Urging All Entities Against Using More Than One Million Gallons Of Water Per Year For Recreational Or Ornamental Purposes.
Summary
SCR 227 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution that urges all entities in Hawaii, including private businesses, organizations, and government agencies, to avoid using more than one million gallons of potable water per year for recreational or ornamental purposes. The resolution is framed as a conservation measure in response to severe drought conditions, climate change, and the ongoing public health and environmental crisis associated with the Red Hill fuel release. It emphasizes that water is a finite resource and that reducing nonessential use is important for human health, ecosystem protection, and the state’s long-term economic sustainability.
The resolution specifically targets nonessential water uses such as decorative landscaping, fountains, and other recreational or ornamental applications, but it excludes uses that rely solely on recycled water. It also directs certified copies of the resolution to the Commission on Water Resource Management, the Department of Health, and county boards of water supply, signaling an intent to encourage agency awareness and voluntary compliance rather than create a binding regulatory program.
Impact
Because SCR 227 is a concurrent resolution rather than a bill, it does not amend Hawaii statutes or create enforceable legal restrictions. Its practical impact is advisory: it urges a voluntary statewide reduction in potable water use for recreational and ornamental purposes and highlights a one-million-gallon-per-year benchmark per permit. The resolution may influence water policy discussions, conservation messaging, and agency guidance, especially for permit holders and large water users, but it does not itself impose penalties or change statutory water-use rules.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of conservation and restraint in water use. The bill text presents water conservation as a necessary response to drought, climate change, and the Red Hill crisis, and there is no recorded committee testimony or vote history indicating opposition or amendment debate. Based on the available record, the measure appears to be a straightforward environmental and public-health statement with a broadly pro-conservation tone.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the resolution’s focus on limiting potable water use for recreational and ornamental purposes, which could affect large property owners, businesses, and public agencies that maintain landscaping or decorative water features. Another possible issue is the one-million-gallon threshold, which may be seen as either too high to meaningfully curb waste or too low for certain permitted uses. However, the resolution’s voluntary nature and recycled-water exemption reduce the likelihood of direct legal conflict, and no specific opposition is documented in the available materials.