HB315 amends Hawaii’s State Water Code penalty provisions in section 174C-15 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The bill establishes a minimum administrative fine of $50 for each violation of the water code, while retaining the existing $5,000 maximum per violation. It also clarifies that each day a violation exists or continues to exist is a separate offense, and that continuing-violation penalties are to be assessed from the earliest known date of the violation, or from the earliest date the commission becomes aware of the violation if the earlier date cannot be proven.
The bill also directs the Commission on Water Resource Management to determine the penalty amount based on the circumstances of each case, including the nature, extent, gravity, history, and culpability associated with the violation. The measure preserves the commission’s authority to enforce rules and orders through injunctions, damages, administrative fines, and recovery of fees, costs, and damages, and it leaves intact the right of injured persons to seek other legal or equitable relief.
Impact
HB315 would strengthen enforcement of the State Water Code by making penalties more explicit and more consistently applied. It would amend HRS §174C-15 to require a minimum fine for violations, expand and clarify treatment of continuing offenses, and give the Commission on Water Resource Management clearer authority to assess penalties and collect administrative fines, fees, costs, and damages. The bill primarily affects water users, permit holders, and any person or entity subject to the State Water Code, while supporting the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the commission in deterrence and enforcement.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally supportive of stronger water-resource enforcement, with the stated legislative purpose focused on protecting Hawaii’s water resources and ensuring violators are held accountable. The available record shows no committee testimony, votes, or recorded opposition in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment can only be characterized from the bill text itself: it is framed as a deterrence and accountability measure rather than a controversial policy shift.
Contention
The main policy issue is the increase and standardization of penalties. Supporters would likely view the $50 minimum and daily continuing-offense treatment as necessary to deter violations and improve compliance, while potential critics could argue that mandatory minimum penalties reduce agency discretion in minor cases or could burden small permit holders and other regulated parties. Another point of possible concern is the bill’s clarification that penalties may run from the earliest known date of violation, which could increase exposure for alleged continuing violations. No specific objections or amendments are reflected in the provided transcripts or vote history.