Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Hi. Welcome everyone to the Joint Committees on Higher Education and Water and Land. We are in Room 229. It is 1:02 PM, February 12th. Our first item on the agenda is Senate Bill 1146.

But I just want to remind everyone, we are being televised live and all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you can stand on your testimony or if your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be two minutes.

Just note that we do have your copies, your written copies of your testimony. And so, I'm sure, I know I've read it, I'm sure that the other Members have read it as well.

And so, with that, Senate Bill 1146 relating to the Ala Wai Canal. Appropriates funds to the University of Hawaii for the development of an action plan and pre-engineering concept plan to help with debris management and water quality control in the Ala Wai Watershed.

And we have a lot of testimony that was sent in and I do, I'm sorry, I failed to introduce Chair of Water and Land, Senator Lorraine Inouye, and her Committee, as well as the Committee on Higher Education. So, first up is Dina Lau, testifying for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, in support. Dina.

Good afternoon, Chairs Kim and Inouye, Vice Chairs Kidani and Members of the Committee. I'm Dina Lau, Acting Chief Engineer of the DLNR Division. We stand on written testimony in support of this measure. I'm joined by other members of the DLNR team and they're available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Brennon Morioka, for the University of Hawaii.

Chair Kim and Inouye, Brennon Morioka, on behalf of the University of Hawaii. We stand on our testimony in support.

Okay, thank you. And we have Cadey Mizuno on Zoom. Anybody on Zoom?

Yeah. Hello.

Hi. Welcome.

Okay. Hello, my name is Cadey Mizuno. I'm a resident of Hawaii, born and raised. I support this Bill which appropriates funds to the University of Hawaii for the development of an action plan and pre-engineering concept plan to help with debris management and water quality control in the Ala Wai Watershed.

Passing this Bill will provide the necessary resources to address these critical issues. By investing in action plan and pre-engineering concept plan, we can effectively manage debris and improve our water quality in the Ala Wai. This will not only enhance the natural beauty of our beloved canal but also protect the ecosystem and public health.

As a Social Work student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, I strongly support this Bill. The involvement of the University in developing the action plan provides an excellent opportunity for students and researchers to engage in real world environmental projects. This will enhance their educational experience and contribute in—to—the innovation solutions for environmental challenges. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I don't have anyone else listed to be testifying in person or on Zoom, but is there anyone in this room would like to testify on this measure? Anyone? Melody.

Aloha, Chair and the Committees. Angela Melody Young testifying in support of the appropriation of funds. So, while there are many other research opportunities, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to fund their project that—since that student was so passionately testifying about that testimony.

I think, you know, appropriating the funds could be a very educational lesson for them to do their community service project, as well as learn about common goals of cleaning up the water pollution. I say this because you don't want to do redundant things in the community and to save on resources.

There's already the Genki Ala Wai Project, so maybe that's something that the students can do a partnership with, which has the bioremediation technology invented in Japan, and they already have funding for that. So, perhaps a collaborative project then would be something more ideally favorable, in terms of saving our resources and also getting their student projects completed. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Please introduce yourself.

Hi, Chair Kim and Inouye and Members of the Committee. My name is Dolan Eversole representing Rick Iguit with the Waikiki Beach Special Improvement District. We did send in written testimony. I want to make sure you have a copy of that. If not, have copies here, we will stand on our testimony in support.

Great. You can give the testimony to the—thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, Members, any questions? Yes, Senator Fukunaga.

I guess for Department of Land Resources and College of Engineering.

It sounds, you know, very exciting to be utilizing university expertise as well as Department of Land and Natural Resources.

And I'm kind of wondering to what extent your agencies are also reaching out to some of the other nonprofits and community organizations that have organized projects in and around the Ala Wai Watershed. And I'll just give you one quick example. The Genki Hawaii group has been doing a lot of work within the Canal to improve the water quality.

And I think this is a terrific opportunity.

Thank you, Senator. With respect to Genki, that's actually a project that's been born out of the University of Hawaii by one of our faculty—not one of my faculty—but one of our faculty members within the University.

And we have already been in conversation with him, and he, he is more than likely to be a part of one of the solutions. The actual tasks is still yet to be defined because that's going to be done through conversation between the University, DLNR, DOT, the cities, DFM, and DDC, because it's going to be very multi-jurisdictional effort.

And so, we still need to have those conversations.

I hope—if you could provide a list, you know, of some of the community groups and others that you have identified, then we would like to kind of make sure that we have as many of those that are interested in doing projects—connect with your efforts.

Because I know Department of Land and Natural Resources was involved with a proposed project to reforest a portion of Waʻahila Ridge with native vegetation to remove some of the invasives, and they ran into some issues and concerns. So, it would make sense to really utilize all the resources that we can bring from the community and University.

Thank you.

Sure.

I have a question and more for DOBOR, and okay, so the question is, Megan, with what we're doing right now with the catchments of the debris, you're hiring a contractor, but when we looked at it, I think you did say it only covers about 30% of the debris that has been flowing down.

So, I think, aside from the water quality portion that Senator Fukunaga talks about in the good work that the University did, but the issue I think is the collection of the debris. That has been the biggest problem. So, with that said, now on the 30% with the contractor that you had, when did this go into effect?

When did you hire the contractor? Was it for last year's debris or?

So, Megan Stats. I am the Administrator for the Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. We've had a contractor for the debris trap probably for the last 10 to 15 years. And it does catch anywhere between 20 to 30% of the debris.

During this last storm event that we had, we did work with our DLNR Engineering Branch and set up a boom catchment across the Ala Wai Canal, which basically shifted all the debris coming down from the tributaries into our catchment system. And that's where we ended up spending about $115,000 just to remove the debris.

So, I think part of the long.

So, going back to what you're saying about your section. So, that's the small...harbor side then?

Correct. Right. It's on, it's on the Makai side of the Ala Moana Bridge.

Okay.

So, I think moving forward, what we try—need to focus on—is how do we address the debris coming down from all the tributaries. And like Brennon said, right, it's a mixture of state lands, county lands, and private lands.

Right. Okay, so, that's you know just to say that we appreciate the University in assisting and doing this Project because it's, it—I mean that last spill was just horrible, that you all went through, and so, and I think more to come with our climate change. So, good luck.

But anyway, hopefully that we can come to some solution, but we thank, you know, the authors of this measure as well. Much needed. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Questions? Senator Fevella.

Yeah, just to University. How are you guys, how are you guys track—will track the progress?

So, in—through the first two years, we'll be working through this through our Student Capstone Projects and having both faculty and industry mentors help mentor and oversee the work that our students are going to be doing.

And then, we would, at that point, come up with certain recommendations and turn that over to DLNR or other agencies for more appropriate action going forward.

But as Megan said, this really is, it's multi-jurisdictional and it's a much more holistic and comprehensive look at the whole watershed, not just having to be reactionary down at the end of it, once a storm happens. So, so, we'll be looking at the whole Watershed as opportunities for, for solutions.

Do you have any—like how much it would cost for this?

For, you mean, for like, oh, what final projects might look like—that we don't know. So, this, this Bill would appropriate sufficient monies for a couple grad students to help oversee our undergraduates in their student projects, as well as some faculty stipends for the summer.

And this is all tied in also with a appropriation in the Budget Bill for—to DLNR—for CIP to help either hire a consultant to help support and then also to do field and site work that would be a part of some of the student projects.

Thank you.

Senator Kidani.

Thank you. Brennon. Is the Ala Wai Canal under the jurisdiction of the state or the city?

State.

State. Several years ago, I can't remember exactly when, my Mililani Rotary Club went and did the Genki balls. Has that helped the situation any, and, you know, what was it when we first noticed the issue, as far as the pollution and has it gotten any better and where do we want to be?

Well, I can let Megan chime in more on the bigger picture from DLNR's perspective, but in my conversations with the faculty and the program, the Genki Program, the Genki balls are number one, meant only to address bacterial buildup. So, it attacks some of the organic materials.

It's not meant to address accumulation of mud and silt in the Canal. And so, what they have seen—nothing quantitative, but more qualitative—is that water quality has improved. They're seeing more marine species that have gone more upstream into Ala Wai than they have witnessed in the past.

And so, that's more of just an observation rather than any scientific data.

And I think with what we've noticed over the last 30 years or so, it's a lot of the debris that comes down, right. So, I think where the Genki balls are further up in the canal.

And so, when the debris comes through, I think all of the good work that's happening with the Genki balls kind of gets overshadowed by the amount of debris that's coming through the facility.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions?

Just, just one more. Maybe you remember when we had the Manoa Flooding several years ago. Did that include heavy materials like we've seen at Ala Wai?

You mean the one that flooded the Manoa Campus?

Yes.

So, that, that was because of a storm event that resulted in overtopping up more in Manoa Valley because of all the debris that had accumulated at the Bridge. So, that's a part of that whole watershed management. Right. It's, it's clear.

It's understanding what the accumulation of debris is, and it's primarily the albizia that grows in some of the private property, and then it rushing down and clogging the...

Was that more shrubbery then? Or greenery stuff?

Well, it was larger branches—larger trees.

Okay. But in this case, Ala Wai that we've seen, I, I think it's a lot more because—and it is brought to our attention too, that there's the homeless that, that has been living around and some of the materials that they collect as being part of the debris, I guess. Okay. All right. Got work to do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Members, any other questions? If not, we're gonna go straight into decision making. The Chairs have conferred. The recommendation, Members, is that we pass Senate Bill 1146 with amendments. We're gonna blank out the appropriation and we're gonna defect the effective date to July 31, 2050. Any discussion? Hearing none. Chair votes "Aye" for HRE.

[Roll Call]

Okay. For the Committee on Water and Land, Chair's recommendation is to press SB 1146 with amendments. Any comments from Water and Land Committee? Seeing none, hearing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes "Aye."

[Roll Call]

Good afternoon. We're convening the Joint Committees on Transportation, Culture, and Arts and Water and Land on our 1:03 PM agenda, here in State Capitol Conference Room 229.

We have one measure up today, Senate Bill 321 related to transportation which provides that fee simple title, privately owned lands are deemed transferred to adjacent property owners or the community association if certain conditions aren't met. Testifying first, we have Hawaii County Council Member Ashley Kirkowitz in support, Stephanie Bath in support and Shannon Mattson in support.

That's all the written testimony we have. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on SB 321? If not.

All right.

Oh, yeah, we got.

Can I. Chair, can I ask if anyone is here from Bank of Hawaii? And reason I asked is several years ago, I think there was an Association right outside of Honolulu somewhere that was a privately owned subdivision, but also had an issue with the roads, with that Association.

And it seems like this would meet what they were asking about this roadway. The only thing is the roadway was owned by the Association and wanted to transfer the roadway to the city, which wasn't accepted.

So I nonetheless, I think it's unfortunate that we're not looking at those areas as well, getting rid of associations roads and dedicated to the counties which the counties, if it's an area where used by the public, you know, should be under the city and county.

But nonetheless, maybe I'll bring it to their attention and they can follow up on this measure as the Bill moves. Because I think if you look at the testimony, they're all from Big Island. So I think it's considering all those roads in limbo. So thank you for hearing this measure as well. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. That being said.

Sure. Sorry. Well, why don't we go to decision making then you can comment since there's no one to ask questions.

No, I know. Thank you.

Okay. You good to go?

Yeah, sure.

Okay. Chairs having conferred, like to recommend moving this forward to the Consumer Protection and Judiciary Committees for further consideration. And I think the Chair's comments, maybe we can get some answers there as well. But recommendations to move it on as is. Is there any discussion?

Just for right now.

I mean, I wish that we had more discussion with the city or the state because in my district there's a road called Pakea Road where there are five private stakeholders and we've been trying to have the city acquire that because the city has been having their buses there, trash pickup there and those kinds of things.

So it's been able to be unmanaged by our private residences. So just in this particular Bill where we have it today, without hearing input from city and state, I'm going to vote down for this one. Thank you.

Can I add to her comments? Yes, Senator. It's similar to the question I had.

I mean, the comments I made earlier now with knowing what counties do, if the Private Association owns the road and wants it transferred in the history that we have with all the counties, if the road is up to standards, like, you know, it's kind of paved and more than two lanes or two lanes, then the cities or the counties usually accept.

But it depends on your rule rate. If there's, I guess, some not to the standard, but this is what I talked about earlier, that we could continue the discussion as well.

Because I think with that said, it seems like the sitting county in your area seems like they've already taken the responsibility and the liability because if they're already utilizing it for their work with regards to the duties that they continue to do weekly, that I think this measure is a good time for us to talk about those issues with the counties and somehow we can add some language or continue resolutions because this is long overdue.

There's too many private subdivisions that are occupied and population. And look at how the counties, you know, look at. Because if they're already using the rules as well, I can see why they can do it. Okay, let's continue the discussion. Thank you.

Thanks. So any other discussion? If not, why don't we go to a vote? So the recommendation would be to pass SB 321 with amendments.

Okay, thank you.

Reflex. Recommendation passes 321. As is singular discussion.

Vice Chair, the Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts. Chair's Recommendation to pass SB 321. Unamended. [Roll Call] One second. Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

And for the Committee on Water and Land, Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 321, as is. Any discussions for Water and Land Committee? Hearing none. Vice Chair. For the vote, Chair goes aye.

Chair Recommendations to pass SB 321. Unamended. [Roll Call] Madam Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much.

We're adjourned.

Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Committee on Water and Land and the Committee on Agriculture and the Environment on its hearing notice, Wednesday, February 12th at 1:05pm. But this is Hawaiian time and we're in room 229. Okay, thank you, Agriculture Committee and Senator Gabbard. And just to let you know, you'll be seeing people in and out.

We got deadlines tomorrow, and so we have many hearings going on at this time. So just bear with us because we'll make sure that when it comes time to take action on our bills today, that they will be here. But you got the important people anyway here on this measure.

Let's proceed with SB 22 relating to fisheries and this exam's actions involving the operation and management on fisheries in the state from Environmental Review Requirements DLNR, Brian Nielsen. And please come on up. I know, I'm sorry. Did I do housekeeping? Okay. Excuse me. Thank you, Ryan. Sorry about that. We have many hearings today. Just some housekeeping announcements.

We ask that the testifiers that's on zoom as well as here to stand on your written testimony or if your oral testimony is different from the written testimony. The time limit for each testifier will be two minutes.

And for this Committee, the exception normally is for those like the agencies and people that the Committee calls up for discussions. We really won't limit you. Depends on how we're doing this morning.

But we'd like to make sure that the opportunity for measures before us today and for transparency that we allow those that we need to make sure that we're satisfied with the discussions before us. And so the hearing notice has been. And copies of the bills and testimony can be found on the Legislature's website.

The video stream can be found on the Sandis YouTube channel as well. And then we'll proceed. As I mentioned, SB 22 DLNR. And you're not Brian. I'm not Brian. I am Ryan. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the committees. Ryan Kanakaole, Department of Land and Natural Resources. DLNR stands on its written testimony offering comments on this bill. And we're here to answer any questions.

We will be asking you questions later because I think this is the measure that probably that's on the radar that's been happening since the court case, correct? Yes. And so thanks for the opportunity that you're present, Ryan. We appreciate that. Mary Alice Evans, OPSD Good afternoon, Chairs.

Good afternoon. I'm Mary Alice Evans with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. And with me is Tom Eisen. He is our Environmental Review program Senior Planner. We have concerns with this measure. We feel that it probably shouldn't be an amendment to 343 because it's global in nature to exempt an entire industry from our environmental review program.

Okay. Members, while they're up here as well, here's an opportunity to ask questions. But you'll be around for a while. Of course. Okay, thank you so much. Okay. Earth Justice Mid Pacific Office. Aloha.

Aloha Chair Inouye, Chair Gabbard, Vice Chair and honorable Committee Members. My name is Kylie Wager Cruz and I'm an attorney with the Earth Justice Mid Pacific Office. We did submit written testimony, so we stand on that. And I just wanted to make another officer. Yes. In opposition.

A couple other points that weren't said in the testimony were that I just wanted to remind you this. Some of the impetus behind this is the aquarium trade fishery. I just wanted to remind the Committee Members that before the landmark Burger case requiring environmental review for aquarium fish permits, it was really the wild west out there.

DLNR was handing out permits for aquarium fishing to anyone who asked. Without any environmental review, without any consideration of cultural impacts. It was, you pay $100 and you go take as much as you want.

And what HEPA did and the court ruling did was ensure that cultural environmental concerns were considered in advance with opportunity for public input with through multiple avenues, multiple rounds of written testimony and also at hearings.

And if there were no environmental review required for these types of permits, the process would have been either non existent or significantly shortened. We've learned a lot through this process. The process is working and we encourage you folks to keep it in place for all fisheries.

And I'll just note that it is the national standard practice under NEPA to regulate fisheries through the National Environmental Policy Act. So it would be an anti deregulatory action in Hawaii to take this drastic step and exempt an entire industry. Thank you.

Can I ask you a question? You did kind of mention aquarium fishing. Yes. Now if this measure. And going back to my earlier question with regards to the Supreme Court ruling recently, am I reading this wrong or right? Because there are several bills, I understand, that affects fisheries and would this measure. And I think.

Ryan, come on up because you're part of a former AG as well. Well. And with dlnr, are we to say that this measure, this particular one, and there's other bills that has been floated around with regards to fisheries and the recent Supreme Court ruling. Does this bill is part of trying to accommodate the solution that happened?

Yes. In short, yes, it would. Well, there are several litigation.

Can you put the MIC closer to those on zoom as well?

This Bill specifically. In our testimony, we provided context regarding both the aquarium fishing permits or the aquarium trade permits, as well as the commercial permits that are like subject to a new litigation. Right, the commercial marine licenses. Sorry.

Okay. So the Kaanapali case. Okay. Included not the aquarium per se, but more on the commercial side.

So that's a different case. And this bill would not address that.

Oh, okay. Okay. So this is the previous one as we talked about.

So SB 22 is just related to fisheries. SB 1074, which you'll hear later, is related to the commercial tour boat operators. So this is just fisheries. And the cases that we brought were narrowly focused on the aquarium trade in particular and not on other forms of commercial fishing.

It will require, based on the Supreme Court four part test, a detailed analysis. No, the other one. The other one. To decide whether or not HEPA review will be required for the actions that are being challenged in that separate lawsuit. That was a lawsuit brought by the aquarium industry, not us.

But I will mention that even if a court were to determine that certain aspects of commercial marine licensing outside of aquarium fishing required HEPA review, DLNR would have the option to exempt De minimis activities under that umbrella.

That's correct.

Okay. All right. Any questions you may have. Okay, thank you so much for, for being here as well. Randy Cates. Aloha. Thanks for being here. Thank you.

Committee Members Chair, Randy Cates. I've been involved in management of fisheries for about 30 years. I actually asked for this bill to be introduced last year. I asked for it again this year. Thank you for introducing it. It's an important bill and I don't think people understand what will happen or could happen.

So contrary to what was being said, most states, in fact, all states don't manage their fisheries in the EIS process. The Federal Government does. But they have a large budget that Fund those NEPA projects. The state will have to either Fund this or the fishery will have to Fund this.

So when you guys think about going and having a party and eating tuna, this affects that. That will be either. It'll affect it drastically because to sell your fish in Hawaii, you have to have a CML license. So if this goes forward, every fishery in the state will be forced to do that.

Eis, a coulee, you know, bottom fish. Everything you think of will be forced to, will shut down and have to be on an eis. The problem that I see and the reason I asked for this Bill is for decades and Decades we've been managing our fisheries through DAR and dlnr. That's their sole job.

They have the scientists on hand. Every month the fishermen have to do reports. That's different than a commercial activity, like a tourist activity. It doesn't monitor their activity as such. Fishing is regulated and monitored. So without this measure, you're gonna essentially you're gonna turn fishermen into criminals.

If they sell the fish and it'll affect the long line fish. They are required to have a cml. It will affect the auction block, every hotel, every supermarket.

They'll either have to import that fish from overseas, which is a environmental footprint, a lower grade quality, and it's going to be the end of commercial fishing in Hawaii as we know it. For local boats, the long line will have a short term pain.

They'll probably be down until they can apply their ea, the NEPA ea, but it doesn't address cultural issues and other issues at the ea. So it'll be, this will be a major, major impact. And if anyone doesn't believe me, ask the AG. They're already being sued to encompass all CMLs.

It's not a matter of if it's already happening right now. And I encourage you to ask Brian or the LNR if they're facing that threat right now. So with that, I'll take. If you have any questions.

Any questions. Members? Yes, Senator McKelvey, real briefly.

So how do other states manage their fisheries if they're not using same process we do?

Like the Alaska is a great example. They have their fishing game local and they have a federal fishery. It's very similar to what we have.

So they have scientists on hand, that manager, almost identical to what we do when it's federal because federal laws, then you go to the NEPA process and they do a more extensive, you know, EA eis. But the federal fisheries pays for that.

They may not be for much longer.

Yeah, well, the other question to ask is can DLNR do this? Can they or will they do the EIS for each fishery on each island? You think, look at Kauai, Maui, Big island. They're going to be the impact of the most because they rely on commercial fishing for source of income more than Oahu.

We do it as a weekend type thing. So if you, if you're a family on Kauai and you have the AHI season come in, you rely on that income that is gone, that it's gonna have a major impact. I just don't think people realize the direction that this is heading.

One second Earth Justice. We were talking about the aquarium fish. And we're talking about. That's the concern. And that's why I decided to hold a hearing on this measure. Because what I understand is it's beyond the aquarium side and the HIPAA permitting system or requirements.

But it seems like we're hearing a different story on the effects and the unintended consequences. Can you respond?

So we just heard about this lawsuit that the aquarium fishery brought against the state. We just found out about that before, right before this hearing. We are frankly shocked that the aquarium collectors are just trying to, like, make things more difficult for the rest of the commercial fishers.

Because in our lawsuit, we specifically focused on the aquarium trade in particular. So a court will ultimately decide how far this goes. But as I mentioned, if there are, if people are a small operation just catching fish and selling them locally, there's the opportunity for DAR to exempt those types of De minimis activities.

And to the extent they're long liners, if they're already doing environmental review under the federal nepa, it's possible for the federal and state NEPA processes to combine, and you leverage resources for both processes, combine them into one.

And so I think that, I mean, it's hard to imagine all the different ways that this could pan out, but exempting an entire industry at this point, we think is too far of a broad brush. Benji?

Okay, couple points. First, the aquarium trade didn't do this. There was. The environmentalists wanted to shut the aquarium trade down, which was the most regulated fishing trade in the state, with the most data available and the most sustainable. That's a fact. They couldn't do it through the legislative process. So they applied this law, which opened the door.

The court said that this law applies to all CMLs. It said it opens it up. And that's how it's now being applied to Kaanapali trade. It opens it up to everything. And we don't know which direction it's going to go. The bottom line is the state cannot impose rules on only one industry. Say you can't.

You have a cml. You don't need an eis. You have a cml. You do need an eis. It has to be fair. It can't be discriminatory in that manner. And that's the problem. We're trying to fix this thing.

And in my opinion, if we already have a Department that their sole job is a manager, fisheries, why are we going to be redundant and why are we going to waste taxpayers dollars in the millions to try and comply with this? It doesn't benefit the fishery in any way.

Okay. Well, one concern that I have with regards to what we just heard about the suit and on the aquarium side, you did say you just found out.

So the non aquarium side, the aquarium fishers are suing the state, saying either he applies to all of us or only or. Or none of us.

Well, another issue comes in and I often want one of those that if there is a pending suit and there's a measure that's coming in through the state, I would prefer just not doing anything until and everything is settled. Now, Brandy, we have another measure on SB 1074.

Would that suffice to what the issue is that you bring up all the unintended consequences. Would this measure kind of would take this place rather than us looking at SB22.

I am unaware of that. There's one other quick problem that's happening and that's with aquaculture and at the Dillon R, you know, Monterey Bay aquariums denied collection permits.

And that's another issue that we're concerned.

About is we never sued about that either. So these were not things that we are fighting for. There's just been a push since our case by the aquarium trade to try to throw others under the bus and make them comply too.

But we are what we always alleged with that is that we were just suing about the aquarium trade. Not even recreational, just commercial. And the court in every single ruling made us draft the orders to carefully apply them only to commercial aquarium collection, not to other types of commercial fishing. Okay.

The litmus.

Okay.

Senator McKelvey, I'm just. Sorry, just a comment. But the parameters of which requires a 343 by its very nature is going to bleed out beyond commercial.

Okay. But it will require a four factor step by step analysis by the court. That is requires lots of facts and evidence that needs to play out in the court process.

We have the 1074 SB that I just mentioned that's forthcoming on the agenda. Would what we've heard today and the impacts it's relating to the environmental impact statements. So would you think that what we're hearing today, the unintended consequences probably would be better on 1074?

Perhaps slightly. We are. We. There are unintended consequences there as well, which I can go into during that. Bill or now we'll stick with 22. Okay.

Okay.

My attempt was with this request was to try and apply some common sense where we have a Department that already monitors these things and start the bleed. I mean our public aquariums, they're at extreme risk, right? Now they have not been able to collect their international aquariums that do research.

They're being denied, they're leaving, they're taking their grants and have left. There was a request to collect larvae two miles off the Kona coast that was denied because of this. So the state is really losing big time on this. And while maybe the. It wasn't the intent for all this to happen, the fact is it is happening.

So we need to protect our source of food, fish first. And I hope and I encourage to look at everything else as well.

And I think that's a concern that our colleagues at the Legislature as well, because of that recent lawsuit, because I think every day we're hearing from, from the fishermen and, and the unintended consequence. Brian, are you here or dlnr. Okay, you're. Come on now.

You want me to stay?

No, no, you stay. Yeah. Okay. Steph, can you open? Thank you so much. Okay. Prove me wrong. You. You've heard all of this discussion, and I don't want to belabor this.

The hearing, we got lots on the agenda, but, you know, there's the two portions of SB22, and I'm not sure if you had a chance to see on SB 1074 relating to similarly the environmental impact statements and some of the comments that Randy has already brought up.

And again, as you heard, you know, the Legislature and myself as well, you know, always are kind of concerned when there's, there's Supreme Court or court cases that we must refrain from getting involved. So.

Yeah. Brian Nielsen, Administrator for Division of Aquatic Resources, I'm not super familiar with SB 1074.

I defer to Ryan, but if it's similar to HB661, which was heard yesterday and I believe did pass through with some amendments, I think, you know, if you are all are considering deferring SB22, I think that would be a good plan B, that in the event that there is a court ruling that required compliance with HIPPA, that the department's given time to comply and there's not a huge disruption to the industry.

And that we've heard about was actually some of my recommendations because. And I'm happy that we have the two measures today, you know, rather than having one and then, you know, something's falling apart.

But yet, you know, we have to understand that our state, we're an island state and we survive on the ocean and we want are fishing industry to survive. And so, you know, and that that's what my recommendation was going to be with my colleague here as well.

I Think there was some discussion about, and this is in regard to HB661 yesterday, that it was a little too broad and narrowing it down to just.

Do you know if the language is similar to 1078? zero, come on, Ryan. Sorry, folks. This is a hot issue. So we want people to survive, but we also have to make sure that we're just being a little cautious.

Ryan, Konakole, Dilonar. So HB661 and SB1074, they're not marked as companions, but I can't. Their language is almost identical. Okay. They're not true companions, but they're companions.

Okay, so suggestion that was made for HB 661 is limiting it to the Dobor statute, which I think was 200.

Yes. So the changes that were made on HB661 were to restrict the permitting activities, the exemption for the permitting activities to the authorizing statutes specific to Dobor issuing those their permits. And then as well as it was discussed, dar's permitting authority as well. So that would be under Chapter Hrs, Chapter 200 for dobor. And then DAR is.

Okay, but that's already in statute. I mean, that's already your process. Okay, now can we. Would that work with what's the issue before us?

Here's a concern I have and Brian, correct me if I'm wrong. You look at each island. Let's take Hilo. Hilo has a robust tuna fishery. Who would pay for that? Eis. And then if you have a bottom fishery in Hilo, is that a separate eis? You go to Kona. Who pays for that?

If you're going to rely on fishermen, that's the death of the fishery. It's. The aquarium trade has already done an eis got accepted and they're still not in business. And it's years. We're talking about a shutdown of the fishery for years.

And that's where we are today. So would dlnr, would we be able to work out a system so that it doesn't shut down the industry itself? Because you already have an existing process. Okay, so.

So the, the Bill, Senate Bill 1074, HB661, the language would provide the ability for the permitting activity to continue while the litigation as well as the compliance with 343 process is concurrently going on?

Okay. All right.

And can you give a cost estimate if you think of doing the state, how many I S's would it take?

Yeah, I mean, commercial marine licenses just allow you to sell fish, but there's Numerous different fisheries from net fishing, spear fishing, bottom fishing, trolling. So all of those different fisheries would need to be evaluated as part of some type of programmatic EAs. So that would take years. Okay. All right.

All right. Thanks, folks. Any other comments? Some discussions. And yes. Yeah, we're going through the hearings. We have a list. Yeah, yeah. So we'll proceed with continuing from others as well. Thanks, folks. Okay. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club. Thanks for being here.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee is Wayne Taka.

Oh, I'm glad that you heard all the discussions we're going through, but. And we appreciate your comments as well and sending in your testimony.

Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. And so we're in opposition to this measure. Just based on the conversation. One thing I actually suggest is.

And I just heard about the CML lawsuit, too, but I think maybe it'd be better for everyone to just let that play out, because the courts are going to let it play out rather than pass this measure and weed it out, because the courts may actually be able to come up with guidelines that can prevent the kind of bleeding that I think people are afraid about and.

Yeah. And so could benefit both sides, I think. Just to add, though, I think this Bill and the breadth of the spill really goes in the wrong direction. Opposite direction. I mean, there's a long history of dlnr, of darc, just kind of blindly allowing commercial permitting to go on without considering their environmental impacts.

I grew up in Kanyohe Bay. I fished at here, up here every single day after school. And I saw how the bait fish permits decimated and eradicated Nehu schools and the Yale schools. And then we lost. Papillo and Omaka stopped coming in. Even like the stickfish, the Nunupeke, they stopped. You know, it's hard to get any nowadays.

Right. And if only they had actually, like, gone through a process where they asked us, asked us guys that was on the shore, seeing what was happening every day, you know, how to mitigate what was going on. We could still have this fishery again. And unfortunately, the aqua boats are gone. The fish are still gone.

So again, we need to maybe be more mindful about the impacts of what we do then.

And earring in opposition to SP22. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. Kuina Ulu Ao or Kua Olan Fisher. Yeah. Aloha. Are you on Zoom? I am. Proceed, please.

Thank you. Aloha Mai Kakou, Chairs and Vice Chairs and Committee Members. I'm Olan Leimomi Fisher advocate with Kua Ina Ulua Wamo and we stand on our testimony in strong opposition to SB22.

As it's already been said, it's far too broad and it's, it's a serious threat to both native Hawaiian rights and the kama in a community well being in General as well as, like it's already been mentioned the overall health and abundance of our near show nearshore ecosystems.

And like, it's already been talked about too, the Exact same Bill, HB123, was just deferred on the House side yesterday. So we urge you to please, please do the same here for the numerous and obvious reasons. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Office of Foreign Affairs. She sends a communication in opposition as well. Okay, there's a Kim on Zoom it. Okay, Adrian Isham there on Zoom. Is that you, Kim?

Yes, it's me. Can you hear me? All right? Aloha. Aloha, Chair. You know, this is interesting because you're hearing a lot of misinformation. You're hearing the word that there's a lawsuit going around. For one. There's no lawsuit. The only lawsuit that is currently active is by Earth Justice.

And Kylie Wagger Cruz from Earth justice is going to sit here and act like we didn't go after the commercial marine license. They absolutely did. They did a dirty deal with DLNR and they struck a deal to prejudicially only apply it to aquarium purposes.

And with all due respect, Madam Chair, you're sitting here acting like you didn't know, but West Hawaii is the only fishery in the state that's not only gone through the process, the Supreme Court upheld it.

And in August 21st, when we were trying to wrap up the permitting problem, you wrote a letter on letterhead opposing and objecting to issuing the permits and completing this process. And here you are today wanting to issue blanket exemptions with no science, no understanding.

So I'm a little confused with all the misinformation being fed to you guys from Earth Justice. Everybody's saying there's, there's a lawsuit. Surprisingly, most of the people in that room paid for that lawsuit. But it's not a lawsuit. It's been sitting there since October.

And what it is is to hold DLNR accountable for the deal that they struck, saying, if you guys do want eis, we're gonna let you back in the water. The complaint is to address and acknowledge through the courts that West Hawaii has completed the environment environmental review process.

And here we are today, and nobody's acknowledging that that's where we are. No other fisheries are drug into this mess. It's a. It's a sham, and I'm. I'm surprised you guys are asking questions. And the people, with all due respect, that maybe they don't know the facts, but they're not giving you guys straight answer.

So I'd be happy to answer any questions you guys have. Thanks, Kim.

All right. Thank you. Adrian Nisham on Zoom. Okay. Eric Monique on Zoom.

Not on Zoom Chair.

Okay. Adrian in support. Eric in support. James Lovell.

Not on Zoom Chair.

There's someone on their it. Sir, can you. You're being recognized. On Zoom.

Isaac Hart.

Aichi.

Aloha.

Aloha.

My name is Isaac Harp, also known as Paka. I'm here representing the Northwestern Hawaiian Island Hui, which is an organization that's focused on protecting our Northwestern Hawaiian islands for over 25 years. I'm testifying on two bills today, SB 22 and SB 1074.

Both bills proposed to amend HRS Section 343, better known as the Hari Environmental Protection Act, or HEPA. HEPA ensures the protection of Hawaii's natural environment, which should never be compromised for the sake of business profits or convenience.

In my written testimony, I oppose both bills because of the risk and uncertainties involved in amending such a significant statute which could have unforeseen environmental consequences, particularly in our ocean. I remain opposed to any amendments to HEPA law. Please seek solutions through other measures and leave Kipa intact. Mahalo.

Thank you. Mahalo Isaac. Alright.

Preserve transparency, the voice of the people, and environmental protections. Aloha.

Yep. Thank you. Members, if there's no questions that you want to have those that testified earlier.

Sorry, Chair.

Okay. One- Okay. Can- Can you announce your name, please?

Oh, Aloha Chairs Gabbard, Inouye. This is Inga Gibson with Pono Advocacy and For the Fishes. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. Okay. Inga Gibson.

Yes. Thank you. And--

Okay, proceed.

In strong opposition to SB 22. We did submit written testimony. I did just want to reference. If you look at DLNR's own testimony, you will see that they reference the lawsuit of November 2024 that was presented by the aquarium trade. So if there's any question, it's right there in DLNR's written testimony.

And that is where the aquarium fishers are asking the state to look at all CMLs. That is not something that any of us had any involvement with. Our interest, of course, were specific to the destructive impacts of the aquarium trade.

I did, after participating in the hearing yesterday, just want to strongly encourage the committee to please defer this as well as SB 1074, HB 661 is moving in the house. It will potentially address some of the concerns, the legitimate concerns with non extractive industries such as the Kahanapali boaters and so forth. So urge the committee this.

There's just way too much risk here. The public would be completely shut out if there is no HEPA process. So urge--

Thank you Inga.

Mahalo.

Mahalo. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB 22? I see a hand raised there.

Yes. Yes, I would like to. I would like to.

You'll be after. Yes. Okay. Aloha.

Aloha. Maikako. I'd like to vote in opposit- strong opposition to this bill--

Your name please.

Kimmer Horsen, SB 22. Yes.

Thank you for being here again.

I just want to reiterate that this- this is a, I think, Kanaka Maoli fisherman. I've heard this a lot. I have a lot of friends that are in the fishing industry. There's a lot of sort of industry, bulk fishing that goes on. So the locals. The Kanaka cannot fish. Yeah, they're all

the big fish are taken or whatever. Yeah. The big bulk. Yeah. Or industry fishing. It's- It's not fair to for Earth justice to say, you know, everything's the same because it's not the same. Everyone cannot be treated the same. One, the Kanaka are- are exemptions to any laws from the United States.

Yeah, they need to, like, I don't know if they need to carry IDs or what, but they need to be, you know, treated differently. So if you have a Kanaka fisherman in there, they can fish however they want. This is not the United States. None of these laws apply. Okay? So that's one thing. Another is the size.

Like, if one. If someone wants to go fish and they get one small boat, they should be allowed. Right? It applies. It's not all the same. You know what I mean? Like, it's not a big fish, fishing bulk, you know, fishing boat, and the people that are fishing it and-

and who they are and where they originated from matters as well. So I'm strongly against this. We need to consider that.

Thank you so much. And gentlemen here and those on Zoom, I understand there's one gentleman and you're next. And then we're going to stop the testimonies, as we still have not completed the first one on a long agenda. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Aloha. My name is Jerry Isom. I'm from Waianae side. I live Nanakuli. I'm actually a fisherman. I was one of those aquarium fishermen that was put out of business about five years ago. And like Kim said, we did- we did a study. These- These laws, when- when the- when they talked about it being too broad, this bill being too broad.

It's not that the bill is broad. The law is broad. And it- And so that's why it's absorbing all these fishermen. Not only fishermen, though. This goes to commercial activity, commercial permits, even brothers, that's renting surfboards, surfboard rentals. If they need a permit, they- they liable to get sued. And so you guys know this.

The average local person cannot pay to do these environmental studies. It's not even about the cost of doing a study. It's also the cost of fighting it in courts. As you can see, the EIS was accepted in Kona and they still fight it in court. They cannot. They just can't. And it's- But it's designed that way.

It's to hold the little. The average local person back. How can when five fishermen go up against environmental groups, 1.0 million $1.0 billion organizations like this and the local fishermen. The bill that was the sister bill to this bill today. I sad to say but that one would fail because unfortunately a lot of fishermen didn't know about it.

They heard about it too last minute. They didn't get down here. That's why it failed. But I- I promise you, if this bill goes forward, you will see 30, 40, 50 maybe even hundred fishermen at the next hearing when it goes to the next level. It got through. A lot of fishermen didn't know about it.

But I'm telling you right now, the system is rigged. And it's rigged by environmentalists with a lot of money. That's not, that's- that is a fact. You ask every- any citizen. It's the local people always get held back. Whether it be fishermen, whether it be anything.

We always held back by laws that we cannot, we just cannot fight. We cannot fight it. But anyway, it's frustrating. Sorry, I'm all over the place. Try to jump in two minutes. Please pass Senate Bill 22.

It's literally the only thing to help fishermen.

You did say you had a business, but what are you doing now? Just regular fishing.

So I regular fish, but I do it part time. But it nowhere near as I- If- if I can answer that in 30 seconds. The fishing I do, and honest to God, I'm a fisherman and I'm not knocking food fish, but I could catch six aquarium fish. Promise to God I could catch six aquarium fish.

I now gotta catch six coolers of mapachi. I gotta catch eight coolers of opelo for make the same money with that six fish. And they're talking about that they trying to save the reef. They have no clue what they talking about. That's the bottom line. I promise to God. They just.

30 years I fish, I never see one of these guys on the water. Not one fishermen. You want to know real talk--

Thank you.

-to fishermen, bring them together. Anyway.

Thanks so much.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Okay.

Aloha.

Aloha.

Chair and members.

Your name please.

My name is Ron Tubbs and I'm here in support, strong support of Senate Bill 22. We heard from the person that filed the lawsuit and I'm a former aquarium fisherman too. Anyway, they completed a HEPA. It's cost $800,000 complete a HEPA. Get it passed. Of course they. The lawsuit is active.

I just looked it up on the court system. There's nothing that's going to stop that unless they withdraw it, but they can reinstate it at any time. Okay?

And these people I know, and they're kind of my friends, so I'm- I'm not trying to badmouth them, but they put a lot of money and effort into this, and they don't want to see a bunch of fisheries come back that haven't put a lot of effort into this.

So I can understand, you know, their stance on this bill. But the bottom line is you have somebody that's regulated fisheries for decades, efficiently, effectively, sustainably. Okay? There's a problem with Oohus. They do the Ooh Bill. If there's an emergency situation with cucumbers, they ban cucumber take.

DLNR has the ability, if they see a problem with the environment, to act and act quickly and impose moratoriums. So fisheries are highly regulated.

Thank you so much for being here.

Thank you.

Okay, there was someone is on Zoom. It.

Aloha.

Aloha, Aloha, Klayton Kubo, Waimea, Kauai. I have concerns. Eventually this is going to boil down to even- even us guys that go off the shoreline.

You know, it's like--

Klayton, Klayton, Klayton, you're supporting--

I am in support, but I--

Okay.

I have concerns on, you know, Earth justice guys, the guys that filing all these lawsuits, eventually they will come down on me, my son, my other son.

When is it going to end? How about even hunting and come into the mix? So please do not pick and choose. Make sure the whole industry is not just a few. Aloha.

Okay. Thank you, Klayton. Alright, we'll adjourn the testimonies for SB 22. And just for the record, there was support 37 in opposition 48. And comments 3. And members, let's kind of move along and thanks, folks, for being with us today. SB 150 relating to Red Hill.

This establishes a WAI policy coordinator for coordination of Red Hill WAI initiatives, creates the Red Hill Remediation Special Fund, and that's--okay, DLNR.

DLNR. We stand on our written testimony in strong support.

Okay. Budget and Finance. Ernie Lau? Or representative; you're not Ernie, but you're prettier. Oh, okay. All right.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and committee members. Joyce Lin with the Board of Water Supply. We stand on our written testimony in strong support, and is available for any question. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, on Zoom, we have Healani Sonoda-Pale, Ka Lahui Hawaii.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Okay, and communication in support. Ilima DeCosta, in person. Aloha. Thanks for bearing with us today.

Mahalo to the chairs and for the committee members for hearing this today. I think this measure is important because I'm also an elected member--Ilima DeCosta--I'm an elected member of the Red Hill Sierra WAI, and we're unpaid. We're not compensated.

So I'm here, and I have done a lot of work in an uncompensated, unpaid position, but I do think that we need somebody who's actually compensated, because I'm pretty sure that if you all weren't compensated for your job, it would make it harder for you to come here every day.

So having somebody who's compensated, who can interface with the government, whether it be federal or state officials, as well as our elected officials, I think will go a long way to helping move things along and improve the community engagement. So I'm in strong support of SB 150, and I do hope that you pass this on. Mahalo.

Thank you, and thank you for your volunteerism as well. Jamie Simek on Zoom.

Not on zoom, chair.

Okay. In support; members, we've had 39 communications in support, one opposition, and one comments. Anyone else wants to speak on to SB 150? Hearing none, we'll continue--okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Aloha, again.

Hello.

And your name again?

Yes. Kimmer Horsen. I'm in strong support of this measure, SB 150, because she said to have somebody outside of the military giving guidance and a lot of the consensus from the Hawaiian Kingdom and kia'i is to evict the military. Their leases are up, yeah, so this would help that, and as she said, it would be nice to have, you know, the United States, whoever from the state level, also fund somebody to help clean up so that we have transparency and we have funding for this to properly be expedited because it is, it is a serious issue.

Also, one water table has already been--the kahukahi has already been contaminated, so if it goes to the Honolulu aquifer, you know, it could just spread and just get worse, so really important measure.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 150? Hearing none. Let's continue on to SB 315. Let's hear, relating to feral pigs. And this creates an expedited permitting process to authorize the destruction or control of feral pigs on privately owned land. If the feral pigs have caused or are likely to cause substantial damage to agriculture or agricultural crops, indigenous plants or wildlife, or pose a threat to human health and Safety. DLNR.

We submitted written testimony offering comments on this bill. However, I just want to point out that we have existing regulations that provide an expedited process to remove feral animals through our wildlife control permit system.

And just to say that we've had some communications from others in the community also is that, on private land and those who wish to hire somebody to come, that's their own kuleana and have the opportunity to hire and have somebody come in and catch their pigs like they do on our... We have farms and we got fruit farms and the pigs love our fruits. So we hire our friends to come and take care of them. Brian Miyamoto. Thanks, Brian.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. Brian Miyamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our testimony in support. However, we like to change our position based on DLNR's testimony. Again, we applaud any effort to control feral pigs. They're damaging, as you said, Chair, to farms, to ranches, to environment, to our fragile ecosystem.

But we don't want to make it any more difficult for our landowners or provide additional burden or unnecessary regulations. So again, in light of DLNR's testimony that existing regulations already exist, we'd like to pull our testimony in support and feel this bill may be unnecessary.

Thank you so much. Abraham Antonio on Zoom. Okay. Aloha. Is that you, Abraham?

Yeah, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and the rest of the Committees. I just like to say I support my opposition testimony as well as DLNR's opposition and their testimony. The only thing I would like to add, which you kind of touched already, Chair, was you know, the landowners of agriculture properties should talk to hunters, not poachers, and make sure they screen the people that they add onto their properties. Yeah. And you know, our local DOFAW office in Hilo, they have a trapper's list.

I'm not too sure if anybody any other DOFAW offices throughout the state have trappers list. But the property owners, they just need to talk, talk to their hunters and talk to their trappers. And if DLNR and if the state Legislature could push a game management to provide game management, that would be sufficient enough because the lack of game management is what's really pushing the big numbers of our wild animal, game animals.

Abraham, are you in Hilo?

Yes.

Okay, go take care...

I used to be part of the... I used to be part of the Hawaii County Game Commission.

Go take care of the pigs I saw coming into Hilo Airport on Monday. There were a ton of them, those big black ones. I was afraid they would get into my car. Aloha. Thank you.

The state has my number. The state DOFAW office has my number, so they can give me a call.

Okay. Thanks, Abraham.

Thanks, Chair.

All right, anyone else wishes to speak to SB 315? Okay. Hearing none. Let's move on to invasive species, SB 548 relating to Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

It appropriates funds for the Native Resources and Fire Protection Program and Hawaii Invasive Species Council to assure the long term viability and continue to control and eradicate invasive species in the state. This is good, Bill. All right. David Smith, or DLNR.

DLNR, stands on its testimony in support of this bill.

Mahalo. Department of Health. Thank you so much. Department of Ag.

Thank you so much. Hawaii Invasive Species Council. Aloha, Chelsea.

Aloha. Chairs, Vice chairs, Members of the Committee. Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council, just wanted to add some information. Department of Land and Natural Resources solely administers the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. So we really.

Most of our funding goes out to enhancing agency mandates, filling gaps between agencies, and also supporting a lot of research for the development of tools and technology. As you can hear, a lot of the agencies that are present today have benefited from funding from the HYSC, so just want to highlight that. Mahalo for the opportunity.

Thank you for your work as well. Anyone else wishes to speak to this measure? Farm Bureau.

Thank you. Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau stands on its written testimony in support.

Okay. Christy Martin. Aloha. Good to see you.

Nice to see you as well.

Aloha. Chairs, Vice chairs, Members of the Committee. Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species, CGAPS. CGAPS is in strong support of this measure. One thing that Chelsea didn't mention is the collaborative nature of how funding for the Hawaii Invasive Species Council is allocated to these different projects.

Members from each of the agencies and the working groups participate in reviewing grants so that each of these agencies can say, you know, what their gap is or if it would be helpful for funding to go to a certain area. This way we can reduce overlap and really target where the money goes.

I think your dollar is well spent there. Mahalo.

Thank you. Thank you, Christy. Sierra Club. Okay. Mahalo. Outdoor Circle in support. And we do have a lot of support on this measure. 30 in support. No opposition. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 548? Okay, let's proceed then to SB 677 relating to a Climate Adaptation and Resilience Implementation Plan.

This requires OPSD to develop and publish a Hawaii Climate Adaptation and Resilience Implementation Plan and updates to the plan every five years thereafter. Okay, OPSD.

Aloha, Chairs. My name is Danielle Bass from the Office of Sustainable Development. We'd like to stand on our written testimony in strong support and request the Committees consider our two amendments.

Okay, thank you very much. Climate Change and Health Working Group. Elizabeth Keifer or Keefer.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Elizabeth Keifer. I'm an Internist. I'm on faculty at JABSOM and I'm here representing the Climate Change and Health Working Group, bringing the voice of healthcare to climate issues.

We stand on our written testimony in support of SB 677 and just want to highlight Section 2.4, which recommends land use, development, and infrastructure adaptations to protect community wellbeing. We would like to reiterate to the Committee that the climate crisis is a health crisis which shows up in our medical offices and the ERs.

Schools and buildings need to adapt to extreme heat. We've already seen teachers go to the ER because of heat illness. Wildfires, hurricanes, and flooding bring mortality, injuries, and morbidity from infrastructure failure and rising seas bring contaminants which cause infections in our patients.

We actually heard some of these concerns firsthand two weeks ago out in Waianae, where we conducted a climate and health listening session. We heard about a mom whose sons had extensive MRSA infection after swimming in Pokai Bay.

People were worried about how to get to the doctor or dialysis when Farrington Highway floods or if there was a fire, how to get their loved one who had dementia out in time. So, these infrastructure adaptations protect our families because the climate crisis is a health crisis. And we thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Doc. We've had testimonies received from Coalition Earth, Sierra Club, testifying, Public Health Association, American Flood Coalition, and several individuals. We've had support of seven. No opposition. Members, any questions to anyone else here? Otherwise, thank you as well. We'll proceed to, let's see, SB 739, relating to land exchange.

It allows the Governor to negotiate land exchanges to acquire lands that are suitable for long term diversified agricultural production in exchange for land for private affordable housing development. Requires report to the Legislature. One second. DLNR.

Okay, thank you. Wendy Gaty, ADC.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Wendy Gated at ADC. We stand in strong support with the expectation that farmers.

Okay, thank you, Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau stands on its written testimony in support.

Hollow Food and Policy Internship. Julian Kabu in support. Let's see. I have a question. Ian is not here. Oh, yeah, you're. You're still here. In your testimony, I believe you also mentioned some of the work that you already are doing. Yes. Okay, so with that said. And I think we'll call OPSD. Let's see.

Is this an OPSD bill or ADC, this land exchange? That's. Yeah. Okay, come on up, Ian and Wendy. Okay. There's some already in process. That DLNR and land exchange has already been in the process in. Am I correct?

Yes, yes. We are currently working in process of our project.

Okay, and then your projects are where?

East Kapolei. It's across. It's adjacent to the Keoni Rail station across from UH West Oahu. There's a parcel adjacent to that one parcel, Mauka of that and two parcels on the other side of Kuala Kai Parkway on the west. Right. Mauka of UH West Oahu across Farrington.

Okay. And the. Why you're bringing this up is because there's work already on the go and proceeding. So I'm just concerned that allowing, you know, this measure to move, that we certainly look at the properties of the potential land exchange, you know, to occur.

So I was wondering if they, you know, how we would work this out, because we shouldn't be interfering with the process that's already in place. And I'm not sure if the. If we should change language or whatever.

I don't want to give, you know, the opportunity, like, for the Governor to continue to do the work and find out that there's a process already in place of land exchanges, and then it happens where the Governor would stop the process.

Chair Wendy Gady, if I may weigh in, I don't believe this has anything to do with Act 90. I believe it has to do with maybe a landowner that has land that is farmland and the city may have, or the state may have land that's along the rail.

And so there would be a land exchange where the owner of the farmland would exchange that land for, you know, without the cash changing hands for something that's in an urban area. So basically, our housing would benefit and benefit. So you don't think we should.

And no language should be added to change. Okay. All right, thanks. We just want to make it clear that, you know, we stay away from those that DLNR already has been working on. Thank you. Any questions, Members? Okay, thank you as well.

Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 739? Hearing none. Let's move to SB 746, relating to invasive species. And this establishes an appropriate monies for a two year pilot program under DLNR that incentivize community members to collect and submit the coconut rhinoceros beetle and its larvae for compensation. All right, Department of Ag. Okay, thank you. Okay. Invasive Species Council, Chelsea.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Members of the Committee. Chelsea Arnott on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. We submitted comments on this measure. And since we're co-chaired by the Departments of Land and Natural Resources and Agriculture, we did refer to their comments and concerns that they submitted. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Okay. DLNR.

DLNR stands on its written comments highlighting the Department capacity impact that this program would have.

Okay. Thank you. Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Okay. Mahalo. Melissa Vomvoris. Okay. In support. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 746? Hearing none. Let's proceed to SB 10. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Senator Awa.

As we know, the coconut rhinoceros beetle has been wiping out not only our coconut trees, but we're finding them in ulu, in taro, in a lot of our agriculture. And it's, and you know, I saw this bill and I'm excited. I see bills and I'm like, gosh, I got such a headache every day coming in and having to vote no on so many bills. But this bill we're excited for because this community based bounty program to get rid of beetles is something that our community wants. We got people who want to do this.

And so to see the DLNR calling it a helpful educational tool is disappointing. And I don't know what you guys got to do to make it happen or what kind of resources you need, but all I see here is the money man in the Senate with a good idea on how to pass, you know, something that could help us and excuses on why we can't make it happen. So my recommendation to the departments would be community wants this. Can you guys make it happen?

It's not about making it happen. I think that could be done. It's the effectiveness part where our comments come into play. Whether it's actually the pilot program would actually reduce CRB.

If we're taking out thousands of CRB, how are we not reducing it? I know they reproduce at an astronomical rate, but we got nothing else right now. Unless you guys are coming out with the fungus. Are you guys coming out with biological control? Because every day we wait. We got it in Kahaluu now, and we didn't have it in Kahaluu six months ago.

So there's two questions there, biocontrol as well as the why wouldn't it work. Potential concerns that we have on its impact. So do you have status on biocontrol?

Sure, we absolutely support biocontrol. We think that's the place where we get.

For the record, just state your name again.

Excuse me. Thank you. Rob Hauff, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. We absolutely submit pushing forward with biocontrol. That's a top priority. That's what's going to manage this horrible pest in the long term. And we feel that, you know, resources should be prioritized for research. We're currently doing all we can to support UH and Department of Agriculture and pushing forward with biocontrol.

And then on the practical side, there are some issues with the pilot program and a bounty program specifically because of the fact that it's economic incentivization for people to do that. And you know, people will go out and collect, but there are trapping.

Yeah, sure. I mean frequently with bounty programs and invasive species there are unforeseen consequences and that's why they typically aren't successful. You know, one obvious problem I could see with trying to do this is creating currently we have traps around all of the islands for detecting CRB.

Those traps could easily be emptied by people wanting to get money for the, for the coconut rhinoceros beetles. So when you think about incentivizing people collecting, you have to think about, you know, different ways that they might go about getting those and they might even...

Gonna pause you real quick. Because we have all those traps. And correct me if I'm wrong, if somebody empties a trap, can't the trap catch more?

Correct, if the lure is replaced. But the traps are there for detection, and that's important for the University of Hawaii Department of Ag to know where there are breeding populations and to focus their efforts. So they're not necessarily, they're not effective in controlling the beetle species, but they're very necessary for monitoring. So we would lose that data if somebody were to come along and empty the trap for beetles and take them in for money. That's just one small example that occurs to me when I read the legislation.

We're not saying that it's not something that should be tried. That's what a pilot is for. What we're saying is don't get your hopes up maybe on this one methodology. It's multi-method effort.

We know it's multi. And sorry, Chair, it's taking a long time. We've been doing everything out there, but we need more help. So I would like the testimonies, you know, hopefully next time to be a little more supportive of especially community based programs that can reduce beetle. One last question. How close are we to biological control?

So there's been some recent activity at the University about getting the virus into a lab at UH for testing. So needs to be tested to see if it's effective for controlling the genotype of beetle that we have here and making sure that it doesn't impact any other related beetle species.

So the University of Hawaii is looking on getting permits to collect those other beetles. They can do the testing. There isn't a huge number of species they have to test. It's only a few. They're still working to get their USDA permit to bring the virus in, but it's looking a little bit more optimistic in being able to get that organism here and tested and researched.

You're working closely with the University as well just to keep up with what they're doing?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

The timeline. Timeline, roughly, if you have to throw something out.

Biocontrol is really tricky, and Department of Ag might be best because they are the regulatory agency that oversees the issuing of permits for biocontrol, and that's usually where the hang up is.

Thank you. Senator Richards.

Yeah, just question on that. I looked at this from a little different aspect. Yeah, having the bounty, but then you'll also have people looking harder, and you're talking about the monitoring. That's what I was interested in. I agree that you're not going to take care of it by taking depopulating, but then they're going to be looking harder and we may be able to get ahead of things because we're going to have more people looking harder for things. So what Senator Awa, said community driven.

But if they're looking harder then we may actually be able to get ahead. We're going to need the biological control to really knock it out. But that's why I was interested in it because I think we're going to get more information faster, which is going to help us make better decisions. Decisions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Okay. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB 746? Hearing... Yes. Can you come up please? Thank you.

My wife submitted testimony on this bill. Sorry, she can't be here. My name is Ron Tubbs.

Is your wife Melissa?

Mary. Mary Tubbs. Maybe it wasn't this bill. I live in Waimanalo back roads.

Your name again, please?

Ron Tubbs.

Thank you.

So Waimanalo back roads, we've got the same problem. It's devastating. It's just hit within the past few months. We've got people chopping down their trees. I've got tree trimmer friends next door that...

So you're supporting this measure?

Oh, yeah, definitely.

Thank you so much.

It's a big issue.

Thank you.

And a few comments that might be useful. So recently we hired a tree trimmer to get our two large, very large royal palms treated. So they injected, they drilled holes, they injected chemicals. 700 bucks for two trees. Okay. I was like, if this works, I've got a lot of neighbors that want to do this. So one of our neighbors is dumping a lot of green waste, a lot of tree trimming debris, so I believe that's where it came from. So we need to control that. We need to get some kind of way to effectively treat the tree trimming stuff that's going around.

And also the neighbors have a bug light, and they're coming into the bug light. Now, the bug light won't kill them, but it attracts them. So maybe there's a way to get a bug light type of trap that will, that will help. And then of course, you know, lures and stuff like that. So maybe some ideas for the state, you know.

We have Department of Ag here.

He's putting this all in his head for comments to his agency. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, anyone else wishes to speak to SB 747—746? Hearing none. Okay, we're almost there. SB 1074, relating to environmental impact statements. This allows a previously authorized or permitted activity or operations to continue operation while the appropriate agency determines whether the activity or operation is subject to or exempt from the EI Environmental Review Process when challenged. Okay. DLNR.

DLNR stands on its written testimony offering comments, as well as the testimony offered on Senate Bill 22 discussing this position.

Okay, thank you. Department of Ag. Okay. He just left. In support. OPSD.

Chair, it's Mary Alice Evans with OPSD and Tom Isen with our Environmental Review program. Because we support fisheries for Hawaii, we strongly prefer this bill over SB22.

We believe that this bill, with one amendment we're going to suggest is just technical, will protect those activities that have already had long historic permitting programs in place that manage the state's interests in their activities. So we're supporting this measure, and the technical amendment is in our testimony.

Okay. I was going to ask, with regards to the amendments, so exactly what you see with the amendments, and you've heard some of the discussions happening, is there anything else to add to the amendments?

Well, what I'd like to do is, because of this sensitive issue before us, I'd like to move this measure on Chair Two as well, because it goes on to Judiciary.

And I think this is the pretty important measure that we want to have Judiciary really look at it and knowing that we're not attorneys, that this would be the appropriate measure to move to Judiciary. So with that said, you're confident that the amendment that you sent over, you want to add to it or that'll be fine?

No, that will protect those activities that have. Can you talk into the MIC so everybody can hear you? Yeah. I think this measure will protect activities that have a long historic history of being permitted while any challenges to their environmental disclosure documents work their way through the courts.

Okay, Members, any questions? Senator McKelvey.

I'm just going to throw out here real quickly. Don't you think DLNR, the state should be doing the EISS for all the permit. Shouldn't the state, the DLNR, be doing. The permit, the EISS for all the permit holders? Even if we make this a law.

And there's a whole 343 conversation, I think needs to be had by the Legislature. All these bills dance around this fundamental question. Is the legislative intent of 343, is it still. That was the intent when it was established. Still being upheld today with all these applications by the court right across the place.

But shouldn't the state do the EISS for the permit holders?

Senator, you're asking for an opinion. Is that all right if I offer one? Yes. Okay.

I do think that a permitting activity, as opposed to the actual activity itself, can be subject to the 343, and that the permission proposing or accepting agency that is opposed to an applicant can do either an exemption, an EA, or an EIS at their determination that covers the entire permitting activity or program. Thank you, Jim.

Okay. You're happy with that? Okay. Any further Questions with regards to opsd. Thank you so much. Okay. George Garness, Sailing Ships. Okay. In support Earth Justice. Aloha again.

Aloha again. We did submit written testimony, so I will send that just for the record. Again, Kylie Wager Cruz from Earth Justice. I just wanted to highlight that in the context of a HIPAA lawsuit, it's generally the court's determination based on the facts of the situation, whether or not the activity can continue pending HIPAA view.

We are overall opposed to the bill because we think that it could have unintended consequences. Our understanding is that it's geared toward. The commercial boating operations in West Maui. In a particular place. But there are all sorts of other active permanent activities that could be affected by this.

And then just to answer Senator McKelvey's question, the state can do EISS on a programmatic level and it has before in the context of fish aggregation.

Thank you. Thank you. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club.

Again, Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. We are in opposition. Opposition to this measure is drafted. It goes, you know, this measure goes well beyond, you know, just the bowlers and Kanapali or fishers, like, it's like anything that doesn't involve buildings could, you know, be permitted and allowed while as is pending.

I just want to, you know, make one thing clear. There's no deadlines for eiss, right? The only deadlines is the applicant wants action to happen.

So for East Maui, for example, it took 18 years for an EIS to be completed and the DLNR did nothing to require the applicant in that case to move forward with the process, but instead just rubber stamp their stream diversion permits.

So we have like 18 years of loss, unaccountable for losses to stream life to watershed health, estuary health, limu beds, communities, families unable to retain their lands, and Kupuna who left this realm because just waiting for, just to know what the impacts were of these massive stream divisions.

And that's just one example of the kind of practices that would be legitimized through this Bill as written. I did want to also note that there are pathways forward under existing law, under 343. Kylie mentioned programmatic EISs.

I'm wondering why or whether DLNR and the AGS have started the environmental assessment process or even looking at categorical exemptions for immediate relief for some of the small, smaller impact permits like the catamarans. And so for Kanapali, they should have been working on that when the lawsuit was filed, just as a backstop.

So we're not left with leaving these people Hanging. So I would say we are opposed this measure. Happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time.

I'm just curious, you did say there have been permits or previous permitting that took 18 years?

Yeah. So in 2003 circuit action, Baldwin wanted to get a long term lease for stream diversions from East Maui. A court said no, you have to go through environment review, do an environmental assessment. They didn't even start the process till 2017.

I think even though we're telling DLNR, just get them instead of rubber snapping their permit, just conditions, say get this started, give us benchmarks, didn't even start 2017. And that I think might have been 16 or 18, but they didn't finish until 2021.

And so there's a lot of harm that occurred that we didn't even even able to assess during that time because there's no deadlines.

So we're saying that it was the agency that didn't start the process on the eis.

Yeah. Well, so applicant actions, when there's someone applying, then usually they're responsible. But to comply with the 343, DLNR had opportunities to make them comply, especially since they're letting them continually divert water. But they didn't take advantage of the opportunity.

All right. Because I remember there are some bills that in the past or recent as well, that we wanted to put time limits on. And it seems like every time we ask that you complete an EIS within whether it's three or four years or less or whatever, it seems like it's always opposed.

So that's interesting to hear, but I'm glad, hopefully that we're not in that position as we speak in 2025. Thanks, Wayne. Okay, Captain Andy sailing on Zoom. Oh, in person. Okay, who's gonna speak then too? Okay. Aloha. Hi, is that you?

Yes, this is me.

Thank you very much.

All right, Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Tony Coscia and I'm coming in from the island of Kauai. For the past 16 years, I've been a full time mariner here, crew member, captain and operations manager for Captain Andy Sailing Adventures.

Just a little bit brief story about us and thank you so much for your time today. If you've never come out with an industry Member or you've never come out, maybe with us, you could have missed. The hundreds of children that come out. On our tour every single year.

From elementary, high school classrooms, from all over the island of Kauai. We bring these children out, we inspire the youth. Some may look at our industry as. Just for entertainment, but really couldn't be. Any further from the truth.

Tony, you're in support, are you?

Yes, I'm in support.

I do need to limit our testimonies, folks, because we have this room for the next 10 minutes, and if we don't proceed and finish our agenda, most of these bills are going to die because tomorrow is deadline. But we appreciate it and we're. Yeah, we thank you for your support.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate you as well. Okay, for those of you on Zoom, I'm going to cut this off. We did receive your testimonies from Daniel, Antoinette, Isaac, inga and Cher O'Brien. And this. For this measure, there was 66 in support and opposition, 43 Members. Sorry about. I'm going to have to cut this off.

We did receive your testimonies, but we need to get our work done and we got three more measures on, so we. Thank you, folks. I'm sorry. And I see someone there, but what's your name?

Thank you. My name is Bianca Isaki. I'll be very brief. I oppose this measure and I do want to raise that. There are several cases outstanding. I'm a solo practitioner attorney. There's one, for instance, on Kauai that. We have a revocable permit. And we won at one level of the court where they said that there.

Should have been better environmental review. But if you pass this bill, it's. Going to defang all of the community's efforts. It's about a Syngenta permit that's been. Going on for a long time with lots of impacts. But there will be no motivation for.

The applicant to finish out the environmental review, because like Wayne said, there's no deadlines for an eis. And in the meantime, they're just going to keep doing what they're doing, and that will be. It'll essentially mean what they won is not worth much. So you're in support of the measure, then? No, very much against it.

Very much against it. You're against this measure? Yes. Okay.

I'm sorry, but those on Zoom as well, we need to move on. But as I mentioned, they are. We did receive your. Your testimonies, Members. We got to move on as well. Thank you so much.

We'll move on to SB 1267, relating to climate change, and this transfers the Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission from the DLNR to OPSD. Okay. DLNR.

Okay.

All right, thanks so much.

Our written submission—it was late. Essentially just offering comments in support.

Okay.

Yeah. That's it.

Oh, thank, thank you so much. Okay. Mary Alice, OPSD. Okay. Thank you so much. Let's see. 1267.

Oh, I'm missing my—okay. All right. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB 1267 on climate change? Hearing none. Okay. Mr. Senator Gabbard, your show for the last two.

On SB 1085, relating to the Department of Ag. Appropriates funds to Department of Ag for the preparation of an environmental impact statement to drill non-potable water wells on individual parcels at Panaewa Agricultural Park and Panaewa Farm lots. First up is Farm to Bag. Thank you. Also, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee's. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony in support. We are just requesting an amendment to clarify that this is a pilot program, limited to Panaewa Ag Park and Panaewa Farm Lot.

So, not the entire portfolio of DOA's Ag Parks and so, unlimited—so it's going to focus on just those two areas and two parcels per lot, or per one for the Ag Park and one for the Panaewa Farm Lots, which is operated by DOA and DHHL. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Brian. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committee. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands stands on its written testimony in support with the suggested amendment. Oriana Leao. I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else? Members, any questions? Moving on. SB 1086 relating to irrigation authorizes the Director of Finance to issue General obligation bonds and appropriates funds to finance capital improvement projects for irrigation systems. We have arm in your bag. Thank you. Wendy Gated from adc.

Thank you. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Wendy Gady with ADC. We strongly support this measure. We are asking for the ADC systems to also be included in the GO bond and very specific CIP. And in addition to that, I know it's hard to understand for people that they think that irrigation is an AG issue.

It is not. Irrigation is a health issue, people. Irrigation is a fire insurance issue and it's a business insurance. It's about rural businesses. We're here for any comments or questions.

Thank you.

Hawaii Farm Bureau. Right.

Thank you. Chair the Hawaii Farm Bureau down on it written testimony and support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chairs and Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Whalen and I represent the Kunia Village for the Workers of the Whiteholey Ditch system. I thought I sent my testimony in. I'll I guess give it to the clerks if you didn't receive it, but basically we're in strong support.

My testimony was specifically on White Holy Ditch, but we're in strong support of all the irrigation systems and bonds for that. Thank you.

I've been seeing your wife. Your name is TV. Yes. Yes. Long time.

Good to see you.

Good to see you. Stay active.

Anyone else evers? Any questions? Okay. Chair. Okay.

No, we got the. Oh, yeah, we're done. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Plenty of time. All right. Okay. We got time to look at these measures as well.

Okay. All right.

Yeah. 1074. No. Yeah. I'd like to move this because I thought the other one is because they were saying the language is a little different on 1074, so let's see if they feel. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

All right. Okay IT, we're not going to go into recess. We're going to go into making decisions. Chairs have confirmed. We will start. Start with decision making with a Joint Committee on Water and Land and the Committee on Agriculture and Environment. On Today's agenda, Wednesday, February 12th, we'll proceed with SB22 relating to fisheries.

Chair's recommendation is to Defer this measure. SB150, relating to Red Hill. We'd like to certainly pass this measure. We'll just pass it with amendments just defecting the date to January 1, 2050 on Red Hill.

Before we take that one, I also defer as well as on 22.

Oh, sorry. Sorry about that, Chair. Okay, then. SB150. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments just effecting the date to January 1, 2050. Any discussions? Okay. Hearing none. For the Committee on Water and Land, Chair's recommendation to move this measure. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes Aye.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB150 with amendments. [Roll Call] Madam Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Same recommendation for AEN. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

On Senate Bill 150. [Roll Call] Chair, four in favor. Motion adopted. Thank you, Members.