Senate Standing Committee on Water and Land

Good afternoon, folks. Today is Wednesday and it's February 5, 1 p.m. for the Committee on Water and Land, and we're in room 229. Just some housekeeping measures as well. For the testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony.

If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be two minutes. And this just, just to share that the Members of the Committee, particularly when it has to do with the agencies or the departments, there might be some dialogue.

So we'll give them an opportunity to be available for continued discussions as well. So other than that, the oral testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be two minutes. The hearing notice copies of the bill's testimony can be found on the Legislature's website.

And the video stream of this hearing can be found on the Senate's YouTube channel. Thank you, Members. I know we're all scrambling this week and next week. And for those of you in the public, please bear with many of us who will be in and out of committee, committees anyway, so bear with us. Let's proceed.

Members of the Committee on Water and Land, SB15, and this is relating to historic preservation.

It amends a definition of historic properties to require that the property meets the criteria for inclusion in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places or has important value to Native Hawaiians or other ethnic groups of the state due to the associations with cultural practices once carried out or still carried out at the property, or associations with traditional beliefs, events, or all accounts that are important to history, traditional practices and cultural identity.

DLNR, historic preservation.

Hi Chair and Vice Chair.

Okay, you know what? Here, go catch your breath and I'll call the next one. Yeah.

Oh, it's okay. We were just going to stand on our testimony as submitted in support. That's it.

Okay. All right. Come, so people know who you are, please.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of this other Committee. I'm Jessica Puff. I'm the administrator of the State Historic Preservation Division.

Thank you. All right. Okay. Kirsten Faulkner sends communication in support. Ted Kefalas, Grassroots Institute, sends comments. Cindy Freitas, individual in opposition. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 15? Come on up. Aloha.

Hello, Chair., Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Evan Oue, on behalf of NAIOP Hawaii Chair, I greatly apologize for our late testimony and not having that submitted on time. We did just want to provide comments on this measure, and, you know, we really appreciate the intent, which is to help balance the interests at hand.

I know there's a current ongoing backlog in the Department which is holding up a substantial amount of permits for projects across the state. So we do appreciate the language that is posed.

One comment that we did just want to make is that based on the current historic definitions as proposed in this measure, we're concerned this may create an additional layer of review prior to. And we're worried about having additional delays included.

So I do apologize again for the delayed testimony and I'll make sure that it gets to you on time. But thank you, Senator, and Vice Chair and Committee Members for allowing me to,

Well, you know, it's something that we like to hear, you know, comments or whatever, in particular with historic preservation. But Jessica, come on up and. Okay, you've heard his comments, and so we understand, you know, the role of the office.

And so with your support as well, and you've heard the comments, made any suggestions or comments you might want to share as well. Will this be an disadvantage on this measure, or part of the language, or?

I think In SHIPDI and DLNR's opinion, the language in the proposed Bill actually tightens the definition of historic property, which would limit, in our opinion, what permits come to SHIPDI for review under 6042 or what state projects are required to come to CHIPDI for review under 68.

The current definition of historic property is anything that's 50 years old or older. So that means just because something's old, the county would be required to submit that permit or the state would be required to submit that project to us for review.

In this instance, the the county can make the determination on whether it's just old or if it actually meets the determination of historic property being that it's eligible for inclusion in the state register. So not only is it old, but it has to be significant in order for it to come to us.

But it gives the counties to make that determination.

Exactly.

And I think that's the intent of the measure to kind of clear a lot of the work to me.

Now, I think what I hear you're saying is that it may be cumbersome or with all the measures before CHIPDI, but the language in here does not overload you or increase the amount of your work before you.

No, no, it would not increase our workload. It might shorten if a review is required. Say if a property owner or project proponent is not sure if their project is historic or not, it may shorten their review simply by having an inquiry in terms of whether or not their property met the definition of historic property.

And then they wouldn't have to submit the whole scope of work and permit and all that.

And that was the intent of this measure, is to make things a little much easier and have the counties also.

Exactly.

Get involved.

Yes. All of the counties are now what's called certified local governments. They've been certified by the National Park Service to have their own historic preservation program. And we're working with them to get qualified staff to help vet the permits.

Yeah, because that's, you know, that's the kind of adverse opinions that come from our constituents out there. Not only that, now that, you know, we need to get housing done as quickly as possible, and all we're saying is, can we at least streamline some of the work that we do? But, yeah. Okay. All right. Questions, anybody?

Since we got them here, and this is a real hot topic, and we'd like to make things at least a little easier with the agency as well. And we're kind of proud that in these last couple of years that we've increased the staffing at CHIPDI. And so. Yeah, we can appreciate that. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much.

Happy to see you here. Okay, Anyone else wishes to speak on SB 15? Okay, hearing none, let's continue on to SB 19. And this is relating to DLNR. If appropriates funds to establish positions within DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources. Brian Nielsen. Aloha. Good to see you.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Nielsen, Administrator for Division of Aquatic Resources. On behalf of DLNR, just want to say mahalo to the Chair for introducing this Bill. We stand on our testimony in strong support. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Staff, anytime you have questions, Brian is here, so thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Malama Pupukea, Waimea, Jacqueline Lei Now. Okay. In support. Ocean, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Ted Boland. Okay. Always here in our Committee, we, okay. Stand on your written testimony. Thank you so much.

In Gibson, also testifying for the fishes with comments. Hawaii, the Ocean Legislative Task Force in support. And we have Purple Maya, Jeanette Burdick in support. Ron Tubbs and Leilani Naiko in support. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 19? Hearing none, we'll proceed with SB 145 relating to declaration of water shortage and emergency. DLNR.

You're up.

Aloha Kakou. Deputy Director Kira Kahahane for the Commission on Water Resource Management. We'll stand on our written testimony. But I'm available if you have any questions about this Bill.

Okay. Thank you. And in support as well.

Yes.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Board of Water Supply. Okay. Aloha. Aloha, Ernie.

Aloha, Chair. And my apologies for late testimony today. Ernie Lau, Board of Water Supply. We stand in support of this measure and mahalo the Commission for also requiring it be adopted by rules to allow for greater transparency and public input. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. And just for those that have are really concerned about the water issues throughout the state, but there was an interesting dialogue on television this morning on the water use and cost of water on the island of Maui.

If you haven't seen it yet, you'd be interested this afternoon to continue to hear the debate that goes on with water usage and prices on Maui in particular. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 145. We'll proceed with SB 244 relating to Parrot fish.

Amends Conservation and Resources law to prohibit commercial sales of parrotfish that have been caught by spearing and the spearing of parrotfish in state waters after sunset or before sunrise. Okay, DLNR, Ryan.

Aloha, chair, Brian Nielsen, on behalf of DLNR, we stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Ted Bohlen

Thank you, chair, vice chair, Ted Bohlen for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. So what's the big deal about parrotfish and why am I here to talk about them? They are very important fish for preservation of coral, which is why the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition is concerned about them. They're like lawnmowers.

They chew up and eat the algae and other things that smother the coral and kill it. So it's very important to have a sufficient supply of these. Unfortunately, they are greatly over, they're greatly depleted in areas like Oahu that are heavily populated.

And so we need to do what we can to save these fish in order to save the reefs, which is very important for saving ourselves. So parrotfish are, seem like a small thing, but I think this bill is a good step to limit their taking.

You know, people shouldn't be fishing for them at night anyway because they sleep. So it's kind of unfair. And during the day, it doesn't affect commercial. It just affects people. People who are not commercial can still spearfish, but it just affects the people who are trying to sell and the people who do it at night.

Reasonable step in the, in the protection of these fish. I hope you'll adopt it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Ted. Okay, Godfrey Akaka on zoom. Aloha, Godfrey.

Aloha. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. Yeah, we can hear you, Godfrey. Froze. Oh, okay. Is it on his side or ours? Okay, Godfrey, can you kind of work with you...

Customary and traditional practices?

Okay, we missed hearing you. You were frozen for a while, Godfrey. Proceed.

Okay, sorry. Let me. I'm gonna start walking closer to my house so I get connection to the Internet. But anyway, I represent the Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Association organization, families across the state. You know, our customary and traditional practices is catching fish. That's what it is. It's not wearing one mallow and using one bone hook.

Because everybody's family fishes differently. And throughout time, the Hawaiians have found innovative ways, especially my family, the Akaka Ohana, and my wife's family, the Mawai Ohana, and many of our families throughout the state, we have adopted innovative ways to catch fish.

Catching fish and eating fish, preparing fish for our families in our backyard is our traditional and customary practice. So this is banning a form of gathering. Night diving is a very important form of gathering for people.

You know, the herbivore proposal came across statewide, blanket wide, even for Molokai, when it wasn't necessary to limit 2 uhu per person per day. And when you look at the stats, Maui has had that rule implemented for over 10 years now, and there's no change. No change.

So the global warming issue that everybody keep bringing up is a scare tactic. One of the presentations that I received was the scientists telling us in a presentation, because of the increase of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it's interacting with the ocean and causing acidic levels to rise, and the reef is dying.

They cannot even explain that sentence. So I'm asking you guys, you know, we're in opposition, and I'm asking you guys to please kill this bill. It's just another attack. The environmentalists are continuously just attacking fishermen. And predominantly these fish, Hawaiians, local people eat these fish, and we survive on these fish for our families. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Godfrey. Mahalo. Kathy Gogel sends communication support. Edwin Watamura, in opposition, Ocean Legislative Task Force. Okay, this communication, members, we do have in support. 26 opposition of 8. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this measure, SB 244? Members, any questions? Senator Elefante.

Question for DAR, Administrator Neilson.

Senator Inouye?

One second, please.

Senator Inouye?

Yes. Who's on? Who's on Zoom?

Clayton Kubo.

Clayton Kubo. Waimeia, Kauai.

Okay, Clayton, can you, one second. You can. Okay. All right, proceed then, Clayton. Sorry about that.

I am in strongly opposition to this Bill. Just last year, we had a Bill to protect forms of gathering. Some people gather the way they gather. How can you basically continue to keep telling people, no, you cannot. No, you cannot. No, you cannot. To be honest with you, parrot fish eats coral.

So when people continue to say, oh, it's not fair because they're sleeping, I tell you what. What is the right way to gather them then? During the day when you can wound them and they can run away? To be honest with you guys is fishing is a form of gathering, no matter which way.

So long you, so long you kill the fish in a humane way. Nothing wrong by that. I never did lose a fish when I was night diving, and I can reiterate that I never did lose a fish. So when people say. When people say, oh, it is not fair. Mahalo.

Clayton, thank you, your time's up.Thank you. Mahalo. Is Phil Rorick on Zoom?

Not present, Chair. But we have Kim available on Zoom.

Is. Is Kim available? Kim, proceed.

Yes, I. I'm here. This Bill reads parrot fish prohibition. No person shall make any commercial sell of parrot fish that's been caught by spearing. We have a commercial parrot fish fishery that is managed and allows the take and sale.

You want to essentially ban a method to take that has virtually no bycatch, is precise, and is a traditional form of fishing. I oppose this. Next, you want to ban night fishing. When you manage the resource, have quotas implemented, they are the most efficient and accurate methods of take should be used.

If there is a quota or a bag limit, what difference does it make if they want to catch day or night spear or any other method? You need to manage the resource, manage the fish in the habitat, not the methods of take. So I oppose this Bill, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Kim. Kenneth Martin on Zoom. Are you there?

Nor present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Senator Elefante.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Administrator Neeson. In your testimony, it mentioned it alluded to rulemaking. Do you guys have rulemaking in relation to Uhu.

Yeah. Thank you, Senator. Brian Nielsen, again administrator for Division of Aquatic Resources. So we just completed rulemaking for herbivores a year ago, December. So we, as you heard in the testimony, we recently passed statewide rules establishing bag limits for Uhu. So it'd be a two per day, and then also special restrictions for commercial as well.

In addition, two weeks ago, the board just passed rules to ban night spearfishing in Mauna Loa Bay. And that was a real community driven effort by fishers there that had concerns about the population and the level of harvest there. So that would be 11 year ban in Mauna Loa Bay.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're welcome. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 244? Okay, we'll proceed with SB 427. And this is relating to land leases.

This prohibits the state from leasing any public lands or extending the lease of any public lands to any individual corporation or federal agency that is in arrears in the payment of certain monies to the state, non-compliant with a consent degree or memoranda of agreement with the state, that requires an environmental maintenance or remediation with regard to the subject public lands or convicted of a crime.

This also requires certification by the Office of the Governor before the issuance or extension of any federal lease that the individual corporation or federal agency is in good standing with the state.

Provides that if any existing lessee of public lands is found not to be in good standing with the state as of the effective date of this act, the lessee shall have three years or until the end of the lease term, whichever is sooner, to correct the violation or the lease shall be terminated. Okay. DLNR on SB 427.

Aloha, Russell.

Good afternoon, Chair Inoue, Vice Chair Elefante, Russel Tsuji for Land Division. We submitted comments, but primarily what we say is that we think existing statute is adequate and the protocols that the Board of Land and Natural Resources follows, we think is adequate to cover to assure lease compliance before any extension or new lease is issued.

Because currently under the existing law, if a lease is, you know, there's, the lease is terminated as compared to just because you owe a certain amount of rent. People fall behind in rent sometimes or other non compliance.

Under the leases, we're required to provide officially notice to the lessee about the violation and a time to cure, a minimum time to cure by statute. Sometimes the cure period goes beyond and the outstanding violation is still there.

But the board would have the discretion of whether to terminate at that point or to maybe allow additional time, let's say if money is owed, to come up and borrow the money and pay the rent.

So we think to achieve the objective of what I think the Bill is about is to assure compliance before any extension or lease is granted that already happens under existing law to the existing statutes. I'm available for questions if you have any.

Okay. Any questions. Thanks. Appreciate, appreciate the comments as well as the procedures already been applied, then. Okay. All right, Tanya Aynessazian. Chamber of Sustainable Commerce in support. We have 19 in support of this measure, one opposed, and two with comments. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on SB 427? Okay. Members, any questions otherwise?

Let's proceed then on SB 457.

Oh, sorry, Chair. We have one present on Zoom.

Okay. All right, who do we have?

Dave Mullenix, Greenpeace, Hawaii.

Thank. Thank you. All right, proceed, Dave.

No, thank you for hearing this legislation. Yeah, there was quite a debate about this in the last Committee, and all the concerns and questions were answered and they forwarded the Bill. The big concern is that there are a lot of toxic things that have happened that were not, that.

Like the military, like Red Hill, that sort of thing. You know, even though we have these leases and we have the laws, they are not complying all the time. And so it's important that we have. That we deny maybe some of these leases that are. That are not being properly taken care of.

So anyway, so there's a big debate about this in the last Committee, and they in the end decided, yes, we should move it forward. And that would be a good idea because it's something we need to discuss more. Things like Red Hill and things like Pakaloa. There's so many places here, they're so toxic now.

And these leases just keep being extended and we need that, they're not cleaning it up. Right. The military is not cleaning up the messes that they make. I mean, Koalawi is still contaminated. So thank you so much for hearing this. Please pass it forward.

We just need to keep moving forward to do what we can to protect our aina. Mahalo nuiloa.

Dave, can I ask you a question? Yes. You mentioned that this measure has been heard. Is that the House that had an earlier,

I think that was in the Senate. That was just yesterday.

Okay. This is the first time we're hearing this measurement. I was curious if the House measure was moving along.

Yeah, I think that that's right.

Thank you as well. Russel, I have a question for you. With regards to the decision making on, as you mentioned, and the rule sets already in place that the board addresses, including in. Does it also refer to violations protecting the environment?

Any, any violation of the lease?

So, so the environment as well is taken into consideration.

We have some provisions related to cleanup and environment, yes. Leases. The gentleman spoke of Red Hill. We don't have any lease at Red Hill. That's.

Yes, yes, yes. Okay.

Okay. And Puakaloa. Keep in mind those, some of the military leases. Puakaloa, in example, is a real old lease. It's issued in 1964. That's correct. Yeah. So some of the provisions today are probably more robust than what was had back then. But there is some reference to cleanup and we'll assure that there's cleanup requirement.

On the lease premises and the older leases like PTA. Then if there's the request for extensions going forward, the new rules will apply.

Well, the board would pick that up and we would inform the board if we knew of any issues that need to be resolved before the extension. Again, the extension for Puakaloa has not even come up. They're still going through the environmental assessments.

When is there, I mean,

2029 military leases come due.

All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Cindy Freitas on Zoom, are you there?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Katrisha Green, Melinda Sonodo Palay, and Susan Gorman Chang.

All not present, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Is anyone else here wishes to speak on SB 427? Okay. Hearing none, then let's proceed to SB 457. This is relating to state lands, and this establishes penalties for failure to comply with certain submerged land reclamation regulations.

Adds requirements for presently reclaimed land to be disposed of by BLNR without recourse to public auction to an abutting owner by sale or by lease. And it provides requirements for the Board of Land and Natural Resources, or BLNR, as we know, to lease state submerged lands and lands beneath tidal waters.

And I do know with regards to actions of DLNR is pretty strict, as far as I know, in the years I've been here. DLNR.

Chair, vice chair and Senator DeCorte, Russell Tsuji again for DLNR Land Division.

Again, we submitted comments, but primarily what we're saying in our comments is that we believe the existing statute and the protocols that go before the Board of Land and Natural Resources are adequate. Because I can tell you before any land disposition and typically along if we're talking about submerged land, we're talking generally the shoreline.

But almost 98% of those are going to be involving structures that are sometimes like seawalls, sometimes vetments, stuff like that within the shoreline. The board, if we find that it exists and it has not been authorized by the board and it's within the shoreline, within state shoreline waters.

The staff, together with OCCL and the state surveyor get together and they evaluate whether the structure is, you know, it can stay or is it affecting the shoreline, that negative, for example. But if it and in those instances where we find that it is that we ask.

Usually the term was always the ask the homeowner to please remove the structure. We would not be recommending to the board to issue an easement. Those that go to the board for an easement for, to allow the structure. And these are existing structures, not new construction. Existing structures.

To remain is when OCCL usually makes a determination that the area is already hardened, for example, and it would any kind of, it was to remain, it would not impact the shoreline any more negatively than it already is.

And sometimes when you take out a wall and the whole area is hardened, it affects the neighboring properties and the stability of the wall in general. So, you know, these are all existing under current law. And that's the practice of the board since I've been there, which is almost 20 years now. So we feel confident that existing statute is adequate.

Aside from properties that are considered, like, as you mentioned, that you monitor those walls. What about those properties? As an example, like, if I remember Kona, where you have some of the restaurants that are in submerged lands and the structures are pretty much kind of like wood. Yeah. And they're in the water as well.

And I guess it's no different than like in Kaneohe Bay, where you have those, I guess the moorings. When someone has a boat and they have their own platform. What do you call it? A mooring...

Pier?

The piers. Yes. Okay. And some are in the the wooden structure. How do you manage that?

Well, as far as the piers overhanging, like in maybe sometimes, maybe in Kona, I know we have them in Front Street because I went to visit there. Right. And in Front Street as an, I'll use that example cause I just went to Maui to specifically look at the area, because the owners, who are the abiding landowners who own the land, and a lot of times in fee simple had piers out there and the restaurants were hanging over into the ocean. So many of those had easements in that area.

But in that instance, when we went out, we noticed that the only thing that was the easement was the piers, not the wall.

Right, right.

And the wall was, I would say, in relatively good condition. So they were asking about whether they would be allowed to, whether the board would entertain the possibility of rebuilding the structures.

And we, after we, I reviewed the statute and met with them and talked with them, as with the Maui Planning Commission, I told them I think there is a process in place that they could apply. They would have to go through a lot of permitting and stuff.

But at the end of the day, there's nothing in the statute that would have prohibited, in part because the statutes currently do not allow new construction if it negatively impacts the shoreline. This is not one of those, because these are piers. The wall already, the whole area is all hardened and this is only the overhang portion.

Similar in Kaneohe Bay. We have easements out there for a lot of those piers.

And regularly on the termination of their lease, they come up and, and you do your due diligence and we kind of approve the additional extensions.

When they come up. Many of those are still on the original term. I mean, but then, yeah, I can see at some point the term will come up. And at the same time, when it comes up, if they ask for an extension, I believe we would still follow the same protocol right now. Let's check to make sure.

Can we extend it without negatively impacting the shoreline or shore? Should we not allow it?

Okay, all right. Okay, thank you. Any comments or questions? It's good discussions. Thanks so much for being here. Ted Bohlen on 457. Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 457? Hearing none. Will proceed with SB 740 relating to special permits.

Authorizes the Land Use Commission to designate another agency, including the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, Department of Agriculture, or Agribusiness Development Corporation to monitor compliance with any restrictions imposed in a special permit. Okay. Office of Planning. I don't see Mary Alice here. Sends communication with comments. Land Use Commission. Also comments. Department of Agriculture.

Department of Agriculture. Stand on our written comments.

Okay, thanks so much.

In agricultural matters.

Okay. Mahalo. HPD, Kerwin on ten--IT, anyone? On Zoom.

None present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Testifying for Food and Policy Internship 2025, Julian Kiyabu, in support as well. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 740, relating to special permits? Hearing none. We'll proceed with SB 839, relating to DLNR or the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Establishes a criminal penalty and monetary fines for aquarium fishing violations.

Clarifies that each fish or aquatic life specimen taken in violation of certain fishing laws regarding aquarium fish and the possession and use of prohibited explosives, electrofishing devices, and poisonous substances constitute a separate offense. Okay. DLNR. Brian, you're busy today. In this session anyway. Thanks for your indulgence with us and being present.

Aloha, Chair. Brian Nielson, on behalf of DLNR. We stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Okay. And members, any questions you have of Mr. Nielson? He's free as well. Ted Bohlen.

Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. We'll stand on our written comments in support. Thank you.

Okay. Inga Gibson, in support. Kim on Zoom, are you still with us?

Yes, I am, Chair. If a law is broken, then a law is broken. Fine and penalty should be the same. If you take an undersized kole to eat, the fine should be the same if you take that same kole and keep him as a pet. It is the same violation. This bill is equivalent to a drunk driver getting pulled over and the officer asks if he drinks scotch for a $200 fine or beer for a month in jail. It's the same violation.

There are constitutional issues with this bill, such as the Eighth Amendment that reads, quote, 'excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.' If that does not apply to this bill, maybe the U.S. and Hawaii Constitution of the Equal Protection Clause that states unequal application refers to the disparity in how laws and policies are enforced among different groups or an individual. Clearly, this bill does that. If the intent is to deter illegal fishing, then expand this to all fisheries for equal application.

If the intent is to violate constitutional rights and impose cruel and unusual prejudicial fines to a minority group, you succeed with this bill. I oppose this bill on violation of constitutional rights, and I believe in equality under the law, and so should you all. Thank you.

Thank you, Kim. Mahalo. Eric Koch on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. Brian, question. I know you extensively had some comments, but--so the law that we passed in 2022 that became Act 35, so that pretty much kind of clears up a lot what we're talking today?

Yeah, we rely on the tiered penalty system for violations that we take to the Board of Land and Natural Resources. So the aquarium violations that I'm aware of that have happened within the last five years have all been taken to the board and they use their discretion to apply those penalties. Up to $1,000 per specimen is their discretion.

And the rules and everything has been in place as well?

Yes.

Okay. So in other words, this would be pretty much--what we're hearing today is pretty much addressed by the department?

It can be addressed by the department, the courts. I think that might be another story.

Okay. All right. Thanks so much. Any questions for Brian as well? Okay. With this, there is support, two with support. There's four oppositions and two with comments. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 839 on this measure? Hearing none, let's proceed, members, to SB 1018, relating to real estate transactions.

And this requires a seller of real property adjacent to the shoreline and the seller's agent to disclose and include in all advertisements, shoreline erosion, certain issues related to the parcel. SB 1018. DLNR, Michael Cain.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Senators. Michael Cain, on behalf of DLNR. We'll stand on our written comments in support of this bill. It builds off of a previous bill the Legislature passed requiring enhanced disclosure for shoreline properties, and we find that this one--right now, the disclosure is at the end of the process. This helps move it up towards the beginning. Thank you.

Thank you. So you support this--

Oh, we support it. Thank you.

Okay. All right. How about you, Realtors? Lindsay Garcia. Aloha, Lindsay.

So, Hawaii Realtors. We do appreciate the intent of the measure to educate buyers, and we do take that very seriously. However, we would like to point out this bill could be cumbersome to implement as it focuses on the ads where there is very limited space to try to properly educate everybody about everything there is to know about shoreline and flood risks.

Through our existing form, sellers must already disclose important information such as whether the property lies on the shoreline and if there are any erosion control structures in place via our sellers' real property disclosure form.

Furthermore, the Oceanfront Property Addendum is a document that we proactively created with the help of the Legislature in order to educate buyers about these risks of buying shoreline property. It includes a lot of very detailed information in plain language about shoreline, what that is, sea level rise, high waves and tsunami inundation zones, specifying that future improvements may now be encroachments on state property or in the future.

There's also information on whether state shoreline certification is going to be obtained, whether that will be currently with the seller, if the buyer is responsible for it, who's going to pay for it, like, there's a lot of information already provided for the Oceanfront Property Addendum, and so for that reason, we don't believe that--while we appreciate the intent of this measure--we don't believe that it is necessary. Thank you.

Thank you. There are 11 in support of this measure. No opposition. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to SB 1018 before us? Okay. We'll proceed with 1083, SB 1083, relating to port infrastructure and makes appropriations to DLNR to conduct maintenance dredging at state small boat harbors, boat launch ramp facilities, and waterways. And this is throughout--this measure recognizes all of the small boat harbors within the District of Management of DOBAR throughout the state. Okay. DOBAR, Meghan Statts.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. Meghan Statts, the Administrator for the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. The department stands on its written testimony in support and we're here for any questions.

Interesting. Do you have an idea what the ballpark figure, looking at, you know, the ports, the pier, I mean, the small boat harbors that's under the jurisdiction, kind of like looking at all the different islands, what we're talking about cost-wise?

The dredging cost, anywhere between three to five million, just depending on how big of a task it really is, like Pohoiki, for example. I think we're up to $9.6 million for dredging over there.

And then we just finished Hilo.

Right, and Wailoa itself was about 4.9 million in the end.

You know, I think we went to three something, three point--

It was 3.2, and we supplemented that with about 1.7 million of Boating Special Fund. And we did the same thing, about almost three million that we had to supplement for Pohoiki due to the amount of debris that's going to be removed.

So I think when we talk about, like, Maalaea, for example, I think we're talking like four million. Lahaina is about 5 million. Mala, we haven't gotten the bids back for that yet. That could be about, you know, two million, just because it's a smaller project. So it really just kind of varies on how much we're having to dredge, and if we can do it on a more routine basis, then we're not getting to the point where we're at right of--right--proactive rather than more being reactive.

Exactly. So we're looking at, what, 25 mil or so, and it depends, because it depends on the dredging and everything else that has to do with the seasonal sand that comes in, so you may have, in Hilo as an example, you may have it happen every three years or four years and it just depends, but it's good to have a cushion for you folks to have something available and immediately take care of the issue.

Definitely.

Yeah.

Yes. Thank you.

All right. So it seems like traditionally has been like, finding CIP monies to help you whenever it happens, and it's not a good planning project for you folks and as well as for us. If the resources can be there, we don't have to get after you guys.

Right. We definitely agree--

Which we normally do.

We definitely agree. We rather would be proactive and be able to plan ahead of schedule, plan everything that we need to so that when the dredging needs to happen, that we do have the funds there.

Yeah. And this is something that I think we all should be concerned about because, you know, these are used by fishermen as well, and, you know, they need to survive as well, and so--and a lot of them are full-timers. Senator McKelvey.

I just wanted to know, our previous conversation with your engineers, they said another advantage of this would be with permitting with the Feds. You could go ahead, and basically, by them knowing what we're going to do, if we can work, because would that be safe to say that this would be another advantage of a measure like this is to be able to do pre-permitting, especially at the federal level with these agencies?

Yes. Correct. We've spoken with our engineer, Finn McCall, and if we can do the design and permitting prior to needing some of this, we have everything in place. So we're not waiting months, if not a year or so for some of this permitting that's been coming in.

Exactly. Especially with the multiagency reviewed thing.

Exactly.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate it, Director.

I think we're all experiencing these issues. Okay. We all pray that measure passes and we all can assist. Thank you so much for the work you guys do. Okay. On Zoom, Denver Coon. Aloha, Denver.

Aloha. Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Denver Coon, on behalf of the Ocean Tourism Coalition. I agree with everything Meghan just said. A lot of times we see reactive bills. This is very much a proactive bill and we are in strong support of it.

Okay. Thanks, Denver.

No problem.

Okay. We have six in support of this measure. No opposition. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 1083? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on to SB 1084, relating to DLNR. This appropriates funds to establish positions within the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources. Okay, one more. Okay. Brian Nielson.

Okay. Aloha, Chair. Brian Nielson. Again, DLNR. We stand on our testimony in strong support. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Malama Pupukea Waimea, in support. Ted Bohlen is here. He's gone, but he sends comments as well to continue to support. Hawaiian Ocean Legislative Task Force and an individual, all in support. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 1084? Hearing none. Hey, we're moving along. SB 1099, relating to important agriculture lands.

And this is authorizing the Land Use Commission to designate important agriculture lands and adopt maps for the designated lands in counties that fail to identify and recommend important agriculture lands by December 31, 2027. DOA.

DOA stands on written testimony offering comments.

Okay. Thank you. Land Use Commission sends communication as well with comments on this measure. Farm Bureau as well comments. Cindy Freitas, in support. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 1099? Okay. Hearing none. All right, members, this concludes today's agenda. We'll take a recess.

The Committee on Water and Land is going into its decision making on its hearing notice of February 5th, Wednesday, in Conference Room 229. With regards to SB 15, relating to historic preservation, Chair's recommendation that we'll--one second, one second.

You can ask her.

Yeah, yeah. I think we're comfortable doing support, yeah?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that. Yeah. Chair's recommendation on SB 15 is to pass this measure relating to historic preservation as is. Okay. Members, any discussions? Hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Senator Elefante.

Okay. Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 15 on amended. [Roll Call]. Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. SB 19, relating to DLNR. Chair's recommendation on this measure is to pass. We'll be defecting the date to July 1st, 2050, as well as blank the appropriations amount, but this measure will be moved with amendments. Any discussions? Hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Chair's recommendation's to pass with amendments SB 19. Of the five members present, any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Okay. Thank you. SB 145. This is relating to declaration of water shortage. Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure as is. Any discussions? Hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Okay. Chair's recommendation's to pass SB 145 on amended. Of the members present, five, noting five. Any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none, Madam Chair. Recommendation's adopted.

Okay. Thank you. SB 244, this is relating to parrot fish. Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure. Okay, moving on. SB 427. Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure as well, and most of all that's been discussed on this issue already is in place. Okay. SB 457, relating to state lands.

We'll defer this measure as well, and it seems like DLNR already has its--not only the resources, but all of the rules and the guidance on what has been done to leasing submerged lands has been in place. Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure. Okay. SB 740, relating to special permits. Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure as is. Any discussions? Hearing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Chair's recommendation's to pass unamended SB 740. Of the five members present, any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. SB 839, relating to DLNR, and this establishes the criminal penalties for aquarium fishing violations. This as well is already in place within the agency. Chair's recommendation is to defer. SB 1018, relating to real estate transactions.

It seems like things have already been addressed in all of these issues with regards to real property, the seller's real property, disclosures as well. Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure. SB 1083, relating to port infrastructure. Chair's recommendation is that we pass this measure. We'll be defecting the date to July 1st, 2050 and we'll also--I think this one didn't have a dollar amount, so we will move the measure as it is. Okay. Chair's recommendation then is to move past with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Chair's recommendation's to pass with amendments SB 1083. Of the five members present, any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. SB 1084, relating to DLNR appropriation for positions. Chair's recommendation is to pass with the amendments that we're going to defect the date to July 1st, 2050, and I think this does not--I think we have this blank anyway on this measure. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Okay. Chair's recommendation's to pass SB 1084 with amendments. Of the five members present, any no votes or votes or reservations?

Okay. SB--I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Oh, they had the position in the bill? Oh, okay. Okay. Yes. Okay. We'll go back to, members, on SB 1084, aside from making the amendments with the defective date that will all of the positions recognized in the measurement will be all blanked as well. Okay, thank you. SB 1099. Is that where we were, members?

We got to go back and vote on SB 1084, Madam Chair.

Okay. SB 1084. That's the measure we just talked about then. Okay. With amendments. Okay. Any discussions? Hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Okay. Chair's recommendation's to pass SB 1084 with amendments. Of the five members present, any no votes? Any votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. SB 1089 or 10--I'm sorry--1099, relating to important agriculture. Lands Chair recommends that we pass this measure as is. Any discussions? Hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Okay. Chair's recommendation's to pass unamended SB 1099. Of the five members present, any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thanks, folks. Okay. Let's go to the other committee hearings. Okay. Water and Land adjourned. Thank you, folks.