There’s been some more good reporting on SB 755, the “gut & replace” bill noted here several days ago.

Derek DePledge, writing in today’s Star-Advertiser, that the bill was further amended following a public hearing on Wednesday.

But several state agencies and environmental groups, along with a few lawmakers, have characterized the proposal as a threat to environmental regulation. In addition to granting the governor exemption power, the bill also would allow the DOT and the state Department of Land and Natural Resources to temporarily exempt state projects from special management area permit and shoreline setback variance requirements.

State Rep. Cynthia Thielen (R, Kailua-Kaneohe), an environmental attorney, said the title of the bill should be changed from “Relating to Economic Development” to “Relating to Environmental Devastation.”

House Speaker Calvin Say made things worse by talking down to critics of the measure, trying to brush off their concerns. Depledge reported:

The speaker said opponents have overreacted. “The reason why they are overreacting is because people are not reading the bill properly,” he said.

Of course, I hope the speaker is correct and that the bill is narrower than feared, although he should understand the “gut & replace” tactic and short public notice made thorough review and vetting by community organizations difficult.

Now that the bill has been further amended in committee, it’s time for a closer look at the revised measure.

The Water, Land, & Ocean Resources and Energy & Environmental Protection committees did make substantive changes to the proposed bill after Wednesday’s public hearing, according to the committee report.

(1) Deleting the provisions that temporarily make the Office of Planning responsible for the issuance of special management area permits and shoreline setback variances for state projects;

(2) Deleting the provision that permits the Governor to amend the list from time to time of specific types of state projects that are exempt from the need to prepare an environmental assessment;

(3) Deleting the provision that allows county mayors to have the authority to establish and amend an exemption list of county projects as conferred upon the Governor for state projects;

(4) Deleting the provision that allows the county or state agency’s list of exempt actions to remain valid, even if the Governor or a mayor establishes a separate list;

(5) Deleting the provision that allows the Governor’s or mayor’s list to remain valid after the repeal of the section, until terminated by the Governor or a mayor;

(6) Repealing the list of exempted state projects established by the Governor on June 30, 2015, provided that the governor may extend the exemption for any project identified on the list for which construction has commenced but not yet concluded by June 30, 2015; and

Certain projects of DLNR and DOT would be exempt from requirements for shoreline management and special management area permits.

But there’s some tricky language that needs to be understood.

For example, the bill would exempt certain airport projects “from requirements to obtain a special management area minor permit, special management area use permit, or shoreline setback variance; provided that the structures and improvements relating to airports are necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration regulations.” [Emphasis added]

On the other hand, DOT and DLNR projects would have a broader exemption from all “special management area permit and shoreline setback variance requirements.”

Does that difference make a difference? I’ll have to defer to those with more knowledge of the kinds of projects likely to fall under the provision.

The bill clarifies that the environmental review requirements of Chapter 343 will still have to be complied with.

The bill also allows the governor to establish a list of projects to be exempted from EIS requirements, but only if “they will probably have minimal or no significant effects on the environment.”

Unfortunately, who will make this determination and on what basis is not addressed, nor is the question of any right of appeal from such a determination. As I recall, we were told the Superferry wouldn’t have any impacts, so you can’t blame people for being short on trust. Should we be calling this part of the bill the Superferry’s Revenge?

In any case, I hope that the House Finance Committee, and the full House, pay close attention to what groups opposed to the earlier draft of this bill–including the Office of Environmental Quality Control; the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Hawaii’s Thousand Friends; Historic Hawaii Foundation; The Outdoor Circle; the Environmental Council; Life of the Land; the Marine and Coastal Zone Advocacy Council; the Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter–will have to say after evaluating the current amended version.