LIHU‘E — Legislators are considering a bill for a visitor impact fee program that would require all nonresidents ages 15 and up to pay $50 for an annual license to visit state parks, beaches, forests, hiking trails, and other natural areas.
The program, outlined in Senate Bill 304, would be implemented through the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) beginning July 1, 2025. Revenues from the program would be put into a fund, called the Visitor Impact Fee Special Fund, to “protect and manage the state’s natural resources.”
Even if the bill is passed, visitors that violate the policy would not face any penalties for at least another five years, “to allow time for effective implementation, public education, and enforcement.”
SB 304 moved out of the House Committee on Finance during the committee’s hearing on Wednesday with amendments, where several state agencies, nonprofit organizations and advocates spoke in support of the bill.
“This is an innovative program that will allow the state to address the impacts of visitors on our state-owned natural resources,” said Deputy Attorney General Daniel Morris, who provided lengthy testimony in support of the bill.
However, concerns were raised regarding the logistics of enforcing the program, as well as the difficulty in differentiating between county and state land.
State Rep. Andrew Takuta Garrett (D-District 22) questioned DLNR Chair Dawn Chang about how the program would be implemented, asking if she envisioned officers standing at beaches and scanning QR codes.
Chang said the department “is hoping that enforcement is not the first line of defense” and that through education the visitor would take responsibility in paying the fee.
“But we haven’t really worked out all the details. That would come through rule making,” said Chang.
Morris also noted the program would have a public education component for visitors, as well as a clear list and signs telling people where fees are required. He added that there would be “no draconian enforcement.”
Tom Yamachika, the president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, called the bill “broad” and said legislators would need to be careful that the bill would not infringe on the “fundamental right to travel,” if the revenue from the program’s fund could be considered a tax instead of a fee.
“We’re just uncomfortable that the spectrum of possible uses of this fund is very broad, and we don’t know where the line into general revenue raising is crossed,” he said.
Morris, on the other hand, said the program “makes sure that the funds would be used to address the resilience of our resources,” and that it has no impact on fundamental rights. He used the 1977 Supreme Court Decision in Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, where the court upheld a program that required nonresidents pay higher hunting fees than residents.
“The court said that the states have the right to treat nonresidents differently in situations where there are state owned resources that are held in trust for the people of the state. And that’s precisely what our state parks and state owned resources are,” said Morris.
Advocates also said the program would create more jobs for residents. Kawika Riley, the vice president of Hawai‘i conservation organization Kupu, said those jobs could include conservation technicians, conservation scientists, planners, researchers, and many others “that our local people are positioned well to hold.”
In an interview with The Garden Island, Ilihia Gionson of the Hawaii Tourism Authoriy said the state agency “has long advocated for user fees for specific trails as a way for visitors to contribute to the stewardship and care of those places.”
Gionson asked to defer to the DLNR for questions regarding exactly how the program would be implemented, but said the tourism authority is “willing and ready to engage” in conversations surrounding its details.
He emphasized that “cultural value of care and stewardship” is at the core of the tourism authority’s visitor education efforts.
The $50 annual visitor impact fee would be “another way for folks to contribute to the care of the natural resources in our home that we share with them,” said Gionson.
•••
Emma Grunwald, reporter, can be reached 808-245-0441 or egrunwald@thegardenisland.com.
What would be the purpose of a bill like this for charging a fee to a state parks? I’m from another island. Every year I like visiting the north shore of Oahu. Waimea Bay is busy every year. It’s a tourist attraction site every year there over in the north shore. A lot of the tourist that go there enjoy the scenery and the event. Surfing event. Like the Eddie or the Pipeline Masters held in December every year. This would actually create a deterrent factor. Of not visiting. They’ll just not pay or not go. It will work against it. Visiting the north shore. Needed money into our local economy. Bad idea all the way.
Great idea ! But once again the State is naive to believe that visitors will do the right thing. Without a plan for visible and consistent enforcement tourists won’t bother to pay the fee.
We bought a condo at a resort in Kapa’a in 2001. We periodically rent it out when we are off island. The property tax rate for the vacation rental is $9.85 per $1000 net assessed valuation. The residential rate is $6.05. We pay approximately 62% higher property taxes than the residential individuals.
We feel that the property tax we pay should allow us to use the parks without having to pay an additional fee. Part of the property tax money already goes to the Kauai Park & Recreation Improvement & Maintenance Fund.
If this bill passes, we are being unfairly double taxed.
What a horrible idea. But a great April Fool’s Day joke!
This will die in the courts.
A tax by any other name is still a tax. All fees that we have to pay are just another form of taxes. Our government is just careful not to use the word “tax”. This way they can keep adding more taxes without us thinking that we are overtaxed.