TESTIMONY OPPOSING CORPORATION COUNSEL VERSION OF BILL 21 AND SUPPORTING BILL 21, CD 1
SEABIRD AND BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION (CARE-74)
Climate Action, Resilience, and Environment Committee Meeting
June 1, 2022
9:00 a.m.
Good morning, Chair King, Vice-Chair Sinenci, and members of the Committee:
My name is David Lane Henkin, and I am an attorney with Earthjustice. I am registered as a lobbyist. I submit this additional testimony on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and Conservation Council for Hawai‘i in opposition to the version of Bill 21 drafted by the Department of the Corporation Counsel, which would not provide adequate protection for Hawai‘i’s imperiled seabirds from hazardous short wavelength light. This version of Bill 21 was prepared by Deputy Corporation Counsel Keola Whittaker and is available at https://mauicounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10923805&GUID=E93E86AD-B2F3-4717-899B-C2910F8949BB.
Unlike Bill 21, CD 1, the Corporation Counsel’s proposal fails to incorporate the latest science on how best to minimize harm to imperiled seabirds from artificial lighting. Rather than define permissible outdoor lighting in terms of the specific percentage of short wavelength light (as Bill 21, CD 1 does), the Corporation Counsel’s proposal uses the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT), measured in degrees Kelvin. See Proposed Section 20.35.060.B.2 (generally requiring a CCT of 3,000 degrees Kelvin or less). The CCT tells you only how yellow or blue the overall color of light emitted from a light bulb appears; it tells you absolutely nothing about what percentage of that light is made up of the short wavelength light that is harmful to imperiled seabirds. Lighting manufacturers can reduce the CCT of their lighting simply by adding more long wavelength light, without reducing any of the short wavelength light that attracts native seabirds, leading to fallout and associated injury and death. Limitations on harmful lighting need to be defined in terms of the percentage of short wavelength light (as the Hawai‘i County lighting ordinance currently does and as Bill 21, CD 1 proposes), not in terms of degrees Kelvin.
The Corporation Counsel’s proposal also fails to address the significant harm to imperiled seabirds from attraction to (and fallout from) the outdoor lights that are already present in the County. The proposal would forever exempt “[a]ll outdoor lighting fixtures installed prior to the enactment of the ordinance establishing section 20.[35].060.” See Proposed Section 20.35.070.F [The proposal references “section 20.30.060,” which is presumably a typo. Section 20.30.60 of the Maui County Code relates to installation charges for the use of reclaimed water, while Chapter 20.35 governs outdoor lighting.]. These existing outdoor lights cause significant fallout and death of critically imperiled seabirds. The ongoing harm that existing outdoor lights inflict needs to be addressed by phasing out these lights, as Bill 21, CD 1 would do.
The Corporation Counsel’s proposal also fails to address the harm caused by large classes of new outdoor lighting, with no justification provided for why they should be exempted from the bird-friendly lighting requirements. “Temporary outdoor lighting used for public safety, road construction or emergency repair, field harvesting, and road crossing” or “used as hotel and condominium beach security lighting” attracts and harms imperiled seabirds just as much as outdoor lighting used for other purposes. Proposed Section 20.35.070.C and D. No justification is given for why such lights cannot serve their purpose while also complying with bird-friendly requirements. That the proposed bill contains no definition of when these lights are deemed “temporary” would also create opportunities for such harmful lighting to inflict harm for open-ended periods of time.
The Corporation Counsel similarly provides no reason why underwater lighting in swimming pools cannot be bird-friendly, see Proposed Section 20.35.070.E, why lights on motion sensors need to be bright white (up to 5,000 degrees Kelvin), see Proposed Section 20.35.070.G.2, why up-lighting should ever be permitted—even “on a temporary basis,” whatever that means—at County facilities, Proposed Section 20.35.070.J, or why weddings, parties, social gatherings, or other “occasional” events require noncompliant lighting, Proposed Section 20.35.070.K. Particularly during the September through December fallout season, such outdoor lights can inflict—and have inflicted—substantial harm. No lights should be exempted from the requirement to be bird friendly absent a compelling reason that outweighs the need to protect critically imperiled, native seabirds.
We urge the Committee to reject the Corporation Counsel’s ill-conceived proposal and adopt instead Bill 21, CD 1, which is based on the best available science. I will be available at the CARE Committee meeting to answer any questions you may have. I can also be reached via email at dhenkin@earthjustice.org or via telephone at 808-599-2436.
TESTIMONY OPPOSING CORPORATION COUNSEL VERSION OF BILL 21 AND SUPPORTING BILL 21, CD 1
SEABIRD AND BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION (CARE-74)
Climate Action, Resilience, and Environment Committee Meeting
June 1, 2022
9:00 a.m.
Good morning, Chair King, Vice-Chair Sinenci, and members of the Committee:
My name is David Lane Henkin, and I am an attorney with Earthjustice. I am registered as a lobbyist. I submit this additional testimony on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and Conservation Council for Hawai‘i in opposition to the version of Bill 21 drafted by the Department of the Corporation Counsel, which would not provide adequate protection for Hawai‘i’s imperiled seabirds from hazardous short wavelength light. This version of Bill 21 was prepared by Deputy Corporation Counsel Keola Whittaker and is available at https://mauicounty.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10923805&GUID=E93E86AD-B2F3-4717-899B-C2910F8949BB.
Unlike Bill 21, CD 1, the Corporation Counsel’s proposal fails to incorporate the latest science on how best to minimize harm to imperiled seabirds from artificial lighting. Rather than define permissible outdoor lighting in terms of the specific percentage of short wavelength light (as Bill 21, CD 1 does), the Corporation Counsel’s proposal uses the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT), measured in degrees Kelvin. See Proposed Section 20.35.060.B.2 (generally requiring a CCT of 3,000 degrees Kelvin or less). The CCT tells you only how yellow or blue the overall color of light emitted from a light bulb appears; it tells you absolutely nothing about what percentage of that light is made up of the short wavelength light that is harmful to imperiled seabirds. Lighting manufacturers can reduce the CCT of their lighting simply by adding more long wavelength light, without reducing any of the short wavelength light that attracts native seabirds, leading to fallout and associated injury and death. Limitations on harmful lighting need to be defined in terms of the percentage of short wavelength light (as the Hawai‘i County lighting ordinance currently does and as Bill 21, CD 1 proposes), not in terms of degrees Kelvin.
The Corporation Counsel’s proposal also fails to address the significant harm to imperiled seabirds from attraction to (and fallout from) the outdoor lights that are already present in the County. The proposal would forever exempt “[a]ll outdoor lighting fixtures installed prior to the enactment of the ordinance establishing section 20.[35].060.” See Proposed Section 20.35.070.F [The proposal references “section 20.30.060,” which is presumably a typo. Section 20.30.60 of the Maui County Code relates to installation charges for the use of reclaimed water, while Chapter 20.35 governs outdoor lighting.]. These existing outdoor lights cause significant fallout and death of critically imperiled seabirds. The ongoing harm that existing outdoor lights inflict needs to be addressed by phasing out these lights, as Bill 21, CD 1 would do.
The Corporation Counsel’s proposal also fails to address the harm caused by large classes of new outdoor lighting, with no justification provided for why they should be exempted from the bird-friendly lighting requirements. “Temporary outdoor lighting used for public safety, road construction or emergency repair, field harvesting, and road crossing” or “used as hotel and condominium beach security lighting” attracts and harms imperiled seabirds just as much as outdoor lighting used for other purposes. Proposed Section 20.35.070.C and D. No justification is given for why such lights cannot serve their purpose while also complying with bird-friendly requirements. That the proposed bill contains no definition of when these lights are deemed “temporary” would also create opportunities for such harmful lighting to inflict harm for open-ended periods of time.
The Corporation Counsel similarly provides no reason why underwater lighting in swimming pools cannot be bird-friendly, see Proposed Section 20.35.070.E, why lights on motion sensors need to be bright white (up to 5,000 degrees Kelvin), see Proposed Section 20.35.070.G.2, why up-lighting should ever be permitted—even “on a temporary basis,” whatever that means—at County facilities, Proposed Section 20.35.070.J, or why weddings, parties, social gatherings, or other “occasional” events require noncompliant lighting, Proposed Section 20.35.070.K. Particularly during the September through December fallout season, such outdoor lights can inflict—and have inflicted—substantial harm. No lights should be exempted from the requirement to be bird friendly absent a compelling reason that outweighs the need to protect critically imperiled, native seabirds.
We urge the Committee to reject the Corporation Counsel’s ill-conceived proposal and adopt instead Bill 21, CD 1, which is based on the best available science. I will be available at the CARE Committee meeting to answer any questions you may have. I can also be reached via email at dhenkin@earthjustice.org or via telephone at 808-599-2436.