SB3253 establishes state recognition for the Hawaii Conservation Sanctuary, a nonprofit entity created pursuant to Senate Resolution 94 (2026), and directs it to develop and operate conservation sanctuaries in Hawaii to protect endangered species and other wildlife. The bill frames the sanctuary model as a way to supplement existing conservation efforts, drawing on examples such as Zealandia in New Zealand and similar sanctuary models that combine habitat restoration, education, research, visitor access, and revenue-generating activities to support conservation work.
The measure authorizes the sanctuary to hold or lease property, enter contracts, operate for-profit business enterprises, and provide visitor access and accommodations as needed to support its mission. It also reserves two board seats for state representatives and requires the Department to assist in identifying and accessing suitable land. The bill specifically contemplates three sanctuary sites: one around a recreational body of water, one for native birds and other species, and one for rescue animals and larger wildlife.
SB3253 amends Hawaii’s land use statutes to make sanctuary operations a permitted use in agricultural districts. It adds the sanctuary to the list of allowable activities in agricultural districts under section 205-2 and in the more restricted agricultural lands categories under section 205-4.5, alongside existing uses such as farming, aquaculture, renewable energy, agricultural tourism, and composting. The bill also exempts state funds received by the sanctuary from chapter 42F’s usual grant conditions, while preserving those requirements for any downstream contractors or recipients.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s progression is strongly supportive. The measure passed its Senate committees unanimously or near-unanimously, advanced through Ways and Means with a 12-0 vote, and was later approved in conference, with only one recorded no vote in House Conference. That voting history suggests broad legislative agreement that the sanctuary concept is a worthwhile conservation investment and a potentially useful tool for biodiversity protection, education, and economic development.
The main points of contention appear to center on land use, governance, and public funding oversight. The bill allows sanctuary operations in agricultural districts and permits for-profit business activity, visitor accommodations, and state assistance in locating land, which could raise concerns about compatibility with agricultural uses, environmental impacts, and the scope of private activity on public-interest land. It also exempts the sanctuary from chapter 42F funding conditions, though the bill attempts to address accountability by reserving state board seats and applying chapter 42F to any subcontractors or downstream recipients.
The bill would create a new statutory recognition for the Hawaii Conservation Sanctuary within chapter 195D and expand the list of permitted uses in agricultural districts to include sanctuary operations. It would also amend agricultural district land-use rules in sections 205-2 and 205-4.5 to expressly allow the sanctuary’s facilities and related activities, including property holding, visitor access, and ancillary commercial operations, while exempting direct state funds to the sanctuary from chapter 42F grant requirements. In practical terms, the bill would give the sanctuary a clearer legal basis to acquire or use land, operate facilities, and seek public support for endangered species conservation projects.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support throughout the legislative process. Committee votes were unanimous in the Senate committees and Ways and Means, and the conference committee approved the measure with only one dissenting vote in the House conference. The bill’s findings and structure reflect a positive view of the sanctuary model as an innovative conservation strategy that could strengthen endangered species protection, education, research, and tourism-related revenue in Hawaii.
The likely areas of concern are the bill’s land-use and governance provisions rather than the conservation goal itself. Some lawmakers or stakeholders may question whether allowing a nonprofit sanctuary to operate in agricultural districts, run for-profit enterprises, and provide visitor accommodations could conflict with agricultural protections or create unintended development pressure. Others may be concerned about the exemption from chapter 42F’s standard funding conditions and the degree of state involvement in a nonprofit entity, even though the bill includes state board representation and limits the exemption’s reach to direct recipients of state funds.