Hawaii Senate Bill SB2402

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 1/28/26

Caption

RELATING TO EMERGENCY EROSION MITIGATION.

Summary

SB2402 would revise Hawaii’s coastal management and conservation district laws to create a more flexible framework for responding to emergency shoreline erosion. The bill states that, while Hawaii generally favors preserving natural shoreline processes and limiting shoreline armoring, state and county authorities should be able to authorize narrowly tailored erosion-control measures when erosion poses an imminent threat to life, property, public safety, coastal access, or public infrastructure. The measure makes two main statutory changes. First, it amends the coastal zone management policy in section 205A-2, HRS, by changing the policy on private shoreline hardening from an absolute prohibition to a requirement that such structures be minimized. Second, it adds a new emergency-permit section to chapter 183C, HRS, establishing that emergency permits in the conservation district may last up to five years and may be extended only with written findings showing that emergency or public-safety conditions persist and that continued authorization is necessary while longer-term solutions are pursued.

Impact

If enacted, SB2402 would alter the legal standard governing shoreline hardening by allowing limited private and public erosion-control structures in emergency circumstances, rather than treating them as categorically prohibited. It would also create a clearer statutory process for emergency permits issued by the Department of Land and Natural Resources in the conservation district, including a five-year duration, a 90-day advance request deadline for extensions, and findings required for continued authorization. The bill would affect coastal property owners, permit applicants, regulators, and communities facing erosion, while preserving the broader state policy favoring natural shoreline processes and coastal resource protection.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally supportive of a pragmatic, balanced approach to coastal erosion management. Its findings and description emphasize the need to protect homes, public safety, and infrastructure while still maintaining Hawaii’s long-standing conservation and shoreline-protection goals. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes suggests no documented public debate in the provided materials, but the bill’s framing indicates an attempt to reconcile environmental protection with emergency response needs.

Contention

The main point of contention is the shift from an express prohibition on private shoreline hardening to a policy of minimization. Supporters are likely to view this as necessary flexibility for emergency situations, while opponents may worry it weakens protections against seawalls, revetments, and other forms of shoreline armoring that can accelerate erosion or harm beaches and public access. A second area of concern is the five-year emergency-permit framework, which some may see as too long for a measure labeled “emergency,” potentially allowing temporary structures to become de facto long-term solutions. The bill tries to address these concerns by requiring written findings, extension limits, and documentation of continuing emergency conditions.