Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Aloha. We'd like to open our joint committees with the Committee on Agriculture and Environment and the Committee on Energy and Intergovernment Affairs for our 1 o'clock agenda here in room 224 we are taping this hearing via YouTube.

If there's any kind of catastrophic disasters along the way, we will post notice as to when we will reconvene this hearing. And for those who are testifying, we're going to limit testimony to one minute per individual. With that ground rules being set, we will jump into Senate Bill 103 relating to electric vehicle batteries.

First in our testifiers list we have Kenneth Fink from the Department of Health who has submitted testimony might be joining us via Zoom is that might understanding it.

Kenneth Fink from Environmental Health Administration.

Okay IT we can barely hear who's speaking.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes we can.

Hi, my name is Noah. I'm with the Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch in the Environmental Health Administration Department of Health. The department stands on its written testimony and I'm just here to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for joining us. Mark Glick from the Energy Office.

Hawaii State Energy Office will stand on its testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you Maria. Daniel Zotos Redwood Materials might be joining us via Zoom. And there he is.

I'm here. Good afternoon Chairs, Members of the Committee. Daniel Zotos with Redwood Materials. We are the largest recycler of lithium ion batteries in North America. We're based out of Northern Nevada. We are ultimately supportive of Senate Bill 103 as well as its intent for proper responsible end of life management of electric vehicle batteries.

Really wanted to sign in today to let you all know we are here as a resource.

I have reached out to the bill sponsor as well as all the committee chairs ahead of this hearing to let you know Redwood is very respectfully requesting a very simple amendment and language addition to this commission to actually include a battery recycler to be on the commission.

So far the composition doesn't actually account for the specialized expertise downstream doing this good work and I'm happy to answer any questions in terms of just the degree and caliber of work we're actually doing. For end of life management of electric vehicles and the batteries they contain as well. But happy to be here.

Thank you for your time and I know I'm at time so thank you.

Thank you Daniel. Tony Bellott has submitted commentary. Wayne Tanaka Sierra Club has been testimony support. Tiffany Yajima might be joining us Via Zoom.

They're unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, but members, she has submitted testimony and support. Beatrice Darrego in support. Tahana Apna in support. Alexander White in support. Jacqueline Ambrose and Johnny Perry all--excuse me, Johnny Perry is in opposed, but Jacqueline was in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 103? If not members, any questions?

Maria Tome, if we move this measure forward, the alliance of Automobile Innovation wants to push the deadline back to 20 days prior to the 2027 legislative session. That the ample time for you to help put this all together?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. There was any further questions? If not, I'm going to pass the gavel over to the illustrious Chair of Agriculture Environment to take us to the finish line. Oh, sorry, I thought you were in lead. I'm leading. My apologies. I will take us to the finish line.

We are on Senate Bill 995 relating to renewable fuel. On our testifiers list we have Darry Suganuma from Dotax. Members, he submitted commentary with suggested amendments. Ed Sniffen from the Department of Transportation.

Aloha. Laura Kaakua, Department of Transportation. And we stand on our testimony in support. Thank you.

Mary Alice Evans from Office of Planning.

Hello, Chairs and Members. Office of Planning and Sustainable Development stands on our testimony.

Thank you. We have Mark Glick from the Energy Office. Thank you. Henry Curtis from Life of the Land. Members has submitted support with suggested amendments. Nahelani Parsons.

Aloha Chairs and members of the committees. My name is Nahelani Parsons, here to testify on behalf of the Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition in strong support of this measure. Our coalition members include the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Pono Pacific Airlines for America, which includes Hawaiian and Alaska par Hawaii and our newest member that just joined as Pacific Biodiesel.

We are working on growing a crop called Camelina to make renewable fuel that will be used to reduce carbon emissions for transportation and utilities, including where we use the most of our energy, which is in our aviation industry. You have our written testimony that includes our proposed amendments.

The proposed amendments we worked with Dotax, Hawaii Tax Foundation and Pacific Biodiesel on those amendments. So we thank the committee and we're available if you have any questions.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto from the Farm Bureau has submitted testimony in support. Derek Phelps, testimony in support. Mike Ewall might be joining us via Zoom.

Oh, there you are, Mike.

Yes, I'm here. Good afternoon. Energy Justice Network, Center Network and our Hawaii based member groups are opposed to this legislation. You'll find in our testimony that there are a few specific amendments we would urge you to adopt.

One of the most critical is that toxic waste streams like construction and demolition waste and other waste as feedstocks should not be permitted in the making of so called sustainable aviation fuel.

Construction demolition waste includes a lot of toxic ingredients like chlorine and PVC plastics, wood that is painted with lead and mercury compounds treated with arsenic, copper and chromium.

And in testimony from the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute on page 41 of the testimony packet in the house where I was just testifying on this yesterday, they have charts showing very high levels of arsenic, chromium and lead in construction and demolition waste with arsenic concentrations 200 times higher than clean wood.

So I urge you to strike that language and not allow these toxic chemicals into the feedstock for this making of this supposedly sustainable fuel. Thank you.

Thank you, Mike. Chris Bennett from Pono Pacific.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs and members of the committees. My name is Chris Bennett. Appearing on behalf of Pono Pacific, I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill 995. Over the past year and a half, Pono Pacific has partnered with two of Hawaii's largest food producers, Alune Farms and Mahipono, as well as Medigold Dairies, to grow Camelina.

Camelina is an oil seed that can be processed into renewable fuel for our planes, ships and utilities. The results of these trials have been very encouraging, with yields ranging from £1,000 an acre up to £2,000 an acre, which is in with our goal of achieving 1200-1400 pounds per acre.

Camelina produces about 30-40% oil from the seeds that will be processed into renewable fuel, While the remaining 60-70% produces a seed cake that is an approved animal feed suitable for cattle, chickens and other livestock.

These two revenue streams make Camelina production a viable option for Hawaii's farmers to grow in addition to their current food crops. We stand on our written testimony and support and I'm happy to answer any questions you may. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chris. Sean Williams has some of the testimony and support. Beatrice Dirago in support. Oh, Tom Yamachika might be joining. Oh, there you are, Tom.

Thank you. Chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We did work with the Renewable Fuels. Coalition on this, so we did submit comments on the bill as drafted technical comments, a number of which were addressed in the Renewable Fuels Coalition proposed amendments. We have to answer any questions.

Thank you for joining us, Tom. Robert King from Pacific Biodiesel has Submitted testimony in support. Jacob Aki might be joining us via Zoom. Oh, there you are, Jacob.

Thanks. Hi, good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs and members of the committee. My name is Alanna James, Managing Director of Sustainability initiatives at Hawaiian Airlines here on behalf of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines, I'll just briefly reiterate our support for this bill.

This bill establishes critical incentives to promote the production and import of Sustainable Aviation Fuel, or SAF, here in Hawaii. SAF is widely acknowledged as the most promising technology to address aviation carbon emissions.

And the tax incentives in this bill are intended to bridge the cost gap between sustainable aviation fuel and conventional fuels in the near term and importantly to also provide incremental value for SAF compared to renewable diesel in order to level the playing field.

Now, these incentives represent a really positive step forward towards the state's economy wide decarbonization goal, particularly in the aviation sector, which is a really critical sector in our economy. We stand on our written testimony and happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Gene Harrington has submitted testimony in support. Raymond Kwok from Metagold in support. Tahan Rapna in support. Ted Metrose has submitted commentary. Emily Garland in opposition. Ted Metrose again has submitted testimony in opposition.

Is there anyone else? Oh please, please join us.

Last time I came and testified I was working for Pari 48.

Could you identify yourself please? And you can have a seat.

Ted Metrose, Independent. I used to work for PAR after I testified on this matter a year ago.

Mr. Metrose, you have one minute. You have 49 seconds.

This is a very big bill. It's not going to do what you expect it to do. Studies were conducted at most 10% of the staff can be produced here in Hawaii.

According to that NEI study that I submitted around, if you multiplied 250 times 300 million gallons, which is the lower number, not the 740 million gallons, that is equivalent to roughly $750 million per year. This bill only proposes $80 million per year, but it's projected to go for more than 20 years. $1.6 billion.

And you're concerned, Senator Waikai, about an individual company having more than taking such a large portion of the benefit? Please wrap it up. It's even higher. And so I would request you recognize the notion of putting the limitation of non refundability. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Oh, sorry.

Sorry Chair. On behalf of PAR Hawaii, I appreciate you hearing my testimony. Very brief. You heard a lot of the testimony in support. We are also in support of this measure. PAR Hawaii is committed to and is investing $90 million in facility improvements.

They are expected by the end of this year to produce about 60 million renewable diesel fuel as well as aviation fuel, as Alaska and Hawaiian Airlines testified. You know, this does provide a gap between what sustainability production requires. I'll be on standby for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 995, if not, members any questions? Senator DeCoite.

Thank you Chair. Department of A. Chris Bennett. Thank you for joining us. So Chris, the Camelina that you guys are growing, how much does it take to fill a plane? 747.

Oh, I'm not sure how many gallons go into an airplane. I'm sorry.

So how much--by an acre, what's the production rate on an acre of Camelina for SAF?

Sure. So the seed yield is--varies. But I mean, if we say it's 1500 pounds an acre of seed, the seed oil content varies, but it's usually between 30 and 40% oil content.

So the intent is to contract out farmers to grow it for you for the tax credit here in Hawaii, or is the intent that the tax credit be used outside of the growing of Camelina for SAF?

The tax credit is intended for feedstock production locally. It would go to PAR, but then the purchasing of the oil would include the credit.

So this would. So how many acres is it going to take? And the comparison between that and jet air fuel that you guys can grow with the amount of open acreage and the restriction of water use.

So the goal is to grow about 20% of what PAR would need locally. And the estimate is roughly 100,000 acres. And that's at full build out after years of working to that point.

So where in the US is somebody doing SAF? Growing Camelina. Where in the US is somebody growing Camelina?

Sure. The first Camelina powered flight was a Delta Airlines flight from Minneapolis airport.

Where is it being grown in the United States?

Continental, Midwest.

Yeah, any place in the US? Who's growing Camelina in the US and processing into sustainable aviation field?

Yeah. In the State of Minnesota and other states in the Midwest.

So how much production has Minnesota made in SAF to work out flying planes back and forth? What's the yield? Do you guys have any idea? When you guys. So the production you're doing--

Yes.

How much of that will it take acreage wise to process that down to oil? How much will it take? And do you have the capacity in Hawaii? I noticed that you guys doing business at Mahi Pono as well. How much will you guys need to fill up?

So that we're trying to get to 20% of what PAR would need, and that would be about 100.

So is it the intent to pay out on a higher fuel versus growing food for Hawaii?

So our intent is not to displace food production. And so that is why we're partnering with Alune Mahi Pono. So they are currently rotating it with onions and with other food crops.

So are they growing it here in Hawaii? I mean, here in Honolulu or in.

In West Kauai.

You know that West Kauai has a water shortage, right?

I believe it's part of their lease agreement, but I'm not. I can't really answer.

So I was just in Kauai, and they have a shortage of water. So how much water does sustainable Camelina use?

It's about 10 to 14 inches per growing cycle, which is roughly 80 to 100 days.

So if they continue to grow food, which they already have water restrictions that they're looking at a lack of water, how much commitment are they doing to grow Camelina?

So right now the commitment is in this trial phase. We're looking to wrap up the trial phase in June this year, and then we're looking at other proposals for larger acreage.

Statewide who else have you guys approached to help grow Camelina?

The three people we've approached would be Medical Dairy, Mahi Pono and Alum.

And then the projected acreage of growth? I'm trying to figure out whether or not PAR's 90 million investment is worth processing, the amount of Camelina you guys growing.

So PAR's investment is for the retrofit of their refinery.

So I want to understand if you have enough product to go into a 90 million investment into PAR. So how much acreage of Camelina you plan on putting down in the state?

So I'm not sure I understand. We're trying to get to 100,000 acres is our goal. And that would be roughly 20% of what PAR would need to put into their refinery. The rest would be imported or other sources for the biofuel feedstock.

You believe you can find 100,000 acres in the State of Hawaii?

That's what I've been trying to do for two years, is working on this project.

Okay. Department of Ag, Brian Kah. Brian. Brian. How many acres does the Department or the State of Hawaii have in their capacity for Ag and Ag production?

Off the top of my head, I would estimate it's probably in the--including most of its pastoral, I guess for the larger parcels, probably in the order of 50 to 70,000. But some of those pastoral acres are unusable. Yeah. So it's not all 100% farmable.

So if you have to do an assessment statewide because you've been with the department forever, forever, you probably furniture right now. But how many acreage, usable acreage, aside from what's being under production to have excess lands for Camelina or any type of renewable fuel, in other words, do we target the hundred--

Is there 100,000 acres of capacity to grow Camelina? And due to your guys water restrictions for the drought monitor, is there enough water to grow our food source as well as our energy source?

Well, thanks for putting me on the spot there. I can't honestly answer the question. I do not know enough about Camelina to say yes or no. I will say that at least the acreages that the Department of Agriculture is responsible for are I would estimate about 90 to 95% occupied.

So of those 50,000 say acres that we maintain, very little of it is available for leasing to anyone at the moment, at this moment in time because it's all been leased out, long term leased out. We do not have irrigation systems that service all of the lands that we have.

But the irrigation systems that we do have are for the most part, the water is accounted for there's not a whole lot of excess that we have. The one location that we do have some play with that is on the Big island on the Hamakua side.

There is a little bit fair amount of water that can be used. But I couldn't quantify it for you at the moment in time.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

There's any further questions.

I'm sorry I missed your name, but the person who used to work for PAR. Are you still here? So I didn't quite understand your argument except maybe that you're saying that whatever we grow here in Hawaii isn't going to be enough for the demands of the airline industry. But is that really an argument against it?

Yes, there are additional arguments against it as well. There's very little potential for our land to provide it and the primary source will be coming from overseas and imported. And so at some point you have to get over the hurdle rate. Even if there are credits, it's not making it back to the farm.

There's no mechanism in the bill to provide it to them. And so there's a big tax break when you come through the foreign trade zone from foreign importers and all sorts of logistical limitations.

Okay, so your objection is that a tax break might go to somebody in Minnesota.

It's not going to make its way to Minnesota. It's only going to make its way to PAR. And whether it makes it to the airline customers or to the farmers is very questionable. There's nothing that suggests that it would go there at all.

Okay, so I'm just. Okay, I guess that's where I'm confused. So then why would PAR be the benefit-- I mean, I can see how they could be the beneficiary, but are they the ones who would actually be claiming the credit?

They would be, as the producer, the recipient of the $2.56 cents, which is a combination of 56 cents was the baseline number. An extra dollar to meet certain GHG thresholds, and then a third dollar because it's SAF. So that's 2.56 and 2.56.

And the way you're reading it, that would apply even if they're importing.

Yes, yes. There's no obligation. The prior bill used to have an extra dollar for farmers. That was removed perhaps due to concerns from the Attorney General.

If you wanted to have an oil seed credit for the farmers, then just do that so you can be assured, even with that localized credit, it's going to be difficult for farmers who are pinched for land and pinched for water to displace the imports that are anticipated from foreign countries on a tax preferred basis.

Excuse me, sorry. I think I understand. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair.

Sure. Members, any further questions? Chris.

So I appreciate how Pono Pacific is trying to be a kind of a solution to our need for sustainable aviation, but the numbers you mentioned to me to the committee don't jive with HNEI's numbers.

So you mentioned that you're chasing 20% of the SAF demand, which from HNEI's report says it's 700 million gallons of aviation fuel, non military. So that's 700 million gallons of stuff you have to replace with SAF.

And then chasing 20% of that figure would consume about 100,000 acres of land, is what I recall as my notes from your testimony. But HNEI says to shoot for 10%. Right half of what you say that you're chasing would take 760,000 acres of land. Keep in mind Oahu in its entirety is only 382,000 acres.

So you're going to have-- I don't see how any of this is going to pencil out for you to do more than just a little smidget of SAF being produced here locally.

So if you're going to ask for tax credit, most of that tax credit is going to go to Minnesota or places in the Midwest that you mentioned. So how is that a benefit for the people of the state?

So I would just clarify a little bit. We're not trying to supply 20% of the SAF demand in the State of Hawaii. We're trying to satisfy 20% of PAR's feedstock demand for their refinery.

Okay, that's a few smaller numbers then, right? We're still chasing up to $80 million a year is what the bill asks for in the long term. And you're going to do even less than 20% of the SAF fuel feed into the creation of SAF. Yeah.

So essentially there's no way in Hawaii we have enough land to supply the SAF that we need to fill the bellies of the planes that are coming and going from here.

I don't think PAR's plant is going to produce enough fuel to supply all of that. It's a portion of the fuel demand. And much like the food security argument, we're not going to be able to grow 100% of our food here.

Every percentage that you can grow here increases your Independence and increases your energy security in this case, and also will contribute to the agricultural community.

But that comes at the expense of food, right? There's only so much acreage for us to grow stuff. Are we going to grow stuff for the belly of a plane or the tank of a plane or for the belly of the people of the state?

So from the beginning of this project, the intent was never to displace food production, but to work with food producers as part of their cycling of crops and what they could find economical.

Thank you.

Hello. So did I hear you correctly that PAR has already invested $90 million into making its facility capable of processing SAF?

That is right. They are in the process of upgrading one part of their facility so that it does have the capability to hydro treat feedstock and the oils through the production and produce renewable diesel, renewable sustainable aviation fuel.

Okay, so you must have had a business or PAR must have had a business reason for making that investment, correct?

I'm not too sure, Chair, but I can find out what their business plan is. I think from PAR Hawaii. They do understand the commitment the renewable standards portfolio objectives through 2045. And as a longtime Hawaii community organization and company, they want to make a commitment for Hawaii.

So they have decided ultimately to invest in the hydrotreater in the down to future, who knows, based on adoption and production, maybe 100 years from now they may upgrade their whole facility to renewable. We really don't know but I think they're just making an investment.

Yeah. So if you've already or PAR's already made the investment, why do you need a state handoff? They're making that investment because it makes business sense. But now you're asking the taxpayers of Hawaii to backfill that business investment with up to $80 million a year.

It does take a substantial amount to produce renewable fuels. I think going anything achieving closer to 2045's renewable portfolio standards do require quite a bit of subsidies. Whether it's solar or other industries, PAR through its production capability, they're just committed and it does take a lot of energy and money to produce these products.

I've been here too long and I was here in 2004 when we passed the ethanol facilities tax credit. It's kind of similar to this, right? Ethanol was seen as like, oh, this is going to save sugarcane, particularly on Maui. We're going to build a refinery there to create ethanol.

Lawmakers at the time had a mandate 10% and all of that went poof. The Ethanol plant was never built. Maui Landing Pine is gone, not Maui Landing Pine, but the Maui sugar cane fields are gone. And so this just seems like we're going down the same road where we have all these grand ideas.

We're going to save sugar, we're going to save, we're going to grow Camelina in this case and nothing. It was embarrassing. The state had to in 2015 repeal that law.

So isn't there like a good possibility this is going to go the same way you're going to ask for all of this money and we might not produce one ounce of SAF through Camelina or other sources, just like we didn't produce any ethanol here in the state back in 2004.

Well, I think, I think for PAR's perspective, they are going along this path. I mean they're essentially committed with the trials.

PAR was the one that's asking in 2004 for the ethanol credit. They said at that time they were committed and committed absolutely nothing to putting.

As far as I know, Chair. They are committed for this long haul with the investment that they've made, it does hopefully full adoption, adoption and commitments. I think ideally they want to adopt users, whether it's air, marine, water transportation and also utilities through renewable diesel.

So it's not just air transportation and sustainable aviation fuel, but a broader range of uses. So as far as I know, they are committed. They're already investing. It's not out of the question where, if they do go ahead and produce and maybe years down the line that they continue to produce and it is exported.

I'm not, I'm not exactly too sure what the business plan is, but it's not out of the question.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

So if this tax credit falls through and, and there's no Camelina grown in Hawaii, then what? Then they just import what they need, or is that what happens, or does it just stop?

I think it's a combination. It's a combination of locally grown feedstock in whatever manner. I think Pono Pacific mentioned 20%. I think that's a target. Whatever they can come up with, I understand that.

But if that all falls--

The remainder would be imported in some form, whether it's oil or feedstock.

Okay, so plan B is just import what you have to import.

I think it needs to be a combination.

I know it's, ideally it would be, well, what if you don't get any from locally?

It would be imported.

Thank you.

Is Camelina being used here in Hawaii for feedstock?

I can't, I don't think I have the capability to answer. I think that is, as far as I know, that's the ultimate goal because.

Because I don't see testimony from the Cattle Men's Association, and I've never heard on ranch using Camelina to feed cattle.

Maybe we'll follow up and maybe we'll come back.

Yeah, because I've never heard. Thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Sure. Members, any further questions? Jacob, you still on the line? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone from the airline industry?

Hi, Senator. Can you guys hear me?

I can hear you. I don't know if we can, we can't see. Oh, there. Yes. So, Jacob, I appreciate, like the airlines and how they have their own mandates as industry to go and become far more sustainable.

And what troubles me is when businesses know that they know what the right thing to do is, but they're asking others, in this particular case, government to help finance them doing the right thing.

So why can't you and the airline, other airlines just buy the staff at whatever the market rate is at any given moment and just ultimately pass that on to your consumers and let the state step away from this entire approach? Oh, I think Jacob's frozen there.

Is there anybody from the airline industry in the room? Sorry. Sorry about that, Jacob. In Japan there's a fuel surcharge, right. And they tease out, okay, if my $1000 trip to Japan, let's.

I mean my trip to Japan cost a thousand bucks, here's the fuel part of it. And they just tease it out that way and it fluctuates based on the Singaporean crude price.

So for the airlines here, why can't they just whatever the difference is between buying aviation fuel, diesel and then whatever SAF cost, just put that onto the customer's price for airfare?

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the question. You know, as on behalf of the coalition, I would just look to sort of the cost of living. And we know that that price could be passed on, but the affordability is already difficult for all of us.

So if we had to pay that additional fee on our, you know, going in the neighbor island to go visit our family, then it would just create an additional burden on our overall cost of living.

I can appreciate that, you know, the aviation industry does have to come into play with this and I think one of the big parts is they're making the commitment nationally and internationally that the airlines are committed to transferring over to renewable energy, which is sort of their investment.

But yeah, passing on the cost would be, on behalf of the coalition would be concerning for that cost of living overall.

Yeah, but there's some people in Hawaii that may never take a flight. Why should they have to pay this? I mean, the people who fly should be the ones who pay for this sustainable aviation fuel.

It troubles me that when industries want to do the right thing, the first thing you do is ask government to subsidize their next step to doing the right thing. You should do it just because it's the right thing to do.

And yeah, of course you're going to increase the cost of your customers, but if you're going to save the planet and have any place to travel to, then the airlines should eat it.

I appreciate that, Chair. I think the idea of the tax credit is that it's temporary. There's a limit on the bill for 10 years. So the idea is over time, technology would advance, it would incentivize the industry, the market would grow and reduce the cost. So it's not supposed to be a permanent handout.

It's supposed to be just while the industry grows into that area and then we reduce down, and then after 10 years, no more credit.

That's what they said about the solar tax credit. That's forever. That's what we said about rail surcharges. It's always being pushed down the field. So can never trust, like, oh, there's going to be a limitation there. I don't buy that. Any other questions? Okay. Okay. Members we'll take a brief recess prior to taking both.

Thank you for your patience. We're reconvening the joint committees on Agriculture and Environment with Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs. We're looking at Senate Bill 3, excuse me, 103, relating to electric vehicle batteries, and this is a recycling program. We'd like to pass this measure out with two amendments.

One being that we put someone from the battery storage industry onto this group, as well as take the recommendation from the Alliance for Automobile Innovation Group, to make the new deadline 20 days prior to the 2027 legislative session. Members, any discussion on those recommendations? If not, Senator Chang, I vote "Yes."

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Okay, we're going to move on to the second Bill. This is the Senate Bill 995, relating to renewable fuels. The two Chairs have conferred, and we'd like to defer action on this measure.

Considering PAR has already made an investment, is going down the road of doing it the right way, with their own dime, for $90 million of their own investment, and considering we just don't have enough agricultural land to go and build or grow Camelina at the expense of potentially other life-giving food sources for our needs.

And considering that maybe the airlines should just—if they got to do the right thing, do the right thing and pass on the cost to the consumers, rather than the taxpayers of Hawaii. For those two reasons—or for those reasons—the two Chairs have conferred and have decided to defer action on this measure. So, we are adjourned.

Hello, Mai Kakou, and welcome to the Agriculture Environment Committee 1:00 PM agenda. We're running a little late, so mahalo for joining us today. It's January 29, 2025. We're here in Room 224 and video conferencing, which includes the audio and video of remote participants, that's being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we have to cut this hearing short, we will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on January 31st at 1:45 PM, during AEN's time slot, and a public notice will be given—will be posted on the Legislature's website. And because of our 90-minute time limit, which is down to 45 minutes.

We will be limiting the testimony to one minute for all testifiers and we'll have a virtual countdown timer on the zoom screen. So starting off is. The first one is SB 724 relating to deposit beverage container redemption. Repeals the exemptions for certain dealers of deposit beverage containers and related provisions.

Requires all dealers of deposit beverage containers to operate as redemption centers. And first up is Department of Health. Okay, thank you. Next is Lauren Zirbel from Hawaii Food Industry Association.

Thank you, Chair and Committee Members. Lauren Zirbel, on behalf of Hawai'I Food Industry Association, we submitted an opposition on this Bill. We do think that the program has suffered from some pretty interesting audits. Some of the concerns have not been addressed.

We are against retailers having to collect the deposit beverage containers at our location due to the fact that we have limited space, we have limited resources, limited labor. We're already struggling to have enough labor to run the stores. Food prices are already very high.

So adding this additional burden would be very problematic and would also introduce elements of pests and other items that we can't have in our store due to health and safety requirements. So we are open to discussing other potential solutions to increase recycling rates with you. Thank you.

Thank you, Lauren. Bruce Iverson from Reynolds Recycling. Opposed. Johnny May Perry. Opposed. Anyone else wanting to testify on this measure? See none. Measure Members, any questions?

Senator Rose, I think Mrs. Zirbel, if you don't mind. So I'm pretty sure that other states that have bottle returns, some of them do require that everybody who sells whatever it is, sells items that have a redemption value for the containers you have to bring. You have to be able to bring them back.

Why is that such a burden? I mean, it's. If you have the space to sell them in the first place, why shouldn't you have the space to take them back?

Well, we don't have the space. That's the thing is that, I mean.

I think then don't sell the bottle. Then don't sell the beverage.

I mean, people want to buy the bottles. I think that, you know, in the states that do have these programs where I'm not sure how many of them have them, but it appears that most of them are cold weather states where they don't have like the rodent and cockroach issues that we have.

Like, I don't know if you've ever stored deposit beverages at your house before. Like I do. Whenever I go to open that bag, it's filled with cockroaches. It's disgusting. Like you don't want somebody bringing that inside of a grocery store. It's going to be a big problem.

I mean, if getting rid of the bottles is part of the sales process, I mean we required a waste. You know, there's, there's, you have to take care of the back end of it. And right now, like I forget what the redemption rate is 54%, something like that. Yeah, I, I just.

It is true that there are less deposit beverage locations than there once were and that's probably part of the reason why the redemption rate is going down. But I mean what's also true is that the houses that have curbside recycling are double paying at this point in time.

So they're paying $100 a month for their utility fees and then they're also paying the deposit beverage they have no hope of.

Really the same question. I mean, you know, my understanding is that especially things like coke are very lucrative and if you had to, if a store had to take them back too, you'd still have a very good profit margin. So I don't, I mean, so a.

Lot of the data, I've been looking into this and a lot of the data especially coming out of like city and County of Honolulu curbside, they're profitable. I mean it is such a more efficient way of collecting recyclables. They're actually making money.

And the problem with these deposit beverage bills is number one, they're extremely onerous on the consumer. But number two, they're just inefficient and they take the really high value commodities away from the MWRs, which is what would help Ffund our continuing curbside program. And I mean I think that like.

There'S a lot of their onerous on the consumer because they're hard to return. I mean I haven't, I haven't redeemed a bottle in years because it's just too hard to do.

Yeah.

So I don't know, I, I'm not sure. Okay, I'll quit badgering you, but I don't understand why such a lucrative business can't clean up after this.

I wouldn't say it's lucrative. I think all groceries are very low margin. Honestly, there's a lot of competition in the beverage industry.

I think if you look at the profit margins of the big grocery store companies recently, we're manufacturing that are making.

Record profits, maybe nationally, but we're manufacturing locally here. All Coke and Pepsi is manufactured locally. So we're paying local wages, we're paying local land prices. We're dealing with all these humongous permitting delays.

Okay. It's a two edged sword. So if you're not making any money on them, why bother to sell them?

Well, you are making money. I don't think that it's a money making Proposition to take back deposit beverage containers. That's what I'm saying. And I'm saying I don't think we have the labor and the health and safety.

Yeah, well that's fine. Yeah. I'm sorry, I'll stop there because I know we don't have any time. But I don't think the arguments presented are all that convincing.

Okay. Moving on to the next measure, SB 251, relating to invasive species requiring the Department of Ag to adopt rules and carry out an Invasive Species Placard Program for plant nurseries. Allows the county to adopt an Invasive Species Placard Program if the Department does not adopt the Program within a certain number of years.

First up, is Department of Ag. And your name, please?

John? Thank you, John. Next, is Chelsea Arnott, from Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha Chair, Senators. Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this measure and appreciate the intent of this measure to really try to manage high risk pathways of where we can move pests inter and intra island.

We're deferring to the comments made by the Department of Agriculture's testimony, but we also offer some suggestions on how to address those, when it comes to the need to increase capacity. Department of Agriculture put a number in there. That is a real need to implementing a program of this caliber.

Also, you know, restaurants versus a nursery, you have pests that can come in. These are outdoor areas. So, making sure that we are potentially listing what the target pests are, that we're really wanting to mitigate spread.

So, having a list of targeted species. And there is also—we've set up voluntary nursery programs to minimize like the cell of invasive plants and also the spread of pests like little fire ant and Coqui frogs, and these are being implemented by the Island Invasive Species Committee.

So, that could be something that could be a model for how we implement some kind of nursery program in the future. So, I'm around for questions. Mahalo.

Next is Nathan Dube from Oahu Invasive Species Committee, in support. Hunter Heaivilin, from Moai Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. Hunter Hunt from Moai Farmers Union. Sent our written testimony, in support.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto, from Hawaii Farm Bureau. Submits comments. Christy Martin from CGAPS.

Aloha Chair, Members of the Committee. Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. We appreciate this Bill and we're in support of it. You know, HCR 24 last year, which passed, asked the Department of Agriculture to provide a report on a placard program.

Actually, asked for a report on a wide variety program, including farms and other agricultural areas, as well as nurseries. This one is very narrowly targeted on nurseries because it is widely known—California, states—it is the highest risk pathway that they have for the movement of pests.

I also wanted to note, and this is, again, pointing back to last year's testimony by the Department of Agriculture, I wanted to point out their good work in treating little fire ants at the Punahou Carnival. They were able to treat them and return to sale within a day.

And that same thing, that same concept could be used for nursery, nursery programs. So, when people say, well, it takes a long time to treat a pest, no, that's if you're going to eradicate it from the area, it takes a very short time to treat a pest. Mahalo.

Thank you, Christy. Wayne Tanaka from Sierra Club, in support. Ken Pachenda, in support. Beverly Heiser, in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Okay, we have a few others here. Total of 23 in support, 0 opposed, with 3 comments. Members, are there any questions?

Department of Ag. John, what will it take for us to implement the provisions of this Bill if passed, and how will a placard program decrease the spread of invasive pests?

So, the intent, I believe, of a placarding is to enable the public to make good decisions about whether to do business at a particular, at a particular establishment, and the idea that there is this public notice, would give, you know, the public the ability to kind of drive the market toward best management practices.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Okay, moving on to the next measure SB 562, establishing a plant nursery registry program to regulate the sale of nursery stock requires certain plant nursers to register with the Department of AG. First up is Department of AG.

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hunter Heaivilin in support.

Nathan Dube from Oahu Invasive Species Committee in support. Christy Martin?

Aloha Chair and Members of the Committee, Christy Martin, Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. CGAPS is in strong support of this measure. Many states require nurseries to register because they need to know their producers.

They need to be able to quickly communicate with them when there's a pest issue and when best management practices or other measures need to be taken. I want to also note that, and again, I quoted in my Bill, California Department of Food and Agriculture has a nursery license program. They are the largest agricultural producer.

They are the largest horticultural producer in the US and they say nursery stock is the highest risk pathway for the movement of plant pests worldwide. And so in order to even start getting a handle on this, a registration program is needed.

It also actually, as I was looking through the bills, it also meets some of the priorities that that are listed in other areas of the Department of Agriculture, especially in assessing the value of crops. They need to do that, but they need to know who their producers are and registration is a way to do that. Mahalo.

Thank you, Christy. Amla Thumpat from Maui Chamber of Commerce. Comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on this Measure? We have 18 in support and one opposed with two comments. Members, any questions? Okay, we'll move on to the next measure. SB506 requires the Department of Agriculture to conduct a study on agricultural markets for Hawaii farmers.

Appropriates funds for the one year study on agricultural markets for Hawaii farmers. Establishes and funds two full time equivalent positions to collect agriculture data and conduct data analysis for public consumption. Department of Ag is First.

Is that a church bell?

This is new. Okay, you don't have to wait. Please. Here we have the clock keeper here.

Good afternoon, Chair Gabbard and Members of the Committee. I'm Matthew Loke, Administrator Ag Development Division. The Department stands by its testimony in full support of this Bill. We deeply appreciate the additional support this Bill provides in tracking and identifying trends in agriculture markets for Hawaii's farmers. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

What's your name again, sir?

Matthew Loke.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Matthew. Benson Medina from the County of Hawaii, in support. Hunter Heaivilin, Farmers Union. Thank you. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau, in support. Jacqueline Ambrose in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, any questions?

Quick one Chair, for Department of Ag. So this Bill requires you, your Department to conduct a study on agricultural markets for farmers. Doesn't your market analysis already and your news branch do this in your Ag Development Division?

We do some of it, but I don't think we are doing enough. Quick thing is that we are Hawaii, if you compare to a city like Minnesota, how many crops do they grow a year? Maybe six to eight program crops, big crops. But in Hawaii we have diversified agriculture. We talk about tropical plants, tropical crops. That's a lot.

But doesn't the US Census data under the federal do an outreach and the survey that is required by law. Don't you guys grab that data? Can't you Guys work with them to do the breakout because before, remember we would do the onloads and offloads inter island wise.

So can't you guys grab pull that data down and filter out or have them filter out at the federal level?

You're correct, Senator. Nass focuses on production data. When we look at wholesale data then we survey all the wholesalers. So that is beyond Farmgate. So it's a different market and today we have new marketing channels like farmers market, food hubs and what not. I think we have to do even more to collect retail price.

Also part of it would be to add on the small guys going into the hubs. You bet. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff.

Okay, thank you Senator. Thank you. Next is SB661 relating to plant based building materials. Appropriates funds to the Department of Ag for the establishment and operation of programs relating to the development of hemp and bamboo based building materials. First up, Department of Ag. Thank you very much.

Ted Bohlen with the Climate Protectors Hawaii and Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition.

Thank you Chair, Committee Members Ted Bohlen for the Climate Protectors Hawaii and Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. This bill presents a really exciting opportunity for the State of Hawaii.

Building materials made from plants can grow here because of our long growing season in areas that have a lot of rain and can be a tremendous opportunity for carbon sequestration because bamboo for example, grows 10- sequesters 10 times more than trees. It's a grass and when you cut it it just grows back.

Hemp, as you know, has many opportunities. I would add one amendment to the bill which is including bio cements, which is another carbon sequestration potential.

So on line six of the bill I would have it read quote relating to the development of hemp, bamboo, bio cements and other plant based building and then continue with the rest of the bill just expanding a little bit. This is a real opportunity for the future for green jobs in Hawaii.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Great, thank you.

Brian Miyamoto from Hawaii Farm Bureau, in support, Hunter Heaivilin, Farmers Union.

Standing on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Paul Bernstein from the Hawaii Environmental Change Agents in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? I got a quick question for Ted, Ted Bohlen. So for those not familiar you mentioned it, can you tell us a little bit more about what this bio cement is?

Yeah, it's a bunch of different things, but you can use blue green algae for example, which is also known as pond scum and it calcifies and forms a material that can substitute for cement. Cement's one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions in the world.

And so if we could come up with something made from plants or algaes, it will be a tremendous product here in Hawaii and it would be very popular with people who are trying to sequester carbon.

Great. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next measure is SB 127, establishing the Conventional Farming Grant program to provide grants to small and mid-sized farmers who practice conventional farming. Department of Ag.

Aloha Chair Gabbard, Senator De Coite, Matthew Loke, Administrator, Ag Development Division. There is a minor typo in our testimony. In the first sentence it should read to testify on Senate Bill 127 rather than 506. We apologize for the oversight. Aside from this, the Department fully stands by its testimony submitted in full support of this Bill. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Matthew. Hawaii Farm Bureau. Brian Miyamoto in support, Hunter Haviland, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Hunter Heaivilin, Here, on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union, we are in support of this measure and its endeavor to provide grants and funding for agricultural operations in the state of Hawaii. However, we do note that it seems to take particular interest in carving out organic operations for being ineligible from participation.

We highlight that along with organic operations, users of biotechnology are also siphoned out for some reason. Both of those entities or those purchasing those types of seeds would presumably face higher costs.

And currently biotechnology receives a General excise tax credit for producers that has been on the books since at least 2008, while organic producers do not receive any similar type of subsidy. So we seek parity in the provision of this funding and are happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Hunter. Bronson Silva from the Democratic Party of Hawaii in support. Jacqueline Ambrose in support. And Johnny May Perry in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, Members, any questions? Question, Question, Hunter Heaivilin.

So, Hunter? Well, the prior years there has been bills that have been just targeted for organic. You know, this is a Bill that also allows others to have the opportunity for grants. So you don't believe that they shouldn't have that opportunity.

It's not a belief that any producer should be kept from any opportunities for supporting their viability. What I would note is that the distinction was that there was an organic production tax credit that I believe at its peak had a handful full or two of users.

It required you to be profitable, required you to know how to work with the Department of Agriculture to pursue the tax credit.

Whereas this would be a grant program which is probably a little bit more advocacy on the part of the Department, which has a pocket of money that they can distribute, as opposed to producers needing to know about the program enough to pursue it.

I would also highlight that looking at the data of that tax credit, it just began to have a bit of an uptick in use before sunset. And last session, it was advocacy that we put forward to pursue its renewal was unsuccessful. When faced with higher costs of inputs because of internalizing the environmental effects of agricultural production. There's always costs.

But organic business has cost. Yeah, every business has cost. So my question is, so if an organic Bill comes forward that supports organic, should we include all farmers at all time or is this more of a.

Well, I think it's about who benefits from the costs that the state is subsidizing.

Well, I think growing food is a priority. Certainly. And at that level, you know, I would think that you would have supported. Yeah, no, exactly. So, you know, I would think that organic or conventional, but the object here is for us to grow food. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Okay, next measure is S B351 relating to pesticides. Requires quarterly rather than annual reporting of all use of restricted use pesticides. Amends the contents of reports to include specific geospatial data and information and increase detail on the amount of restricted use pesticides used. Requires the Department of Ag to develop an online reporting tool for RUPs.

First up is Department of Ag.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee, Greg Takeshima here, pesticides Program Manager from the Pesticides Branch of the Department of Agriculture. We stand on our written testimony with comments. I did want to bring up that there are 1,109, as of yesterday, certified applicators in the state of Hawaii. Increasing the frequency of reporting will require staffing.

And we've provided you folks with some of the estimates that the Department believes we would need to implement the quarterly reporting. Thank you for your time and thank you for providing.

Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Mayor Richard Bisson, County of Maui. In support. Ann Frederick from Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action, in support, Hunter Heaivilin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Chair, Members of the Committee, Annie Frederick from HAPA and support. So from years 2019 to 21, HAPA has actually been taking all of the data, analyzing it, converting it from the various increments it's reported in into pounds.

So I just want to offer that we actually have done all the work of creating the formulas which are different per each formulation, which we would be happy to share with the Department of Ag. One of the concerns is that we don't have enough geographic specificity in order to conduct credible public health studies here in Hawaii.

So the reason why California so many of the studies that we cite in our testimony are from California is because they do require reporting within a square mile. So we are basically, you know, advocating for similar practices to California.

And I think, you know, there might be some initial investment with getting an online reporting tool, but hopefully that would actually save time and resources once it's actually created. And we'd be happy to answer any questions about any of the data analysis that we've done already today. Thank you.

Thank you, Annie. Timothy Lyons with Hawaii Pest Control Association.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I wanted to, first of all, thank you for having the hearing today because we had a discussion in my office about when this hearing would be held. And I took January, everybody else took February. So, thank you.

Happy to help out.

We're opposed to the Bill, as the Hawaii Pest Control Association. And again, we just don't see the benefit providing the information four times a year. We also, of course, don't think that we're at the targets. The Bill talks specifically about large tracts of agricultural land. In our case, we are—the restricted use pesticide that we use is primarily used for the fumigation of houses, with a tent.

It's all encapsulated. We'd also note that there are about 20 companies in the state that do fumigations, and they do four to five jobs a day. So, those are the ones that would have to all be reported.

We also would have some objection to the geospatial, just because our understanding that geospatial location can get very specific, including even finding a car on the street. We have privacy concerns. We don't think that there should be a list, a customer list, of every pest control operator on the internet.

And right now, there is an exemption—partial exemption—for that. So, even that locate is not on the report.

Sorry, Jim, your time's up.

Why make us report? Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau, opposed.

[Unintelligible]

Oh, what?

This is Janet.

Hi, Janet.

Hi. Thank you so much. Aloha, Members of the Committee. Also, I'm Janet.

Is your, is your camera working, Janet?

I can't get it to do anything but intermix.

That's okay.

If you don't mind.

Audio is fine.

Thank you. I'm speaking on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. We respectfully oppose Senate Bill 351, because it will impose redundant and burdensome requirements on farmers without a clear, demonstrable benefit to public health or environmental safety. We already have regulations to ensure detailed record keeping which goes to—every applicator must keep these records.

They're detailed and they're accessible to authorized entities, like EPA and Department of Agriculture, who does the oversight and enforcement. But these increased reporting requirements and especially, geospatial data collection, they risk exposing farmers to legal challenges and undue operational hurdles.

Any amendments that are made to the current law should really prioritize practicality and fairness, while giving transparency to the public. Please do set aside unjustified legislation that discourages farming, and please support laws and policies that will strengthen our agricultural foundation here. I'm available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Janet. Lee Evslin on Zoom, in support.

I'm here.

Okay.

Am I visible or not?

You're visible.

Okay. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm Lee Evslin. I'm a physician from the island of Kauai. I was the previous CEO of—I was a prior CEO of Wilcox Hospital, and I served on the Joint Fact-Finding Task Force, set up by the state, looking at pesticides on Kauai.

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics changed the way pediatricians looked at pesticides.

They basically published a policy statement, stating that pesticides are inherently toxic substances, designed to kill or harm living organisms, and that they had become deeply concerned about chronic, low-level exposure and its health impacts. They asked pediatricians to become involved in these issues, particularly buffer zones and reporting what was where.

That reporting is vital for looking at community health and trying to figure out what are the causes of unhealth in those communities.

I don't know enough about what's available, at this moment, for a researcher to look at, but we do need to duplicate what's in California, which has led the nation, essentially, in understanding what pesticides do in surrounding communities. Thank you.

Lee, I'm sorry, your time's up. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Keolani Kahale, on Zoom.

They're unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, Klayton, in support—Klayton Kubo, in support, on Zoom.

Yes, they're available on Zoom.

I see this Bill being justifiable, being impacted for many, many years. Wait, something about starting over? When I can start my testimony?

You can start now.

Oh, okay. The Zoom, it asks—the Zoom, it asks why? That's the thing. Okay. Klayton Kubo, Waimea, Kauai. I see this Bill justifiable for my friends, family, and I being impacted for many, many years of biotech companies on the west side of Hawaii. Even now when I drive through, there is pesticide drift coming in my vehicle.

And as you guys can see, from legislation I think was two years ago, the increased fines bill had over 600 repeat offenders of pesticide violations. When is I going to feel safe? When my family going to feel safe on Kauai? When my friends gonna feel safe on Kauai?

That's the question that I gonna ask you guys over there. Have you guys ever been impacted like how we have been impacted in the town of Waimea? It is pretty bad. Eyes burning. What else?

Thank you, Klayton. Scott Dahlman, from Croplife America, opposed. Wakon Childers, from Bowman Termite and Pest Management, opposed. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Yes.

Please come forward.

Aloha, Chair Gabbard and Committee Members, DeCoite and Mr. Rhoads. My name is Bobby Pahila. I'm a resident of Maui. I am in support of this because, what I hear from testimony, is I hear concerns about cost of staffing, and I hear concerns about being overregulated.

I don't think that we can really justify those concerns over the health and wellbeing of potential hazards in our community. Talking about the geophysical spatia where we need to identify the amounts of pesticides that's being applied there—now that could have potentially detrimental effects on our long-term aquifers.

And I think that our legislators and policymakers should side on the side—they should decide on the side of caution. I think that outweighs the future livelihoods of people of Hawaii, versus companies that are making a profit off of their businesses and concerns of staffing. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Bobby. Anyone else? Hunter, from the Hawaii Farmers Union?

Thank you, Chair. Chair and Committee Members, Hunter Heaivilin, on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We sent our written testimony in support and offer a couple of additional comments. As a registered lobbyist, which some view as a corrosive source, I am required to report three times annually, but for registered pesticides, only once annually is required.

Similarly, new ethics rules have deemed that I must locate and provide information in reporting on what it is that I'm lobbying on. And I think locational data around restricted use pesticides are a reasonable step to make.

To make that easier, I think it is high time that we move past the 15th Century technology of the printing press, into the modern era, to make this less onerous for everyone involved—users, administrators, and otherwise. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much, Hunter. Okay. Members, any questions?

I did have a question, Chair.

Senator Rhoads.

Sir, if you don't mind. My initial reaction to the resistance to this is, what is it that people are worried about? Why does it need to be hidden? I guess I'm just always suspicious when people don't want to reveal information that would otherwise appear to be innocuous.

Yeah, I guess I'm curious too because, you know, California is the largest agricultural producing state and they're able to report within a square mile, so, I really don't understand what the threat is to producers in Hawaii.

And I just will also add that, when we look at the data, 97% of the REP use, across the state, consistently, is 10 users.

Okay. But in terms of research on the, on the other direction, having it more frequently, how does that help researchers?

I think it would help in terms of getting the information to a concerned community member if, I mean, the whole...

Real time.

Yeah. I think the intent of, you know, when we've been advocating for this Bill over the years, is it really came from communities like Klayton, who are living adjacent to, you know, heavily sprayed areas, that just want to know what their communities are exposed to, and that was always the intent of disclosure measures, from our advocacy perspective.

So, it's really about public transparency, I think, is really important.

Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Chair.

Question.

Okay. Senator DeCoite.

DOA. So, what you guys do with the data? What do you guys do with the data from increase reporting? And I thought you did report more than once a year?

So, right now, the current requirement is for annual reporting, for certified applicators. The Department currently produces an annual summary of restricted use pesticide application and use, by county. The Department recently, based on previous bills and testimony and discussions, has actually switched over to reporting in one consistent unit of pounds of active ingredient.

So, we've been hearing the questions and the concerns, and you know, we're trying to make it easier and more digestible for, really, anyone who's interested in the information.

So, so digitization?

Yes.

How difficult is you guys—for you guys to digitize? And then, has there been any repercussions in the existing reporting form, now? So, in other words, they reported, you guys show the geolocation. Has there been any, I don't know, you know, active has been a big thing.

When somebody don't like somebody, they go over and just bust stuff up. How bad has that gotten?

So, in terms of digitization, the Department actually has developed a RUP reporting app. This is back in 2021, and this was something that we had mentioned in our testimony, in that we've had vacancies, those positions that were provided that do the analysis, they do the processing of all of the 1100-1200 Application Use Reports.

They have been, because it's a temporary position, we've actually asked to switch it over to permanent positions, because it provides staffing with, you know, the permanency of that, not recurring. In terms of pushback and—so, currently we actually ask for the tax map keys, right, for each of the certified applicators.

We haven't received—we've, we've seen issues in terms of how do we get it, right? What does that information look like? But the education staff that we have has been able to provide that information, with a good amount of back and forth for the certified applicators.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. And there were on SB351, there were 45 in support, five opposed and two comments. Moving on to SB352 relating to pesticides, requires the Department of Ag to use consistent units of measurement in its summary to the public on the amounts of restrictions.

Restricted use pesticides used establishes a 1/2 mile buffer zone for pesticides around schools and state and county public parks. First up is Department of Ag.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee, Greg Takashima, Pesticides Program Manager. The Department stands on its written testimony with comments available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Bisson from Maui is in support and Frederick from HAPA.

Chair, Members of the Committee, Annie Frederick and support from HAPA. So, you know, in our analysis of the three years 2019 through 2021, what we have encountered are some very concerning high use of in particular fumigants in central Oahu. And that is really a huge percentage of the RDP usage in the state.

What is concerning about those particular fumigants, which are known as 1, 3D or T loan and to a smaller extent, metem sodium, is that they are known carcinogens and they are highly prone to drift. So we believe they're actually known to drift several miles.

And what we're really concerned about is not just the acute exposures, but long term chronic exposures. So the extent and really over the last three years they've been, you know, approximately more or less 200,000 pounds of fumigant use a year, which is more like equal or a little bit more than California's pound per acre usage.

So that's a real concern, I think, and really warrants some protective measures around our schools and parks. Thank you.

Thank you. Hunter Heveland, White farmer. Chief, thank you. Brian Miyamoto from the Farm Bureau is opposed. Tim Lyons.

I'd like to speak on behalf of Farm Bureau, please. Okay, thank you. I'm Janet Ashman. On behalf of Farm Bureau and Aloha, we respectfully oppose and Bill 352. There's really no justification for expanding the buffer zone scientifically, medically, and what it will do is unfairly penalize farmers, reduce usable agricultural land.

If you take a look at an overlay on a map of what, 1/2 of a mile from all the schools and now adding onto that the parks and county parks and state parks, we're going to have a real problem growing food, especially if, as we all know, we're getting more and more invasive species every week coming into Hawaii that might require restricted use pesticides to build them thank you very much.

Thank you. Tim Lyons from Hawaii Pest control.

Thank you. Mr. We'll sit on our testimony.

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

Aloha Mai Kku Bobby Pahlia Kuhome O Waiohuli, Maui I am in support of this Bill because previous to me becoming a full time kalo farmer, I worked at the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag and Human Resources at the Kula Agriculture Research Station. I was a research technician over there.

And at that position we were asked by chemical companies to do trials on pesticides that they wanted to be cleared. And my biggest concern is that these trials were in General very short term, so there are no long-term studies done on this.

And this is how pesticides are basically taking off of the shelf because after a long period of time they found that long term chronic effects and impact has taken its toll on not only people but the environment as well.

Time's up, obviously. Sorry.

Yeah. So I am definitely in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Bobby. Anyone else wishing to testify on SB352?

Testify as a remote.

Mr. Kubo.

Klayton Kubo. I see this, I see another Bill that is justified. Okay? But we all got to remember buffer zones, not one size fits all. Please remember that one size does not fit all.

And scientifically I can say because hey, I did my studies but hey, I'm not one biologist or whatever classification is that the thing used to come in my house, drift used to come in my truck. Not just one time, multiple, multiple occasions. So I hope that that is just enough scientific that you guys can meaningful pass this Bill along again. Malama Kino. Aloha.

Thank you, Klayton. Okay, there were on SD352 43 in support, 9 opposed, 1 comment. Just FYI, we have a hard stop at 2:45. I've been informed we have two measures left. So we'll go with get as far as we can get.

I got a quick question for. It. Was it was said that there has been 600 repeat violations. Have you guys addressed those violations and has that been set within the existing buffer zone and who are those violations on if there's 600 of them, has the department addressed those violations and what has been the penalties for those violations?

Sure. Greg Takashima, Pesticides Program Manager Again, the Department is actually in the process of updating our rules. So back In I believe 2023, the Legislature provided us with increasing the ability to increase the penalty from 5,000 to 10,000 for commercial pesticide users who violate 149A and from 1,000 to $5,000 for private users of pesticides. The department.

So the 600 that Klayton does had mentioned is actually an accumulation of. Because he's been asking for years, you know, over the years of repeat offenders. So that was over a period of time. The number recently, I believe was at about 60 or so 70 over the past three years of repeat offenders.

We do have the authority to increase the fines. Right, and that's why you folks provided us with that increase. So we have been ramping up some of the civil penalties as we've been seeing repeat offenders occur.

Of those repeat offenders, how much is restricted use and how many was home use?

There have been very few acts. So the actual act of applying. There's, I want to say there's been less than 5 within the last two or three years for application violations for RU, specifically for RUPs.

The bulk of it of the violations are General use pesticides by, you know, General use can be used by realistically everyone in this room. So that, yeah, the majority and generally we also do about a hundred or so notices of violation a year.

So that gives you a pretty good idea that it's a very small amount of restricted use pesticide users that are actually violating our laws. Thank you.

Next is SB563 relating to water infrastructure. Directs the Department of Ag in collaboration with the Agribusiness Development Corporation and the counties to conduct an agricultural water infrastructure study for the State of Hawaii. First up is Department of Ag.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you. Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau stands on written testimonial support.

Chair we stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Hunter Hedlin, Farmers Union.

Thank you. Jacqueline Ambrose, Teresa Thompson and Clayton Kubo are in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Number five in support. One opposed. No comments. Members, any questions? Hearing none. Moving on to the last measure. Is SB498 relating to agricultural workforce housing.

Requires the Department of Ag to establish an agricultural workforce housing working group to address the shortage and challenges of agricultural workforce housing in the state. First up is Department of Hawaiian Homelands Colleague Watson. Not here in support. Department of Ag.

Good afternoon, Chair Gabbard. Members of the Committee, Senator Gates here on behalf of Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on its written testimony and support. Mahalo.

Thank you, Cedric. SB498. We're still at SB498. Wendy Gaty from ADC in support. Kelsey Nagata from the Attorney General's Office on Zoom.

They're not available?

No, he's in person.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Travis Moon for Kelsey Nagata. We provided our written comments in previous testimony available for any questions. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was down on his written testimony and support.

Hunter Heaivilin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Chair, the Farmers Union stands on its written testimony in support. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Yes, please come forward.

Aloha mai kakou. Chair Gabbard and Committee Members. I am in support of this measure and I know we like a lot of time, so I just want to be on record that I'm in support of it.

Thank you, Members. Any questions? Okay.

Department of Ag. So you know while you're walking up, because I know. So if you find out that the workforce housing for agricultural, which we know is all needed, who will develop the housing and where would the developments occur? And how will any housing development be limited to agricultural workers?

Well, the Department. Good afternoon, Senator. The Department stands in strong support of just developing agricultural homes for our workforce. Given the needs, this Bill would create the working group to allow for the collaboration to happen and figure out, I guess, what would be the best route. To develop these homes.

But the Department stands in strong support of developing these workforce homes.

So problem has been, right, we develop the homes and then later on the farm, the people end up staying there and then we have limited for the workforce of farms. How will you guys help enforce that?

I think definitely whoever is developing it, if it's a private developer having some type of MOU or agreement that it will remain in ag workforce instead of leaving, I think that would be appropriate.

Okay. All right, that ends the finishes, the testimony on the bills. We'll go into decision making on the 1 o'clock agenda. We'll start off with SB724 as related to deposit beverage container redemption. And on this we need a little bit more time to defer decision making until Monday, February 3rd at 1:05pm here in room 224.

SB 251 is relating to invasive species requiring the Department of Ag to adopt rules and carry out the invasive species placard program for plant nurseries. The chair's recommendation will be to pass as is any discussion. Senator Rhoads, if you would take the vote.

Sorry. SB 251. 251. Okay. As is. Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 251 is to pass, as is. Chair Gabbard votes yes. Vice Chair is excused. Aye. I vote yes. Senator. Wah. Was that an I? Yep. Okay. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you, Members. SB562, establishing a plant nursery registry Program to regulate the sale of nurseries stock. The recommendation on this one will be to pass with the amendments from the Department of Ag and all the amendments from the Department of Ag.

And in addition, amendments to clarify that cut foliage, fresh fruit and vegetables will be included under the definition of nursery stock and will also clarify that pop up sales shall be included and there also are tech amendments. Any discussion? Chair votes I.

Chair's recommendation on SB 562 is to pass with amendments. Chair Gabbard votes aye. Vice Chair excused Senator Coit?

Aye.

I'll vote yes. Senator Waugh? Aye. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Members. SB506 relating to Department of Ag to conduct a study on agriculture markets for Hawaii farmers. On this one, the recommendation will be with tech amendments, blanking the appropriation and inserting it into the Committee report for consideration and defecting the date until July 12050. Any discussion? Chair bow tie.

[Roll call]

Recommendation that was 506, right?

506 went ahead.

Thank you. Moving on to SB661, relating to plant based building materials, appropriating funds to the Department of Ag or the establishment and operation of programs relating to development of hemp and bamboo based building materials. 661.

Chair's recommendation will be to pass with the amendments from the Climate Protectors Hawaii and Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition to include the development of bio cements, blanking the appropriation and inserting it into the Committee report consideration. Also defecting the date until July 12050. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

Chair's recommendation SB661 is to pass with amendments. Chair Gabbard votes yes. Vice Chair Richards? Aye. Senator D. Coit? I'll vote yes. Senator Wa. Aye. Recommendations?

Okay. Moving on to SB127, establishing conventional farming grant programs.

Let's see here.

So the Chair's recommendation will be to pass with tech amendments, blanking the appropriation and inserting it out into the Committee report for consideration and defecting the date to July 12050. Any discussion?

[Roll call]

Thank you. SB351 relating to pesticides requiring a quarterly rather than annual reporting of all RUPs. Recommendation of the Chair will be to pass. As is any discussion.

Quick discussion. Chair yeah, just comment. I appreciate the intent. I think this needs. It'll work. So I may be supporting it with reservations.

Thank you.

Sure. zero, sorry. Go ahead.

Sure. Same thing. I. You know, after listening to the fumigation on it, I think there's concerns on how we address that as well. Again, this is a safety and health issue that I truly support. But I will be voting with reservations as this discussion continues.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB351 is to pass as is. Chair Gabbard votes yes. Vice Chair Richards votes with reservations. Senator Dacoit's reservations? I'll vote yes. Senator WA recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Members on SB 352, also relating to pesticides requiring Department of Act use consistent units of measurements in its summary. Let's see. A recommendation will be to pass with tech amendments. Tech amendments to correct the date in Section 3 to January 12026. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

Yeah. Chair, same concerns. Definitely supporting is a health and safety issue. But I'll be. I think there's some work still needs. To be done on it. So I'll be supporting with reservations.

Thank you, Chair. Again, Department of Ag I will await some of the changes that they will make. I think again the health and safety of our communities of the utmost importance. Again, establishing the 1/2 mile. I believe it should apply to all pesticides at this point because of the safety and health of our communities.

But I will be voting a resolution. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Chair's recommendation SB352 is to pass with amendments. Chair Gabbard votes yes. Vice Chair Richards votes with reservations. Senator Coit votes with reservations. I'll vote yes. Senator WA I recommendations adopted.

SB563 is next. Relating Directs the Department of AG in collaboration with the ADC and the counties to conduct an AG water infrastructure study. A recommendation on this will be to defer decision making until Friday, January 31st at 1:55pm in this room. 224.

And then the final measure on the 1:00 agenda is SB 498 requiring the Department of Ag to establish an Ag Workforce Housing Working group to address the shortage and challenges. And the Chair's recommendation would be to defer this one until. Wait a minute. No.

Chair's recommendation will be to pass with amendments from the AG's office to clarify that the working group will be established in the Department of Ag rather than by Department of Ag. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

Chair's recommendation on SB498 is to pass with amendments. Chair Gabbard votes aye. Vice Chair Richards? All right. Senator Coit? Aye. I'll vote yes. Senator wa. Recommendations adopted.

Okay, thank you, Members. And due to time, we're going to be rolling the rest of the decision making to 1:01pm agenda on Monday, February 3rd. Two times here. zero, the 101.

Okay, the DMS for the 101 agenda that we didn't get to Today Day, we're going to roll that to one. 5 pm February 3rd, in this room 224.

Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.