July 1, 2025, from approving or renewing any land disposition to the U.S. military that supports training. It also adds a new chapter requiring any existing or extended lease with the Department of Defense or any military branch to acknowledge state and local authority over environmental matters, recognize state authority to intervene on health and safety issues, and make violations of environmental law or other applicable laws, rules, or orders grounds for lease termination. The bill further requires military leases and extensions to be priced at fair market value.
In practical terms, SB210 would affect the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Board of Land and Natural Resources, and any current or future military leases of state public lands. It would strengthen the State’s leverage in lease terms, expand the State’s ability to enforce environmental and public-safety conditions, and potentially prevent continued military training use on state lands after existing leases expire or are renewed. It also preserves existing rights and proceedings that matured before the act’s effective date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of public lands and critical of military land use. The measure frames itself as a return of lands to the people of Hawaii and emphasizes conservation, environmental stewardship, and public health. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition beyond the bill’s stated findings and purpose.
The main point of contention likely concerns the scope of the restriction on military land use and the State’s authority to impose lease conditions that could affect defense operations. The bill’s supporters appear to prioritize environmental remediation, public safety, and sovereignty over land management, while potential opponents would likely focus on military readiness, existing federal-state lease arrangements, and the operational impact of prohibiting training activities on leased lands.
SB210 would amend Hawaii Revised Statutes sections 171-33 and 171-59 and add a new chapter governing leases of public lands to the U.S. military. It would prohibit the Board of Land and Natural Resources from approving or renewing military land dispositions that allow or facilitate training, require fair-market-value rent for military leases, and authorize lease termination for environmental or health-and-safety violations. The bill would therefore materially restrict future military use of state public lands and strengthen state oversight of military leases and environmental compliance.
The bill is framed in strongly pro-conservation, pro-sovereignty terms and expresses clear dissatisfaction with the military’s historical use of Hawaii public lands. The stated legislative findings show a negative view of prior military land management and a desire to end or reduce military training on state lands. Because no committee discussion or votes were provided, the available record shows only the bill’s own assertive and critical posture rather than any recorded bipartisan or divided sentiment.
The central controversy is whether Hawaii should prohibit military training on state public lands and condition military leases on state environmental authority and termination rights. Supporters would likely emphasize environmental damage, unexploded ordnance, public health risks, and the return of lands to local control. Opponents would likely argue that the bill could interfere with military readiness, existing lease expectations, and federal-state land arrangements, and may question whether the State can impose such broad restrictions on defense-related use of public lands.