House Standing Committee on Energy & Environmental Protection

All right, Good morning everyone. We're here for the Joint Committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Committee on Water and Land. We are here in room 325. It is Tuesday, February 119:15. A few I'm joined by Chair Hashem, Rep. Shimizu, Rep. Morikawa, my Vice Chair, Rep. Caruso and Rep. Kush, and a few housekeeping items.

We are going to put some time limits in place today because we had a lot of testimony submitted and a lot of people indicating they would be present in person or on Zoom. So we're going to do 2 minute time limit per testifier in order to make sure everyone has a turn.

We did get your written testimony in advance, so we did review it and feel free to stand on written testimony. For those on Zoom, please stay muted and keep your video off while you're waiting and after your testimony is complete, Zoom Chat is only to chat with technical staff, not with each other.

If you're unexpectedly disconnected, you can rejoin and you'll be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House isn't responsible for bad connections on the testifier's end. If there's a network failure, we may have to reschedule. In that case, we will appropriately notice rescheduling.

Please avoid using trademarked or copyrighted images and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. And with that, we'll get started. First Bill on the agenda this morning is House Bill 1319 relating to the State plan. This is the Green Infrastructure Bill that we've seen for several years in a row now.

And first up we have Office of Planning and Sustainability, Sustainable Development and then Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission in support, Hawaii Farmers Union in support, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in support.

Good morning. Thank you. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the committees, Ted Bolan on behalf of Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and the Climate Protector is Hawaii. Just so people understand this is green infrastructure planning. What the heck is that?

Green infrastructure is a range of measures that use plant or soil systems, including trees, permeable pavement or other permeable surfaces or substrates, stormwater harvests and reuse or landscaping to conserve water and reduce flows to sewer systems or surface waters. This is just smart planning. There's a lot can be gained by using these different range of measures.

I urge the Committee to pass the committees to pass these bills and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Then we have Ulupono Initiative in support, Outdoor Circle in support, and two individuals in support. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? If not Members, questions? All right, seeing none, we will move on to House Bill 999 relating to water pollution. First up to testify we have dlnr.

Good morning chairs, vice chairs, Members of the committees, Ryan Kanakowale, Department of Land and Natural Resources. We stand on our written testimony and support and are here for any questions.

Thank you. And Department of the Attorney General on zoom and present in person.

Thank you.

Good morning Chairs, vice chairs, Members of both committees. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. The Department is in strong support of House Bill 999. First, the Department appreciates the efforts that the Legislature made in passing Act 215 of last year which kind of made clarifications in Hawaii revised statutes for Section 214.

However, they retain 214 subsection C which has a lot of overlap if not identical types of charges to 342d of the HOI rice statutes. And because of that, this Bill will by removing that section, this Bill will provide consistency and clarity between both statutes. When that charge does arise, we will be here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have Department of Health in support and two individuals in support. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this measure? If not Members? Any questions? All right, seeing none, we will move on. House Bill 136. This is relating to water resources. First, this is Geo bonds for Board of Water Supply.

First up we have Board of Water Supply.

Aloha Chair Lowen and Chair Hashim and Members, Mahalo. Ernie Lau, Honolulu Board of Water Supply. We stand in strong support of this measure and we mahalo the Legislature for the House for considering this measurement. We'd like to suggest a change.

Instead of two monitor wells with the $20 million, we suggest that it be up to six monitor wells. We will use our own BWS funds where necessary to supplement that funding to install six monitor wells. This is related to defining the nature and extent of the contamination from the Navy's Red Hill fuel tanks.

Over its 80 year history, it's estimated between 644,000 to 1.9 million gallons of fuel of various types may have leaked from this facility, including the latest spill of PFAS laden chemicals for firefighting foam in November of 2022. 1,300 gallons of concentrate liquid.

So we stand on our testimony and strong support and we hallow you for for moving this measure forward. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we have Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii in support, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in support and three individuals in support. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure. Members question, a quick question. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. No, no, you first. Go ahead, Bradley.

Thank you. Chair, question for Mr. Lau. Is it customary for the state to fund the Board of Water Supply? I thought Board of Water Supply was autonomous and in my mind it's connected to county. But it's just an education question from myself.

It is. Through the years, at various times, the state has collaborated with the Board of Water Supply to install different like water wells around the islands, especially through work with Department of Land and Natural Resources. A few years ago, they provided the state provided about $1.0 million toward an exploratory well in Kunia in support of agriculture.

That project is moving forward. We're going to start drilling soon.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lau. And thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Just quick clarifying question. If we change the language to say up to six monitoring wells, that you still are okay with the same appropriation. You're just saying you. Yes.

You know, we'll supplement the additional monies like we had already with the previous appropriation, which is about $10 million. We've added over $3 million to actually.

How much has it been costing you for one well?

Unfortunately, right now it's pretty expensive. The bids have been coming in at over $3 million per monitor well.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Mahalo.

Oh, go ahead.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Lau, question will any of the military funding that has been committed or possibly committed help with these efforts, or is this something entirely separate than related to the original speaker bill.

So the efforts to install monitor wells at Red Hill was predominantly on the U.S. Navy. They've installed, I think, close to 35 or so, 34 or 35 monitor wells, and they continue to install monitor wells. Board of Water Supply we've supplemented that efforts using our own funds and also with the help of the state installing monitor wells.

So they put in 35 and we're going to put in six more.

We've actually installed. We have already one under construction, one already constructed. So that'll be with. With additional with the previous appropriation, that was four monitor wells and then with this, another up to six. So I would say 10 to 12.

Okay. I just it seems pretty directly connected, unless there's some kind of delineation of having these monitor wells covered by the taxpayers of the state versus attached to the original Navy spill. So I'm just trying to figure out what that delineation is.

I think the common denominator between the Navy and the community or the public is that the impact of the leaks of Red Hill have impacted a public trust resource that is a responsibility of the State of Hawaii, including the local jurisdictions like the Honolulu Border Water Supply. So they've impacted a state resource, rightfully so.

They should be actually doing everything themselves, but we can't really wait for them. And then given the current philosophies of the present Administration in charge of the country, it's going to be challenging to require them or force them to Fund more these wells.

Yet time is working against us because the contamination moves with the groundwater and the groundwater is not standing still.

Sure. Understood. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? All right. Seeing none. We will move on. Thank you. Thank you. We will move on to House Bill 1404 relating to cesspool closure. This appropriates funds for residential sewer connection and cesspool closure Subsidy pilot. First up to testify. We have Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

Just in time.

Aloha Kakayaka chairs, vice chairs and Members of the committees. The Department stands on its written testimony and support and I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then Department of Land and Natural Resources. Thank you. And then we have Department of Health and Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition.

Thank you. Chair Lohan, Chair Hashim, Vice Chairs Peruso and Lamasel, Ted Boland for the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. This Bill is about connecting to the sewers, those cesspools that are feasible. You can't do it everywhere. You're far away, you can't be connected. But if you're near the sewer, it makes sense.

Connecting homes to sewers should be encouraged in all areas where it's feasible because it's cost effective for homeowners and it treats wastewater to a higher standard than most individual wastewater systems. Offering a subsidy to homeowners to help cover their costs will help encourage counties to look for and plan more sewer infrastructure.

So this is a really good idea. I urge you to adopt this Bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. And then we have testimony from three individuals in support. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? Seeing non Members. Questions. zero, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. That's a question for the Health Department. So generally sewage is a city and county issue, isn't it? Normally. And so this closure of cesspools connecting to this main sewer line, this Bill is seeking state funding for that. Do you know if this Bill has any kind of lien on.

We heard testimony that it would benefit homeowners as well. Well, is. Does this put impose any kind of lean when we do the connecting? When we cover some of this upfront costs.

I'm sorry, I wouldn't know the, the answer to that. I don't know the mechanics of how the, when the, when the state gives the money to the counties, how the counties mechanically are going to. Okay. Reimburse them for it. I sort of understand what you're getting at, but I would have that answer.

Okay, great. Thank you so much over that.

Thanks. Any other questions, Members? I would have questions for the county, but they didn't submit testimony. So maybe they don't want this funding that much. Right. I think.

I think so.

Next. So we'll move on to the next Bill if no further questions. So first. So now we're on House Bill 661 relating to environmental review.

Permits accept in certain circumstances previously authorized activity challenged as being subject to environmental review to continue while the applicable agency conducts an environmental assessment, prepares an EIS or determines whether the activity is exempt. And first up to testify we have dlnr. Thank you.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, OHA in opposition, State of Hawaii Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Thank you. Earth justice in opposition.

Hi, Good morning, chairs, vice chairs and Committee Members. My name is Mahesh Cleveland. I'm with Honolulu Office of Earth Justice. We strongly oppose 661 as written for first of all, because it's, it's formulated on false premises.

I wanted to point out this is a preamble that shows up in a few bills this year saying that the courts expanded the definition of action and what how HEPA applies. I wanted to point out that long before and the unspoken fact is that these preambles are referring to the 2017 Emberger v.

Department of Land and Natural Resources decision. I wanted to point out that dlnr, not the courts, applied HEPA to ocean management years before that by doing their own EA for fish aggregating devices. And also in 2019, the former Office of Environmental Quality Control promulgated new rules under HEPA that further narrowed the definition of action and associated terms.

And so while we are not unsympathetic to the problems that we understand this Bill is seeking to solve, we feel strongly that it's overkill.

And if we're going to try to help folks, we should do it in a way that doesn't open the door to sort of unknowable future issues that may arise if we just exempt entire categories of activity from the statute itself.

The Legislature enacted heap over 50 years ago to give us long term protections over these things and the ability to review environmental impacts of the agency decisions and we strongly urge the Legislature to hold on to the tools that it created for the people of Hawaii. So thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. And Sierra Club of Hawaii on zoom. zero, hi.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, Members of the committees, Wayne Tanaka with the Sierra Club of Hawaii. We are in strong opposition to this measure along with HB 123. That's coming up on the agenda. I'll just add, you know, there's a saying you should try to make a million friends and zero enemies.

And I think there's wisdom in that. But, you know, given, you know, what I've seen over the last 15 years, I think I have to say something. Now.

We are here and we're dealing with this Bill because there's a prevailing culture of, in the land division formula, Land Transportation and Transportation Division in the aga's Department of a willingness to disregard the law, whether it's for political expediency, whether it's because of stubbornness and pride and sadly, in some cases, in my opinion, from a live experience for the last 15 years of dealing with this Department of Laziness, I've seen them render opinions time and again with zero legal citations.

Their former Director has lost I don't know how many times before the Supreme Court the Supreme Court has published explicitly an admonishment of their nonsensical arguments. You know, we, you know, remember what happened last year when they lied to the Supreme Court about what was going on in East Mile with the fires?

Most recently, one of the deputies argued that cross examination of technical experts is no problem value. And for folks who are attorneys, yeah, the Supreme Court was not open to the argument. And so to reflect on what got us here, right.

There's been, you know, with the Umberger case, with other cases that I think are driving these measures, we have seen that they had ample opportunity to recognize what the law was saying, ample opportunity to negotiate. They declined to do so.

And even after the decisions were rendered and they lost, instead of working to comply with the law, now they've come and asked the Legislature for a bailout.

So we asked that you hold this measure and not, you know, not render a decision that's going to come that's going to reward this kind of culture of disregard and at the expense of environment and at the expense of your legacies. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And then Ocean Tourism Coalition.

Aloha chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Denver Coon. I'm here on behalf of the Ocean Tourism Coalition. We represent hundreds of small tour boat operators across the state. I'm also here on behalf of my own family business, Trilogy Excursions. We've operated on the islands of Maui and Lanai for 52 years.

And in the past five years, you know, I've seen a lot of challenges. I've been a public defender. I've been shipwrecked on a remote atoll and I've gone out in 70 knot winds to help the Coast Guard rescue those trapped by the Lahaina fire.

But maybe the most difficult thing I've had to do is just keep our family business open. Covid shut us down and then the Lahaina fire shut us down and now we are on the verge of being shut down for a third time in five years.

And obviously there's never a good time to be shut down, but this is particularly difficult right now. We are a Lahaina based company without a Lahaina and many of our employees lost their homes in the fire. And actually someone just got their building permits to rebuild their homes that they lost.

And they want to know at least to have assurance that they're going to have a job at the end of this year. And right now I don't have a very good answer for them because right now, the way that 343 is being applied, there's really no mechanism for these operations to continue.

If 343 applies, the activity stops until the environmental review is complete. And you know, for a lot of those businesses being shut down again, you know, I don't know if they come back and I certainly don't know if those employees are able to stay on the island. And they come back as well.

Well, so, you know, there's something, you know, as a public defender, we always give this right of due process. Right. The idea that you're, you're innocent until proven guilty, in this case, it feels much more like after four years, you're now guilty until proven innocent.

So I believe, you know, strongly believe passing HB661 in some form is really important to help these businesses and help the families that depend on them. So thank you.

Thank you. Thanks. And we're going to do better with running our timer, but we are trying to stick to the two minute limit per testifier. Next we have Daniel Hazen, Hoholo Charters.

Good morning to the Committee. My name is Daniel Hazen. I'm the operations manager for Holo Holo Charters on the southwest side of Kauai.

I am in full support of House Bill 661 as written, the Bill would prevent costly and devastating shutdowns for legal and compliant operators to task small businesses with the financial and administrative burden of producing environmental impact statements, all while preventing them from earning the income needed to Fund such environmental reviews.

Is not just unreasonable, I think it's unjust. This Bill ensures that businesses can continue until facts and evidence can be gathered to prove harm or no harm to the environment. This is a simple matter of presumed innocence until proven guilty. To echo Mr.

Coons comments, businesses operating in good standing and have been operating in good standing for decades should not be assumed guilty until they prove their innocence and maybe go bankrupt. In the meantime, this would cost thousands of residents their jobs and their families their livelihoods. I ask you for your support and thank you.

Thank you. And then Captain Andy's Sailing Inc.

Good morning, chair, Vice Chair and Committee, and thank you all for listening to us today. My name is Tony Kasha and I've come here from the island of Kauai this morning on the island of Kauai. For the past 16 years, I've worked for Captain Andes as a full time mariner on Kauai.

I'm a proud father, proud husband and part of the maritime community. So again, thank you for listening to our support for House Bill 661. From my time on Kauai, I have seen team Members, crew Members, captains in our industry.

They've gone on, they've been inspired through working and they've become Members of the United States Coast Guard, they've joined the maritime academy, they've worked interisland tugboats, barges, and they've made this a lifelong career. Oftentimes I revert back to being on the water and kind of default to that because that's what I know.

But when you're on the water and you're looking forward and you're looking at your destination, it seems very easy to get there. There's no obstacles in front of you and, and you say, ah, we can easily do that. But it's pretty smart to look behind you because the wake that you create oftentimes could wake out other vessels.

It can cause damage depending on if you're in a harbor. So I feel that this Bill661 is very important to slow down the wake and the negative effects of thousands of people that could lose their job, that could be forced out of the Hawaii community and economy.

And again, I please ask for your support for this Bill today. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. And then we have Gabriel, Lucy, Also from Captain Andy Sailing on Zoom. Please go ahead.

Yeah, Aloha chairs, vice chairs and Members of the committees. I wish I could be there in person today but my son's sick so I'm, I'm speaking remotely. I'm Gabriel Lucy, President of Captain Nandy's Sailing on Kauai. I've submitted my written testimony. Just wanted to share a few more things. I've been in the industry for 20 years.

Captain Andy's been in the industry for about over 40, my wife's family business trilogy for over 50. This just isn't just a job, it's a life. Right now this uncertainty around Kaanapali and other areas is making it really hard for our employees to see a future.

As my brother in law Denver said, I have two captains in person today testifying. I've got captain whose parents work in the industry and their kids want to follow. They don't want to work a Safeway, they don't want to work in food trucks or they don't want to leave back to the mainland.

They want to be in the maritime industry working and learning on the ocean. We've always followed the rules and I do believe in better enforcement, not shutdowns. And I think that is the solution.

If we force to close fights, flights will continue to coming, Hotels will continue to fill up and visitors will just be on the roads more. I don't think anybody wants more people on the roads. In Hawaii. HB661 is a critical for keeping operations going, protecting jobs and ensuring our stable future.

I urge you to support this mahalo for your time. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. And then we have Kyler Myers also from Captain Andy Sailing in support.

Aloha. Good morning chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kyler. I am a catamaran captain and operations manager for Captain Andy's Sailing Ventures on the island of Kauai.

And I'm here to support Bill 661 in that this Bill supports businesses, local businesses, not just the marine tour businesses but many businesses around the community and many of which those businesses and their employees depend on this Bill to support themselves and their families will prevent the unnecessary shutdown of these businesses.

It could be potentially devastating to the local community. Allows these businesses to continue to promote stewardship of the education of the ocean, the coastlines and conservation of marine wildlife. And it promotes a continuation of responsible law abiding marine tours. So thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

Thank you. And then we have Mendy Dant from Fairwinds Cruises on Zoom.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs and Committee Members. Thank you very much for giving me. The opportunity to speak on this Bill. Our family business in Keauhou Kona has been in business for 54 years. This year, I personally have been involved for 48 years. We have always been good Steven stewards.

To the areas that we go to because we value the environment. This Bill will protect our businesses from going out of business, protect jobs for. Our employees, their families. It'll keep roof over their heads and. Food on their tables. It doesn't make sense to close down. Businesses to do an EIS or an ea.

As Gabriel had said, we need more enforcement. We don't need closure. So I please ask you to seriously support this Bill and vote yes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. And then we have Green Party of Hawaii in opposition, Free Access Coalition and opposition Kaanapali Beach Resort Association and support. Kupuna for the Mopuna in opposition. Shangri La Sailing Charters in support. Sailing Maui in support. Sea Paradise Scuba in support. League of Women voters in opposition. SeaQuest Hawaii in support.

Red Hospitality and Leisure Hawaii LLC in support. Sail Maui in support. All of these organizations in support. We have Body Glove Hawaii, Calypso Charters, Ho Holo Charters, Outrigger, Kaanapali Beach Resort, Sail Maui, Tera Lani Sailing, Outrigger, Hospitality Group, Trilogy Excursions, Sea Maui Fun Charters, Island Scuba, Absolute Charters Inc.

Maui Hotel and Lodging Association, Jack's Diving Locker, Maui Brewing Company, Blue Dolphin Charters, Maui Chamber of Commerce, Explore Kauai llc, Sailing Ships Ltd. And we have a number of other individuals in person on Zoom. It looks like 40 in support, 31 in opposition.

So I'm just going to call the names of people who signed up to testify in person. We have, it looks like George Garnes iii.

Good morning, chair, Vice Chair and Committee. My name is George Garnes. Flew over from Maui this morning in strong support of this Bill. I think Gabe said it very well. We need more enforcement. We don't need to get shut down here.

Sometimes you get a side effect of things going and I don't know if everybody realizes that over here, but we've already. I mean, you guys already know. We already lost Lahaina with the fires and everything. And I'm speaking on behalf of our. Not only my family, but our captains and crew. And we have, we're a small company.

We got, we have one up, one boat. We'd run out of Kaanapali Beach and we have six of our crew Members right now. Have taken out sizable construction loans to rebuild. They've got the concrete slabs poured and now we've got real threat that they're getting shut down. And so I'm dealing with, you know, crying families.

I've got concerned, our captains are concerned. A lot of stress going on and I think this is avoidable. Like Gabe said, more enforcement for sure. Getting shut down. No, that doesn't do any good for anybody. It doesn't do any good for the state for revenue generation. It doesn't do any good for all of us safe operators.

And so that's just my position. I'm in strong support of that. Thank you for your time this morning.

Thank you. And then Ron Tubbs in support, not present. Mike Kelly.

Chair Lohan. Good morning Committee Members. Thank you for your time today. Also thank you for your efforts and dedication towards making the State of Hawaii better. It's a tough job and I appreciate what you do in your efforts. I've been blessed to be in the ocean recreation business for 50 years in Kaanapali.

I don't know how it happened, but now I'm the old man in the sea, having that distinction. I'm concerned about the sea, concerned about our environment, concerned about our businesses, concerned about our people. Maui is no Ka'o, as I know all of you have heard. However, as you also know, we're on our knees. We're on our knees.

It's not getting better anytime soon. It's getting better in very, very small doses. So we know all the help we can get for this to occur at this time is unconscionable. And for people, as other testimonies have pointed out, losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their livelihoods is just beyond belief.

Our Bodou operations, Kaanapali, are another example of this. The captains and crews and the teams that are supportive of operations out there, they're passionate about their jobs. They don't want to lose their homes, many of which already have, and of course their jobs. To support building those homes again in the 1980s, we worked diligently with DLNR.

In fact, we worked diligently with DLNR, DOBOR, Coast Guard and state authorities over the last five decades to establish rules, regulations and procedures in Kaanapali for the number of boats, the size of ingress, egress, number of passengers, all sorts of guidelines to coincide with property professional business. We follow those.

We're all stewards of the land and the sea. For 40 plus years, we've operated safely out there. I ask you to continue to allow us to do that. And I look for your support today for House Bill 661. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have Stephanie Freed.

Aloha. My name is Stephanie Freedom and I'm a co founder of the northwestern Hawaiian islands Hui which was founded 25 years ago. A group of fishermen, Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners, Kupuna Divers, sailors, researchers, small business owners and local environmentalists who pioneered the establishment of protections for Papahana Mokuakea.

I formerly served as an alternate Member on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council. As an alternate Member, having seen the extraordinarily damaging activities that were allowed previously in Papahano Mokuakea in state waters that were not halted during the time, despite tremendous questions about their legality, this led to irreversible damage.

The lobster population never recovered. I strongly oppose this Bill and agree wholeheartedly with testimony submitted by oha, Earthjustice and Sierra Club. As a sailor myself, I am offended by the damage to reefs caused by anchor dropping, careless waste disposal. We're here to protect for future generations. And many folks have decided that more enforcement is needed.

Well, you don't have the enforcement. It's not there. As the OJA folks pointed out, stopping an activity from proceeding during a Heapa review is a bedrock principle of the law. It ensures that precious resources are not destroyed before public input. The public has input and decision makers are fully aware of the potential consequences of these permitting choices.

It's important to underline that traditional Native Hawaiian fishers and cultural practitioners were among the plaintiffs in the landmark ruling to ensure careful consideration of how extractive commercial enterprise such as the aquarium fish effort affects those who depend on the research for subsistence and cultural practices.

As Earth justice says, this proposed amendment would negate Heapa's fundamental purpose for the broad subset of proposed summarize.

We're just trying to stick to the two minute limit per testifier. Thank you. Oppose.

Strongly oppose.

Mahalo. Thank you. Sorry, it looks like I skipped a couple people on the prior page. So we have red hospitality here in person or not present. And then Tara Lonnie, sailing.

Law chairs, vice chairs and Committee Members. Thanks for having us here today. Flew over this morning from Maui and definitely appreciate your time on this. We are speaking very specifically, as so many fellow operators have, about what's happening specifically in West Maui and how this Bill affects us and how 343 is being applied.

We strongly urge you to just consider what's happening in West Maui. Come visit us in West Maui and look, you know, talk to our employees. The 50 plus employees that I'm trying to answer questions, will they have a job in May?

We are in the middle of February and we have people that do not know if they have a job, including myself on the sole income earner for my family.

We have a home in South Maui that also was nearly burned burnt up to our property line and we do not know if we have a job at the end of May this year and that's very difficult with a mortgage. Also just want to mention that you had mentioned dozens of businesses that had supported this Bill.

We are here to talk about a little bit of those. The bugman, the soda guy, you know, the sign business. All the folks that really depend on our businesses. We have been operating for over 40 years. We are also highly regulated by the US Coast Guard that has their own environmental protections.

It is not that we are asking for just a go on the environmental. We are happy to do an ea. What we can't do is businesses and more importantly families cannot shut down while we do this. EA after operating for 40 years.

I don't believe the law was intended to shut down long operating businesses that are highly regulated to be shut down for six months or eight months and then let the families figure out what to do. It's just really impossible for us to do that.

So I appreciate you thinking about the individuals, not necessarily the businesses that are affected. Thanks so much for your time. Aloha.

Thank you. And then Clayton Kubo on Zoom.

I'm just wondering, since HIPAA 343 and I won't classify this as a weapon. Okay. It's like when it's gonna really slam down on a fisher, a gatherer, a hunter, a gatherer. It's like this guy just using this as a weapon to eliminate things that we would normally do day in and day out.

So in the end, it's like I am strongly in support of 661. I hope so that you guys can realize what is going on. Because again, this is a weapon. Mahalo nui.

Thank you. And then we have someone on Zoom who just put the name Kim. Don't know if that's a first name or a last name.

Chair, thank you for having me today. All of these environmental reviews.

Can you please state your name for the record? Kim.

Your last name?

Just Kim. Okay, thank you.

All of these environmental review bills are stemming from DLNR dropping the ball. They originate from the Umberger ruling on the aquarium fishery. As this ruling has expanded, more and more want an exemption or extra time to do the process. While I don't disagree with the intent of this bill, it needs amendments.

What happens at the end of this environmental review process? Nothing.

If we go back to the Umberger case as a crystal ball, you actually have a fishery that has completed the process, upheld at the Supreme Court and affirmed in DLNR sitting back, not doing anything to solve the problems or adhere to the deals in the court guidance they have made.

I support this with amendments on how the transition after the environmental review process works. That is, this bill is a moderate approach, all encompassing compared to the other EIS related bills you will hear today. I encourage you to ask DLNR what happens once environmental review is complete.

Because logically playing this out, you will come to the same conclusion I have. They don't know. They don't know anything. And this EIS process is like a Chinese finger trap. Once you get in, no one knows.

And I think clear guidance from the Legislature on how to truly clean this up is a necessity where we are today because you're going to see more and more industry driving into it. And as the former testifier stated, it's being used as a weapon to shut down.

And if you need any more proof, look to the West Hawaii Aquarium fishery. Like I said, I support with amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. I think that is everyone I had signed up to testify in person on this measure. Is there anyone else here to testify? Please come forward.

Aloha Senators and Chairs greatly appreciate your time on this. My name is Ron Tubbs and I've worked in multiple industries. This is kind of Act 343 impacts and is very dangerous. So I've worked in the aquarium fishery and moved to eating fisheries. And eating fisheries was difficult, but man, it's a backup for me.

And currently I'm working in the tourist industry. I take photographs, working special events on tour boats. So I'm a photographer. So looks to me like you're taking all my jobs away. You know, Act 343 is a big problem and it's cost me dearly. It's cost me my retirement. I've had to use my retirement.

It's cost other people their homes. It's hurt a lot of people. It's one factor, you know, ecology. I love the ocean, always for ecology, always supported dlnr, always worked with dlnr, always ensured the sustainability of all these different industries.

And everybody here that's involved with every single portion of these bills of hectic loves the ocean and will gladly do whatever it takes to ensure that they're, that the ocean's sustainable, that it's protected. So that's the future. That's our future. That's my son's future. So that's very important. Fishermen are not stupid.

They know they're going to leave, rotate areas anyway. There's something that environmentalists always forget. And I forgot my environmental teacher at, uh, called me on it. There's a human factor, okay? It's not just about ecology. It's about the effects that environmental laws have on individuals, okay?

And so you're affecting a lot of lives and you're hurting them without correcting the laws that are poorly designed and improperly, you know, the courts have improperly put different thing to.

Please you summarize, that was two minutes.

So please, in favor of this bill.

Thank you. And then it looks like we have one more person on Zoom. Antoinette Davis.

Aloha. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Chair, Vice Chair. As Members of the Committee, I apologize for not sending in testimony earlier. I am here for another hearing and heard this bill and went, oh my goodness, I forgot. This is huge.

This is the result of neglect from DLNR, specifically Dovar, of not doing environmental assessments in all locations.

And the reason is because the activity that takes place is such a long time ago from the group that you're hearing from, they've been running these businesses for 304050 years, so that our awareness of environmental impact wasn't as top of mind as it is today.

And I guarantee you all of these operators are about the environment, not only because they depend on it. For their business. But most all of them got into. This business because they love this place.

And they respect this place, and they 1000% support doing an environmental assessment, but not at the risk of them not going in and out of the beach at Kaanapali. There's 230 jobs that will be gone. And this is from a group that was still reeling from Covid after the Maui fires then happened. Something needs to be done.

And I. This bill isn't intended to undermine environmental assessments and EIAs for future things or things in the past. We need to work together on this. So please, anything you can do, please support this and let this go further and get in proper shape where we can all come to agreement on it.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. All right, is there anyone else that we missed? Please come forward. State your name for the record.

Hello, my name is Sans Dyer. I am one of the operators in Kaanapali. Thank you, Chair, for hearing my voice today. I just want to say that I'm in strong support of HB661.

I want to say that we are very environmental consciousness and we do everything we can to all of our guests, inform them of wearing reef safe sunscreen, not touching the reef, not picking up turtles, not doing any bad stuff. Right. So I would like to say that we are. We are not the opposition. We are your friends.

As far as if this bill gets passed in support of all of the other operators who have said the exact same thing, I. I am on board, and I would hope that you can hear my voice on this. And so I'm in strong support and I thank you for taking my testimony. Thank you, board.

Thank you. All right, anybody else? One more person, please come forward.

Hi, my name is Phil Fernandez, former President of Hawaii Fishermen's alliance for Conservation and Tradition. And I'm also currently the Chairman of the Marine and Coastal Zone FEC Council of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. And that is a HRS 205, a mandated Committee. I like to represent some of the fishermen.

I'm a fisherman, lifelong fisherman. And this particular case started in aquarium collection and then got applied to ocean recreation in Maui. But it started in fisheries. And in the Calpico v. Dlnr, the judge issued an order, an interpretation of the law, that said the commercial marine license. I hold a commercial marine license would be subject to hrs343.

That would mean that over 3,000 commercial marine licenses for fishing will be affected if suspended. Every fresh fish in Hawaii would cease to be landed and the supermarkets will not have fresh fish. You will have imported fish, you'll have other fish, but you will not have Hawaii caught fish.

Just to clarify too, we're still on HB661 and HB123 is next. Go ahead. Thank you.

Yeah. So just wanted to let you know that the application of HRS 343 could then also apply to fisheries because it's a license, it's a permit. And so just wanted to give you that understanding of where the trajectory of this is going, where it came from and where it's going. Thank you very much. Obviously in support.

Thank you.

All right. Is there anyone else here that we missed?

I would like to correct something the gentleman.

Oh sorry, we can we don't do that. All right, seeing no more testifiers Members any questions? Rep Belatti.

Question for DLNR. OEQC makes a recommendation on their comments that any amendment should focus on the relevant statutes. Is there any opposition to tailoring this kind of exemption, a time limited exemption for hrs 200 which governs this issue of the which I believe governs the issue of these commercial use permits?

I'm sorry, I didn't review OEQC's testimony on the matter, but we would be in support of a limited exemption as possible just because of the unforeseen collateral impacts of creating an exemption in statute.

Okay. Thank you. Chair, Can I have a follow up question in relation to this? It would be for Earthjustice.

Yes. Rep.

So understanding the dilemma we're in and do you understand the question that I had asked the DLNR, which is to look for a limited exception to be applied a time limited exception may be to be applied in HRS 200 which governs those individuals who are coming out mostly.

HRS?

200.

200. Are you are suggesting like a sunset date for this particular legislation?

No. More of a. It could be that or it could be legislation that would provide an exemption just for that for.

The commercial use permits, commercial boating permits. I mean it sounds like a really specific problem that we're trying to address. The question no one's asking is why it's taking Dobor so long to issue any exemptions in the first place.

But so the question is would you. Be open to that kind of limited exception?

There are bills that do a lot more damage potentially to hepa. We wouldn't I'm sorry, we don't support this Bill. We understand that there are very specific issues trying to be solved and so we would very much hope that the Legislature would look at ways to address that rather than creating these blanket exemptions within the statute itself.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. This is for Sierra Club. So we've heard a lot of testimony from tour boat operators, but is this, what other situations is it just specifically, are we just specifically targeting their livelihoods? What is the.

No, it's a very, very excellent question. Yes, this is about the impacts of this legislation will go far beyond just commercial tour operations. One example I can think of right away is the East Maui situation where we had a diverter taking 120 to 450 million gallons of water per day from east Maui from the 80s.

And so this is impacting farmers, impacting subsistence communities, watershed health, estuary health. In 2003, a court ordered an that environmental assessment be done for the long term diversion like when the divider wanted a lease, a long term lease. And EIS was not done until 2021.

So 2003 to 2021, that's 18 years this community was waiting for some kind of assessment of the damage that was being done to their place, right to their way of life. And throughout that whole time the DLR continued to hold over the permit that allowed these streams to be liberated.

There's been some progress in the last maybe 57 years or so in terms of stream protections. But I mean, throughout this whole time, you can imagine the opportunity costs, right? The food security for the region that was delayed for two decades. Nearly all of the recovery that we could have seen in that time.

We had kupuna dying, like literally dying before they could even get vindicated on the rights that are clear on law. So yes, this bill goes far beyond just, you know, providing relief for the two year operators, but you could have unintended consequences well beyond those situations. Thank you so much.

So it could affect a lot of farmers who need water that's being diverted, for instance. Thank you. Can I ask a follow up question? Chair?

Sure, go ahead.

This is regarding the when you go in injunctive relief, part of the argument is that there's a likelihood that the injunctive relief you're seeking would the behavior would be stopped by the result of the deliberation.

Is there any kind of thing like this where tour boat operators in this situation, if the Department is doing eis and they're doing it for a specific reason to identify a specific impact, and the likelihood is that they're going to shut down all the tour boat operators in a specific island or region, that there is that there be this kind of preliminary process that where it's not shut down, operators aren't shut down when the, when the, when the, when the investigations, when the impact assessment is being conducted, but only if there's a strong, like there's any kind of evidence that would show that they would be shut down at the end of it anyway.

Do you know what I mean?

Yeah.

Right.

So a preliminary injunction is when is, you know, a court can say while we decide this matter, we're going to enjoin or like we're going to halt this thing that's being litigated and that's usually issued when there's a high likelihood of success on the merits, there's irreparable harm that may be threatened, you know, those kinds of factors in this situation, the case has been litigated fully.

So I think the, I'm not sure and I'll defer to the attorneys on that case as to what the kind of options may be for a stay on enjoyment.

I know for, you know, for East Maui litigation, for example, you know, everyone agreed to stay enforcement of, you know, of the rulings for like up country because we don't want, no one wants to deprive up country of water. Right. Maui. And yeah, And I will say that there are not beyond that. There are pathways forward. Right.

So like I think justice mentioned, you know, there's environmental, a categoric exemption process that the D board can start exploring that should they could have started exploring when this, you know, decision came down.

I'm not sure where that is in the process, if it's even been started, doing an environmental assessment for a limited program that, you know, would have less likely impact. So lots of pathways under 343, which is why it's disappointing that they haven't been, you know, embarked on as far as I can tell.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks. Any other questions, Members? I have a quick question for dlnr. Do you envision, I mean, if we move this forward, I mean, either way, whether we move this forward or if none of the bills pass, then it would presume that these businesses who have never had to do EAs before will then have to do EAs?

I mean, wouldn't that, would that be on the responsibility of the individual operator, the industry or the Department?

It actually depends on the activity and the permit. Right. So for example, in the aq, the aquarium, the West Hawaii situation, that was industry driven as far as financing the environmental review side of things. In this situation, it may be the commercial operators, it may be the Department, it Just depends.

Because, for example, there are recreational type permitting activities that might trigger 343 as well. And in those situations, I think that the Department would probably be better suited because then you'd be talking about recreational uses versus commercial use. Right.

I mean, I just find, I just find it that, I mean, we wouldn't be here in the first place if we would have just banned aquarium fish collecting a while ago to say that.

But I mean, I think it is a, it is an expansion of how, you know, whether you argue that this was always the intent of the law or not is certainly an expansion of how it's been applied. It's never been applied this way before. It has very serious impacts across the whole state if it is.

But, but, but I would hold that it's the department's responsibility. It's part of your, you know, basic function to properly manage the, the resource.

So if there's concerns that the resources aren't being properly managed, that is issuing too many permits or, you know, not properly enforcing, then is that the fault of individual operators or the responsibility of the Department?

So there's, well, one, there's so many permits that come through the Department and so much that I think as the courts have iterated their interpretations of 343, we've come to the point where it's like, okay, we can't go through an activity by activity assessment in litigation. It has to be made internally.

And so we're going through that process now of identifying the permitting activities, which ones would be more suited for, as far as our understanding of the 343 triggers, whether they should actually have Department side programmatic environmental assessments, environmental reviews. But okay, so slight shifting. I know.

I think the concerns is also in this situation about limiting the impact of the exemption created. Right. And so Rep. Belatti brought up the reference to HRS Chapter 200. So we were looking at that while there was some discussion.

And I think if we want to scalpel the exemption as fine as possible, one could, you could look at page 13 of the bill, lines 20 and 21.

Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, when an activity that has been previously permitted and add language pursuant to Chapter 200 hrs, or you could even go finer than that and say hrs Section 210, which were the permits that are kind of the subject matter of this discussion. And that's a stopgap measure.

It's a separate question. I know, but we're back to your question. We're dealing with the fallout of having to, well, three for three. HIPAA, or the previous iteration of HIPAA, that's 50 years old. A lot of these activities are 50 years old.

We're coming to the realization and trying to grapple with fitting the dynamic interpretation of HIPAA with the prior activities. And we're active. We recognize that there's many activities under DLNR in our jurisdiction that would trigger HIPAA, and so we're going through that process now. Okay.

I guess I would just hold that the responsibility of the Department is to manage the resource. So in my view, it should fall. If you do have to go forward with this kind of assessment, it ought to be the responsibility of the Department. On the other hand, it's already supposed to be your job.

So, I mean, I don't know how we address this, because then there's a separate issue of the aquarium, you know, fish collecting, which sort of caused all this to happen. So we don't want to backtrack on that necessarily. So it just. It creates a really tricky situation. But. Okay. Members, any further questions?

Question, Rep Poepoe.

For Earth Justice. I just wanted to see. I noticed you wanted to say something. Earlier, and I wanted to ask if. You would like to share with us, not at the audience, but what you were going to share.

Yeah, sure. Thank you. Rep Poepoe and I apologize for correcting uncle, but the case that he mentioned, that he said would apply HIPAA to all commercial marine licenses specifically does not do that.

That case, that decision by the circuit court, was specifically targeted at the use of commercial marine licenses to circumvent the Umberger ruling and collect aquarium fish without an aquarium fish permit. That's all that court ruling said. And so I just wanted to make real clear that there's. There's no threat looming over all commercial fishers.

There's no threat looming over all commercial boating operators. Our clients include fishers, hunting, tour boat operators. So I just wanted to make that real clear. Let's not get carried away with the scare tactics. We need to keep things narrow the way that they already are. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, Members, any further questions? All right, if not, we have a lot more to get through. I will say we're going to announce in advance. Chair Hashem and I have talked about it.

Our plan is to move 661 forward as a vehicle for continuing discussion on this issue that has to be addressed and probably defer HB123. So as we go through testimony on HB123, keep that in mind. And Waterland Committee has a long agenda to get to after this. So we want to try to go through it relatively quickly.

So that said, moving on to House Bill 123 relating to fisheries. This exempts actions involving operation and management of fisheries in the state from environmental review requirements. And first up to testify, we have Department of Land and Natural Resources. Thank you. And I had Brian Nielsen listed. Okay, we're good then.

We have Office of Hawaiian Affairs in opposition, State of Hawaii Office of Planning and Sustainable Development with comments. Thank you. Earth justice in opposition in person.

Thank you. Chair chairs, vice chairs and Committee Members. I'll just add real quick, I think in this day and age, I mean, we're this tiny little islands in the middle of this vast Pacific Ocean and no one in their right mind is denying the reality of climate change.

And we all know that climate change affects oceans the most. And so really, I think our main point is this is the last time of all times. Now is not the time to be carving away all state fisheries out of environmental review.

The other issue we would want to raise is that this was a protection provided by the Legislature. As someone mentioned about 50 years ago. If you turn management of all of the fisheries, exempt all fisheries from HIPAA. What happens in 51020 years when administrative priorities have shifted completely or not?

It doesn't matter how good or bad a job DLNR is doing right now. What matters is that we have these protections for the long term because that's what the Legislature put them in place for. So thank you very much. And otherwise stand on the rest of our testimony.

Thank you. Sierra Club of Hawaii on Zoom. zero, sorry. Why did I keep forgetting? Hi, Wayne. I apologize. In opposition. Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in opposition.

We will stand on our written testimony in strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you. Hawaii Longline Association in support for the fishes on Zoom. In opposition. Present we have animal rights. Hawaii in opposition. Green Party of Hawaii in opposition. Big Island Reef Keepers Hui in opposition. Kupuna for the Mopuna in opposition, the Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Association in support. H fact. In support.

And then we have 11 individuals in support and 32 in opposition. Call the names of people who signed up to testify in person. First we have Ron Tubbs.

Aloha, Senators and chairs. Thank you for this time. So my name is Ron Tubbs and worked in the commercial fisheries, the aquarium fishery before that, and tourism right now. So the problem with Act 343 is when the ruling was made immediately, constitutionally, every group applied.

The only reason why it hasn't applied is because there hasn't been a lawsuit. To force it to apply. Well, now we face that. And the misinformation to get the Renee Umberger ruling was not factual, not based in science. No science was supported in the decision for the Supreme Court. Officials were not involved in the lawsuit.

All the science was in opposition to, you know, lack of fish in the ocean. On and on. You know, every single statement was disproven scientifically. DLNR has come out and supported the fishery and every testimony since then. They've supported giving back the permits.

So if a sustainable, proven sustainable fishery with decades of fish counts beyond a doubt, every scientist and every marine biologist in the state agrees that it's sustainable and have sent out letters to that effect.

If that kind of fishery can be closed, Act 343, you know, in the hands of the right lawyer who's making a lot of money, can shut everybody down. This is a big problem. And it's not just about fisheries. It's about everybody that has a permit with DLNR or everybody that's going to get a permit from DLNR.

Spending $800,000. Having all the science in the world, having all the facts on your side doesn't count. Okay, just throw that out the window when it comes to this Bill with Act 343. Please support House Bill 123. Anybody have any questions? I'd be glad to answer them.

Thank you.

One more comment.

Sorry. The timer went off. Okay.

This is in response to your question. DLNR was going to pay for our environmental review.

No, I didn't ask and they didn't.

Well, this has to do with the other.

Okay, next we have Kim on Zoom. Kim, please go ahead. Okay. She's no longer with us. Then we have Randy Cates in person.

Thank you. Last legislative season, I asked for this bill to be introduced because I had predicted what was to occur, which is occurring. The reason I think 123 has merit and should be considered is we have a Department whose sole job is to manage the fisheries.

And when you go to an EA eis, which I have conducted three, I started Aquaculture fish farms. It's rigid and our fisheries are fluid. They need to be. The science needs to follow it year after year. So this is a redundancy that's not needed. And 343. The problem is not an aquarium. Trade didn't cause this problem.

If you read the judge's ruling, the judge clearly says the problem is the law. He just interpreted the way the law was written and that's why it came forward with asking for this legislation. There it does have appropriate places. But in fisheries management, the whole reason we have DAR is to is to do that purpose.

And for those that think that this isn't going to affect anything, it already is. Monterey Bay Aquarium was denied a permit to collect larvae two miles offshore. It's affected other fisheries. We already have a lawsuit filed. Go going after other CMLs. It's affecting boating. You guys have heard it.

The seafood that is delivered to Hawaii on a daily basis will stop and it'll all have to be imported. And the environmental footprint on that is what should be the concern by the environmental group behind us. That is not what Hawaii needs to do. We need to do it in a sustainable manner.

And I think we can do that with this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And then Stephanie Fried in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha. Mahalo Nuiloa. For this opportunity to testify, I introduced myself earlier, but just briefly. I'm a co founder of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Hui fishermen, cultural practitioners, divers, sailors, researchers, small businesses, et cetera. I'm here to strongly oppose HB 123 and agree wholeheartedly with the testimony submitted by OHA, Earthjustice and Sierra Club.

Commercial fisheries and state waters have been substantially mismanaged, often to the detriment of Native Hawaiian subsistence fishing and cultural practices.

For the moment, I will focus on Papahanomokuakea because this includes the shocking mismanagement of the former commercial lobster fishery in state waters of Papahanumokukea where the lobster fishers crashed the lobster populations which have never recovered and contributing to the starvation of the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seals and also of course their own industry in Papahanumokuakea before they were banned as a result of public outrage over the damage they caused to our resources.

Fishing vessels damaged coral reefs and released thousands of gallons of fuel, hydraulic fluid and motor oil, fishing gear and other contaminants into the marine environment. The state waters of the main Hawaiian Islands have also been substantially impacted. This is not the time to weaken protections for state waters, which is what this Bill will do if passed.

Under no circumstances should fisheries be exempted from HEPA which requires a publicly accountable and transparent process of impact assessment, including for cumulative impacts. This Bill attempts to silence community voices and input from independent experts, which is a violation of the fundamental principles of hepa.

We're counting on you to protect our near shore waters using the best available science in a transparent manner, allowing public comment and input by independent experts, cultural practitioners such as OHA as mandated under hipaa. Please hold this Bill.

Thank You.

Mahalo.

Thanks. Next we have Clayton Kubo on Zoom and support it.

Again. You know, long time, lifelong birthday of on the island. It's like, no, I'm gonna have to. I'm gonna have to stress that once we get one right, we think we're fishing. The kids will have to share their effort to go fishing also.

But in a way, you know, it's like, yes, the partnership between the years cause them being the ones. And I would like to know all these other stuffs. Okay. In the end, it's like, are we gonna be.

Zero, okay. And then I think finally we have Jim Lovell on Zoom.

Yeah. Good morning, Chairs and Committee. Thanks for the time. My name is Jim Lovell. I oppose the bill. If we truly care about the environment, then why are we getting rid of the environmental review? It just does not make any sense to me.

Ironically, the only ocean group that has completed the process, the HEPA process, is the aquarium industry and is currently the only user group that is not allowed license, even though the process was completed over three years ago.

If you want to say now that this law should have never been applied to ocean users, I would like to see the bill amended to reimburse the aquarium industry for the costs incurred to comply with the law during the last seven years and direct DLNR to immediately issue CMLs to the aquarium industry and allow the fishermen to go back to work.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. That's everyone. We had signed up to testify in person or on Zoom. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? All right, seeing none. Members, any questions? All right, seeing none. We're going to go straight into decision making. Ready for some speed voting.

So first up, we have House Bill 1319 relating to the state plan. And I spoke with the introducer on this bill. I think we're going to. We talked about how this might be. Since we've seen this bill so many years in a row and it never seems to get traction and move forward.

We might work on something for next year, narrow this down to make it a requirement of DOT, since a lot of green infrastructure relates to DOT's infrastructure and also fits in well with their mandates under the Navajine settlement. So we're going to defer this bill at this time. Moving on, House Bill 999 relating to water pollution.

We had this scheduled, but we saw the Senate move this out of its First Committee yesterday. So very much in support of passing this at the end of session. But we're going to wait for the Senate vehicle to come over and defer this as well. HB 1367, relating to water resources. On this, we will change that language.

So instead of two monitoring wells, it will read up to six monitoring wells. We will blank out the dollar amounts, but note those in the Committee report, make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style, and defect the date to July 1, 3000 Members. Any discussion? Yes, thank you.

Chair. I just wanted to, I guess, respond to Rep. Shimizu's question about sitting county versus state. I just want to remind. Well, let him know that.

Because we should keep the comments limited to just discussion of the decision making.

I'm. Okay. So I'm supporting this measure because although it is state funds, when. When one thinks it should be county, it is the state that actually did not step in in 2014 when the board of Water Supply came and asked for help, and they were in a position to do so.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Members seeing none. Vice Chair.

On House Bill 1367, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, Recommendation has been adopted.

Committee on water land.

Okay. Committee on water land, same recommendation. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1367. Recommendation of the Chairs is to vote with do pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

All right, thank you. And then House Bill 1404 relating to cesspool closure. On this, we will delete the second year. The second year of appropriations. It was always intended to be a single year appropriation. So for both of the appropriations in there, it should just be for FY, I think. 2025-26, 26-27. I don't know.

Just the first one. And we'll blank out the dollar amounts, note those in the Committee report, and defect the date to July 1, 3000 Members. Any discussion? Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I'm. I'll be voting no. And the reason why is because this is a county issue. Yeah. And where they can raise property taxes. They should. And where they. They fail to pass the empty homes surcharge, which would have given them the revenue to do this kind of stuff.

Okay, just to clarify it, this would be a program that would subsidize the portion of the sewer lateral that the homeowner is mandated to pay for. So nothing in this would cover any cost that the county is mandated to pay for. Okay. All right. Thank you. Members. Any further discussion? Seeing none.

Vice Chair on House Bill 1404, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation has been adopted. Thank you. Waterlands.

Waterland, same recommendation. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1404. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And then on House Bill 661, we're going to move this forward as a vehicle to continue conversation on this and the issues raised in the following bill. And then one that we have also later on a different agenda with a few changes.

We're going to make a few changes to the purpose clause, just to remove the word inadvertently. Just we don't want to presume that we're going to change the public hunting or game management areas to public hunting areas. And then on page two, line five, we'll have the say applicable agency or applicant.

And similarly on pages 13 and 14, we'll clarify that that's agency or applicant. So not just the agency. Defect the date to July 1, 3000 to continue discussion.

And just noting we recognize there are significant issues here that need to be worked out and we are not indifferent to the need to find solutions to those problems and want to keep working with all the parties to talk about how we can get there. So, Members, any discussion? Iwamoto.

I'll be voting no on this one. This is broader and I. My heart goes out to all the tour operators and fish boat operators, but this is a much larger issue. So that's.

Thank you. Any other discussion, go ahead. I'm going to vote with reservations.

I think that there is opportunity for us to further narrow this and not make it as widely and broadly applicable as it currently is, even with the amendments being suggested for HD1. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll be voting with reservations as well. Thank you.

All right. If no further discussion.

Vice Chair, House Bill 661. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, recommendation has been adopted. Thank you.

The Waterland. Same recommendation. Representative Souza, you Reservations or Nos? Oh Shimizu. I'm Sorry. Okay, go ahead. Any comments?

I am also going to vote. No. It was, you know, mentioned. And I also feel for our, you know, voting industry and those who are. Going to be affected. But I'm really concerned about the broad. Application currently in this bill when trying to find a solution for a very specific, you know, area.

And it was mentioned in testimony, specifically an issue related in my district regarding the issues in East Maui water and how this could affect those ongoing problems that have been decades and decades going on.

And also I think about things like military land leases and stuff like that, and just a death by a thousand cuts and this perhaps being one of the first cuts in dismantling, you know. The systematic dismantling of our environmental protection laws. So.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to acknowledge both sides. I'm not sure how we achieve the balance. And this is definitely not a perfect world. And, you know, God created people and the aina for each other.

So I feel like I support the intent on both sides and I'm going to vote with reservations to move the Bill forward and allow further refinement in the JHA Committee.

Okay, thank you very much. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members were voting on HB661. Recommendation of the Chair's passed with amendments. [Roll Call] Seeing none, Chair. All other Members vote Aye. Your recommendation is adopted. Okay.

And on the last bill on the agenda, House Bill 123, we're going to defer this as mentioned previously and we are adjourned. Okay, I'm going to leave this.

All right, we are back. Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. It is Tuesday, February 11th. We're on the 10:15am agenda in Conference Room 325. And first up on the agenda today, we have House Bill 1476 relating to environmental assessments.

And this is relating to requiring an EIS or EA for the launch from or reentry into state waters of a spacecraft. So first up to testify, we have Department of Land and Natural Resources offering comments. Not present. Department of the Attorney General on Zoom. Not present. Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support?

Aloha. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. OHA will stand on its written testimony in support. I will note a few practical concerns with the language of the bill. It references the monument boundaries, which go out to the exclusive economic zone, whereas state waters go out three miles.

So there's a mismatch that may need to be corrected. And just from an enforcement perspective, I'm not clear clear exactly the mechanism for getting compliance, since usually permitting with an agency is where HEPA comes up.

And in this event, we know, because the launches are happening outside of the state and the debris is what might impact state waters. It's unclear exactly how that practical step would happen. And I am a little concerned with, you know, sending a letter to the FAA notifying them of this law, given the political context.

I know people are aware monuments were on the chopping block during the last Trump Administration, and they could certainly be on the chopping block again in this administration.

So while again we support the intent of our state and our beneficiaries and everyone here in Hawaii having input into a better, more rigorous environmental review that has not yet been completed, those are a few practical concerns. Mahalo.

Thank you. And State Office of Planning and Sustainable Development?

Tom Eisen with the Environmental Review Program of PSD. We stand on our submitted comments and here to explain our concerns.

Do you want to just tell us your testimony? I want to hear your explanation. Just not very familiar with how we would deal with spacecraft.

It's kind of a new thing. Yeah, it hasn't been covered. A lot of the comments that she talked about are true, but our concern is a little, maybe nuanced and wonky. This trigger would be the only trigger, this proposed new trigger, that would define it as a significant impact, so go directly to EIS. No EA is involved.

So we actually question the title, if the title is appropriate relating to environmental assessments because it says you skip the EA, then you go directly to EIS. And it further doesn't begin at the normal beginning of the EIS process, which would be an EIS prep notice with a scoping meeting, scoping hearing.

Instead the bill says it goes-- it begins with the preparation of a draft EIS, so it skips the scoping period. So it kind of creates a new process which is limiting public participation, which we don't think that is a good thing or necessarily what was intended by this.

So concerns are kind of nuanced and wonky like that.

Okay, all right, thank you. And then Sierra Club with comments. We have two individuals in support, one in opposition, one with comments on Zoom. Stephanie Fried. Did we lose them?

Aloha. I'm so sorry, I was muted. My name is Stephanie Fried and I'm a co-founder of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands hui which was founded 25 years ago with fishers and cultural practitioners and divers and researchers, et cetera, and environmentalists who pioneered the establishment of protections for Papahānaumokuākea.

And I'm here today actually to submit testimony supported by members of that hui as well as Mālama Kua, Malu' Aina, a total of 17 individuals and groups. As you can see in the written comments, I very much do agree with OHA's concerns in terms of raising this nationally. I think that bears further discussion.

I want to mahalo nui for recognizing and opposing the danger posed by SpaceX plans to dump waste in the waters surrounding Hawaii and the monument. And your vigilance, continued vigilance about these threatening activities is crucial.

We fully oppose these plans to dump the debris and the waste in all of these protected areas and surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands. And we completely support the obvious need to have OHA decision-making and input as integral not only to this, but to all HIPA processes.

Frankly, HIPA requires appropriate consultation and if OHA is not properly consulted, this is a failure to enforce HIPA. We do have concerns about amending HIPA per se as a vehicle to get to where you want to go.

And we would oppose that language, the specific language regarding HIPA, the Section 10, because HIPA already covers any use of state and county lands and modifying it in this way could inadvertently, substantially, harmfully reduce actually the reach of HIPA.

We urge you, instead of amending HIPA, to look at the existing regulations routinely used by DLNR and DOBOR about dumping, littering and natural resource damage, like when a ship runs aground and hits a reef, to see whether those regulations already prohibit the dumping of space debris-- And whether there's okay and whether there's larger fines.

So we urge you to look at those if you're going to modify anything. And also, and you can see that in the written testimony, you could consider passing a resolution expressing details--

Please summarize. Two minutes per testifier. Thank you.

That's fine. I agree with OHA's concern about raising the flag, but you could do a reso if you think-- if OHA believes that that makes sense.

Thank you. That's everyone we had to testify in person. Please come forward.

Hi, sorry. Alison Kato, Deputy Attorney General. Sorry, I stepped out for a moment and then when it started I was across the building. We submitted written comments on a few issues.

First, the bill's title is relating to environmental assessments, but because this bill requires preparation of an EIS versus an EA, the title of the bill may not clearly express the subject of the bill. Second, even if a trigger is added, it's unclear what discretionary approval might be required for this action. But this is a question for regulating agencies, whichever appropriate.

And lastly, there's a question regarding appropriate jurisdiction over the monument, which is partly state and partly federal. And that's all. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Thank you. Great. If there's no one else here to testify, Members, any questions? Quick question for Attorney General. I just want to clarify this because I emailed you and we didn't hear a reply. But I mean, I don't think I agree with you.

I mean I don't know what we'll do with this bill but in terms of the title being an issue, because there's-- or maybe you can clarify like for me.

But I think although environmental assessment is a term defined in the law, the title of a bill doesn't have to-- doesn't automatically default to the definition that exists in law. So environmental assessment as defined in the dictionary would be adequate to cover, you know, kind of environmental review topics under Chapter 343 generally, in my opinion.

I still think the procedural issues that Tom pointed out are valid. So you know, if we move this forward, we'd probably fix that anyway. But I mean I just am concerned about this very strict interpretation by the Attorney General because people take your guys testimony seriously.

That could kill a bill that didn't need to be killed potentially if you're interpreting it in this way I've never really seen interpreted so strictly before.

Well, we are just trying to provide you with our best interpretation and our best advice. And this is-- an argument can be made that environmental assessment is defined in Chapter 343 and it does require refer to the stage before an EIS and this bill is clearly requiring an EIS.

Yeah, but you agree that the title of a bill doesn't have to-- It can be like a word, just as a word means in the English language.

I think it depends.

Does it?

When I see the word environmental assessment, I automatically think of an EA. And that's how it's normally used in Hawaii.

Well, I think a lot of people see the word assessment and they think about assessments just generally.

I mean, an argument can probably be made both ways. But I'm just trying to alert you to the fact that there could be a challenge based on the title that environmental assessment--

Do you know any cases where there's been such a kind of nitpicky look at the word and the title that have prevailed in court.

I would need to do additional research.

I don't think that there have been, but thank you. Appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

Members, any further questions? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on. I will say I wanted to ask questions of DLNR, but they're not here, so we'll have to save those. House Bill 658 relating to environmental review clarifies the scope of an action subject to environmental review. And reminding everyone we still have our time limit in effect.

First up to testify, we have Ryan Kanaka'ole. Not present. Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Good morning again. We'll stand on our testimony in opposition. I would note this is extremely sweeping and broad language in terms of the scope of actions that it would apply to. So our concerns are serious in this regard of how it would affect our beneficiaries. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then OPSD. Thank you. Thanks. Earth Justice.

We'll also stand on our written testimony available to answer questions.

Thank you. Sierra Club in opposition. Oh, you're still there. You were hiding. Green Party of Hawaii in opposition. And we have Calypso Charters in support. Fairwind Cruises in support. On Zoom, not present. Okay. Okay. Go ahead.

Yes. Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair and Committee Members. I stand on my written testimony in strong support, wanting just to protect our employees and our long standing positions on stewardship. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have Ocean Tourism Coalition. Appreciate it. Thank you. Kupuna for the mopuna in opposition. For the Fishes on Zoom. Not present. In opposition. Maui Hotel and Lodging Association in support. Big Island Reef Keepers Hui in opposition. Ka'anapali Beach Association in support. RED Hospitality, Dave Weiss in support. Not present.

Holo Holo Charters in support. We have Sail Maui in support. Body Club of Hawaii in support. Outrigger Kaanapali Beach Resort, Nahoku Inc. Sea Paradise Scuba SeaQuest Hawaii Sailing, Maui Calypso Charters, Terilani Sailing still present. All of those in support. Captain Andy Sailing Inc. in support.

Shangri La Sailing Charters, Sail Maui, Terilani Sailing, Sea Maui Fun Charters Island Scuba, Captain Andy Sailing Inc. Absolute Charters, Hawaii Longline Association, Jack's Diving Locker, Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Association, Maui Brewing Company, Holo Hola Charters, Activities and Attractions Association, Hawaii Trilogy Excursions. Everyone in support Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Explore Kauai scuba Sailing Ships Ltd.

Explore Kauai scuba. So all of those are businesses in support. We also have 26 additional individuals all in support and 25 in opposition. One offering comments. We had some people signed up to testify on Zoom or in person, but some people have come and gone.

So let's gonna call one person who's on Zoom and then I'll just open it up to whoever I skipped over to come forward. So Antoinette Davis on Zoom, please go ahead.

Thank you so much. I have been sitting between these hearings and thinking. Antoinette Davis Activities and Attractions Association Executive Director for the past 28 years and we actually supported the Umberger decision. So to hear a lot of those opposing current legislation, it occurred to me, I mean a lot of this all has to do with balance, right?

And it occurred to me that maybe a distinction could be made. I stand on my testimony. I have written testimony. A distinction could be made on takers natural resources. The situation in Kaanapali are all sightseeing boats. They don't take anything. They come in and out for the beach and load people.

They share this beautiful place which is in some ways our duty to plant those seeds of aloha and share this just, I mean, if you took the Hawaiian islands and put them in the United States, it'd be a national park. It's extraordinary. So I would maybe that could be something that could be done fully support this.

Thank you so much for letting me speak Aloha.

Thank you. All right, anyone else present in the room that wanted to testify on this measure or on Zoom, please come forward.

Thank you Chair and Vice Chair. Again, Mike Kelly testified earlier in retrospect of what I heard this after this morning when we concluded testimony in 661 and other items about broadness of and scope, it's pretty clear that. Well, it's clear to me as a part of the boating community that we're, we're unintended consequences. We're collateral damage.

There's a fishing thing, there's water in Hana, there's spacecrafts in the ocean. There are a lot of environmental concerns. Which are all very, very important. In the boating industry as I said earlier, been doing this for 40 to 50 years, doing it according to the rules and regulations we were given.

We've all made significant investments to keep our operations clean, sharp and professional. And we just want to continue doing that.

An actionable item that is we're going to build a harbor, we're going to expand a pier, we're going to increase Lahaina harbor, we're going to do these things is different than you're continuing doing what you've done for all these years. You're going in and out off the beach and not disturbing things.

So I would encourage you to help support this. And I fully support it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. And then I think there was still Stephanie Fried on Zoom. Please go ahead.

Aloha. Mahalo. You have the written testimony for a number of organizations and I think a total of 17 organizations and individuals. We urge you to oppose this.

And this is partially based on, for example, in the state waters of Papahanama Kuakea, permits are given on an annual basis only, which is precisely to allow the state to protect this fragile and endangered ecosystem and to evaluate on an annual basis using the latest science and considering cumulative impacts, informed by independent expert and public input, whether or not to grant a new permit.

So for this and for the other reasons that it's such a broad brush and it endangers directly environmental protection in the state, we oppose this. Mahalo Nui.

Thank you. And Onaoana. Sorry, I never know how to say your last name. Toen on Zoom. Please go ahead.

Aloha Chair. Aloha Vice Chair and Members. Onaona Thoene testifying in my individual capacity. And I submitted written testimony offering comments on the bill. I'll stand on my testimony and if you have any questions, I'm here to respond to them. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, that is all the testifiers we have. One more in the audience, please come forward.

One more. I testified earlier. Would it be possible for-well, this is what this bill would. would exactly do. To exempt the Kapali boat so we can keep operating. We know that we are not endangering the environment. We know that. I mean, the people that should be. You worried about our. Not you, but the.

The people going after us, our cruise ships and hotels. And anyway, the effect that this would have on taking the boats away would be damaging to the entire west side of Maui and then all of Hawaii eventually, if they keep going. So if we could get this bill passed to exempt the boats. That would be ideal. Thank you for hearing my testimony.

All right, if no further testifiers. Members, any questions? Yes, go ahead.

All right. And again, Onaona Thoene. Did I say that right? Coming from a person with a hard name also. Okay, thank you. Can you expand a little bit on your proposed amendment to the language there? Section two?

Yes, absolutely. So, you know, I understand that this bill is being meant to really address a kind of surgical issue with what's going on at Kaanopali and other fisheries. But my concern is that 343 in recent years has been applied to ongoing operations, particularly for renewable energy facilities that have been operating for a long time.

So I think that this amendment, you know, if you folks are taking the time to make this amendment to allow existing operations to continue operating while they conduct, you know, additional environmental review, if they have to, that should include, you know, other things than just those in, you know, managed areas by the state, because we do have those projects and these same issues are coming up in those instances.

Okay, thank you.

I guess a quick question for the last gentleman to testify or the one in the hat. I think I'm just curious because I think you said the people coming after you, I mean, who is that? I don't think we've gotten the full accounting of like what is happening at Kaanapali.

So if I don't want to. Okay, so it's people that are in these activist groups. I'm not going to name them, but that is what's happened with the lawsuit that they went after the state, which is the DLNR, and they won. It took from 2017 until just in I think it was December 4th of last year 24.

They want to conduct an EA and before they finish the EA, we cannot renew or the DLNR is not able to renew our permits, which essentially puts us out of business. Because an EA takes anywhere from.

Is it specific to Kaanapali, is it ocean?

Yes.

Orma or.

Yeah, it's specific to Orma permits in Kaanapali only. However, it's over 32 permits. We're here as the boating operation, all of us here, the catamaran companies. But it is specific to Kaanapali, essentially. But it's also would affect the sup rentals, the surf schools, the kayak rentals, even the hotels that rent out the umbrella services.

So it's anything that has to do with the Kaanapali waters, and they won. So that's why we're here. If this bill is essentially passed, we all get to continue operating.

Between this and I mean I think our intention is to move forward. Well, we moved out 661 and that's a little bit different. This is a little more extreme in that it redefines, you know, redefines the definition of action which is going to have sweeping effect across all types of projects statewide.

Yes, exactly.

You guys might not have thought it would set the full repercussions because it affects a lot more than just boating or fishing.

Exactly. And exactly. It sets a precedent for the entire state because if they win here in Kaanapali specifically, that's where they're starting. And I don't mean to keep saying they, but the group they're starting here and they can move on to Waikiki or next or Kauai or, you know, could affect the entire.

Because Rep. Kahaloa and I are both Kona.

Yeah, I mean it could affect the entire state. I mean if you set the precedent, that's where it goes. So.

No. Well, I guess what I'm saying though is the approach in this bill to redefine the definition of action has impacts far, far outside of anything to do with boating, recreation, any of that. So I don't know if you guys thought through some of those potential impacts.

I think the solution provided for in 661 is maybe not a permanent solution we still have to work through, but at least it gives temporary relief to know you're not. That no one's getting shut down.

Yeah, no. And thank you for considering that because it would affect a lot more people than us and we've already, excuse me, we've already lost a lot of jobs from the fire in the hine and we're going to lose a lot more of this.

And you have to consider that if the 250 direct jobs are affected, another five, you have to double, triple it because it's going to affect restaurants and hotels and everything. So thank you for. Thank you for the question.

Any other questions, Members?

Oh, just some music.

Just put you all on hold. That's fine.

I appreciate that.

I think we can go straight into decision making. And I kind of apologize to my Members and everyone here for scheduling so many bills that we're going to defer. But I think for the time being my inclination is we would probably defer House Bill 1476, but I have a few more questions for DLNR, so I think we'll push this to do decision making on Thursday, February 13th at the end of the 10:15am agenda, and then we may not end up moving it out. I need to just understand a little more about what's going on with spacecraft.

And then for House Bill 658, we are going to defer this again, and we'll use the House Bill 661 as the vehicle to continue this conversation about what we're going to do to address this issue, which is a big, we recognize a big issue that needs to be worked on. So with that, we are adjourned.

The 10:20am agenda Thursday, February 11th, Energy and Environmental Protection, Room 325. Thank you, all the energy people who aren't here because I told them. But we're going to defer one more day to the deadline day on this. So we will come back for DM on House Bill 974, February 13, Thursday, end of the 10:15am agenda. And we're adjourned. Thank you. Oh, Brian's back.

Okay. Good morning, everybody. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the chair of the Committee on Water and Land. This is. This is the Committee on Water and land. It's Tuesday, February 11th. It's 10am 10:11am and we're in Conference Room 411. We are going to. We're running late on another Joint Hearing in another room.

So when that is finished, the Committee will come back and come back to this room. We are currently in recess.

Back in on our Waterland.

Waterland Committee. Today is Tuesday, February 11th. First up we have HP85 relating to land conservation. First testifier, we have DLNR in support. Stand on your testimony and support. Next up we have Hawaii County Council. In support is Hawaii Realtors. I saw Lindsay. Okay, thank you very much. We have anybody on zoom? Nobody?

Okay, what's their name?

David on Zoom. David, you there? Okay, we're moving on. Members, any questions on HB 85? Seeing none. We're moving on to the next bill. Next up, we have HB 742, relating to, relating to transit oriented development. First up, we have... No, first up we have HHFDC. Dean Minakami, you here? I saw you earlier. Sorry for making you wait.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chairs, Members. Dean Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance Development Corporation. We note that HHFDC is already preparing and prepared an infrastructure master plan for the Iwilei/Kapalama area. And we are preparing the final EIS for the infrastructure improvements also. So unless the bill is contemplating either higher density development or development outside of our study area, it may be duplicative.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we are on a very short agenda, so if you can stand on your written testimony, it would be helpful. Next up, we have Office of Planning with comments. Okay. UH in support. Not here. Holomua Collaborative in person. Josh. I should have just said your name.

No worries. Thanks, Chair. I'll be brief and I'll largely stand on our testimony. I just want to note that we have seen the comments from HCDA and HHFDC. I just want to note that, from what we can tell, what they're currently doing with their EIS is mostly for the horizontal infrastructure, not necessarily as much for the vertical build. And as Dean had also mentioned, if they were looking for a denser build, they would be able to look at that.

And the build does call for a maximum, like an EIS to what a maximum build would look like to take advantage of the TOD corridor. So I would just say I would urge the Committee to keep this alive. We'll reach out to HCDA and HHFDC and talk with them. If when we look at that, we agree that there's no need for the bill, we'll let everybody know that as well. But at the moment, I don't think it's completely duplicative.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Hawaii Appleseed in support. Are you here? Nope. And next we have HCDA with comments.

Chair Hashem, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Craig Nakamoto, Executive Director of Hawaii Community Development Authority. I'll make my comments really short. You know, I sort of disagree a little bit with the previous testifier. Bottom line is I don't think this bill is necessary. There's for the horizontal infrastructure we're doing.

The HHFDC has done the EIS for Iwilei/Kapalama. I think for if there's vertical developments that are planned for individual parcels. This bill is sort of like a bill telling someone to do what the law already requires. And I think individual landowners, if they're like state, if they're required to do an EIS, you know, they're going to, this is a trigger, they will do it. So I stand on my testimony that this bill is not really necessary.

All right, thank you very much. That's all the testifiers we have registered. Anybody? Nobody on Zoom? Nobody has any questions, right? Thank you very much. We're going to move to HB 85. We're going to let the Environmental Committee out of here.

So we're going to vote out HB 85 first and then we're going to take out of order all the decision making items at the end of the agenda. We're going to go straight into decision making with those. So for HB 85, Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1.

We're going to zero out the percent and zero out the ceiling and defect the date to 7-1-3000. Technical amendments, although there isn't any. Any questions, concerns? If you have any concerns, we still have the year to 3000 to fix them. So we have a long time to fix it. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 85. Recommendation of the Chair is pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Your recommendation is adopted, Chair.

Okay.

Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection, same recommendation. Vice Chair.

On House Bill 85, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have HB 800, relating to government. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with a HD 1. We're just going to defect the date. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. 800. HB 800. Sorry.

All right. Members, we are voting on HB 800. Recommendation of... Okay. Recommendation of the Chair is passing with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're gonna recess really quick.

Okay. Gaveling back in. Now we're voting on HB 1138, relating to ocean user safety. This one we're going to extend. One issue. How do I explain this? So we're going to extend HRS 91-3B to one year. Currently, it's three months. It came out in testimony. Why recreate the whole system when there's already a system in place?

And DLNR it says three months is too short. So we're going to try. I'm going to try a novel change to the bill. We're going to extend out the current system from three months to one year. This goes to Judiciary, so they can vet it there and see how it goes. And I'm going to defect the date to 7-1-3000. So we have another thousand years to figure this out. And that's it. And tech amendments. Any reservations or concerns?

I'll be voting with reservations, Chair.

Okay. You're not confident we can figure this out in a thousand years? Okay. Right.

Thank you, Chair. I'll be voting with reservations also.

Thank you. Okay, that's it. Two reservations. Vice Chair for the vote.

We're voting on HB 1338. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Noting the excuse absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? Sorry. Reservations for Representative Iwamoto and Shimizu. Anyone else voting with reservations? Seeing none, Chair. All other Members vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, so. And for HB 114 or 144, I defer to the Vice Chair.

So for this measure, we are going to defer it indefinitely. Thank you so much, Members, for your time and consideration.

Okay, thank you very much. Now, going back to our regular agenda. First up, we are on. Which bill are we on now? HB 969. That's correct, right? Yes, I did that one. Okay. Okay. First up. Sorry. Next we have HB 969. First up, we have Department of Health with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Committee Members Glenn Haae with the Department. Of Health Department stands on its written. Testimony providing comments and I'm available to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Next up we have Board of Water Supply with in support Ernie Lau, manager. For the Board of Water Supply and strong support. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have City and County of Honolulu with comments.

Morning representatives Roger Babcock, Department of Environmental Services. We submitted written comments and in addition, I'd just like to note that we do own and operate the only municipal solid waste landfill on the island and we do need to have a new landfill. Thank you. I'm available for comment for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have local local 1260 IB Kika here. I don't see him. Next up we have Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. Not here. And is there anybody else wishing to testify that is in person. Okay, go ahead, stand up and state your name, please.

Just summarizing my testimony, we oppose landfills above the aquifer anywhere, not just this proposal, because it will leak eventually. We had a town hall on this, 250 angry people showed up. And when we asked the city officials what they would do after the landfill reaches capacity in 50 years, they said they would do another one.

So we would have multiple leaks into the aquifer and YUI is heavy rainfall, so there would be periodic flooding. We also have a responsibility to suggest an alternative. We suggest Kaliloa. It was disqualified as a site because of a lightly used airport. But airports are not among the disqualifiers in the original legislation.

So we ask that Kaliloa be listed as a possible site. And remember, when this leaks after we're gone, what will future generations say about us?

Okay, thank you, Larry. Next up, we have one person on Zoom. That is Mike. Mike, are you on?

Yes, I'm on. Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Excellent. So aloha, thank you for having me here. My name is Mike Iwa with Energy Justice Network. There's a lot of concern about a new landfill on Wahooa for good reason. And the concern is because people know that even a double lined landfill full of H power trash incinerator's ash can eventually leak toxic chemicals into the aquifer.

If that's a concern, I would think you would be even more concerned about taking the same material and spreading it all over the island with no liners and driving all over it.

If they recycle this into roads, which is being proposed right now by the Sydney county with a proposal to the state for a permit to do that. This would create Linear unlined landfills in the form of roads everyone drives over, risking the workers who put the roads down and Everyone who lives near it.

Now, there was a project that Roger Babcock presented to the Legislature on January 7, and he held up a jar of this ash from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, saying, it's just like sand, and the city is pursuing that as a model of what they want to build.

Yet he did not point out that that project failed in that they stopped managing to put that ash into Asphalt in September 2022 and never restarted in 2023 as they planned. They didn't say why it failed or what happened, but similar projects have failed around the country.

I would encourage you to support the amendment that's in my testimony, supported by three others in testimony as well. You can find it on page 15 of your testimony packet.

And that amendment asks that if this ash is not safe to put in a double line landfill, that we do not also allow it to be used to build roads and spread all over the island with no liners for those roads. So thank you for considering this amendment.

Thank you very much, Mike. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Can you please stand up and state your name?

Sorry. Wayne Tanaka, sir. Kabahoye. We. Yeah, we submitted written testimony, but just. I'll just stand on my testimony in. Strong support of this bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yes, we have your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody wishing to ask questions?

Sure.

Oh, yes, you would like to testify? Sure.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Deborah King, and I did submit written testimony. And I have been advocating with others for no landfills over water because I actually have health conditions brought on by contaminated water when I was stationed as a dependent with the United States government in Italy. And the water was...

The water pipes were too close to the sewage pipes and they leached. And so that was in 2004, and I'm still suffering. And the doctors can't help me or get me any help because they always say that it's something else, like allergies or other things. And now I'm prone to accidents and my immune system can't heal me as quickly. I just pivoted my foot the other day and now I have a sprained foot and ankle. So I just hope you really consider no landfills near clean water. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. We have your testimony, Deborah. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. This is for Mr. Ewall. You mentioned putting ash into roads. Are you seeking an amendment to HB 969 HD1?

Yes. I would suggest that the language be amended in, which is what the Water and Land Committee did to a similar bill just yesterday in the Senate.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify? See none. We are moving on. Next... I mean, not testify, to ask questions. See none. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 798. First up, we have HHFDC in support. Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Department of Health in support. Okay, thank you very much.

We have County of Maui in support. And that's all the testimony that we received on this bill. Are there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Belatti.

Department of Health.

Good morning. I'm Darryl Lum. I'm the Program Manager at the Clean Water Branch.

Is there a certain number of gallons per day that you would say that they should not be exempt according to the statute?

No. So the Department of Health does not have any position on the treatment capacity, and if the Committee decides that if you wanted to remove that provision, we would be fine with that.

Well, I'm looking at it another direction. I mean, do you have any recommendations for health and human safety so that we should have a certain threshold?

No, there's actually a portion of the statute that's above 342D 50.5. It's in 342D 50A that already has a general prohibition on all discharges. So that's that other statute is the portion that we use on all of our enforcement actions.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for Department of Health. Can you explain to me what is the difference of changing the word wastewater, excuse me, treated sewage to wastewater?

In our testimony, in our, in our testimony before HD 1, we had recommended using treated sewage. It was an attempt to try to address the same issue. So by using, with our, in our, in our offered amendment where we recommended using the term treatment plant, we think that that is going to address the issues of using the term wastewater, where wastewater is broader and it includes all liquid waste. So what we're attempting to do in our offered amendment is to have the prohibition apply to only treatment plants and to have the exclusion apply to treatment plants.

Follow up question, Chair? Thank you, Chair. My question is as far as evaluating this discharge water, why wouldn't we rely on like a bacterial reading level that would determine cleanliness versus a rate of discharge gallons per day?

I believe that rate of discharge, the treatment capacity, I believe that was added to address the situation regarding the clean energy that was in the, that's in the existing statute. So the Department of Health did not propose that, you know, that treatment capacity.

When we do, when we do have these wastewater discharges or sewage discharges, we issue NPDES permits, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, and these permits are federal permits that regulate the type of discharges. And there's all different types of limitations that are in the permit. There is bacteria types of limitations also, and the permits have to ensure that the state's water quality standards are being implemented also.

Thank you. So what I'm hearing is there is a bacterial measurement that is a limit that has to be required.

Yes.