House Standing Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems

Aloha Kakayaka Kakou. Welcome to the hearing on the House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. Today is January 31, 2025 at 10:00 AM and we're convening in Conference Room Room 325 here at the Hawaii State Capitol. I'm Kirsten Kahaloa, Chair of the Agriculture Committee and today we have with us Vice Chair Kusch, Representative Peruso and Representative Quinlan.

Thank you guys for being here. Before we get started, we just have a few housekeeping rules in order to allow as many people to testify as possible. There will be a two minute time limit per testifier and I'll ask you to summarize if you've gone over that time limit.

If you'd like to stand on your testimony that you you your written testimony that you previously submitted, that is perfectly acceptable because we must adjourn by noon for our floor session. Not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify in that event.

Please know that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee and has been received and filed. Please keep yourself muted if you're on zoom and joining us virtually and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete, the zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only.

Please use the chat function for technical issues only. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting. Reschedule the decision making meeting as well. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using trademarked or copyrighted images and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. Thank you folks for being here. The first agenda item we have today is HB 1449 related to Plant Care Components. Authorizes the Department of Agriculture to adopt rules and establishes administrative penalties to establish, establish and enforce the Plant Care Component Program.

Appropriates funds and establishes positions for the purpose of the Plant Care Component Program. First to testify today is the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the. Committee, Chelsea Arnott on behalf of Hawaiian Basis Species Council and will stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair Members of the Committee here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on a written testimony in support.

Thank you. We also have one written testimony in support from the Hawaii Food Plan Plus Policy. At this time, we have no other indications of those wishing to testify in this measure. Would anyone else like to testify on this measure? See none. Members questions? See none. We're going to move on to the next measure.

HB 859, relating to agriculture. Establishes an agricultural crime prevention program within the Department of Agriculture to provide grants, education, administrative enforcement and other services for the benefit of the state's agricultural industry. Clarifies, creates, and strengthens laws regarding crimes and violations related to agriculture or agricultural lands and hunting on private agricultural lands.

Establishes clear distinctions between administrative and criminal penalties. Appropriate funds. First to testify on this measure is Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Cedric Gates, here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. We just wanted to clarify and make a correction to our testimony in paragraph 5.

We wanted to mention that the funds that are deposited in the existing Certification Services Revolving Fund, if we could correct that to the Agriculture Crime Prevention Fund instead. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify is the Attorney General's Office via in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Kelcie Nagata, Deputy Attorney General, providing comments in support of HB 859. The Department of the Attorney General strongly supports laws that provide much needed protection to farm and ranchers and that treat agricultural crimes with the seriousness that they deserve.

We wish to note that the bill is entitled relating to agriculture, and we understand that certain provisions are intended to apply to hunting on particular agricultural lands and we have provided written comments regarding that issue in our written testimony. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify is the Honolulu Police Department via Zoom.

Hi. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Michael Campbell. I am Captain for Honolulu Police Department and we stand by our written testimony. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have Hawaii Cattlemen's Council on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Nicole Galase, on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, we submitted our testimony with comments. We are absolutely in support of efforts to curb ag crimes. However, this was a very large and complex bill and it does merit a more thorough review as it'll impact our cattle producers.

HCC does have a working group that's committed to going through this in detail. To offer meaningful comments on the amendments. But we weren't able to do that in the short time frame we had to review it for this committee.

This Committee hearing, for example, some amendments is that we should allow for freeze branding as well for DC44s to be electronically submitted. We also noticed that in some areas, the fines are actually reduced to a petty misdemeanor from a misdemeanor. So we are committed to looking through this and looking at the implications more thoroughly.

And we thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

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

Thank you. We have supportive testimony from, oh, testimony with comments from the Department of Budget and Finance and supportive testimony from the County of Hawaii Office of the Prosecuting Attorney's Office and three individual testifiers in support. No others have indicated. Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the committee, Hunter Heaivilin here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. My apologies for not getting us our testimony in on time, but we did want to stand in support of addressing agricultural crimes overall, but do want to highlight and provide comments on a couple of issues in the bill.

While the bill would provide grants, we want to ensure that there is some equity in the distribution of that. Often grant programs are set up in a way that tends to favor larger operations. And we know that the smallholders across the state have also faced significant issues with agricultural crime.

We also would hazard against establishments of mandatory minimums and stricter enforcement for something that may not be dissuaded. Right. So. By harsher penalties. And overall would like to see further enforcement on the laws that we do have and better support. And so we are in support of seeing this measure move forward, but we'll provide additional commentary. Thank you.

Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Department of Agriculture.

Good morning. Dean Matsukawa, Deputy, Department of Agriculture. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Good morning. So in your testimony, we see my notes here. How many positions were you considering for this?

We can get back to you on the exact number, but the positions that were stated, I think like one, you know, chief and stuff. I think we would start out fairly small to roll it up so we wouldn't be looking at, like, large numbers at this point.

I think we would want to kind of start it, get the program going and then see what kind of manpower needs. Okay now. But I would think it'd be fairly more on the lower side right now.

Okay, let me just see page 68. So it looks like three. Well, it just has a blank grant. Chief supervising, brand inspector. Brand inspector positions for each county.

So, yeah, probably like one in each position. And then I think the line people would be more. But we'd probably come in to fill that as we get the program rolling out.

Okay, and then what about. Of course, that's going to drive your annual costs and your FTE positions. Is there any other administrative costs associated?

Initially, I think we're going to stick it in the Qual Division, the Quality Assurance division. So some of that oversight and budgeting type of things will be handled by them. So I don't think that would be much. It would be more like travel and operating costs.

Okay, and so you had a comment? Portions of the revisions to Chapter 142 that are specific to livestock may be more effective to be placed in 141. Are you able to provide specifics on how that would look?

Yes, we can get back to you on that, on where we specifically on the specific recommendations on those.

Okay, thank you. No, wait, I take that back, I think. And then for cattle.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Department of Ag.

We're going to have another question from the Vice Chair for Cattlemen's Council.

Yes, Vice Chair.

Yeah. You had mentioned your working group and your testimony, because in your written testimony, it was just kind of open what recommendations you might have. What's your timeline for that?

So we are currently. Everyone in the Committee is going over it today, last night already. So that's why I had a couple of details there. We're going to go over it throughout the next week and meet early the week after. We have a national conference next week that restricts us from meeting next week.

So within the next two weeks, we hope to have some specific recommendations from the bill, if not earlier, if we can get them done.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Seeining none. We're going to move on to the next measure. HB1323, relating to the transfer of non-agricultural parklands requires the Department of Agriculture to accept the transfer of and manage certain qualifying non-agricultural parklands. First to testify is the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Hello, Chair. The Department of Agriculture stands on its comments supporting the intent of this measure.

Thank you. Next we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, I'm Kevin Moore with the Land Division at DLNR and we submitted written testimony. I just want to recap. We oppose this Bill because it changes existing Law which right now requires both the Board of Ag and DLNR to approve transfers.

And it would make the transfer process kind of a unilateral decision of the Board of Agriculture. And we've been working closely with DOA and BOA over the past couple of years and have made good progress on transfers. It's mentioned in the testimony.

And just to correct our testimony, we talk about some large pasture leases that have been in discussion for transfer but have not been approved by the Board of Ag yet. But we just learned that this Wednesday four of those large leases were approved for transfer by BOA.

And of the large leases on that list, I think we're okay with transferring one and we oppose one and would are looking to split two of them. So part would go to DOA and part would be retained by DLNR. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have more testimony from DLNR. Emma Ewan, is there additional. Do you want to testify in person or just utilize your written testimony, or compass the whole Department. Gotcha. Also in opposition, also Department of Land and Natural Resources, Durazo Tsuji in opposition, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testament support. We've been submitting written testimony support for about 20 years. It seems that's how long Act 9 has been.

Before I highlight some points we do want to acknowledge and recognize and show our appreciation to DLNR working with DOA. We do want to acknowledge that there has been transfers, there has been movement, there's been work that has been done. The intent of this Bill is to ensure that transfers continue.

We don't think there are a lot left, a lot more leases left. We don't want to see the work that's been done being considered by DLNR to be it.

So again, the Bill is a little bit more difficult, I think, for DLNR, but we want to ensure that these lands that are productive, agricultural lands that are helping achieve the goals that we want, food doubling, food production, farm to school, farm to families, want to be able to achieve these goals and keep these lands in ag production.

So again, we are in strong support. We appreciate the Legislature support over the years. We mahalo the Department DLNR for the work that's been done thus far. We just don't want to see that work stop. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Cattlemen's Council via Zoom.

Thank you. Aloha. Nicole Galase on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, we again appreciate the work that DLNR and DOA have done to work together to make this progress on transferring lands, on transferring ag lands to the Department of Agriculture. There has been more action on Act 9 in the past couple years and we're grateful for that.

But we are in support of this Bill because there are still leases that are managed by families in active agriculture that the DLNR does not agree to transfer to DOA. We were informed at an Act 90 info briefing last year that when these leases expire, they'll not be renewed for agriculture but converted to conservation.

This will reduce beef production. That's beef production that contributes to goals like doubling local food production in the state. And these are families who have all made improvements to the land during decades they've been stewarding it. They have multiple generations producing food on the land and they need to be under DOA to continue their work.

If you speak to these families, you'll find that they can do both conservation and food production, and they have been doing that. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify in support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. We also have an individual testifier, John Gordines, in person, and we have many. We had 17 in support, five in opposition and one with comments, no others indicating that they're going to testify in person. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? See none. Questions, Members? Representative Peruso.

For the Farm Bureau first, please. So do you have reason to believe that the process has slowed over the past year or two?

Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Thank you, Representative. As you heard, the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, there are leases out there which we believe are not going to be able to be transferred. So maybe slowing may not be the right phrasing.

We think that they don't want to transfer some of these leases that we want that, that we believe should be in Department of Agriculture. We don't understand why, again, our ranchers can do food production as well as conservation.

So we are pushing for kind of these last set of leases to get over to Department of Agriculture that have more favorable lease terms so that we can continue to grow agriculture.

Thank you. May I ask an additional question? Yes. DLNR?

Yes.

So can you explain the reasons for this perception that there are some leases that you folks do not want to turn over and then your reasoning for that reluctance? Yeah.

I'm Emma Yuen with the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We have indicated to a few ranchers that the Department would either want to retain a portion of their land.

So in certain cases, if you know Mono Road, it's the area Mauka of Mana Road that the Department would like to retain or two of our, the leases, we would like to retain them fully. And so we have talked to the ranchers and let them know this.

We've sent them letters, the ones that have been that we have offered like a proposal to partially retain those. Both have accepted our offer, they have sent us letters. And so we're hoping that that can move forward with this Bill that would just like give it all to Department of Ag.

So that's one of the problems that we have with it. But we, we, you know, admittedly, you know, the other ranchers that we have asked that to retain the entire amount are not in favor of that. But the department has our reasons for wanting to retain them.

The main ones being the potential for reforestation in some of these areas, the potential for increasing public access. Some of these could be really amazing hiking or recreation areas.

And the also we have the ability within our department to continue the offering grazing opportunities for the ranchers by issuing special use permits to them to continue grazing after their permit is completed or their lease is completed. And so we have indicated to the ranchers that that is our proposal in the future.

You know, some of these leases are going to be finished in seven or maybe extended to 17 more years. So you know, we can't promise anything past that.

But what we have indicated is our proposal is to keep the rancher on through these grazing permits, to allow them to do that as DLNR incrementally then works on our restoration projects or potentially even do recreation projects that could be done in conjunction with ranching.

And that's something that we have successfully done in other areas that are currently forest reserves where we have grazing permits. So that type of multi use where we have both agriculture and some conservation and recreation is the vision that we have for some of these parcels because they are important for multiple purposes rather than just agriculture.

Thank you. And I just have one more question. Sheriff, you wouldn't mind indulging me for the same person? No, sorry. Thank you so much for the Department of Ag.

Morning. Dean Matsukawa, Department of Agriculture.

Hi. Thank you. So my question has to do with capacity and anytime I see mandates with respect to the relationship between two departments and shifting responsibilities from one department to another. We have seen in other subject areas, especially biosecurity. The Department of Ag is really struggling. So I am concerned about the department's capacity to.

I'm wondering if your diminished capacity is also contributing to difficulty or slowdown in these conversations.

We're doing our due diligence and like you say, we are challenged with a lot of vacancies. However, if the lands do come over, we would be fed up because we understand how important for these farmers and ranchers to get these lands under their control.

They're investing a lot of money and to go on a revocable permit is very troublesome for them or problematic for the farmers. So we would do it to support the farmers and ranchers which we are tasked to do in the state constitution.

But revocable permits have been used in the past. They're, you know, pathway that's been used in the past, correct? Yes. Okay.

But it's problematic. Why not? Because they have to put in water lines and troughs like that. And a lot of times the water comes from the Mauka areas and is traveled, brought down to the lower levels by gravity fed systems. So they need the upper lands for the reservoirs and their water catchment to bring to the bottom.

So if you take the top and you're asking them to put in all this money to put in all this infrastructure on a revocable permit, it becomes very problematic for them because they gotta fence the lands too to keep the cattle within their area. And that's significant cost per foot to put in.

So it's very, very expensive for the farmers and that's why the revocable permits become are problematic.

So would you say that. I'm so sorry Chair, but just one more question. Would you say that those, that this is really a question around the control of water?

No, it's not. It's just the overall whole system. Yeah. Because as hunters go in and everything else and if they damage the systems or whatever the farmers got, the ranch has got to go up and fix.

Okay, thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks. I have a question for dlnr, not you. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy.

Thank you. Emma, question on you talked about how there were maybe two parcels that do not you want to retain fully and not transfer, not, not change the size of their ranching space. Can you give a little more insight to how long these lessees have been ranching on those lands?

Yeah, there's actually there's two parcels that we have worked with ranchers to say that we're going to take the area or we're going to retain the area. Mauka of Mana Road and then there's three parcels that we want to retain fully. And I believe that those ranchers have had their leases for many decades.

I'm not sure exactly the tenure, maybe they have changed, but that I believe there are usually 55 year leases actually and they have the option of extending under DLNR's rules for an extra 10 years. So a lot of them are about seven years away from expiring. And then there's an option to extend another 10 years under DLNR.

So ranchers that have had around a 55 year lease so that it's more than one generation of a family lessing leasing ranching lands and stewarding that Ina DLNR would not like them to do that anymore.

We have indicated to the ranchers that we actually do want to keep them on even after that seven or 10 years are completed and we want to issue them grazing permits and, and continue that practice, which we understand does have some downsides because it doesn't have the long tenure. So it does disincentivize investment.

But the benefit that we have that we see for the public, because this is public lands, is that we want to include public access in some areas. We want to include need of forest restoration in areas and, and some of these areas are very prime for those types of activities.

And so that's our mission, to serve the public purpose in multiple ways while keeping these ranchers on the land as well.

So that's of DLNR's full portfolio of conservation lands. What percentage of your lands are in active reforestation and what percentage of those lands do have public access? Why are these parcels versus anything else in your portfolio that you can give more public access?

When there's an active lease doing active stewardship, it may not be in conservation in the way that DLNR would like it mandated to, but your portfolio is very large. These ranching lands are not that big in totality of your entire portfolio. Why not do reforestation on lands that are not being reforested in your portfolio?

The lands that the Division of Forestry and Wildlife manages are almost Entirely open for public access. And some of these areas are like for instance an area on Maui.

The less the least that were hoping to continue managing and allow public access to is would be the only public access that then gives opportunities to hike to a whole another 6,000 or so acres of forest Reserve land that is currently landlocked.

And so it may be the only way to hike up this large area of Leeward Haleakala. And what's important to us is not necessarily the acreage or areas. It's the actual resources and value of a particular property.

And some of them have amazing hiking and recreation opportunities because they might be very scenic or just have very amazing resources. And others might also have just the right soils and climate for climate for co reforestation.

While you might point and say like we're not doing reforestation in all these other areas, but they might be covered in lava. So it's all about what the resource has. And these areas we've identified and been very specific to target and have prioritized where the resource is the most promising for reforestation or recreation.

So just, just to have you looked into other alternatives, like within Kapapala Ranch, they allow for public access and they manage that public access. But I believe you're currently in process of transferring those lands so that still allows access. Alternatively, you can allow access for that viewing rather than take away the lease.

The other alternative is renewing these leases and working with the lessee to allow for reforestation. So has that been under consideration of dlnr because other parcels have made allowances for reafforestation or public access and they have managed it as the lessee on your lands and they're still actively ranching.

Those all are examples of where DLNR is actively managing the lease. And that's the type of oversight that we want to continue to have. And that's why we want to hold on to these, some of these properties. And so these arrangements that we're talking about are made possible by this deal in our oversight.

And we are believe that under Department of Ag we would not have that direction, oversight and availability to work with these ranchers on and encourage them to allow public access or to, you know, will have absolutely no leverage on reforestation.

So while we could offer the ranchers the opportunity to get our technical support, we want to be able to be a little bit more involved in that as well and actively manage these areas. Haven't have them under our, our over our. Our jurisdiction.

Thank you Members. Yes, Representative Quinlan.

Hi Emma. My question is actually about the capacity or ability of DLNR to manage the recreational areas that it currently has under its jurisdiction. And I, I asked the question, I mean, if, if you want to open up new recreational areas, will you have the resources to actively manage them?

Because I have a forest preserve in my district and I probably get more phone calls about issues in that forest preserve than almost any other issue in my district. We've got mountain bikers building enormous 50 foot long jumps and features unpermitted structures. Raves a young woman lost her life at a New Year's Eve party there recently.

So I'm not seeing really any management of the existing recreational areas. So how could we justify opening up new recreational areas?

Well, I think that there's some of the problems that we have with our recreational areas are overuse. And by opening up new areas it could potentially reduce and kind of spread out the use of certain areas.

And we also do actively manage a lot of our areas to various degrees and have very active management, say of like Manoa Falls and that sort of thing. And, and so yes, we need more help. But we also recognize that some of these areas have. We just want to open them up to the public too and don't.

And there might be unmaintained aspects of it, but we believe to have in General open public use of these public lands. And you know, people take their own risk to access these. And so rather than shutting them all down, we are hoping to increase our capacity and keep them open to allow public use.

I don't think anybody's suggesting shutting them down. Suggesting. What you seem to be suggesting is that because we're doing a bad job of managing the recreational areas we have now, if we open up more of them, that'll spread out the bad job.

No, I think that the, you know, for instance, on Maui, you know, one of, that's one of the areas that we really want to open up. There's just very few open hiking areas that are available for the public. And we hope to give more options. And we, you know, I take pride in the management that we do.

And I understand it could be more and everyone could do more, But I feel like that's not a reason to prevent us from managing additional areas. In fact, we are able to get, we've gotten actually some private donations, large multimillion dollar private donations on Maui specifically for increasing natural area access for Na'alehele.

So we've been pretty successful in some areas, in some islands being able to beef up the, the trail and access program.

I want to be clear, I think that State Parks is actually a fantastic organization and I have a lot of faith in the administrator. But what I'm suggesting is that before we open up new recreational areas, we take a look at all of their budget codes. We make sure that they are.

We're offering a salary commensurate with the financial realities of today. We staff up the division and we don't put the cart before the horse. But thank you.

Okay, thank you. Representative Emma One, one follow up question. Has there been an alternative if DLNR would not like to move this particular parcel, working with the rancher instead of just on a grazing plan where they have challenges putting any infrastructure to do a land swap on other DLNR lands?

Because to follow the law of Act 90, it says to transfer the land in, in, in that particular parcel that is a ranching lease. But if you do not want to, meaning the Department, has there been any discussion. And again, these ranchers have put in generations of infrastructure.

So this is not the alternative that they would want to see. But if, if you really would, if DLNR would really like to keep this particular parcel, are they willing to look at something else in their portfolio, land swap and work with the rancher and the Department of Agriculture to make that identification?

I guess I want to just clarify that these are not owners of the property. These are lessees. And so they have property right of just to their, the end of their lease.

And while we want to support them and keep people working on the land that they're managing, a land swap is usually in reference to like we want to buy or condemn your land and so we owe you, you know, something else. And so we're not planning on kicking these ranchers off during their lease term.

That's as we mentioned, from 7 to 10 years, from 7 to 17 years from now. And so I believe that we will, we could definitely be open to offering and working with these ranchers to look at other parcels that are available in the department's land.

So yes, but I just want to make it clear that it's not as if by when their lease is over, they'll have a certain like legal right for a swap is what I'm saying.

Well, just to make a comment, in, in technical terms, they do, if you had followed the laws of Act 90 in 2003, those lands would have been transferred. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture would be renewing their leases quickly.

So the thought is they would have access to those lands for a longer lease term if Act 90 has been followed and completed. So here we are getting towards the end of their leases. Their leases would have been or would have been renegotiated by the Department if Act 90 was completed. So here we are.

So saying that their lease term is almost done and we may not want to renew is not the intention of the law currently standing for Act 90. So I just want to make that very clear from our position, I believe that the, the.

The law is, says that both the Board of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture both mutually agree. And that is what the Act 90 working group also recommended is to keep that dual approval mechanism because of the two resources.

So our understanding is that we are carrying out the law of Act 90 and the purpose of Act 90 as it is written. And in some cases, there are some areas that maybe the boards might reject and some areas that the boards will accept. So that's our understanding.

Thank you, Members. Any questions?

Yes, Vice Chair Kusch for Emma Dillonar. Thank you for your answers. How many. So you mentioned the two leases on Mana Road and how many other lease and the one in South Maui sounds like. How many leases are you looking at. Not continuing in totality? Like the number of leases?

Well, okay, there's two on Mana Road that are. We're hoping to split.

Yeah, that I understand.

And then there's two more on Mana Road that we want to keep in completion, plus the Maui 1.

So three that you want to retain.

Yeah, three. Three that we want to retain fully. And. And I guess to answer your question, we don't have the legal authority to extend their lease after 17 years. We've asked the Legislature to provide that, but it's not currently our under our rules to allow that further extension.

So once that 17 years is completed, we have to go back to public auction. And so while when we've asked the ledge to give us the same authority as doa, we haven't succeeded in those requests. And so that was something that we had proposed is the ability to extend it further. But currently now we just can't.

So it's not a question of does DLNR want to keep their leases going? It's more a question of we just can't legally do it past 17 years currently.

Okay. And then how many total acres are you of those three lots? Those three leases? What. What ballpark acreage?

Zero, I would. It's around 7,000 acres total, but don't quote me on that. Okay? No, I'm not.

I'm just trying to get a frame of reference here. Are we talking 200 or 7,000 and.

Compare it and get you a list. Okay.

Thank you. And then my last question is regarding Kapapala. That is a lease you guys are. Going to retain or it's going to go to the Department of Ag. Or it's already happened.

The. The rancher proposed to us that DLNR retains 7,000 acres of that approximately, I don't know, 40,000 acres or it was a very large amount be kept by the dlnr. And so both the Board of Ag and the Board of Land and Natural Resources have approved transferring everything besides that 7,000 acres to Department of Ag.

We retain the 7,000 and it becomes a forest Reserve.

And the easements will remain for access. Yes. So that's something that you've worked through with doa.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other questions, Members? We will move on to the next bill, HB 912, relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. Appropriates funds to offset the debt for the Waiahole Water System. First to testify today is the Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Wendy Gady, ADC. and we stand in strong support of this item. I'm available for any questions. We were expecting to have more farmers here, and I have written testimony. Because of the rains, they're not able to come in.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you. We have Hawaii Farm Bureau. Thank you. Kunia Village Title Holding Corporation, Stephanie Whalen.

Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Whalen. I'm the President of the Kunia Village Title Holding Company. I'm testifying on behalf of the agricultural workers that their livelihood is dependent on the water from Waiahole Ditch. And also, just to put into perspective what's already been paid to the state.

The state provided $8.5 million purchase of the Waiahole Ditch, and that principal has been paid by the farmers already. They've also paid another million something on interest. Now, if this goes to 2035, essentially just the interest is accumulating. It's another 5 million dollars.

So from our perspective, the farmers have paid for the cost of that, and the state has gotten their money and they've gotten a little interest. And so I think it's worthwhile to consider the contributions from this community, which provides a lot of the local produce now and reducing the import. And, you know, it's a... Frankly, I've lived my life. It's the right thing to do. So hopefully you'll pass this and pay off the debt. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center.

Hi. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. I'm Robbie Melton. I'm the new Executive Director of HARC. We are 108 acre research organization. We have 108 acres in our Kunia experiment station. We do advanced research and then take that results of our research, train the local farmers on new techniques, new plants, disease resistance projects.

Currently, we have 44 projects, and we support seven GoFarm graduates on our land. The Waiahole Ditch is the only ag water that we have. So if we don't have that, then we would not have a research station nor would we be able to help the farmers. So we strongly support this bill, and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We have three other organizations in support. And next is John Gordines. Is he here? Still not here. And we have four individuals in support. That's all the testimony that we've received at this time. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Oh. Oh, yes.

Aloha, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Wayne Ogasawara. I'm a farmer and owner of Mililani Agricultural Park and have farmed this land for the past 26 years using, of course, the Waiahole Ditch water. This land has been dedicated as an important agricultural land and remain, and will remain in my family, basically in agriculture forever.

Obviously, I'm in support of the bill that sets aside appropriate monies for the bond debt service and tunnel repair. Myself and my 25 other farmer tenants are using this precious Waiahole water and have seen the price of this water increase from about 30 cents per thousand way back when. And it's just about a dollar per thousand gallons today. Needless to say, this has been a great financial burden to shoulder for us farmers.

In addition to the cost of water, of course, increase in medical insurance, fertilizers, chemicals, labor, farm security. It's becoming even tougher to survive as a farmer. Your support this bill will certainly help ensure that our children, my grandchildren, will have a viable farm and orchard to enjoy and prosper and keep Hawaii agriculture strong forever. Thank you for the opportunity to present my viewpoint of the situation. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? We're on HB 912. See none. Questions members? Seeing none. We're going to move on to the next measure. HB1006 relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation includes agricultural tourism in the definition of enterprise. To authorize the Agribusiness Development Corporation to financially support farming businesses engaged in agricultural tourism.

First to testify in this measure is the Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, we stand in strong support. And I wanted to point out this is an initiative and an ask by our licensees, and they're asking specifically for this to be added and amended to our statute so that the board can create policies, plans and parameters for operating safely for everyone.

I'm available for questions.

Thank you. We have DBED in support. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was down on it for testimony in support.

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Farmers Union testified and has submitted written testimony in support of this measure, but would like to respectfully request hearing for HB189, which would include increase the requirements that counties would need to adopt for governance of agricultural tourism.

We've seen in many places across the state where the cart may lead the horse, where it seems like the tourism should maybe be recognized as the primary activity on the land.

And so while we support and recognize agricultural tourism as a critical mechanism for some farm operations to remain viable in the face of high property taxes and operating costs, we want to ensure that that activity is accessory and secondary, not the primary use. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Cattlemen's Council on zoom.

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

Thank you. And we have two other individuals in support. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? See none, members questions? Representative Perruso.

I think my question is for ADC. Morning. So this is a particularly tricky topic in my district, as you know, because we have seen AG land being used for non agricultural purposes in ways that have created a lot of division and upset in the community.

And my concern is really about the parameters of the work that you're doing and the definitional work that you're doing. If it's not codified in law, then I'm curious about your abilities to manage this kind of extension of. Of your responsibility. Right.

Because I do see it as heightened responsibility because you'll be allowing additional kinds of activity on those lands. And as it stands, I would say there are issues that even your board has not been able to address.

So I'm curious about how you see addressing that conflict on one hand and then kind of moving forward to really making this kind of additional revenue access possible for the farmers who will be on ADC land, because I think that is, you know, legitimate and important.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for that question. This is one of the reasons that it would be good to add because it comes down to everybody's interpretation of their farm plan and what's included and what's not included.

And by having guiding policies and parameters that kind of say, hey, traffic's going to be a problem, probably not going to be a good location for AG tourism. We don't have that established right now. It's kind of loose on how people interpret their farm plan and how much they push.

And this would help the board really hone in and hold people accountable for what the board policy is in this area and not just merely what's in the farm plan. Does that answer your question or you have a follow up?

It does, but I'm wondering if it's going to be. I mean, I guess you do have some control over your lessees, but I guess the question is more about the control over your lessees. So you'll be establishing rules, but then are you able to enforce them?

I think that we are. I think we've been adding to our staff. We have a lot of new folks that are coming up to speed on what our policies are and procedures.

And it's also been an opportunity to look at where there might be some holes that we could plug in on some of our current policies and procedures. But this is kind of a key part in really making it definitive and basically putting some teeth into what a licensee interprets as something that's allowable and non allowable.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. We have someone else wishing to testify via Zoom. Racquel Achiu. My apologies if I'm mispronouncing your name.

Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you so much. No, you pronounced it right. Thank you. Racquel Achiu. I'm of the Wailuamoku North Shore. I am Vice Chair of the North Shore Neighborhood Board and Chair of our AG Committee. Although I am providing testimony on my own personal capacity, we've worked very hard out here.

And as to Rep. Perruso's comment, we do have it very--the situation out here is very dire when it comes to agritourism. I don't know that I support or oppose because I do believe that there are very strong, to the gentleman's point, earlier considerations to be placed in requirements and enforcement.

We have an issue where a lot of our agritourism here, it's not the accessory. The agriculture becomes the accessory and enforcement is an issue. We did just close up the land use ordinance on the city side trying very hard to address those points of requirement. But again, in most cases anything we discuss--

And our farmers and our ranchers out here struggle with being able to keep up in a compliant way when you have the bad actors on the other side. So I think there's a lot of consideration to be placed in the requirements, how their verbiage and the enforcement to follow.

I look forward to following this and I appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? I have one question for Hawaii Farm Bureau, Brian, can you please address potentially how adding tourism or enterprise, basically passing this piece of legislation would help farmers that are lessees in the portfolio of the 80s?

Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau thank you, Chair. Thank you for the question. You know, this legislation is just basically allowing ADC's tenants to participate in AG tourism. It's something that I think most of us do support. Hawaii Farm Bureau supports agritourism. That's value added. Farmers and ranchers, their margins are razor thin.

This allows them to generate some income. However, there needs to be rules, there needs to be safeguards. And so this bill's in addressing that. I think Hawaii Farming Union addressed it. Chapter 205. Right. Which allows in the permissible use 4.5 allows agritourism.

But a county needs to have ordinances in order to enact AG tourism in the particular county. City count Honolulu just went through almost three year land use update which did strike strengthen protections against agritourism. One I think is 51% of your arable, your farmable land needs to be in farm production.

So again, to the point of many of the testifiers, AG tourism is a privilege. Agricultural production is the primary use. So AG tourism needs to be secondary and accessory. So there are some protections that we need more enforcement. You hear it all the time. The county has difficult enforcing their zoning laws, but there are protections.

So we're just, I wouldn't say loving the playing field, but allowing our producers to have some extra level of success, be it through value added through manufactured or value added through farm tours or other activities that are ag tourism related, that can bring in additional revenue, can help with their AG production, their crop production, but also can do education and outreach.

So we believe it's a good thing. Do they need to be safeguards? Absolutely. Counties are responsible for zoning. All right. It's already in our state law. Can we tighten up the state law? Quite possibly Chapter 205. Can we tighten up the county zoning laws and land use ordinance. Absolutely. This bill is not addressing it.

It's just saying, hey, ADC licensees and tenants, we think that you should be allowed to do agritourism also within the confines of the current law at the state and county level. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Brian. Members, any question? Oh, yes, Representative Perruso,.

Please stay. There because my question is for you. So I hear you saying that we could strengthen state law, and I agree. I think that's important.

And I'm wondering then if we pass this legislation and I guess ADC would then have to, if they had already drafted rules, would need to go back and revise those rules to account for the strengthened language in state law. Is that kind of your understanding of the situation?

Or they would just have to because they will have most likely have issued contracts or leases on the basis of those rules.

Representative, maybe that question should be for ADC, if that's okay, unless Brian.

You said Chapter 205, so I was like, yay.

Their tenants are going to have to abide by whatever the state law is or county ordinances. So it could. Again, I don't, I'm not ADC. I don't write the licenses.

But it could be if you want to do actors and you need to be in compliance with or whatever state, county or even federal laws are in regards to ag tourism. I'm not sure how complex it really needs to be.

That might be the same with what Department of Ag does or any other private landowner does, as far as what their. Their lessees they need to comply with whatever the current law and standards are.

Thank you. Thank you so much. It does. I was hearing him defer to the counties and I really wanted to assert the role of the state.

Perfect. Thank you, Members.

Any other questions? Noting no other questions, we will move on to the next measure. HB 1334 relating to meat donation, exempts the donation of wild game meat, including access dear, to a charitable, religious or nonprofit organization to needy persons from certain laws regarding the inspection and traffic transportation of meat.

First to testify on this measure is the DLNR.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. The department supports this bill and stands by its testimony and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Department of Agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture stands on its written testimony and strong support of this. Thank you.

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Chair. Vice Chair Representative Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony and support. We absolutely support this.

This serves a couple of purposes, helps reduce our invasive species such as access deer, even feral pigs, even goats on Hawaii island and also can provide protein for our families in need and our local residents that are in need.

So I think this clarifies in Chapter 145, because actually in 159, if the legislature recalls two years ago you did pass the donation measure for wild game. So I think this now addresses the Meat Inspection act and exempts the some of those requirements that I guess is prohibiting the 2003 bill from going forward.

I do want to note though, Act 54 in 2003 that amended the donation law also created a task force, a meat let me pull it up which is still in operation.

So we may want to engage with that task force, the Meat Processing Task Force, to address some of these issues, specific issues of this bill and any other issue that arises from our hunters and others ability to help eliminate or reduce the amount of access deer and other wild game and provide it to our charities, our non profits or food banks.

So I believe that they're still scheduled to meet. The task force has not dissolved and they are meeting in I think the summer of this year, the spring or summer. So just a note for the committee that there is a task force that is looking into some of these issues and the task force is still active.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We also have supportive testimony from the County of Maui Mayor's office, Mayor Bissen, County of Maui Council Member Sugimura in support and continuing with testimony, Jackie Keefe, Maui Adaptation Project on Zoom.

Hello everyone. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jackie Keefe and I'm here today to testify in strong support of HB 1334. I did submit testimony online and via email.

I did both because there were additional documents that I wanted to support my testimony just from conversations that we've been having for several months now and years that my friend has been having.

But under our current state rules and regulations, hunters and nonprofit organizations looking to donate their meat to charitable organizations for distribution have the burden placed on them to pay for an inspector for this process. This minimizes the amount of meat that gets donated while maximizing food waste.

Federal law does not mandate this and many states have developed specific rules around these donation programs. Hunters are currently operating in a gray area with regards to liability donating wild game meat to anyone who isn't ohana. These bills were written to eliminate this.

Well, this and the Senate Bill were written to eliminate the need for inspection of donated meat which aligns our state with the Federal Meat Exemption Act that already exempts donated meat from federally mandated inspection.

Ultimately, we need rules and regulations in place that encourage donation of wild venison to address both food insecurity and Maui Nui's axis deer crisis. Access deer negatively impact ranchers, farmers and our ecological systems, therefore negatively impacting our entire community.

HB 1334 seeks to remove barriers for the donation of wild game meat including including access tier to charitable organizations. But it is important to remember that it is not about meat processing capacity. Act 54 of 2023 already established a meat processing task force to navigate the state's meat processing capacity.

So I would urge anyone with those concerns to read that law, which by the way was not carried out correctly. I fully support and see the need for additional meat processing capacity, but that must be addressed in a separate conversation rather than complicating this one. Please pass this bill through committee.

Addressing this crisis is a kako thing and this bill would ensure not only that fresh local protein doesn't go to waste, but also allow us to take huge steps towards protecting our ecosystems. Mahalo for your time today.

Thank you. Next to testify is Hawaii Cattlemen's Council on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Nicole Galase. On behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, we submitted testimony in support of this measure because the invasive deer issued negatively impacts not just farmers and ranchers, but everyday residents and the environment.

This bill will help facilitate removing these animals from the land, but also ensuring that they feed our community. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify and support.

Mahalo. Next we have Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom. Not present. Okay, thank you. We had many other supportive testimony in support. Both individuals and organizations. 36 testimonies in support. Those were the only people wishing to testify in person. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Members questions? Seeing none.

Mahalo.

We're gonna move on to the next measure. HB1291 relating to agriculture extends the offense of false labeling of Hawaii grown coffee to include roasted coffee. Imposes a $10,000 fine for each separate offense. A false labeling of Hawaii grown roasted coffee. First to testify on this measure is Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Hello Chair. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture stands on it's testimony in strong support of this measure. Just to mention that we are requesting a position.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

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

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair, Hawaii Farmers Union-

Thank you. Synergistic Hawaii Agricultural Council on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members from a very rainy Kona day here. I'm Suzanne Schreiner. I'm the administrator for SHAC, testifying in support on behalf of the coffee industry, including the Hawaii Coffee Association and the Kona Coffee Farmers Association.

We stand on our testimonies and we just add that this is an important loophole to close in the statute. And we appreciate your attention on the matter and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. We also have support testimony from Kona Coffee Farmers Association, as Suzanne indicated, and several testimonies of support by individuals. That is all we have registered to testify in person. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Committee, any questions? Seeing none.

We're going to move on to our final measure of the day, HB534, also relating to labeling require- oh, sorry. We're going to move back to HB1291. My apologies. I have one question for the Department of Agriculture. Sorry about that.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the question.

Yeah, so my question is- there was.

I'm Richard Cohen, by the way, program manager of Measurement Standards.

Thank you. I know that the labeling requirement positions that you used to have are no longer within the department directly anymore, and the department would like to reestablish that. We did add appropriations for a position from previous testimony earlier this week on the Mamaki Tea Bill. So my question to the department is, we saw your testimony.

Do we need to add an additional position here, or is the department looking for one position, therefore, that has been put in the amendments to the relating to Mamaki Tea Bill.

Well, right now we have zero positions except for one inspector that does devices as well as lab- labeling approvals for labels out of Hilo. And if we could get an additional position, depending on whether the bills pass. There are other bills that are being presented as well.

We're trying to develop the package and labeling section to reinstitute something that was taken away way back in 2009, I think, during the RIF and left us with only device inspectors.

Thank you. So is one position at this time sufficient? I know you had initially. Initially.

Initially.

Okay, thank you. That's my only question. I appreciate it. Any other questions, Members? Moving on to our final measure, HB534 relating to labeling requirements, prohibits the sale of raw ahi and raw ahi products in retail establishments without a label that states the country where the ahi was landed.

First to testify on this measure is the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Thank you. Next we have the Attorney General's Office.

Good morning. Deputy Attorney General Travis Moon. We provided written comments about a Supreme Supremacy Clause issue. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Cedric Gates here. On behalf of the Department of Agriculture. We we wanted to add to our comments that we provided the Committee on HB534.

The Department believes that this Bill would be best executed under DCCA or DoH due to their ability to inspect as well as their ability to enforce. So that's our comments. We'll be here for questions. Thank you.

Next we have Hawaii Longline Association.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Rep. Perruso. Eric Kingma, Executive Director of the Hawaii Longline Association, which is definitely in support of this Bill. We believe for too long consumers have not been provided information on the country of origin of the poke they buy at retail, especially at the poke fish counter.

And simply the Bill provides country of origin and really where the ahi poke comes from. Today is Friday. There's probably going to be 20,000 lbs of ahi poke sold today for Pau Hana. And 90% of that is foreign imported carbon monoxide treated and previously frozen. There's also very little demarcation in the poke counter retail on the product.

It's either labeled previously frozen or fresh. And sometimes it's not even labeled at all to distinguish those things. You know, if the Bill goes forward, it's not going to prohibit the importation or the sale of this foreign imported gas treated ahi.

Retailers can still use their marketing strategies as say locally prepared or freshly prepared, even though that is considered confusing for consumers. But the origin will be there for consumers really to make their own informed choice. Recently we put out a little social media video over the weekend. It got viewed 140,000 times, 85,000 accounts, re shared 3,000 times.

The people of Hawaii, I believe, want this Bill. The Hawaii fishing community is supporting this Bill to a huge extent.

Recently this past week, Senator Schatz and Senator Cruz introduced bipartisan legislation in the Senate to investigate ways to test for the origin of tuna as well as red snapper to prevent foreign importers or importers using foreign product to mislabel that as, you know, origin in the United States.

So there's interest not only locally but across the United States on this issue with respect to the Department of Ag's comments, you know, if the supremacy clause is, that issue is alleviated with a little bit of a tweak to the definition of process raw ahi. I think that we'd be very much in support of that.

And then in terms of enforcement, you know, if ag is not appropriate agency, then certainly there might be another one like DCCA to carry this out. Appreciate it. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau is down on. Its written testimony and support.

Thank you. We have James Silva on zoom. Not present. Next we have Lacey on zoom. Not present. Nelson in person, not here. Also have Reneta K. In person. We had many individuals in support of this measure. No others indicating they would like to testify. Would anyone else wish to testify this measure? Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Hunter Heaivilin, on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We'd like to testify in support of this measure and highlight a couple of potential points of confusion or where we maybe seek some additional clarity.

The country of landing is not necessarily the country of catch or the country of processing and so the origin of waters. Is that what we're really focused on or is it the origin of where fish was maybe first cut or caught?

Additionally, we highlight the potential enforcement issues with doa, which while regarding itself regularly in testimony as a regulatory agency, may not have the sufficient staffing qualifications and et cetera. It also seemed to apply a threshold for purchase, but not necessarily clarification around for whom that threshold would apply.

For example, does this mean that if you're running a large restaurant or a restaurant chain operation, are you thus now also required to provide some type of labeling?

So addressing that, we would also recommend. We do know that I think as a consumer already readily, happily consuming a bunch of ahi, that often fresh and previously frozen are thresholds.

And I wonder if that may also be something of utility to include in here and as referenced by Longline Association, that the use of gases is often also a consumer of consumer interest. So if we're going for some labeling, full transparency may be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Members, questions? Representative Perruso.

I have a question for the AG. Thanks for being here. The way I read your testimony is that essentially we would have to pretty significantly redraft this Bill so that we're not even addressing the question of raw ahi, but only that of processed ahi. Is that correct or am I misreading your testimony?

Deputy Attorney General, Travis Moon. That's correct. It's currently raw ahi, is currently regulated by federal regulation. Excuse me. The country of origin labeling for raw ahi is regulated by a federal regulation. That's why that federal regulation would preempt this Bill. If that raw ahi language was kept in the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Chair.

Any other questions, Members? Seeing none. We're going to take a short recess before decision making.

So, when we return to the top of the agenda, on HB 1449, relating to plant care components, we're going to continue the conversation and pass this Bill with amendments, and we'd like to take the Hawaii Department of Agriculture's amendments.

We do want to make sure that we put the positions that were indicated in their testimony and put that in the Standing Committee Reports. And we do have a few tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. And to continue the conversation on this Bill, as it goes makes its way towards Finance, we want to defect the date to July 1, 3000.

Members, any comments, questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair, move for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 859, relating to agriculture. We need to work with the AG's recommendations, relating to strengthening the preamble, so that the constitutionality of the title, when we speak about hunting, hunting is related to agriculture and so is trespassing, and we just need to tighten up that language, so it matches with the title of our Bill.

We still need some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

We are going to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000, to continue the conversation, and we want to clarify the blank appropriation amounts and put those in our Standing Committee Reports and Hawaii Department of Agriculture. We're going to take those minor corrections and recommendations, as well. Members, any questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Before we go to that vote, and my apologies, I neglected to mention Representative Ward is absent and excused from the prior vote and the same for the, the next votes, unless he appears. Okay. Going on to—just want to...

We are clarifying that for HB 1449.

1449.

And now we will go back to HB 859. Seeing that Members had no questions, Vice Chair, move for the vote on HB 859.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. We're now moving to HB 1323, relating to the transfer of non-agricultural parklands. We're going to keep the discussion going on this and pass with amendments. We would like to put just general tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, non-substantive, and defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Members, any questions? Comments? Yes, Rep. Perruso.

So, I would normally vote no on this measure, just because I support the work of the Act 90 Working Group, and I think that the testimony suggests that it has been productive and has been moving forward. So, I think this measure might be unnecessary. I understand the concerns that were raised in testimony.

But I do trust that group to move forward with this work and I hope they can be productive and I'm going to be voting WR.

Thank you.

Any other Members?

Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Chair. I just I appreciate your work on this, and I know you're going to work on addressing everyone's concerns. I've consistently had issues with this, for the past decade plus, so I'm going to WR on it, as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And noting that, yes, this has been a difficult conversation, since 2003, and so, we're just going to continue the conversation, understanding the depth and breadth of work we need to do on this and Act 90. So, Members, any other further questions? Comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on, to HB 912, relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. We would like to continue the conversation and move this Bill forward. We are going to blank all the appropriations and notate the numbers on the appropriations and FT—no, there's no FTEs on this—in the Standing Committee Report.

We are going to have some tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and defect the date to July 1, 3000. Members, any questions, comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 1006, relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. We are going to move this Bill forward with tech amendments. Just some non-standard of changes to—for clarity, consistency, and style. Defect the date to July 1, 3000 Members, any questions, comments? Yes, Representative Perruso.

Sorry. So, just, you know, as reflected in my questioning earlier, I do have some concerns about the expansion of allowable activity on ADC lands, given that we are having some—we are already experiencing difficulties in that area. So, for that reason, I will be WR in this Bill.

Thank you. Member, any—Members, any other further comments? With Representative—Representative Perruso's comments, I will put in the Standing Committee Report that the ADC will still have to amend rules, and this gives the tools to further the conversation, but doesn't necessarily just open up for agricultural tourism, without the rules in place from the ADC.

Seeing no other questions or comments. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Sorry—were we voting on 1006, right?

Yes.

Yes. So, I already said I was WR.

Okay.

Sorry. My apologies.

All right. Just wanted to double check while we did the vote.

Can you repeat and restate her vote for the record?

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Great job. Moving on to HB 1334. That was no sarcasm whatsoever. HB 1334, relating to meat donations.

We do need to strengthen this statute to fully effectuate the intentions of the last Bill that we passed several years ago, to make it easier for hunters to donate wild game meat to help feed people in need and address biosecurity threats to access deer on Maui. So, we want to continue the conversation and move this Bill forward.

We will do tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and defect the date to July 1, 3000, and that is it. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to HB 1291, relating to agriculture. We're going to continue the conversation with this Bill, create a House Draft 1. We will add tech amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Defect the date to July 1, 3000.

We are going to add language to clarify that each act to false labeling is a separate offense. That's on Page 2, Lines 8 and 9. To include language on Page 4, we also notice that we need to just check the definition and update the definition of "roasted coffee."

It's, it's pretty much correct, but we're going to make it a little more specific in the language of the definition, and we're going to add a Savings Clause and we're—and that will be all. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Last measure, HB 534, relating to labeling requirements. I think there's a lot of conversation on the importance of this measure and understanding where our AHI is coming from. So, we want to take the AG's comments and recommendations from their testimony.

We also want to be able to insert and the comments and adjustments from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Insert tech amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Defect the date to July 1, 3000, and also, note in the from the AG's testimony about the differences—actually, Hawaii Farmers Union's testimony—about other ways we may need to adjust, to strengthen this Bill, whether fresh or previously frozen, or the other metrics to measurement, to define what we're really trying to do in this labeling requirement.

Members, any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Committee. Our Committee Hearing is adjourned.