House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Water and Land. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the Chair. To my left is Rachele Lamosao, the Vice Chair. Today is Thursday, February 6, 2025. It's 9:00 a.m., 9:04 a.m. we're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. I need to go through my little spiel here.

So in order for us to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two minute time limit per testifier. This is not a hard time, but once you hit two minutes, I'm going to ask you to wrap up your testimony because this is a morning hearing.

We have floor session at 12, so understand if we don't get through our floor session, all the bills on the agenda today will die. So please be aware, please be courteous to the next person. And I guess that also goes to Members, not drag on questionings forever.

Number three, if you're on Zoom, keep your, keep yourself muted video off while you are waiting. And after your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function will only chat with our technical staff over here so we don't get to see it. If you're unexpectedly disconnected while zooming, you may attempt to rejoin.

But if time allows, we will allow you to continue. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event, event of a network failure, it may become necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. Decision making.

In that case, we will post an appropriate notice. Avoid any trademarks, especially when you're Zooming or copyright materials. And with that said, we are moving on. Okay, first up, we have HB347 relating to goats. We have on here DLNR with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ryan Kanaka'ole, First Deputy, Department of Land and Natural Resources. DLNR stands on its comments. And we're here. We have folks from the Division of Forestry and Wildlife to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have county GMAC in opposition. Do we have anybody? Do we have anybody? That's all the people that I have registered to testify in person. Is there anybody here wishing to testify? Seeing None. Anybody on Zoom? First up you have. Layton. Clayton. Sorry, Clayton. Oh, Clayton Kubo. Okay.

Clayton Kubo, Waimea, Kauai. I am in total opposition of this. This is not game management. Game management throughout the state should be with bag limits. Not just a free for all kill all. That's not a good thing. Mahalo nui. For you guys, time, please consider deferring this bill. Aloha.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Abraham. You're up.

Morning, Chair and Vice Chair, the rest of the Committee. My name is Abraham Antonio. I also oppose this bill. This is very rare that you see the Department and local hunters and people. Getting together and actually supporting each other. This bill needs to be deferred.

There is a amended rule change that happened in Hawaii county and it should. Be see what the study is from. That first before making any rule changes. So I support my opposition in my. Testimony and also the DLNR and other written testimonies. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody here wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're moving on.

Sorry, Chair, I have a question. Sorry, real quick question. DLNR, do you adjust your bag limits in different areas depending on the population?

You do?

Yes.

I believe so. We do. And our adaptive management rules also allow that by game management unit as well.

Great, thank you.

Okay, go ahead. I apologize for being late. And so you may have already addressed this, but when these goats are killed, do they have to take the goat and process it for food or do they just leave the carcass wherever it's shot?

So my understanding of this bill is it amends bag limits for our recreational hunting program. And so typically, you know, good best practice is that the hunter takes out their catch. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1278. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Department stands on its testimony and support.

Okay, that is all the people that we have registered to testify. We have about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 individuals in support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify here? Seeing none. Nobody on zoom. Oh, there is? Okay. What's their name? Ben. Ben, you're up.

Good morning, Chair. I'm actually here to testify on HB 144.

Oh, sorry, okay. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 144, relating to Mauna Kea. First up, we have Mauna Kea Stewardship Oversight Authority in support. Okay, go ahead.

Aloha Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Noe Noe Wong-Wilson, first Vice Chair of Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority. Apologies from our chair, who is out of country at the moment. I stand on our testimony that we have submitted for you. I'm here to answer any questions if the Committee has any. And we'll be right here. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have OIP, Office of Informational Practices, with comments. Nope, not here. Next we have-- Is there anybody-- Is there anybody else wishing to testify here in the room? Go ahead. You can stand up. Please stand up and state your name.

Aloha mai kākou. My name is Kimmer Nahonu Horsen Big Horse. I oppose this bill, strongly oppose this bill, HB 144, because there should be no secret meetings or exclusion of public oversight of Mauna Kea.

The addition of two more authorities possibly meeting without public transparency, allows for potential immoral and unethical decision-making under the guise of confidentiality or secrecy. Mauna Kea stands tall over any central water aquifer for Big Island, it has endemic species, burial grounds, sacred lake Waiau.

It is the location of the creation story for the Hawaiian Kingdom, the people. Any decision made concerning Mauna Volcanics to go through the guidance of the endpoint of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Royal Order of Kamehameha, for instance, so holds cultural and religious significance. Do not pass this bill.

It only serves to further divide and cause misinformation concerning Mauna Kea stewardship. Please keep in mind the purpose of the Sunshine Law is to remain transparent with public trust. Violations of the Sunshine Law are considered misdemeanors and are punishable by penalties. Stop this bill from passing. It will cause further division, friction, conflict and legal violations, possible legal action in both the United States domestic and Hawaiian Kingdom law.

I just want to remind everybody that this proposed telescope, also that's being proposed there, it will have mercury in the lenses and bring a lot of pollution up there.

And that's something that even though it might bring money and this and that, we really need to think about these water tables and preserving our freshwater resources here in the islands. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in person? Seeing none, we're moving on to zoom. First up, we have Ben.

Hi. Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Ben Creps. I'm with the Public First Law Center. You have our written testimony in opposition. You know, the Sunshine Law requirements exist to ensure that the public can observe and engage in the process of decision-making. So it's the process that's important here.

But this bill cuts the public out of the process entirely. OIP's written testimony is spot on. So they say this bill would leave the authority effectively exempt from the Sunshine Law for the three remaining years of its transition period.

While the authority's members would be precluded from voting or committing to vote outside a meeting, the decision-making meeting could simply be a formal adoption of decisions that have already been made or, excuse me, already been fully hashed out in private. And so that's exactly what the problem is.

And that's not a recipe for overcoming decades of mistrust. Please defer this measure or narrow it significantly. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Bianca.

Good morning. Bianca Isaki from KAHEA, the Hawaiian Environmental Alliance. We're a nonprofit in Honolulu. We're opposing HB 144. We did file written comments on this. And just briefly, our points are, like the last testifier, public first. The point is to be able to see the deliberative process.

Like OIP also pointed out, you can't just have like an already fully hashed out decision in private and then just have a formal vote. This frustrates the entire point of having transparency. This bill is not narrowly tailored.

The authority's testimony is that they need to meet outside of Sunshine meetings to learn and understand complexities involving involved in transferring governing protocols from the university to the authority. And about also about operational formation challenges. But this bill doesn't just exempt certain topics. It exempts not just technical briefings, it exempts them entirely.

And the answer to this would be if they don't have enough time, enlarge the transition period beyond 2028. That's the solution. They said they need this because they need more time. Let them have more time. Finally, this is just poor precedent. There's many other decision making bodies with complex tasks composed of people with very different viewpoints.

It's not just the authority. And so just to under this bill, what you're prioritizing is trust engagement between the authority members. But there's thousands of other people that have stakes in this and behind-the-scenes handshake deals amongst friends, that's what is proscribed by the Sunshine Law. And these authority members, they might serve for only three terms.

So if you resolve their disputes in private, that doesn't really fix any issues and the public will be left out of the decision. So thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify.

Healani is also--

Oh, you're on Zoom. Okay, thank you.

Thank you Rep. Aloha to the Water and Land Committee. I appreciate you folks and all your hard work. My name is Healani Sonoda-Pale. I'm speaking on behalf of Ka Lāhui Hawaii in opposition to House Bill 144.

I also want to acknowledge and honor the work of those who have stood for the Mauna for decades in protection, some of our citizens, Kealoha Pisciotta, Paul Neves, Uncle Hank Fergerstrom and Uncle Ku Ching and the many thousands who gathered at Mauna Kea over the past 10 years.

The reasoning for this measure is the inability to discuss operational formation, challenges and solutions that is needed to achieve the transition within the five year period. And I agree, Ka Lāhui Hawaii agrees with KAHEA. You know, this may be not-- this is not the correct route.

I think they should just amend the act to allow for more transition time. That might be a better route for them to address the issues. And then the act, this bill actually prevents meaningful public participation and could facilitate vote trading prior to public meetings at which the authority makes formal decisions.

And I also want to point out that observing the process is critical to trusting the result. So the process is just as important as the result. As a community advocate and Ka Lāhui's stance has always been for transparency. And also I want to also point out that there is no need to suspend the Sunshine Law.

There is already existing laws that provide a robust toolkit that enables the authority to conduct a business effectively, like HRS 195H-9, HRS 92-2.5, HRS 92-3.1, HRS 92-4. So there are like, there's laws in place that allow, you know, a way for the authority to conduct business effectively within the law and that would not violate Sunshine Law. Mahola nui. Thank you guys.

Thank you very much. Sorry Healani, we didn't see you in the room, so I thought you weren't here. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you Chair. For Dr. Wong-Wilson, thank you so much for your service on this body. I know you've been working-- Can you give us an example of what some of the-- what the Sunshine Law prohibits you from? How is it stalling you in real, if you can give some real situations?

Sure. Well, for one, we have, there is an assembly of some of the best minds in our lāhui and in Hawaii on this authority.

And we are in the position right now where we are a startup agency, as you know, and although we have been operating for a bit over a year, we cannot have the three of us have a conversation about strategic planning, you know, about the best practices, how we move from where we are now into better toward the goals of our authority, which is to create a new management plan for Mauna Kea and particularly for the area, in fact, only for the areas we're responsible for.

So that is one of the things that needs to be clarified, which is the summit area only and the visitor center and then the road in between.

Can I-- A follow up question. Thank you. Thank you for that. So when I served on the Board of Education, we were also under the Sunshine Law, we actually scheduled six hour meetings so that we can have free flow discussions to address, you know, detailed strategic plans issues in front of the public.

And so I wonder if you're being misadvised by your Attorney General regarding that you can't-- Are you being told you can't do that? You can't have six hour long strategic planning meetings?

No, that was not the question about six hour meetings. It was more just trying to be able to have, for example, three of us to meet with our Attorney General. And we were told we couldn't do that because that would violate Sunshine Law.

So perhaps it's a very strict interpretation of Sunshine that might be one of the issues. But nevertheless, that's the condition we're working under. And so we're very clear that the only way this is going to be successful is for our community to be very involved in what we're doing, right. I mean, that's essential.

And so when we have meetings, for example, if anyone observes our public meetings, I think we are as liberal as we could possibly be to allow conversation and engagement all the way through our meeting and still maintain the rules that we're supposedly working under.

So when we're asked a question in this forum and it is an agenda, we're not allowed to answer it when we're-- That's an example, but that's, you know, but that-- I think the hard part is we have such an enormous task and the task of transferring all of the functions that the university now governs to our authority is so intricate that only to two of us can be in a conversation with the university at any time.

And so how do we make sure everybody is involved or more people are involved in even understanding that. So in order for us, for example, most recently, we're trying to get ourselves a vision statement and-- Anyway, a vision statement and, you know, some process where we can work together normally in a situation we can get everybody and talk. And we could only do it under one condition and that's for Governor to be with us.

Thank you, Dr. Wong-Wilson. I hope we can speak offline. I'd love to give you strategies on how to agendize so that you can have this discussion with the university and all the members and also how to word things on the agenda so that it's broad enough that public can have a conversation with the authority members.

Finally, the last question, Chair, if I may, is you worked really hard to put this body together. Imagine if you weren't appointed to this body, and then you saw this body trying to meet without Sunshine. How would you feel about that?

How would I feel about that?

If you worked hard to get this body created and it wants to meet without you?

Well, for one, I think I have to see who's on the authority and trust that we have enough representation from our Kea and for people that we are trusting in setting up the organization. That's our task, not so much deciding who gets leases or not. Those decisions absolutely have to be within sunshine. We understand that.

But if you come to our meetings, we are in that area where we're really just talking about how we stand up our authority, how we put the operation in place for us to even operate. So there has to be some trust in government.

And I realize that that is challenging, but there's just no other way for us to even get there. And I don't think extending us six months or a year achieves that process if we're not able to work together as-- and in consensus, which is a different format I think that we're trying to achieve.

Thank you so much, Doctor.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. When you meet, if you were to meet as you are requesting, would you be able to invite the public without any interruption or interaction, but it would be an open discussion so that there is transparency and you could get your business done.

And then at a subsequent meeting, if the public has questions regarding the process, then you could engage those question and answers and have dialogue with the public so that everyone feels like they are not shut out of the process. Could that be done?

That might be a possibility if we were going to have the whole board together for a particular discussion. But I'm talking about real time, day-to-day operations where you have more than two people who might assemble.

And that might not be practical because then we'd have to agendize, make it public, you know, make it known to the public that that discussion will take place.

I think a better option is to require that if we do have an assembly for any reason that we will report on it and let people know that we have done this.

Chair, can I have a follow up? What if you-- I can see that being very problematic as far as scheduling ongoing basis. What if you were to like video it and then YouTube it out so that the public has access to see what is being discussed?

Because I think that's the main concern that I'm hearing is the public wants to be part of this transparent process and not shut out.

Again, I think reporting on it would be a preferred method. The other thing which, if I might just offer is I know as a Kea, that the negotiation of leases is really a critical issue and I would not want to have that done without being in the open.

So one offer might be to particularly state that that is not allowed, that any negotiation of leases that are critical to the public being involved in that is not covered by this exemption from Sunshine.

I prefer right now just our, for example, discussions about where we're going to rent our office, that kind of administrative stuff is what we're having a hard time getting more than two people in a room to talk about, right.

And as I said, we have some of the best minds in the room that are experts in planning and-- strategic planning, and so, but we can't meet.

I can't have Neil Hannahs and Rich Matsuda and I sit together and talk about, you know, what is our critical path to get from point A to the end of our transition period and how do we get to those points and make sure that we have met the letter of the law--

I think I understand your point of view and I offered some suggestions which I'm sure doesn't exhaust all the possibilities. But thank you for your testimony and thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions?

I have one question for Public First Law Center and one question for Dr. Wilson, but I don't want to like expand my one question. Can I ask two questions, Chair?

You can ask more than one.

Well, I don't want to be scolded.

But when you ask five or six, then it poses a problem.

I'm trying to be a good member. Dr. Wilson. So we've heard that lengthening the time might be one way to improve this, but is there any reasons why lengthening-- any specific reasons why lengthening the time does not address this concern that you're raising to have an exemption from Sunshine?

I think it doesn't resolve the issue of having more than two of us in a room to be able to problem solve. And problem solving is what we're talking about. Not-- You know, like I say, I get there are certain things, they're so sensitive, they should not be exempt, like particularly renegotiation of leases. But that's not where we are in our process.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. That was my one question.

Doctor, you can ask your second question for the day.

No, no, no, no, no. We can't have that kind of-- Well, the second question is for Mr. Creps, I think, of Public First Center Law?

Hi, good morning.

So you said that there should be more guardrails and we've heard the alternative of having an extended period. You, in your testimony, say that there's already existing law providing a toolkit so that we don't need to suspend the Sunshine Law. But, you know, I think we just heard the previous testifiers, you know, explaining the challenges.

So is there another guardrail that you might be willing to put forward for this bill that does in fact allow them and give them some ability to have these kinds of meetings where I do not think there are, you know, improper things being discussed?

Sure. I mean, a couple points there. It's a little difficult for me to formulate, I guess, some proposed narrowing without more specifics from the authority. You know, as far as operational concerns, the authority does have an executive director. He's a very experienced executive director.

And so that's, you know, partly his role to be handling a lot of the day-to-day stuff. For the permitted interaction groups, that's, you know, three members can get together. They can meet with their attorney. So the law has solutions. It's already there. It's about, you know, working within the existing law.

And I would just point out that this phase, these operational issues are, you know, just as important. You're laying the foundation here for the work that is to come. So, it is important to have the public involved.

Okay, thank you. Just one follow up comment. You know, Mr. Creps, you offered in your verbal testimony that there could be guardrails offered. So I just think that, you know, this is an important enough conversation. If this bill moves forward, you should provide more detailed--

And I appreciate the question. And we actually, we have engaged in conversations with the chair of the authority to try to help them come up with a more narrow solution. We have offered them a proposal, but, you know, they didn't go with that proposal. And they've brought back the same bill from last year with just a different preamble.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Representative Iwamoto?

Thank you very much, Chair. Just a follow up. So three of the authority members want to meet with, let's say, UH, you can have a meeting. Have you been told that you can't have a meeting, posted a public meeting where only three of you and the university show up?

I not been directly told that, but it is my understanding that we cannot have a meeting with three of us.

I'm sorry, just to clarify, you have a publicly noticed meeting and only three authority members show up to the meeting, a regular meeting, you can still conduct business. You may not have enough to have a vote because you may need quorum, right, but you can still meet. So it's not stop--

The Sunshine Law isn't stopping you from meeting. You can still post a meeting, have the meeting with all the people you want to have a meeting with.

Right, I understand that, but it takes a month to post it and then I guess a week. I'm sorry. You post it, there has to be a period where it's made public and then you have to make arrangements for community to be present or to be, you know, to be visible.

So it doesn't allow us to just, in a normal situation, just call together people and say, we've, you know, here is some information we're trying to understand and can we just call a meeting? So I understand what you're saying.

That's part of what we're up against, a time frame and a process and then the challenge that we're faced with in just trying to get the work done and meet all of the things that we're being asked to meet in the law. So, you know, it's just makes it very difficult.

Good question. Thank you very much. Next. Any other questions?

Thank you, Dr. Wilson. But actually this question is not for you. This question is for, Healani. Still on?

Yes. Hi. Aloha.

Hi. You know, in your testimony you mentioned your concerns about talking about the astronomy says based on some of the comments made on social media by one of the members.

You know, if we added language in the bill that the authority, when under this exemption, they're not allowed to talk about any of these bills, leases, would you be supportive of that?

Oh, yeah. It's the. The point about not having sunshine is that we don't know what they're going to talk about.

So we can make all the rules that we want about what their guidelines are about what they can and cannot talk about, but because if sunshine doesn't apply, then they can really just talk about anything and we won't know. And I think- And I think that's the concern here. And thank you, Representative Belatti, for that.

I appreciate that suggestion. I think that was Representative Belatti that suggested it. But I'm sorry, Bella, wait, sorry. Did I get the right name?

Yes, Belatti.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry. And so I wanted to just. I think for many of us who have so much invested in making sure the Mauna is protected, we need to slow and mindful is the pace we should be moving forward in terms of the future of Mauna Kea.

So much has happened, so many people, thousands of people have come out in support of its protection. And everyone has given up their time and their money and their aloha for this mountain. It is just the Pono thing to do, to move forward with- in the- in- in the sunlight.

And even if it's moving slowly, I don't know what the rush is, you know. Doing things in a Pono way. And I think for us, I think the people who stood for Mauna Kea, the thousands who came out, they deserved that much at the very least.

And it is concerning that the mayor did come out so publicly and say those things about supporting the new plan for TMT. And I'm not even sure about where some of the other members of the authority stand on the 30 meter telescope.

And of course you guys are understanding that Kalahui Hawaii's position is we are not supportive of building the TMT on Mauna Kea. So slow and a slow process, I think is really what's needed here.

It's better to be open and transparent than rush something that will undermine the- the community and all that the community has given and done for the protection of that mountain. Thank you.

Healani. You know. According to Dr. Wong Wilson, they're not at that point yet. They're still working on administrative things, setting up processes to eventually get there. And this is kind of like more operational things, day to day things that they are having difficulties doing. And you know, you do have some of your Kia'i on- on this authority.

And so what would it take for you to, to understand that they need to get to that point of just setting things up so that when it comes to these larger discussions that you know, everyone should be a part of, like what would it take for you guys to entrust that during this transition period that this is what the authority would like for this time?

I think the precedent, I think the precedence is being set here is- is what's dangerous. You know, so when every new authority or organization is being set up, do they now- will they now ask to be, you know, exempt from the Sunshine Law? We- What's happening, and I hate to bring this up, but what's happening in D.C. is a total crumbling of our democracy and total crumbling of the democratic process.

And here in Hawaii, because we are a Democratic Party led state, we, you know, have these cornerst- cornerstones of democracy still intact. And one of those cornerstones is the Sunshine Law.

If we take that away from the people, from the public, then that is going to be- this is going to be a dangerous precedent set. And I'm not just talking about the Mauna too at this point. It's like for everything then they could look back and go, oh well, this was done for the authority.

We can do it here or there. And then every decision being made for the public will be made in the dark. And the whole part of having these discussions in the dark without the public watching that whole, the whole reasoning is that we don't know what they're talking about.

And I don't, I mean, of course there's 1, 2, you know, 3 people on there that I know for sure doesn't support the 30 meter telescope. I don't know what everyone else is thinking. And that's the whole point of having a public authority and having public discussions. You know, let's not let our, the democracy crumble here.

I mean, that's just my, I mean I'm talking now, you know, separate and apart from a Kalihi citizen. But as a, as a voter and a taxpayer, like we see what's happening in D.C. like there is no transparency, there's no democracy. Democracy is gone. Right?

And that's because it's being led by someone who doesn't believe in these principles of Sunshine Law, of, you know, of having these, you know, public discussions and upholding the rule of law, literally. So and I just think that that is a real concern.

This is going to have widespread ramifications if this is, this goes through not just for the Mauna, but for other areas where we're going to need transparency. Like issues on our water, on our- on the landfill. I mean, then when does it end?

And I'm- I'm sorry, I- I don't mean to get so passionate, but I do respect you folks and- and I do appreciate this discussion. Mahalo.

Oh, thank you, Healani. And now I'm, I have questions for Dr. Wong-Wilson. Doctor, after hearing what Healani just mentioned, you know, can you talk about the makeup of the group and the representation and who they- they represent in the community? You don't have to talk about everybody.

Yes, thank you.

Majority.

Let's see if I have it memorized.

Yeah.

We of course have our government seats and that includes the Department of Land Natural Resources that Deputy Ryan Kanaka'ole sits on, represents. In that seat we have the Mayor's Office and Mayor Alameda has just joined us. Previously the Director of Research and Development was the representative. We have, I'm thinking, yeah.

The other government officials, we have the University of Hawaii Board of Regents, that's Ben Kubo representing them. We have the University of Hawaii Chancellor who has a non voting seat.

And as a member of the working group, I believe the reason that that Chancellor was placed on there as a non voting member is because the Chancellor position is the- is the final authority according to the University processes. So. And that person holds a lot of information. Oh, thank you. Yeah.

Okay. We also have Pomay Bertleman who is a lineal, represents lineal descendants. That's a prescribed public seat. We have Neil Hammis who represents the expert in land and water issues, a public position. We have Paul Horner, I believe, who represents the business sector and he's a, he's also a public person.

We have Kalehua Krug who represents the education sector. We have Lanakila Manguel who is a cultural practitioner. Specifically sitting in that seat. We have Rich Masuda who is present, who represents the astronomy facilities. And that position is selected by the astronomy facilities and then approved by the Governor.

We have John Komeji who is from a list selected by or offered by the President of the Senate and myself, who was offered by the Speaker, the former Speaker. And. Is that it? I think that's it, yeah. That, that is all of us. So it's a pretty fair representation of community.

And then the ex officio positions of the board.

Okay. And before this group was created, was there any similar group created in the past?

No.

And- And this is so important. And Chair. Sorry, if I may, because this is the first time in a long time that we have representation from the community to talk about the direction of the Mauno.

And, you know, I want to respect our communities in regards to where this bill is intending, but I think also in respect to what is happening right now and the precedence also of this group to have more cultural and more host communities be involved in these discussions, when it comes to places in Hawaii, we have to be mindful of that.

And if you can talk about, you know, why it's important to have two or more folks in your group settings to be exempted from the Sunshine Law because, like, who is meeting with who and why, it's important to also have, you know, the community as a part of that discussion as well. Yeah.

Yes. So. Well, let me consider an example. For example, we do have, and we have used, extensively used, the permitted interaction group process in order to assemble less than a majority of our members so that we can work on different things.

I cannot even tell you how many of these permitted interaction groups we have created, but they're numerous. So we've had to create them for every little thing. They're created in a very specific and very narrow purview.

So it's not like we can create a PIG and then we can just bring four or five people together, and then we can work on a broad swath of issues. We have to be very specific. In order to do that it takes time because of the process that we go through.

So I understand that, and there's a reason for that. I understand that as well. But one of the differences, or a couple differences that I think Monarch Authority is set up more differently than any other government agency that I know of, is the fact that we do have so many community seats.

They're specific in their design and- and the people who qualify for those seats just to bring expertise to the table. So it's not just five or six community members who may be there for other reasons other than their particular expertise, but they're there specific.

And under the current conditions, it's very hard for us to use that expertise in a way that's timely for us to move the work that we're doing forward. And we do have an excellent Executive Director, John Defries, who is here, but we are not fully staffed. It's taking us a while to get ourselves fully staffed.

So our board is very much a working board.

John Komeji and I and Rich, not all together at the same time, but we work a lot more than I think most boards and authority members would contribute just to keep our wheels moving, just to even get us to the place where we are today so that we can operate.

And one of the things that's real critical for us is we have to set up new ways that we can communicate new to government process, new ways that we can be more open and yet make sure that everything we do has public input, and- and there are processes for that.

So we have already begun those open meetings that we try to do quarterly, and I believe we're planning one more coming up soon. And even then, when we did agendize that meeting in a broad way, we were advised that, you know, we have to be careful.

We may be- We may not be in compliance of sunshine because we're not being specific in our agenda, you know. And so we're sort of struggling with that process.

But that- that is the other thing, is we're by design, in our statute and in our rules, we want to operate on a consensus basis so that we're not just going to a meeting and then waiting for everybody to vote and then see how the vote comes out. Consensus means people have to be educated.

And that's really where we're trying to achieve is, is to make sure all of our members have the kind of information that they can understand. Process consensus building, which is relationship building, open to the public as much as we can, but be able to move us forward. And that's all we're asking for.

And we're asking for this in- in the best way possible to try and make sure that we achieve the goals, I think, of the community, to make sure that there is community involvement in everything we do. We're setting up committees, and we need to set up our advisory groups to do that.

But we want to take advantage of the fact that we have talent on our- on our authority that we need to be able to draw from, to participate in as fully as possible in our processes. And again, we're really interested trying to stand up the authority, going through the operational phase and nowhere near where we're into the substance.

For example, the access issues on the Mauna, you know, limiting tourism, making sure other sciences are equally as important as astronomy, and particularly, I know the most sensitive one of all is renegotiation of leases. More than just that, determining how many telescopes are going to remain on the mount and what's the footprint going to look like.

All those things are part of the charge for the authority. And it's just been a struggle to even get to that point, we're not anywhere near there.

Thank you so much, Dr. Wong-Wilson. And yeah, we're not. You folks aren't really there yet.

Not at all.

It's just kind of setting up the processes of which that could potentially happen. Hopefully by--

I think, to allow it to happen.

To allow it to happen. Yes.

Yeah. So I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. So I've, you know, as I mentioned, I served on a couple official boards, commissions that had Sunshine Law. And then I came to the Legislature, which is no Sunshine Law. So you know, this is, you know, and we heard Healani speak about. Oh, when the mayor came out in support of TMT.

So you know, the communities watching your commission, they're counting how many people on the- on- on the authority support TMT, how many want to protect the Mount.

You know, this is happening in the communities minds and I think what they're afraid of is that you and the people who feel protective of the Mauna are in the minority. And this, when you release Sunshine Law, I want you to know this is what happens here in the legislature with no Sunshine Law.

The majority meets without the minority. They collude and say, this is how we're going to vote on this. You're allowing that to happen.

And this is what I'm afraid of, is that- as much as you want to meet with the people you respect, the people who may have ulterior motive, other interests, other priorities in mind, could also use exemption to meet. Right. And meet and decide on how they're going to do the steps to get the result they want.

Because at the end of the day, as much as you want consensus, it's going to be vote. So this is why I feel like the community's really anxious about this.

Yeah. Our exemption does request or require that- that voting and discussion about voting would not take place. That- That is what we hope is the guardrail against that.

I have a question, Chair, if I can get a word in. Thank you, Dr. Wong. Listen for the work that you do on behalf of our Lohui. You know, I- I have a real problem with this.

I had a real problem with this bill or what the measure that came before us last session as well, because I feel like the, the entire purpose of the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority is to increase the public trust and confidence, especially with such a sensitive cultural issue and topic such as what we're doing with Mauna Kea.

And so the whole point is to increase transparency. Right. And doing this exemption would decrease that. So that's. I kind of want you to respond to that just generally. And then also, I- I feel like the second part of my question is, do you think that we should just get rid of the Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority?

I feel like it's a hindrance to the work that you guys were doing prior to this in your own personal, individual, you know, capacities and your advocacy. And so- And this kind of reminds me of when we had the Grammy Award for the Best Hawaiian Music Album 2005-2011.

We had a specific award for Hawaiian music, and because of the controversy, the Grammys got rid of it. And I kind of feel like that typically is the trend with what happens in the Hawaiian community.

We- We have these- these allowances to have these good conversations with the Stewardship Authority, whatever, and then there becomes this controversy, right, and it starts to deplete the public trust, and then it goes away. Right. And so my whole thing is, do we even need the authority at this point?

And I don't want that to hinder the good work you guys were doing to begin with. So respond to all of that, if you may. Thank you.

Okay, let me see if I can. First of all, in the absence of the authority, then the university would continue to manage the way that it has. And I'm not.

I don't want to cast aspersions on the university at this point because they have done made some changes during this period, but that was the root of it from the beginning. And so if I believe that if the authority were to be removed, then everything goes back to the university, and that was not acceptable to us.

That's what we fought against. And that's why the bold move was made by the legislature two years ago to establish this authority, which, number one, would create numerous seats.

And although, yes, it's one less than the majority for the community, it doesn't mean that that's an assumption that all the community's going to vote one way and then the government officials are going to vote a different way. So that is- that is one thing. Secondly, this authority is founded on different foundation.

And the foundation in the leg- in the act is a cultural foundation which doesn't exist with other authorities. It provides for us to use consensus as decision making when we get to that point.

And- And it also allows for this authority to be the final arbiter on the decisions that are made about these particular sensitive spaces on Mauna Kea that we have seen in history, that no matter how long we sit on the Mauna or how much noise we make, that decisions have never gone our way, either at this legislative body or in the courts or in the contested case hearings that took place.

And you know, we on the KAI side can poke holes in every process along the way. This is the first time that we actually have people who are committed to this--

I- I unders- I understand. If I may interject. I just worry that the exemption will taint the good work that you guys are trying to do and the end result. And so I just, I don't want it to be where you guys are doing such great work and then you, you know, in a practical manner you- you're able to move forward.

But at the end of the day, the Lahui is- is maybe not behind you guys. Right. And so that will create further controversy down the road. And that's- that's my only concern. Thank you so much. Thank you. Chair.

Members, any other questions? No? Seeing none. Okay, we're moving on. Next up, we have—Jesus, I lost my—okay, next up we have HB 211, relating to stream maintenance. First up, we have DLNR, with comments.

The Department offered comments. I just want to kind of highlight our concerns. So, on Page 2 of the Bill, at Lines 15 through 17, the way that we read it is there is a mandate, regardless of jurisdiction, to the Department, to engage in, after the 24-hour period, to go in and do the cleanups.

If the intent of this Bill was actually to—or is to—provide that authority to go on to the property, we would request that the mandate language be changed to just authorization language. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have two individuals, Denise and Kim. Are they on Zoom? Nope. Nobody on Zoom. Is there anybody wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 781, relating to Waiahole water systems. First up, we have ADC, in support.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Ulupono in support. Okay, thank you. Next we have Hawaii Agriculture Research Center in support. Nope, not here. Next we have Kunia Village Title Holding Corporation in support. Okay, thank you. Next we have Bear in support. Okay, thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. And we have anybody else?

That's all the people that are registered to testify in person. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? See none. Are there anybody on zoom? Nope. See none. Members, are there any questions? Okay, we are moving on. Next up we have HB 510 relating to the declaration of Water shortage and Emergency. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ciara Kahahane, Deputy Director for the Commission on Water Resource Management on behalf of DLNR. I'll try to be respectful of everyone's time this morning, but there are a few things about the Bill that I wanted to highlight.

Our testimony included a table which I think might be helpful to understand how this would change the current process under 174C-62.

So at present, the Commission does have the ability to declare water shortages inside of designated water management areas and to formulate a plan for water shortages, including a reasonable system of permit classification and criteria for determining when a shortage exists.

At present, the declaration of a water shortage would be done by administrative rule, but all of the prep work, setting the classifications and the criteria would be done by Commission action. So that's at a Sunshine Meeting with 6 days notice to the public.

What we're proposing is to, for that prep work, the formulation of the water shortage plan, the criteria and the classification, to actually do that by rulemaking under Chapter 91, the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act, which would provide at least 30 days notice to the public so that they could participate in formulating the criteria for the shortage and the classification of permits.

And that would lay the groundwork and allow more community involvement and stakeholder consultation beforehand so that the Commission could then, at a sunshine meeting by Commission action, actually apply those criteria and that classification to the permits. So that's what we're proposing.

And those changes were intended specifically to allow for more public involvement, more notice, and also those rules would be made public and posted online for anyone to review at any time. At present, the Commission issues stream diversion works permits and well permits outside of water management areas as well as within them.

So this would not create another permitting system. It would just allow us to work within the existing permitting system for stream diversions and for wells. Finally, I would just note that we do intend to provide mail and email notifications to any permittees that are affected by a water shortage declaration.

So we would be providing affirmative notice to these folks, as well as actually posting on our website and in the newspaper. I'll just close with the note that 174C-62G at present allows the Commission to impose restrictions outside of designated water management areas.

So what we're trying to do with these amendments is actually place more guardrails on the ability to do that. So allowing us to have a water shortage plan in place outside of water management areas would actually provide a framework for us to go, okay, is this shortage plan adequate to address these issues?

If not, then the broader emergency powers would kick in. So with that, I'm here to address any other questions that you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. Aloha kavae.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have Ernie Lau, Board of Water Supply.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Kathy Mitchell with the Board of Water Supply. We're in strong support of House Bill 510 and we're in accord with comments made by the previous Speaker. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Farm Bureau in opposition.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. My apologies. I'm a little out of breath trying to manage three hearings at once. We respectfully oppose this measure. We believe this Bill circumvents. You do have a written testimony which I'm just highlighting.

We believe the Bill circumvents existing water management error framework allowing CWRM to impose restrictions without clear criteria or legislative oversight. Our key concerns are uncertain water access for farmers. CWRM could arbitrarily restrict irrigation water, jeopardizing crop production, livestock and food security. Right. We're trying to double food production.

We're trying to support our institutional purchasing through farm to state and farm to school. We need some certainties as far as agriculture is concerned. Secondly, the lack of agriculture prioritization emergency orders could disrupt farms with no guarantee that agriculture is protected as an essential use. Three, burdensome and duplicative regulation.

We believe this Bill creates a second unnecessary permitting system beyond the WMA and increases bureaucracy and compliance costs. And four, climate consideration. Without stability, frequent unpredictable decorations could hinder long term farm investments in sustainable water management. We believe the existing W and A system provides a structured and fair process for managing water resources.

This Bill introduces uncertainty, extra regulations and risk for Hawaii's farms and ranchers. With this in mind, we ask the Committee to hold this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have Sierra Cluba and Sierra Club of Hawaii in support. That's all the people that we have registered to, or that's all the testimony that we received. Is there anybody else wishing to test testify? Nobody on zoom. Anybody in the room seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Kim Coco.

Thank you. Excuse me, this is for Ciara. So I noticed that there's language being added to the statute that it's not just regulating water flow but also chloride levels yes. Can you tell me about chloride?

Well, I'll tell you what I know about chloride. So for the most part, the Commission leaves water quality issues to the Department of Health. The one exception is chlorides. So we're a water quantity agency.

And because the freshwater lens sits on top of salt water in the aquifer, one of the first signs that an aquifer is being overpumped is an increase in chlorides, which is just a fancy word for salt.

So when we see higher levels of salt coming out of wells, that's a sign that there could be upconing in the aquifer, just because of the distribution of wells all pulling from the same source. Or that freshwater lens could be depleted and the transition zone between fresh and salt water is rising.

Okay, thank you so much.

And so that's why we would use chlorides as an indicator of when there might be insufficient water available in the aquifer.

Any other questions?

Question for DLNR. I was wondering, could you respond to the Farm Bureau's concerns?

Yeah. So I tried to touch on some of the, some of the points made in the Farm Bureau's testimony, which I reviewed this morning. So, you know, this would not create another permitting system. It would work within the existing permitting system that we have. We would, as part of the permit classification, yes, Ag would be considered.

And I can't tell you right now where Ag would fall in the permit classification. But at present, that system of classification is done by Commission action instead of administrative rulemaking. So there's actually less notice and opportunity for the public to participate than if we had done it through a rulemaking process.

I think one of the key concerns is the application of this measure outside of water management areas. And to that I would just say I do understand the concern because primarily, you know, this authority is exercised in water management areas under the existing statute.

However, designation of a water management area is not always the best fit to address a water shortage that is temporary. We normally don't undesignate water management areas once they've been designated.

We can, but in the case of a temporary shortage, such as a drought, designation of a water management area would kick in very substantial permitting processes and the need to apply for permits for both existing and new uses on, on the system.

So designation to me, outside of water, is not the best fit for addressing a temporary shortage. You know, we could look into designating areas when there is a water shortage and de-designating them.

But in my opinion, this system of permit classification and formulation of a shortage plan is actually a better way to address some of these shortages. Yes, so if there's anything else that you'd like to ask about. I tried to address their testimony.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. See none. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB778 relating to integrated land use. First up we have Office of Planning and Sustainability, Sustainable Sustainable Development and Support.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee on Water and Land. My name is Danielle Bass, State Sustainability Coordinator from the Office of Plan Sustainable Development. We strongly support this bill. This is a bill that we've introduced since 2023 in our testimony.

Essentially what we're saying is Hawaii has limited land resources of only 4 million acres total. Right. And we are encountering competing uses of land in terms of agriculture, clean renewable energy needs as well as affordable housing needs on the same 1.9 million acres appropriated in the agricultural district.

Currently, our Land Use Commission and OPSD's Land Use Division deal with special use permits. We use deal GBAs.

In terms of these requests and what the Legislature has and the State of Hawaii has enacted over the past decade so is 20, or excuse me, 22 sustainability and climate and affordable housing mandates that needed to be achieved between 2022 and 2050. Those are listed in our testimony.

So what we're seeking is essentially a study, a land use study. We believe that without strategic planning, the state risks not. Not fulfilling these multiple climate, sustainability and affordable affordable housing mandates. We believe that a comprehensive data driven study is critical to assess these needs and requirements in terms of our state's land use.

And currently, since we have introduced this bill for the last two years, this is the third year we've been in partnership with DBED. We've been running an informal pilot project limited just to Oahu to be begin this study. We're working with our partners, of course, under DBED's leadership. HSEO, HHFDC, ADC.

We also have CTAHR assisting us for this data sharing study. This is limited to the agricultural lands in the island of Oahu. And we do believe that funding and the necessary resources for staffing would assist us in this endeavor. And we can. If this Bill is passed, we can definitely expand this to be a statewide project.

So I'm available if you have any questions. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. And next up, we have Department of AG with comments.

Okay, next up, we have Hawaii Farm Bureau—Hawaii Farm Bureau, in support. Next, we have Hawaii Farmers Union. Are they on Zoom? Nope. And we have an individual in support, Julian Kiabu. Are they here? Nope. Seeing none? Nope. I want to start off—thank you, Representative Belatti for the subpoena.

For the what?

The subpoena of Office of Planning.

No, no questions.

Okay, no questions. Okay, Members, any other questions? Okay, we're moving on. Next up, we have HB 1503. That was an inside joke, by the way, because you guys weren't. Nobody was here last time and you guys weren't here when I a testimony. You testified on. You submitted testimony and Della wanted to ask.

Representative Bawati wanted to ask Office of Planning and nobody was here.

Okay, so we. We joked and we said we're going to subpoena you next time.

Okay. Okay. Next up, moving on. Without a subpoena, we have HB 1503 relating to disaster recoveries data. First up, we have Office of Planning, the comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Okay, next up, we have Attorney General at comments right here or here.

Hi, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Allison Kato, Deputy Attorney General. On behalf of the Department of the Attorney General, we submitted written comments on one issue. The Hawaii state constitution requires the state to legislate over its lands or lands under its control through General laws as opposed to special laws.

This bill seeks to legislate over a specific district and may be subject to a potential challenge legislation. To avoid any issue, we recommend the revision that was proposed by the State Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in their testimony, which is both the general law and I believe addresses the intent of this bill.

I'm available for any comments, any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have DLNR in support.

We stand on our testimony.

Okay. Next we have Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. We have numerous testifiers or testimonies in support. Probably 50 or so. Is there anybody else wishing to testify in person? Seeing None. Is there anybody on Zoom? One person on Zoom. Who is it? Jeff on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair. Just stand by my written testimony. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the testifiers that we have. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any other questions? Are there any questions? Kim Coco, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. This is for the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Or. Yeah. Okay.

Aloha, Representative.

Aloha. Thank you so much. So let me understand this Allowing. I mean, I imagine there are some historic buildings in Lahaina that were burned down. These buildings may have been originally constructed before 6E protections were in place. So would this allow them to forego looking for EV? You know, Bones.

And, you know, like I'm imagining, they may have to dig deeper, set deeper footings or deeper foundations moving forward. As they rebuild, there may be more ground disturbed. Will this reclassification allow them to. To forego this kind of safeguard of EV?

Thank you for the question, Representative. Chair, with your allowance, I'd like to call up our Deputy Attorney General for the Office of Appliance Sustainable Development to answer your question. Representative. The reason being is my colleagues from the Coastal Zone Management Program actually drafted this testimony.

And unfortunately, they're not here today since they're dealing with federal funding issues to the CZM program. So I'd like to defer to our Deputy AG. Thank you. Ella, I think you need to subpoena.

Please put on the record that the Chair is encouraging me to be even more aggressive for the public's notice. Thank you, Chair.

Hi. Allison Kato, Deputy Attorney General. So this bill would only, I believe, exempt reconstruction from Chapter 205A, which has to do with coastal Zone management. So only from the special management area law, Pretty much.

So it wouldn't affect other laws that may be required to be followed. Okay.

Sorry. DLNR here. Looking at the bill, it doesn't impact 6E.

It does. Not at all. Okay. And there's no way it can be. Okay. Yeah, that's my understanding. There are some times where statutes refer to other statutes and they're broad, and then you don't realize that you're voting to give an exemption redemption to something. Anyway, that's it. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

I have a question. We're going to be hearing HB 1181, which is kind of similar. So I'm kind of wondering, is it one or the other or both going to be in conflict with each other? Okay, I got the answer. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on. Next up, we have HB 512, relating to ocean—Ocean Recreation Management. Hold on, I got to get through all the support testimony. First up, we have DLNR, in support.

DLNR stands on its written testimony, in support, and we're here to answer any questions.

Okay, next we have Maui Hotel Lodging Association, in opposition. We have Ocean Tourism Coalition, in opposition.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Denver Coon. I'm here on behalf of the Ocean Tourism Coalition, and we're opposed to this Bill, one, because I think a lot of the objectives of the Bill can be achieved through Chapter 91 rulemaking already. So, I don't think a Bill is necessary.

But the other issue is the Kaanapali operators on Maui are facing the potential that their permits are going to be subject to non-renewal, which is a big issue. These are permits that were issued decades ago. So, I'm a little hesitant to support something that creates a statewide ORMA.

You know, basically, I think the state should first, you know, protect its current permits, figure out a way to protect those current permits before they, you know, try to regulate more activities. Now, one way you could protect those activities is you could add language to the Bill that would exempt current permits from Chapter 343.

So, you could add that to the Bill, kind of keep the status quo. But again, given the vague language, we are opposed to this measure at the moment.

Okay, thank you very much.

We have probably another 20 or 30 individuals and organizations in opposition. One person in support, by Kai Nishiki. Is Kai Nishiki here? No. Is anybody else wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom? Nobody on Zoom. Members, are there any questions? Go ahead. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. This is for DLNR.

I'll bring up our Voting Administrator.

Okay, great. So, right now, I mean, is it kind of the wild, wild west on the, on the coastal waters? I mean, are there regulations in place? Are you allowed to manage activities and, you know, overuse of a certain area?

Good question. Meghan Statts, Voting Administrator. We do have ORMA areas, right, so, there's nine designated ORMA areas, Ocean Recreation Management Areas, and that's where we're able to kind of deal with user conflicts, where we've got public access, commercial activity. We also have non-designated areas.

And those non designated areas, we really don't have any kind of major regulations in those areas. And we've been asked by community members to try to address, you know, user conflicts, right? Where you have fish spawning, for example, in a particular area, where you have a commercial operator that wants to operate. So, we do issue commercial use permits, statewide.

What we're trying to do is be consistent with having everything around the islands all be considered an Ocean Recreation Management Area, which better helps us to kind of manage and address a lot of those concerns.

Got it. So, for instance, a constituent, if I—a constituent brought up a concern to me regarding Kewala Basin, apparently there's some commercial boats going out, with like over 50 tourists who want to fish the reef right in front of the basin, and, you know, not for food, they're just fishing and—a lot of dead fish.

So, like, would you be the office, like if they brought this complaint to you?

Yes. Yeah. They could come to our office if there was some concerns about the amount of commercial activity, the type of commercial activity. Did they have a permit? Are they doing any kind of overfishing? Is that something that our aquatics division would need to.

Yeah, so they can get ahold of our office, or our enforcement office.

So, currently, if you do realize, hey, this area is being overfished, like when we first let you do this, it was, you had a few people, now, it's like a lot of people and several times a day, you know, so. And are you able then to revoke a permit or put more regulations around that permit?

We are not able to revoke a permit, unless there is some sort of violation that's taking place. But I think what we can do is, what we're looking at, is possibly doing some capacity studies in certain areas in these ORMAs, to try to get a handle on some of the commercial activity that's been taking place.

And we can also do things within Chapter 91 Process, with our administrative rules.

Got it. So, if this didn't pass, I'm just saying, if this didn't pass, would you still be able to do that?

We would have to shift in, go into Chapter 91 and go through the rulemaking process, which I think I talked about the last time, which is a year to two years long.

And if you pass this Bill, your response would be how much shorter?

We would still have to go through Chapter 91, but we would have it codified in the statute itself that there are set ORMA—designated ORMA areas—within the state.

So, once you go through the Rule 91 Process and you set the parameters, then, you can go in and make changes more quickly?

We could definitely make changes. We still have to go through the process. It's just having the ORMAs available, to address a lot of those concerns that we're not able to address now. There still is a process, and we still have to go through that.

But I think what we're trying to do is we don't have a mechanism to help address the user conflicts that some of these places, like in Maui or Kauai, that says, hey, this is where the commercial operators are going. It's a non-designated area and we don't have the ability to say yes or no.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Good Question. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for you. So, what I heard is, there's only eight designated ORMA areas?

Nine around the state.

Nine. So, that means outside of these nine, there's a problem. So, with this Bill, it'll give you unlimited regulatory control, is that correct?

It would give us more, more authority to kind of address a lot of the issues that we're, that we're having to deal with.

Want to add anything, Ryan?

It would extend the authority statewide up to that 3,000 foot from shoreline. So, yeah, it would be statewide.

Right. So, right now, you have no control outside of those nine ORMA areas?

So, we do have some control, but it's considered what is considered a non-designated Ocean Recreation Management Area. So, there are some restrictions that are there, but we're limited in what we're able to restrict.

Okay, I see. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Members, any other questions? Go ahead.

Can you indicate what kind of abuses, potential abuses, that you're being limited to restrict now, that this would allow you to regulate?

I mean we do have—I'm trying to think off the top of my head. I mean we do have issues with, you know, commercial operators in zones where there may be some fish spawning, snorkel—people snorkeling on areas on the reef. There's just kind of a variety of impacts to like marine species and different things like that.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Seeing none. Oh, go ahead. Representative Shimizu.

I wanted to speak to the person behind. I'm sorry, your, your name?

Denver.

Okay. I, I heard you mention a permit concern and I, I heard DLNR say that they're unable to revoke permits without due cause or are just reason. So, is that sufficient for you to protect your current permits?

No. So, unfortunately, the way that this would, this, the litigation is going, now—this I can go long history—but the short of it is, in this case, they're saying environmental review should have applied back when, let's say this kind of ORMA was created back in the 80s, right, so we're going back in time almost 40 years.

So, because environmental review wasn't done back then, right, those permits would basically be almost issued illegally, until the environmental review process is complete. Now, that's either you can do an exemption determination, you can do an EA, or an EIS. Both of those take time.

And if those permits, you know, if you're obviously out of business during that time, you know, you don't know if that—if you ever come back. We, we did see that, you know, Super Ferry went through an EIS and didn't come back. Aquatic Fish Collectors, they went through the process. They still don't have their permits back.

It's been seven and a half years. So, you know, I just have my concerns that current permits are not protected. So, let's, you know, focus on that bigger issue right now.

Sorry, Chair, can I—follow up question? So, DLNR, you heard what he said. Is that a true fact that—he's saying his current permit is almost null and void because of the EIS concern? And his concern of EIS requirement now is going to be timely and I'm sure costly.

And is, is that the intent, to revoke these permits because of that?

So, the—what the testifier was referring to is the litigation that's currently regarding our Ka'anapali commercial use permits—or commercial use permits that are issued for activities within Ka'anapali waters—and that litigation is still, you know, we're still in the, at the circuit court level.

I think the status was—the order was to stop or enjoin the Department from continuing renewal and issuance of new commercial use permits in the waters. However, we've asked the court to reconsider that order, because of there'd be like, you know, impacts to these permit holders. I think that's where we are right now.

Right. And the Lawsuit pertains to six permittees in Ka'anapali ocean waters, but it could have overreaching effects on all commercial use permits, whether that's through boating, whether that's through aquatic resources, through DOFA. There's overreaching possibilities with this particular outcome, with, with the judge, and that's something that we don't know. But we're not talking about specifically revoking somebody's—somebody's permit.

There's a process to go through that and, and the courts have to go through their determination of whether or not they're going to require Chapter 343 for these particular permits.

So, so, are you the plaintiff and they're the defendant in this litigation?

We are actually the defendant. The plaintiff, we're not—they're not a plaintiff either. Yeah, or a defendant. They represent the industry.

Okay. I'm trying to determine if this, this Law is going to affect those people that are in the current litigation, but I guess those are separate issues. This Bill is separate from that litigation outcome. So, it's not connected?

I—trying to think of how to answer that. I think anybody that holds a commercial use permit, based upon this litigation, depending on the outcome, may have a requirement to do Chapter 343. It depends on the outcome of the court case.

But that goes beyond the designation of an ORMA.

Correct.

Because—that goes beyond the issue that we're here, like designating a statewide ORMA. Even if there was a designation of the statewide ORMA, that litigation would still continue, and the criteria—or the plaintiff's arguments—would be that—an EIS or EA would still have to be done, regardless of whether there's an ORMA designation or not.

Because the plaintiffs are concerned with the activity itself, not the regulatory structure.

Okay. Thank you very much for the explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 86 relating to DLNR. First up, we have OHA in support. Next we have DLNR in support. Next we have. What is this? Kua Aina ulu u mano in support. Sorry if I mispronounced.

It's okay. Yeah. Or KUA. KUA for short. I'm Olan Leimomi Fisher, advocate with KUA and thank you guys so much for hearing this bill. We strongly support. And the Makai Watch program has been around for over 20 years. And as of right now, there's- there's 21 different communities across Hawaii that participate.

And funding for this position was actually provided by the legislature back in 2019 through DOCARE's budget. And then Covid hit and there was a hiring freeze. So it actually ended up lapsing and never being filled. But it runs on grants right now.

And we know, like with the current state of politics, grants and especially federal funding is so unstable right now. So please support this and thank you again for hearing it.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force in support. And we have a couple individuals in support. Hummer, Hawaii Farmers Union, Malama, Pua Kema- Pua Kea Waimea in support. Nobody on Zoom. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. We're moving on.

Next up, we have HB 1181, relating to coastal zone management. First up, we have Office of Planning with comments. They're no longer here. Next up, we have Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there anybody on Zoom? We have two people on Zoom.

First up is Gregory. Gregory, you're up.

Yes. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Gregory Pfost. I'm with County of Maui. I'm an Administrative Planning Officer in the Planning Department. Just wanted to indicate that we stand on our written testimony that was submitted by the mayor in support of this bill. And I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Okay, next up we have Jeff. Thank you. Jeff, you're up.

Morning, Chair. Stand by my written testimony in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. We have probably 20 other individuals with written testimony in support. Are there nobody else on Zoom? Nobody in the room? Members, any questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up we have HB 649, relating to small boat harbors. Hold on here. First up we have DLNR in support.

DLNR stands on its written testimony of offering support.

Okay. Next we have, Jesus, probably another 50 individuals in opposition. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Go ahead.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Denver Coon on behalf of the Ocean Tourism Coalition. I want to clarify my testimony, written testimony that I submitted. You know, some of the bill is actually, I do support that includes making sure that money goes from the basically from the commercial operators goes to infrastructure.

You know, the big reasons I'm opposed to it is that it increases the gross receipts percentage. So operators pay right now 3% of their gross receipts. This bill would change that to 5%. The big problem with that is just Maui operators right now are struggling.

Most operators if they're in business, particularly on the west side, are down more than 40%. It's a percentage-based fee. So as soon as the Maui operators do better, DLNR will do better, right? It'll increase as those revenues increase.

So I think just putting that extra-- it may not seem like a lot, but when you add in the GET, the county surcharge, the ocean stewardship fee, it adds up to quite a bit. And right now with how rent is on Maui after the fire, our employees are struggling.

And you know, anything off the top makes it harder for operators to give their employees those kind of living wages. I think the other issue is that DOBOR, at least from the numbers I've seen, I don't think they don't think there's a shortage in cash.

You know, in all the years, like 2020 at the end of the year, you know, it was $4.7 million in the special fund. 2021, 6.4, 2022 it was 26.9 million, '23 was 35.9 and '24: 38.5. You know, even after expenditures in 2024, it looks like there's still going to be $24.5 million left in the special fund.

So I think the issue is less about money coming in, a lot of times it's money going out. And I think a lot of times cash gets held up in the procurement process, which can be a lengthy, cumbersome process.

And so I think, you know, focusing more on that issue and how do we get the money that's currently in there out sooner to do these infrastructure projects. That's something we're happy to work on. So again, I think the bill, other than 2%, would support. It's just that 2% is a lot right now for those struggling businesses on Maui. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anybody else wishing to testify in the room? Seeing none. Members-- Nobody on Zoom. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. This is for this gentleman. So when like somebody's going to go on a fishing tour and it's advertised on the Internet for a hundred bucks, I would imagine the GET is not included in the 100 bucks.

And then when you're going to pay, as for all for a lot of tourists activities, when we see it as 100 and then we go to pay for it and then, oh, there's tax, oh, there's this additional 2%. Rarely, I don't know, I don't experience that a lot of people go, oh, they see the cost advertised and then they pay the fees and you just think, oh, that's part of it.

Do you know what I mean? It's just seen as an additional add-on. So it's not really the-- it's not really the operator who's taking it from their operating budget. It's going to be seen as a tax in the same way that a GET is seen as a tax.

That's true. And, but at a certain point, you know, taxes are so high that people don't book. I mean, they, they still get to the end of the line and they say, whoa, yeah, this was a $100 fishing tour.

Why is it $126, $130? And you know, as you increase taxes, if we could charge more, most operators would charge more if the market justified it. The problem is that when you, you know, you have these higher taxes that you have to pay. We're just less competitive in global markets. You can go a lot of places.

You can go to Japan right now and the yen is half the dollar and you can have these experiences for a really good price. And right now in Hawaii and again particularly Maui, things are really expensive. So it may not seem, oh, the tourists can just keep adding on.

But at a certain point that's actually just not the case. At a certain point, people go, you know what? That's too expensive. I'm going somewhere else.

So, yeah, I think there's, you know, people add fees, whether it's, you know, service fees through maybe software programs, they add, but even that might, you know, deter people from booking with you. So again, it doesn't seem like much, but to these operators, it's actually quite a bit.

Thank you very much. Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none. That is our last bill on our agenda. Yep, we will recess.

Welcome back, everybody. This is the Committee on Water and Land. We're back for decision-making.

First up, we have HB 347, Chair's recommendation or Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure, mainly because nobody really supports it. So moving on. HB- HB 1278, I defer to the Vice Chair.

So for HB 1278, I will be passing this with an HD-1 or as an HD-1, defecting the date to July 1st, I believe it was 3000.

Oh, okay. Any questions? Oh, and then we also will be including technical amendments to the- to the bill. Any questions? Alright. Seeing none. So we're voting on HB 1278. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll call] Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much, members. So for in case I or the Vice Chair forgets, for the whole agenda, we're going to be making tech amendments and defecting the date for all the bills to 7/1/3000. And next up we have HB 144 relating to monochale. I will defer to the Vice Chair.

I want to thank the members in this committee and then also the testifiers for such a robust discussion on this topic. I want to defer this measure to the end of Tuesday's agenda for decision making.

Just to kind of iron out some of the language and also wanting to hear a little bit more perspectives about the different issues regarding this measure. So I will be deferring it to Tuesday, February 11th at the 9am agenda. Any questions?

Moving on. Next up, we have HB 211 chair's recommendation is to pass this out with the HD-1, taking DLNR's changes, our recommendations, and what we will put also in DLNR's changes is that where it says each county shall dispose of--

Where it says each county shall dispose of, we will add each county or state may dispose of the items in the in the stream or discarded personal items and that is it. Any comments or concerns?

I'll be voting with reservations.

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

Members, we are voting on HB 211. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Ichiyama for the rest of the agenda or the decision making. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? For Representative Iwamoto with reservations. Anyone else with reservations? Seeing none. All other members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have HB 781 relating to Waihole water- water systems. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this unamended. It already has a defect date and I want to keep the amounts in the committee report. Any questions or concerns seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 781. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Oh, as is.

Thank you. Sorry. Unamended. We'll be passing this unamended. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? All members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have HB 510 relating to the declaration of water shortage and emergency. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with the HD-1 making technical amendments and defecting the date to 7/1/3000. I read the- Here, I'm going to state this. I read the comments of Hawaii Farm Bureau and other agriculture.

Other ag producers have contacted me and I share their concerns regarding this bill and the agriculture industry because I get it. If there's an emergency declaration and they have water and their water gets diverted, they lose their crops. But I need them to come out and testify seeing another ag producer in the back of the room.

So there's- I share their concerns. I- hopefully we can work through this bill. It has a long way to go but I'm going to pass this out with an HD-1 defecting the day to year 3000. I'm asking the ag guys as it moves along keep you need to testify on this. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 510. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? With reservations from Representative Morikawa, Representative Shimizu. Anyone else voting with reservations?

Yes, with reservations.

Anyone else? All other members vote aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB 778 relating to integrated land use. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. We're going to take the Hawaii Farm Bureau's amendments and we're going to make technical tech amendments and defect date to 7/1/3000. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

We are on HB 778. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations?

With reservations.

Reservations for Representative Shimizu. Anyone else? Anyone else? Okay, seeing none. All other members vote aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Oh, I just find found out that. Okay, wait. Got a recess. Okay, gaveling back in. The reason why we recessed is- Which bill number was that?

It was 144.

HB 144. We made a mistake on the time. We will reconsider the deferring it to time certain. It is next week Tuesday, February 11th at 10am. 10am. So that is a correction on HB 144. Okay, so moving on. Next up we have HB 1503 relating to disaster recovery. I would defer to the Vice Chair.

I will be deferring this measure because of the concerns noted by the AGs. And we will be using HB 1181 as the vehicle since they'll essentially have the same language. Any questions?

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have HB 512 relating to ocean recreational management. The chair's recommendation is to defer this measure based upon the overwhelming testimony in opposition. So next up, moving on. Next up we have HB 86 relating to DLNR.

Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD-1 defecting the date to 7/1/3000 and making tech amendments. That's it.

Members we're voting on HB 86. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? All members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Next up we have HB 1181 relating to coastal zone management. I would defer to the Vice Chair.

I stated earlier members we are going to be using this as the vehicle similar to HB 1503. We're going to include the amendments offered by OPSD for- for this mem- for this measure. Any questions? Seeing none.

Okay.

Recommendation we are voting on HB 1181. Recommendation is passed with an HD-1. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? All members vote aye. The recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have HB 4- HB 649 relating to small boat harbors. The Chair's recommendation, even though there's a whole bunch of opposition, there's Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD-1 defecting the date to 7/1/3000, making technical amendments.

We're going to zero out all the amounts, even the raise in that from 3 to 5%. We're going to zero that out and we're going to put everything into the committee report. Members, the reason why I'm doing this is because as we all know, our harbors are in very disrepair and we need to do it.

And although this is very unpopular, you can vote your conscience. So any questions or concerns.

With regards to the operators, I will be voting no.

Okay. Thank you very much, Representative Morikawa.

Thank you, Chair. I can see where this is very necessary because we have been spending a lot of money in trying to bring our small boat harbors up to par. I'm just very worried about the Maui's issue. So with that, I will be voting with reservations.

That's fine.

I'll be voting no on this measure. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, we're voting on HB 649. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments noting the noes from Representative Shimizu and Souza. And also anyone voting. Anyone's wanting to vote no? Okay. And also noting the reservations from Representative Morikawa. Anyone wanting to vote with reservations? Seeing none. All other members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Before we adjourn, I will recess.

Okay, we had our technical issue resolved. We are adjourned.