SB2955 authorizes state financing for the Honoapiilani Highway coastal mitigation project on Maui, specifically the inland relocation of the vulnerable segment of State Route 30 between Ukumehame and Launiupoko. The bill makes legislative findings that this highway is the only continuous motor vehicle connection between West Maui and the rest of the island and is essential for residents, visitors, emergency response, goods movement, and the rebuilding of Lahaina. It also states that the current coastal alignment is chronically threatened by erosion, flooding, storm surge, and sea level rise, and that prior shoreline protection measures have not provided a durable solution.
The measure authorizes the issuance of up to $76.7 million in general obligation bonds and appropriates that amount for fiscal year 2026-2027, contingent on receipt of $306.8 million in federal funding. The money is directed to the Department of Transportation for planning, design, permitting, land acquisition, and construction of the inland relocation project, and the appropriation is made non-lapsing through June 30, 2028, with any unencumbered funds lapsing after that date. The bill also expresses legislative intent that all funds used for the project be dedicated exclusively to the highway relocation and not diverted to ancillary traffic devices or other side projects.
In terms of state law impact, SB2955 would create a specific capital improvement appropriation and debt authorization tied to a single transportation resilience project. It would increase state general obligation bond capacity for this purpose and direct the Department of Transportation to carry out the project under the bill’s funding restrictions. The bill does not broadly amend transportation law, but it does establish a targeted fiscal and policy framework for the Honoapiilani Highway relocation.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and committee action is strongly supportive. The findings frame the project as a statewide priority for safety, economic stability, emergency access, and West Maui recovery, and the Senate Transportation Committee advanced the bill unanimously, 5-0, with amendments. The bill was then reported and passed second reading as amended before referral to Ways and Means, suggesting institutional support for the project’s necessity and funding structure.
The main point of contention identified in the bill itself is not whether the highway should be protected, but how the project should be carried out and funded. The measure rejects reliance on seawalls or revetments and emphasizes inland relocation as the only feasible long-term solution, reflecting environmental, cultural, and sustainability concerns about shoreline hardening. It also signals concern that project funds could be diluted by ancillary traffic devices or nonessential work, and it conditions the appropriation on substantial federal funding, highlighting the uncertainty of outside support.
SB2955 would authorize a new general obligation bond issuance and corresponding state appropriation for the Honoapiilani Highway coastal mitigation project, directing the Department of Transportation to use the funds for inland relocation of the vulnerable highway segment in West Maui. It would create a dedicated funding stream for planning, design, permitting, acquisition, and construction, and would restrict use of the money to that project alone. The bill would therefore affect state capital budgeting and transportation infrastructure policy, while leaving broader highway law unchanged.
The bill appears to have strong support, with the Senate Transportation Committee passing it 5-0 with amendments and the measure advancing to Ways and Means. The bill’s findings and purpose language are highly affirmative, portraying the project as essential for public safety, economic continuity, and Lahaina’s recovery. There is no recorded opposition in the provided materials, though the bill’s emphasis on limiting funds to the relocation project suggests prior concern about scope, project design, and the use of alternative mitigation measures.
The principal substantive disagreement concerns the appropriate long-term solution for the eroding coastal highway corridor. The bill rejects seawalls and revetments as inadequate or controversial and instead endorses inland relocation, reflecting environmental, cultural, and sustainability objections to shoreline hardening. A second area of concern is fiscal and project scope control: the bill conditions state bonding on receipt of substantial federal funds and expressly bars spending on ancillary traffic devices or other nonessential work, indicating sensitivity to how the project is financed and whether funds could be diverted from the core relocation effort.