Urging The Counties To Establish, Strengthen, Or Expand Historic Preservation Functions Within County Government To Complement And Support Statewide Historic Preservation Efforts.
H.R. 167 is a House Resolution urging Hawaiʻi’s counties to establish, strengthen, or expand historic preservation functions within county government. The resolution emphasizes the importance of protecting historic buildings, archaeological sites, burial sites, cultural landscapes, traditional cultural properties, and other places significant to Native Hawaiian history and culture. It frames county-level preservation capacity as a way to complement the State Historic Preservation Division’s existing responsibilities under chapter 6E, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
The resolution encourages counties to create or enhance historic preservation offices, commissions, advisory boards, or designated staff, particularly within planning or cultural resource departments. It also calls for local policies, inventories, and procedures to help identify, evaluate, and protect historic and cultural resources during land use planning, zoning, permitting, and development review. The measure is advisory rather than mandatory and does not itself amend statutory law, but it seeks to influence county government organization and preservation practice across the state.
Because H.R. 167 is a resolution, it does not directly change state statutes or impose legal requirements. Its practical impact would be to encourage county governments to build local preservation capacity and coordinate more closely with the State Historic Preservation Division, potentially affecting how counties handle planning, permitting, and review of projects that may affect historic or cultural resources. If counties respond, the resolution could lead to stronger local inventories, earlier identification of sensitive sites, and additional review layers for development proposals.
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of historic preservation and protection of Native Hawaiian and other culturally significant resources. The bill’s findings present county participation as a beneficial and prudent supplement to state efforts, especially given the breadth of preservation responsibilities and the possibility of limited state capacity. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence in the available record of opposition or divided sentiment.
The main point of contention implied by the resolution is not about whether historic resources should be protected, but about how much responsibility counties should take on and whether they have the capacity to do so. The measure suggests that county-level preservation functions could help if state-level protections or administrative resources are diminished, which implies concern about the adequacy of current state capacity. Any practical debate would likely center on county staffing, funding, administrative burden, and the extent to which local review should complement or potentially complicate development and permitting processes.