PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT DESTRUCTIVE LIVE-FIRE MILITARY TRAINING ON PUBLIC LANDS.
SB2534 proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit “destructive live-fire military training” on Hawaii’s public trust lands. The bill defines that term to cover the discharge of large-caliber munitions and ordnance, including standard, incendiary, high-explosive, and inert rounds fired from portable, crew-served, or vehicle-mounted weapons. It would add a new section to Article XI of the Hawaii Constitution and place the question before voters on the ballot.
The measure is framed around the State’s fiduciary and constitutional obligations to protect ceded/public trust lands for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and the general public. Its findings cite military lease areas such as Makua, Kawailoa-Poamoho, Kahuku, Pohakuloa, and Waimea, and describe environmental and cultural harms associated with live-fire training, including wildfire risk, soil and water contamination, unexploded ordnance, and damage to natural and cultural resources. The bill also references the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in Ching v. Case and argues that current military use is inconsistent with the State’s duty to steward these lands.
If adopted, the amendment would directly restrict military training activities on the public trust lands identified in Article XII, section 4, and would become part of the Hawaii Constitution after compliance with the constitutional amendment process. The practical effect would be to bar destructive live-fire exercises on those lands, potentially affecting existing or future military lease arrangements and the State’s management of lands that may be returned when leases expire.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of public trust lands and critical of destructive military training. The bill’s findings emphasize long-term contamination, limited access, and the possibility that some lands may never be fully restored for public or Native Hawaiian use. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from hearings; however, the measure’s referral to WLA/PSM and JDC/WAM suggests it was still in the committee process at the time of the last action.
The main point of contention is the balance between military training needs and the State’s trust obligations to preserve land, culture, and environmental resources. Supporters would likely focus on land stewardship, contamination, and Native Hawaiian rights, while opponents would likely raise concerns about military readiness, lease impacts, and the feasibility of relocating or replacing training capacity. The bill’s broad definition of destructive live-fire training and its application to public trust lands make it a significant restriction on military use of state lands.
SB2534 would amend the Hawaii Constitution to prohibit destructive live-fire military training on public trust lands identified in Article XII, section 4. It would create a new constitutional restriction on the use of those lands, potentially affecting military leases, training operations, and future land-return arrangements involving sites such as Pohakuloa, Makua, Kahuku, and Poamoho. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it would supersede ordinary statutory authority and require voter approval before taking effect.
The bill is presented in a strongly protective and anti-destructive-training posture, with findings emphasizing stewardship, cultural preservation, environmental harm, and the State’s fiduciary duties to public trust lands. The text reflects clear support for limiting military live-fire activity on these lands and skepticism about the adequacy of current monitoring and remediation. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call sentiment beyond the bill’s own framing.
The central controversy is whether the State should constitutionally bar destructive live-fire military training on public trust lands, given competing interests in military readiness and land stewardship. Supporters are likely to be Native Hawaiian advocates, environmental interests, and public trust proponents who emphasize contamination, unexploded ordnance, and cultural harm. Opponents are likely to be military stakeholders and those concerned about defense training capacity, lease consequences, and the operational impact of removing access to these lands. The breadth of the definition of destructive live-fire training and the inclusion of major training areas make the proposal especially consequential.