Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Hello, Mai Kakou and good afternoon.

Joining today's AEN Agriculture Environment Hearing. It's January 27, 2025 and we're convened here in room 224. And video conferencing, which includes the audio and video of remote participants that's being streamed live. YouTube.

In the unlikely event that this hearing is cut short, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Wednesday, January 29 at 1:01pm during AAN's time slot. And a public notice will be posted on the Legislature's website.

And because of our 90 minute time limit for hearings, there'll be a 2 minute time limit for all testifiers and we'll have a virtual countdown timer on the zoom screen. So we have 12 measures on today's 1pm agenda. So let's get started.

We're with SB 559, proposing an amendment to Article 1 of the Hawaii State Constitution to recognize and protect the inherent and inalienable right of all people to clean water and air, a healthful environment and climate, healthy native ecosystems and beaches.

Proposes a constitutional amendment to ensure that the inherent and inalienable right of the people, including future generations, to clean water and air, a healthful environment and climate, healthy native ecosystems and beaches shall be protected and shall not be infringed. And first up testifying is Reese Nakamura from the Attorney General's Office.

They're unavailable on Zoom.

He's here in person.

Actually, I'm. Good afternoon, Senator. I'm. My name is Lyle Leonard. I'm a Deputy Attorney General standing in for Reese. The Department submitted testimony with comments just with some concerns about the challenges that the proposed amendment may have for future legislatures as well as for departments enforcing environmental laws. So I'm available for comment or questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Al. Next is Leah Laramie from the Climate Commission.

Hello, Chair Gabbard. Vice Chair Richards, Leah Laramie with the Hawaii State Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. We stand on our testimony and support and available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Leah Sierra Kahakane in the Department of DLNR. They are in support. Hunter Haviland from Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you, Hunter. Ted Boland from the Climate Protectors Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chair Gabbard. Vice Chair Richards, Ted Bolan for the Climate Protectors Hawaii. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Climate Protectors of Hawaii are, excuse me, on strong support of this measure.

The Constitution currently has certainly has a strong environmental protection in it already, but it needs to have more and this constitutional amendment would enable the voters to decide what they want in their constitution.

And it's important at this time when we're facing climate change as a really strong threat to our islands in so many ways going forward that we include something about the healthful climate which is in this bill. So that's the main change I think that it makes. That's really important. And so that's why we give strong support.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Available for questions.

Thank you, Ted. Sherry Pollock from 350 Hawaii. There she is. Hey, Sherry, your sound,

Can you hear me?

Yes, now we can.

Okay. Well, my name is Sherry Pollack and I'm with 350 Hawaii. And I want to thank the Committee for hearing this very important measure today. I'll stand on my written testimony, but I do want to mention a couple things. First of all, I have to respectfully disagree with the Attorney General's Office and their assessment of this measure.

For one thing, I just have to think back at that moment, back when a Department made a decision to issue a permit to store jet fuel 100ft above our water aquifer.

And I strongly believe that if we had had a Green Amendment in place at that time and the Department would have considered the environment when making that decision, that we would not be in the water crisis we are in right now.

We need a Green Amendment to help our departments remember to consider the environment when making all their important decisions and we'll all be better off for it. So I think Ted really said it best. I don't think I could say it any better than him.

But I, I did want to emphasize that this measure is about helping to ensure that we have better government decision making and it will be a win win for all of us. So thank you so much for hearing this measure.

I think we all understand that it's important to have clean water, clean air to breathe, a healthy climate, ecosystem and all the other inalienable rights won't matter if we don't have those. So thank you so much for hearing this and, you know, much gratitude to you. Aloha.

Aloha. Thank you, Sherry. Next is Dave Mullinix from Greenpeace, Hawaii. Aloha.

Aloha. Can you hear me? Hear me?

Yes. Hi Dave.

Yes. Hi. Dave Moss, GreenPeace, Hawaii. Thank you Senator for hearing this very important legislation. Just quickly, AG's office expressed concern about the white Green Amendment might spur frivolous lawsuit. Such concerns are unsupported by the laws or the actual facts. There hasn't been any inappropriate litigation.

Unconstitutional environmental rights and states already enjoy Green Amendment protections Rather the lawsuit that been important and reasonable actually help protect the air, water, soil health and proper interpretation Environmental laws passed by those state governments green amount enforced in Pennsylvania, Montana, New York have been used by state regulatory agency attorney generals, Attorney generals and local government bodies to protect their own governmental authority and the ability to pursue environmental protection.

In fact, there is no litigation has been dismissed as frivolous because of a Green Amendment claim. Most of the Green Amendment protections have been but to help government officials and the courts interpret regulations that are already on books.

I think it's also important to note that, you know, we have a right to a gun, but we don't have environment and there's something wrong about that. I think that a safe clean environment is much more important than having a right to a gun.

So we really appreciate you hearing this legislation and we encourage you to pass it for the betterment of all in Hawaii. Mahalo.

Thank you, Dave. Next is Tanya Inezzian from the Chamber of Sustainable Commerce. Tanya here in support, Ruth Jordans from Zero Waste Kauai, in support. Ann Frederick from Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action, in support. By the way, there are 46 in support and zero opposed to this bill. So I keep saying support. So they're all in support.

Okay, just go through then. Helen Cox from a climate action Coalition. Chris Caulfield from Coalition Earth Aladiaduha from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party. Roberts Emery, co chair of the Green Party and also the following individuals. Tamara Hayden, Harvey Arkin. If I call your name and you're here and you'd like to testify, please step forward.

Michelle Nihipali, Jacob Awinick, Carolyn Azelski, Jordan Smith, Donna Fisher, Barbara Best, David Durazo, Ron Riley, Daniela S. Contrella, Carolyn Kunitake, Diane Ware, Ulani Naipo, Tom DeGrazia, Nicole Tergio Glau, Kenneth Peck, Keone Shizuma, Georgia Hoops, Jacqueline Ambrose, Kevin Fasenda, Ms. T. Victoria Anderson. Shannon Matson, John Boziak, Dylan Okihiro, Native Worm Mana Brodziak, Tori Kinoshita, Susan Gorman Chang.

John Kawamoto, Douglas Perrine, Nanea Lo. Anyone else wishing to provide lay testimony? Very none. Members, are there any questions?

I do have a question, but I don't know if anybody was here that would be able to answer.

So the Navajina case that was settled in the last few months relied on our constitutional provisions on protecting the environment.

Give it a try. Senator Rhodes.

Will this additional protection or this parallel protection maybe change the the kinds of lawsuits that can be brought against the state?

The AG is still here, right? AG's office.

State your name again, please. My name is Lyle, Deputy Attorney General. I would have to take that question back and think about it. I am not fully versed on the. All the aspects of that settlement agreement, but I will be in touch.

And I appreciate it because it's. Because it looked to me like the court pretty clearly relied on our. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this. It's my bill. But I am curious what the interplay between navajine and this would be. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Chhair.

And I have a question for you. So the goal of the Green Amendment is to ensure people's rights to clean air, water and the environment. So can you provide an example of how this would complicate environmental enforcement efforts? You had mentioned something about how your future challenges for. Right.

So the current right to a healthy environment defines the healthy environment with respect to laws of environmental quality. So if you have a water standard or an air standard, and I said, okay, this is a, you know, certain parts per billion of this pollutant is the. Is the limit, can't exceed that.

That would constitute a violation beyond that. So it creates sort of a framework for the existing law. Creates sort of a framework for what is a healthy environment, where this expands upon that without really setting a parameter. I think that's basically that. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Question.

Thank you. So if the measure is passed, what might happen if the state cannot meet the clean water and air requirement or for someone to contend that the state is not protecting the environment and our native ecosystem and beaches?

Yeah, so this, that is, as you pointed out, very broad language. So it would be subject to interpretation by the courts, and it may come out with novel interpretations that it's sort of speculative to consider all of the consequences, you know, going forward. But it is very broad, and that may be a state liability issue.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair.

All this is a constitutional law. I think my concern is, like you said, we have a. Anytime we mess with the Constitution, I get concerned. Conceptually, I agree with what's going on here. But then when we apply the Constitution, how is the interpretation going to go?

And does this potentially leave us open by opinion of what is clean air? And just take air, for instance, clean air or clean water, because we have it in statute what is theoretically clean air. But if it's a constitutional guarantee and someone doesn't believe that parts per billion is clean, that's where I start getting concerned.

Because conceptually, I agree, I think we. All agree with it. I'm just wondering how the application of law, and that's where you say you responded to Senator Rhodes on that one.

So the again, the existing right to a healthy environment, it does specify that a healthy environment is defined by laws of environmental quality. So I think that the existing constitution constitutional provision addresses that. So this would expand upon that in ways that maybe are unforeseeable.

Okay. All right. Thanks, Chair. Thank you.

So, Chair, since we're going down now. Sure. What if our current standards are, you know, we've learned things over the years that indicate that what we thought were acceptable levels of certain substances turned out to be really bad for you. So why. So it's sort of a two part question.

So why shouldn't we have a protection that actually protects us from it covers stuff that where we, where the Legislature didn't know really what the answer should be at that time. And then going along with that is isn't it just a fact question?

I mean, if you have 1 trillion parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, everybody would say, well, actually that would cause lots of other trouble. That's a bad example. I don't know. Hexavalent chromium is a nasty substance. If you had one part per trillion, I'm almost sure that would be fine.

But it would really be a fact question that the courts would just have to figure out, okay, what is clean in this regard for this particular substance? Isn't that just something courts do all the time?

You know, certainly I think that that could be, yeah. And it would be subject to, you know, future litigation. But maybe the more certain way to handle it would be standard by standard.

And so if, you know, there is a, say, you know, a particular pollutant, I'm not familiar with the one that you mentioned, but and it's, you know, a healthy standard over time would be more stringent. Perhaps it's better to look at that particular pollutant where the standard is.

Maybe it's in the role, maybe the role can be revised. Maybe, you know, I mean, and that might help to kind of, you know, limit it to that particular provision where the concern is.

Okay, impossible to predict what the concerns are going to be. But thanks, Chair. I know you have a long agenda, so I'll stop. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Moving on to the next measure, SB 552 relating to agriculture, requires the Department of Ag to establish a healthy soils program, requires an annual report to the Legislature, creates funds. First up is Leah Laramee from Climate Change Commission.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Leah Laramee with the Climate Change Commission we stand on our testimony in support and available for any questions of how this interacts with our Carbon Smart Land Management program. Mahalo.

Thank you, Leah. Sharon Hurd, Department of Ag.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on our submitted testimony but wants to highlight that if the Bill passes, we would certainly take this on.

But the recommendation that we have is that there are existing commissions that have this as their duty, including the Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Task Force established in 2018 that is charged with addressing these numerous objectives. And further, SB552 appears to be a duplicative of the objectives of the three year Hawaii Carbon Smart Land Management Assistant Pilot Program.

So if you could consider those two options before assigning a new task force to the Department, that would be the recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto from the Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau's thank you. In support.

Hunter Hevlin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. Hunter Heaivilin, Advocacy Director with Hawaii Farmers Union here testifying in support of this measure and offering a few perspectives.

The Hawaii Farmers Union has advocated for a healthy soils program within our Department of Agriculture for the better part of the last half decade, at least, to the point of even reaching passage and movement into an act.

And due to confusion around the Bill and its structure, Governor, then Governor Ige actually vetoed the Bill because there was concern around it overlapping with program that lay runs and another study that I actually ended up doing for the Office of Planning.

The intent of this effort is to bring together a variety of support programs to facilitate the adoption of conservation agricultural practices that have known benefits to environmental quality and that support continued agricultural productivity.

The National Resource Conservation Service has outlined many of these practices and the selections that we've advocated for in previous years, namely a cover crop pilot program and the now permanent compost reimbursement program were selected based off of the adoption of practices by producers across the state.

The goal of this program is to bring all of these efforts under one umbrella as a healthy soils program. Some of them already exist in other pockets of the Department of Agriculture and we've advocated for a number of years to bring them together as one entity.

This has issues for producers year over year, as the compost program, for example, has moved between different divisions of the Department of Ag.

The outreach, thus now, requires a producer to know which part of the Department of Agriculture's website to go to to get critical information and has, also, changed the type of information that has been made available. Because of this and the continued reticence by the Department; I would offer up as a potential.

Maybe the Agribusiness Development Corporation would rather take this program and the programs that would be housed under it, conceivably, the Compost Reimbursement Program and its attendant funding, to ensure that these resources and others like it could be pursued and properly distributed to producers. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Hunter. You know what questions coming up for ADC, huh? Giving you some warning. Okay? Colehour Bondera from Kanalani Ohana Farm in support. Jeanette Gurung from the Women Organizing for Change in Ag and Natural Resource management in support. So, 45 in support and 0 opposed. So these are all in support?

Sure.

Yes. Oh, okay. I've got to Nicole yet? She's online. She's coming up. Ted Bolan, climate protectors. Susan Roberts Emory from the Green Party of Hawaii in support. Nicole Galase, online. Nicole.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Nicole Galase, on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, we stand on our testimony and support and encourage us to be incentive based. Which has been successful, such as with those federal programs that are currently in place.

A question that did come up from one of our members is regarding the deadlines by which a plan for all state lands lease for ag use is required. Will this impact existing leases or just new leases granted? We have concerns about how this will actually take place for existing leases.

Because they already have provisions in place that the lessee needs to meet. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Nicole. Ann Frederick from Hapa Hawaii Lines for Progressive Action in support. And as I said, all the following are in support. Sven Sorge, Nalani, Georgia Hoax, Amelia Briscoe, Sophia Gravel, P.A. McClintock, Paul Bernstein from the Citizens Climate Lobby.

Ann Dorsey, Michelle Nihipali, Bert Faruta, Kevin Facenda, Troy Schott, El Osterer, Noel Lindemann, Samantha Prius, Stacey Alapai, Teresa Thompson, Hina Kononigo, Kealakai Hammond, Dylan Ramos, Noel Bali, Katrina Ahia, Shea Hodges, Jennifer Shiwa, Isis Usborne.

Deborah Javar, Eliel Starbright, Kimo Don Hyon, Norris Tomlinson, Leila Kalama, Val Herzog, Laurie Macaneole, Terry Saba Inaea, Alisa Keila Pahana and Keala Fong. Anyone else present or online that would like to testify? Very none. Members, any questions? No questions. I have a question for ADC.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. I'm Wendy Gady with the Agribusiness Development Corp. And we would stand in strong support of either the Department of Ag or ADC carrying out this program. One of the things that I think is essential is for us to tie the business aspect and the impact to profitability for the farmer.

And that is a missing component. Just having healthy soils is great, but if we can quantify it, it's even better.

Great.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Yes.

Department of Ag, please.

Senator.

Director, what kind of program do you guys actually have today that encompasses what Hunter had just alluded to?

Well, good question. The Department programs actually are in reaction or in support of whatever the ledge comes through, such as the compost reimbursement program, which. Which invigorates the soil to be helped in a healthy way in that there's no microorganisms or CRB in it.

But what a more vital role, I think, is in awarding the groups like Gofang, funding the University of Hawaii Research. We award them the funding that we get and entertain the proposals that would meet these requirements, and then we would award it to the most innovative, most impactful proposal.

Within our own group, we really don't do too much education. We're mostly regulatory for healthy soils, just to be sure that the. For instance, with the pesticides that are being used aren't impacting the soils in a negative way. It's more of a regulatory. But for the purposes of this Bill, if you.

With the funding that we would be receiving, should there be funding, we would defer to the experts through an RP program or some sort of program that meets the needs of this particular Bill.

So you believe the program is warranted, which I think is what we talked about before was bringing them all together. So that way the farmer or the rancher in their own right, at some place secure just one stop.

I remember that. Right. The question you had then was, are you saying the farmers don't know what Healthy Soils is, as I recall?

No, no, no. What he's saying is that to encompass all of the different areas of whether it be soil, soil health. You. You support this?

We support it.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to the next measure is SB678 relating to AG, establishes the Agricultural Development Food Security Special Fund, requires a portion of the Environmental Response, Energy and Food Security tax be deposited into the special Fund and appropriates funds for the Department of Ag, an amount equal to 3% of the state budget. First up, Department of Ag.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee Chair, and Department of Ag the Department is in strong support of this Bill. The list of how the monies in the special Fund may be expended aligned with the department's goals to buy, invest, and grow in agriculture and support Hawaii farmers and ranchers.

The Bill will provide the resources the Department needs to serve as the change agent for agricultural operations. We will submit to the Legislature as required by the Bill no later than 20 days prior detailing the expenditures of the Bill. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Gary Suganuma Dotax Taxation comments thank you. Louis Salivaria from dbid. I'm sorry. Department of Budget and Finance comments. Travis Moon, Attorney General's Office.

Good afternoon. Deputy Deputy Attorney General Travis Moon. We provided written comments previously on grant standard issue and a special Fund issue. I'm here for any questions if you have. Thank you.

Thank you. Tom Yamachika from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii. We generally concur with the observations of the Department of Budget and Finance that the proposed special Fund does not meet the established criteria in Section 37.52.3. So we have some concerns, and that's basically our concern about this new special Fund. I'd be happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Tom and Mr. Salvaria testify. Sorry for being late. It's okay. Department of Legal Finance. I'll stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you. Next is Hunter Hevlin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. We'll send our testimony and support and. Highlight our request for an amendment to. Add the provision for funds to be used for sourcing of local products and their distribution.

Okay, thank you. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farmers Bureau.

Afternoon Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Brian Miyamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony support. Support. I'd just like to highlight a few things that I didn't include in our testimony when the Bell Tax was being proposed.

Hawaii Farm Bureau we normally oppose any additional taxes that would increase costs and expenses to farmers and ranchers. However, we did support this particular tax because of the direct impact to agriculture. Unfortunately, in 2021, our special Fund was repealed. So we're glad that there's a consideration from the Legislature to reenact, re, establish or establish the special Fund.

The uses are pretty broad and you heard the chair talk about the uses that the special fund can be utilized for. We'd like to add additional use specifically for borrowed security. Although it does state in on Page three.

Any other activity, however, we'd like to see bot security as a use for the special Fund with the Boss Security emergency that we're in. Other than that, we appreciate the consideration of the Legislature to reenact the special Fund. The tax was for agriculture and it should be used for agriculture as part of that tax. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Nicole Galassi, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.

Thank you. Nicole Galassi, on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, will stand on our testimony in support. Mahalo.

Thank you. Lauren Zurbo from Hawaii Food Industry Association in support. John Koto, I'm sorry.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman on behalf of HFIA. We're happy to stand on our testimony and support and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. John Koto in support. Teresa Thompson in support. Paul Bernstein in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? We have eight in support and four with comments. Members, any questions? Okay. Budget and Finance, please.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair. Chair Louis Silveira, Budget and finance. Thank you, Mrs. Celebra. Question I had, and maybe it's my math, I support and I agree with people are saying, but the 3% of the state budget, that's $250 million, which is. Would represent a 1,000% increase to the. Department of Agriculture's budget. Yes.

Okay. I don't. Okay, yes. So my math was accurate. So then. Thank you, Department of Ag.

Senator.

Thanks. Chair, could you even implement that?

Oh, good question. Based on the recent press, as long as we have in the encumbrance or the process through to the end of the year, we can encumber. We can ask the Department of Attorney General, DAGS, Department of Accounting, and General Services to do a blanket encumbrance. But if we would do.

I didn't ask about incumbents.

It's going to be tough. But if we do RFPs and if we find a vehicle to get the money out there to the people that really need it through the Ag Fund. We could try. We can try. Never had 250 million. We had 10 million.

And you know, it's going to be a stretch, but perhaps the Bill can allow. Instead of just a one year fiscal year expenditure, perhaps the Bill can allow for a longer time hrs. I think it's 490 says you can have up to 5 years. It's the allowable length of time for an appropriation.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Chair. Chair. Senator.

So I think what Senator Richards is alluding to, you know, with the imminent need for agriculture, five years ain't going to cut it for me. You know, we had problems with moving funds even under biosecurity. Do you have the manpower and the staff to do it?

You know our challenges right now, invasive species has been at the forefront. Do you have that capacity staff wise in five years? I'm going, I'm talking in one year. The budget that you have now, can you execute the budget that you have and if this is to come into play.

And do you have a plan, a master plan in motion for agriculture for the Department?

We do. Right now the challenge is filling the positions, but we do have a plan for that. If we cannot fill the positions, all 44, I think the was about 1.7, about $2 million.

We're coming back to Wham and fin and asking if we can redirect these funds to maybe I have an idea for outreach, public outreach, you know, do a public service campaign which we all know that that funding was cut. We decided not to cut it.

So we, while we cannot get the positions filled, we may not have the capacity, but we will use the funds to attract capacity. We can direct those funds to other purposes for biosecurity. So I'm pretty, I'm going to say that, confident that we can do the 10 million.

If the stretch is for the 250, it's going to take a longer time.

Okay, so if this Bill, if this Bill passes, how much would you project will go into the ag development, agriculture development and food security special Fund? And to what extent do you already expend funds on the activities already in this Bill?

We don't have the funding for that particular. The 10 things that are on there. The carbon.

The bail tax was taken, but I believe in the bail tax, I don't think we can get $250 million because the source of the funding is the monies that are collected from the gas, the delivery of the gas and the fossil fuels, which those have considerably declined. So to say that it's to a maximum 3%.

I believe that's what the Bill says, Senators. And that equates to 250 million. That would be a magic wand, right? It would be difficult to say.

My question was to what extent do you already expend these funds on these activities already? Funds that you already have. To what extent have you expended?

Okay, so you mean from the 55 million that we have currently, the 10 million for sure and probably another three. So about 13 million. 13 million out of the 50. 50. Well, plus the 10 from Act 231. The 55 was our standard operating, you know, year after year. And then. Thanks. The gift was the 231 for 10.

So I've added about 3 million and thrown it in there.

And then how much of that you looking at using towards biosecurity of the rest of that funds?

The 55? Yeah. Zero, that goes for personnel and the other. So if you try it pays for salaries for biosecurity.

So I guess that would. But I'm looking at the actual activity of biosecurity. In other words, you have coconut, rhinoceros beetles, you have corky frog issues. We're dealing with Avian influenza till today. There's still no eggs in Walmart and Costco. Like to what extent are we doing biosecurity? I would have to come back with the exact remain.

My estimate is 13 million. Okay, come back with us on that breakout. Thank you. Thank you Chair. Thank you.

Next is SB 693 relating to food hub pilot program appropriating funds for the continued implementation of the food hub pilot program. First up, Department of Ag.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture supports the initiative. We recognize that food hubs are a vital link in the supply chain. They provide the middle of the supply chain type distribution from the farm to the consumer.

It helps the food hubs help the small farmers by aggregating from the area and they take care of the delivery and the marketing. So it's a very vital piece of the supply chain. The under Act2313 back in 2022. The result of that funding was 1.5 million. Thank you very much.

What happened with that funding is we awarded six contracts to food hubs in the state. Six of 14. So there's 14 food hubs in the State of that funding. On that opportunity, I should say we received 27 proposals. So there are 21 other food hubs out there that have submitted proposals looking for funding for their particular projects.

The results of the Act 313 we got one final report in so far that was from adaptations on the Big Island. I'll be happy to share that report with you. The results are really good. They added 15 new farmers to the hub.

They increased their sales to a local hospital by 50% and they report total annual sales from the food hub operations as 2.5 million. I can ask what the. You know what it was prior to that? I didn't take the time to do that.

For this meeting, but I'm curious to see what the sales were previous to the Food Hub. So the takeaway for me is that this bill, if passed, would allow the Department to consider another RFP allowing the 21 proposals that were not funded in Act 313.

We have an opportunity to be as successful as the other six that were.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hunter Heavand, Hawaii Farmers junior thank you.

Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Hunter Hevlin still here with Hawaii Farmers Union. We'll stand in our well on a highlight from our written testimony and following up on some of the comments of the Chair.

This program supports a large variety of producers from small farmers to some of the largest farm operations have routed their production through market outlets that are commonly known as food hubs.

But of greater importance is of additional importance is the value of these operations to supporting local families and particularly families receiving SNAP benefits to access fresh local food.

In 2023, the most recent year for which there is data collected by the Hawaii Food hub HUI annually, $1.6 million of local produce was routed to SNAP recipient families through food hubs. And I work with that network and I'm confident that that number is likely expanded in 2024.

So this subsidy for these operations extends far beyond the farmers that they support, but also families across the state. State Happy to answer question any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you Chair Vice Chair Members of Committee Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. I'm going to play tag team with Department of Ag and Farmers Union.

So we'd like to also add this will support again it does support a small farmers provides them access to many markets such as in addition our Farm to School Program, our Farm to State program, our Farm to families or previously known as our Farm to Food Bank. We're trying to grow agriculture. We need more production.

This will help our small farmers primarily with the aggregation and the distribution and the food safety, all the things that are necessary to enter into many of the markets that small farmers do not have access to currently right now.

So we are in strong support the food health program and would like to see continued funding and we need the supply for all of these programs and all of these goals that we have set for agriculture. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Ramsey Brown from Pono Pacific Land Management. In total we have 30.