House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Water and Land. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the chair. To my Left is Rachelle Lamasal, Vice Chair. Today is Tuesday, February 4th, 2025. It's 9:00am and we're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. First up. zero, wait, wait. First up. I gotta do my spiel.

So everybody is allowed two minutes to testify. We don't have a hard timer here, so right about two minutes, I'll start to ask you to please sum up your testimony. Okay. And because this is a morning hearing, we need to adjourn before 12 o'clock the floor session. So please be courteous about your. The fellow. What is that?

The bills that are coming after you. So. And in the event that you. We all have your. Wait. We all have your written testimony, so you don't have to read your testimony to contrary belief. We do know how to read. So please don't read your testimony testimony. Please just sum it up.

Keep yourself muted on video while we're waiting to test. While you're waiting to testify, the zoom chat function will only allow you to chat with the technical staff. So please use the chat only for technical issues. If you're disconnected unexpected, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting the testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House will not be 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 meeting for decision making.

In that case, appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid any using any trademark or copyright images and please refrain from using profanity or uncivil behavior. And with that, we are going to continue on. First up, we have HB 1233 relating to storm management systems. Our first testifier is Department of Health with comments. Are they here?

I don't see them. Next. Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition in support. Nope. Allison Schaefers. All right, that's you. Okay. In support.

I'd like to say mahalo to the chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Let me introduce you. I'm Allison Schaefers. Let me introduce you to Charlotte Schaefers, my five year old daughter, who we called Sharkey. She is pictured by the detention pond where she died on February 282004 saving a childhood friend who was struggling in the water.

She's the reason that I'm here today testifying in support of House Bill 1233. The developers in our community knew that the drainpipe in this detention pond was 89% clogged, but said the cost to fix it outweighed the liabilities. They were wrong.

The clog turned an area of rolling hills between the playground and backyards in our neighborhood into a death pit. Getting out was impossible for a child and seriously challenging for the adults. It took a group of even Navy divers more than 10 minutes to find her.

The Bill was modeled after recommendations in the recently released Hawaii Water Safety Plan. The plan was written by the Hawaii Water Safety Coalition, which falls under the umbrella of the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association and is comprised of water safety advocates across the state. Without mitigation, these ponds are hidden hazards.

They're usually located in public areas, housing developments, park spaces, often near playgrounds. So they are at risk of being mistaken for recreational ponds. Detention ponds are supposed to be dry until they need to control flooding. But in this case, because of the clog, you can see that the pond backed up and it was over six feet deep.

In places, drowning is the leading cause of death for our keiki in Hawaii. Ages 1 to 15 and our keiki under the age of 17 are far more susceptible to drowning risks that occur outside of the ocean. The urgency to regulate is made even greater by climate change, which has created more frequent and intense rainfalls.

This Bill offers a common sense approach. It does not ban retention or detention ponds and responsible owners already should incorporate these safety and maintenance requirements. It applies to new detention ponds and retention ponds, which eases the burden of the state establishing a new program. And the survey allows for a phased in response to pre existing ponds.

This public. This is a important public safety issue and it's important enough to warrant a statewide solution if there's not a current place for it. The requirements in the Department of Health statutory mandates one must be established, especially given Hawaii's high resident drowning rate, which is the second worst in the nation.

Developers often protest that new requirements increase construction costs their liability exposure. However, installing fencing, a lifebuoy and signage would have a negligible impact on total construction costs. And failing to mitigate the risk is costly and morally bereft.

After Sharkey's death, my family was awarded a $2 million wrongful death settlement, the largest at the time for a death of a child in Hawaii. I should be celebrating Sharkey turning 26 a few weeks ago. Instead, I'm testifying so that no other parent meets the hell that my family has experienced. Experienced.

Her absence is a loss that is felt every day because to lose a child is to lose your future. 21 years ago Sharkey stood on the banks of a flooded detention pond and she saw her friend struggling. She had a decision to make and she didn't hesitate to do the right thing. Sharkey saved her friend.

I implore you to do the right thing too. If a 5 year old can be a hero, we can all be heroes. Hawaii needs more water safety champions. Let's help Sharkey save more lives. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in person? Say none on zoom. Kristen. Okay, go ahead.

Hi. Good morning.

Good morning. You're. You're on. Are you Kristen? Thank you.

Hi. Everything good? All right. Aloha, Chair. Thank you. And Committee Members, thank you for hearing this Bill this morning. My name is Kirsten Hermstead. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association. Since 1991, our organization has been dedicated to water safety education in Hawaii and internationally.

HLA strongly supports HB 1233 that addresses safety of retention and detention funds. We recently updated our mission statement to include drownings and aquatic injuries, emphasizing the importance of addressing not only ocean related drownings, but also those occurring in pools and other bodies of water. This change highlights our commitment to a comprehensive statewide water safety plan.

As Allison mentioned, drowning is the number one cause of death for our keiki in Hawaii. Additionally, Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders make up 36% of drownings statewide, despite representing only 27% of our population. And Hawaii has the second highest drowning rate in the United States.

This data, each point of which represents a life lost to a catastrophic injury or drowning, underscores the urgent need for a broad approach to water safety that includes all potential risks. This Bill is an important step forward in reducing drownings and aquatic injuries in Hawaii. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this Bill.

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

Thank you, Chair. This is for Kirsten. So lifeguards fall under county jurisdiction, is that correct?

Yes. Lifeguards in Hawaii are county employees. However, the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association is a state statewide, nonprofit, nonprofit organization. Our board is made up of representation from each county agency as well as active duty regular lifeguards. So typically our board is the chiefs of each county and then additional Members so and so.

Sorry, go ahead. Wouldn't the construction and maintenance be similar? Wouldn't it fall under like a building code or a construction code, which would be county regulated? And I imagine, I imagine that have you guys pursued the county levels, starting with Honolulu as the largest?

Yes. So I can't speak to that specifically. However, I am a retired architect, so I do have knowledge of building codes. And yes, the counties are the ones who would be permitting this. But I think Allison probably has more expertise in the decision making behind why this Bill is presented at the state level.

So I'll defer to her on those comments.

Yes. By the way, my condolences for the loss of your daughter.

The reason we wanted to pursue a statewide initiative is this is a this warrants a statewide consistent response across the islands. We're building more of these with the climate change like for instance the Alawai flood control pan. Recently it originally had about six retention and detention ponds, some from Makiki, Palolo Parks and Kapiolani.

They actually chose a different alternative because the public pushed back on it. People are concerned about having these in our parks without the the reason I went for a statewide model is if you look at the for instance, there's precedent within the Department of Health for having the counties do permitting, for instance, like a restaurant.

They would a county would permit the restaurant, but the Department of Health does the food and safety inspection.

The Department of Health also has Kuleana for swimming pools and fresh water in our state and they are supposed to be although they are not quite up to what they are supposed to be doing, but they are supposed to be inspecting those already.

So it seemed like a natural extension and that there's precedent for it because they already do it with food and safety and with swimming pools where the county would decide whether you get to build the pool and how the codes on how it's built.

But the health Department would tell you if you're operating safely and with their rules. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up we have HB867 relating to recreational facilities. First up we have Budget and Finance with comments. Then we have Department of Education with comments. Is Department of Education here? Nope. Seeing next up we have DLNR State Parks.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. We submitted testimony with comments, and we're going to stand on our comments. I do have staff from State Parks that's here available to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have State Council on Development Disabilities and Support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Dane Chipartola, Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. We stand in strong support of this proposed Bill. I won't go read my Bill, but I'd like to highlight at the very bottom and request that it change be named.

The name "special needs" is really tailored toward children with medical fragile. It's really not an inclusive term. So we respectfully request that the term "special needs recreation" be changed with "accessible recreation playgrounds." Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have one more person that registered Kylie in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Kylie Swan. I'm a strong supporter HB867 because people need more accessibility to playground facilities without any problem with people with disabilities. We don't like "special needs." Please use "accessible." I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Do we have somebody on Zoom? Okay. We have Hawaii Disability. Okay, go ahead. Please state your name and who you represent.

My name is Elizabeth Pearson, I'm with the Disability and Communication Access Board, testifying on behalf of our Executive Director, Kirby Shaw. We provided written testimony to the Committee Clerk to be able to distribute it to you guys. I apologize for our late testimony, we just got our board to vote yesterday on this Bill.

We support the intent of the measure. However, we do have some recommendations. Our first recommendation is to remove state parks and replace it with county parks. State parks don't typically have playgrounds, and additionally, county parks tend to back up right next to schools.

So if there's a county park near the school, we would recommend not requiring that specific school to have the accessible playgrounds. And to make it practical and cost-effective, we recommend requiring new and renovated playgrounds rather than retrofitting existing playgrounds. This is similar to requirements in the ADA when changes are made.

And then our final suggestion is to explicitly require wheelchair accessible swings to make it more specific, so there are clear standards for developers to ensure consistency. This could increase costs by 20 to 30 thousand dollars per playground.

But we believe that it is necessary and the investment will significantly improve the accessibility inclusion for children with all abilities.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in person wishing to testify? Seeing none, we're moving to Zoom. We have, who do we have on Zoom? Hawaii Disability Rights Center, is that correct?

Yes, thank you. Good morning, I'm Louis Erteschik. I'm the Director of the Disability Rights Center. I just want to speak briefly to the sort of the philosophical and the policy reason why this is such an important Bill.

The whole goal of the disability movement is community inclusion so that people with disabilities can be fully integrated, can live the same kind of life that anybody else can. And so obviously it starts when you're young, it starts when you're a little kid.

And one of the main things you do when you're a kid is go out and play. So just imagine being that child in the classroom who comes lunch, comes recess, everybody goes out, they're running around the playground or having a good time, you're the kid who's sitting in the corner because the playground is not accessible.

So, just try to imagine how traumatizing that is for that child. So it's really important to create a situation where they can do what everybody else does. And the more I thought about it after my testimony, it's not just for the benefit of the child with the disability, it's really for the benefit of all of us.

Because a lot of times, when you don't have a disability, you tend to think of those people as being different. They're not like us; they're weird, there's something wrong.

And so I think that the more you have children with disabilities integrated and playing in these playgrounds with all the other children, the other kids are going to start to see them as just like us. And so this is really a win-win. This really benefits everybody. And I've looked at the testimony, I've talked with DCAB.

I understand there may be certain wrinkles or things that need to be done, but I think conceptually this is a really important idea, and I would urge the Legislature to advance the measure. I would certainly be happy to work with either the Committee Members or any of the stakeholders if there are any adjustments to the Bill that need to be made, I'd be more than happy to help. So, thank you. We appreciate your support.

Question for DLNR, please. The question is, how many state parks would be affected?

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom? No, nobody in person. Members, are there any questions? Yes. Representative Shimizu.

Actually, we don't have any recreational facilities in our state parks, so the previous testifier is right. So, this would not affect state parks. Most of the recreational facilities are under the counties.

All right, thank you. And I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Who are you with? I'm sorry.

I'm with the Disability Communication Access Board.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, can you come up? Oh, sorry. Wait, hold on. Members, any other questions?

Yes, we would.

I have one for DLNR. I understand your testimony, but I'm thinking about Kōkeʻe State Park. If at one point in time you guys do put up a playground, would you be able to abide to what's required here? You would, right?

Thank you very much. Daintry, can you come up? Quick question, can you recite the changes that you wanted?

Yes. It would just be throughout the Bill itself where it says "special needs recreational," change it to "accessible recreational."

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, any other questions seen? None. We are moving on. Next up we have HB 1358. Hold on here. Relating to Public Land Trust Working Group. First up, we have Department of DLNR with comments.

Again, good morning, Chair and Vice Chair Members of the Committee, Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. We've provided written comments and we're going to stand on our comments. I will also add that both Ryan Kanafoole, First Deputy and myself sat on the working group and we do support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have OHA in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Representatives, I'm Stacey Ferreira. I'm the CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and we support on our. We stand on in strong support of this bill. I did want to provide some comments to add some context to the bill that's in front of you.

You know, we've had numerous challenges in implementation of the PLT revenues to oha. For decades, there has been an incomplete land inventory of the 1.8 million acres of the Public Land Trust. Initially in 1981, this inventory was crafted and it was incomplete at that time. And there have been ongoing gaps in state land records ever since.

You know, within the current inventory there have been exclusions of federal and county controlled lands. We also don't have a complete reporting of submerged lands and lands without TMIks added to that report. There have been inadequate payments and in Act 226 in 2022.

Thank you to Senator Donovan Dela Cruz at the time as WHAM chair, he raised the annual payment from 15.1 million to 21.5 million that we currently get annually today. However, that is far below what OHA believes it should be getting. I have shared with the Committee NNK CPA audit.

It's a report to the Office of Hawaiian affairs on the accuracy and the completeness of a report by the Department of Land and Natural Resources to the Hawaii State Legislature on public land receipts, Public Land Trust receipts. I implore you to please take some time to read that.

They do have a methodology in which they followed to look at all of the receipts that were being sent over to dlnr. And it is far below what OHA is currently getting. In 2016, it was found that 394 million in gross receipts were paid, implying in 2016 that 78.9 million was due to OHA at that time.

If we adjusted for inflation, the amount owed to OHA in 2025 should be 98.2 million. This audit has been done. OHA funded this audit. This is just a demonstration to this Committee that the Intel already exists. But we will continue to push for an audit that everybody feels is fair and impartial if that is the case.

But we do have this information that really can serve as a baseline for the work that needs to be done. Ultimately, this is the law. The 20% revenues is the law. It's not up for debate yet. OHA is continuously put into a position where we have to fight for it every year. As legislators who make the laws.

I think you folks have a great understanding that there's an expectation by the Executive branch to fulfill the mandates of this body. It shouldn't be up for question and it shouldn't be up for debate. And we certainly shouldn't have to continue to beg for it.

This money belongs to the beneficiaries and OHA will stand behind our beneficiaries and we will continue to lean into this issue until we get our fair share of the 20%. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up we have any. We have Kalahe Hawaii in support.

Aloha Chair Hashem and Vice Chair Lamosau and Members of the Committee. Kalahe Hawaii, a Native Hawaiian sovereignty organization dedicated to self determination and land rights for our people, stands in strong support of House Bill 1358.

This is a necessary and long overdue measure to bring transparency and accountability and justice to the management of the public lands trust so that the state can fulfill its trust obligations to our people. As.

I'm sorry, I'm just going to summarize my testimony as requested but we're talking about 1.8 million acres of stolen Hawaiian Kingdom government and crown lands for which the Kanaka Maoli people never received compensation or we never gave our consent for their seizure.

And also I want to point out as part of the admission of Hawaii in the Hawaii Emissions act of 1959, which is the federal act, that the portions of these lands have to be used for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. And that is actually a federal law.

And so in terms of how the state has managed these lands since 1959 has been problematic. It we only have 1.2 million acres accounted for out of the 1.8. We need to have a real survey done of the submerged lands. And so you know and I want to mahalo OHA for submitting this bill.

And I want to. And the bill is actually well written and it comes out. It has really good history in there. I hope all of you read it very carefully. This is something that has been a long standing issue with Kanaka. And I think the state has a legal and moral responsibility to our people at this point.

And HB 1358 is a necessary step, and we just need to get it done. We need a complete inventory of these lands. It's been asked for for decades. So please do that. Do the right thing. Mahalo Nui. Aloha.

Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else here wishing to testify in person? Go ahead, stand up. State your name and you represent.

Sorry, I thought that I filed my testimony and said I would be here in person, but thank you very much. Mahalo, my name is Sherry Broder and I'm an attorney. I was the attorney at the 1978 Constitutional Convention for the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs.

And I actually drafted the provisions that are now in the Hawaii State Constitution creating the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I have been very honored and privileged over the decades to continue to do work for Hawaiian people and in particular for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. So I'm very pleased to be here today.

The issues that we are trying to address in this bill, which are to have an accurate inventory of the Public Land Trust ceded lands and to also have an accurate accounting of the revenues that those lands produce, which 20% of which are to go to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

This is a lingering issue that's been going on since 1978. I've been involved with other committees that have looked into the inventory and have looked into the pro rata share, both as attorney for those committees and other ways involved.

I want to say that this Committee that I've had the opportunity to work with, I am a Member of the PLT working group, is a really good Committee. And I feel that with this Committee, we can make some progress on this very. So I think it's critical.

It's time for the State of Hawaii to have an accurate inventory and an accurate accounting of the revenues. DLNR does do the reports for these things. They have the Public Land Trust Information System and they do an Act 178 report. But they rely, as they have to, on self reporting by the agencies.

And so I think this would allow for an independent audit, financial review of both things. And that way we would know that we have dug down and be able to rely on the information we received. So I'm available for questions, and I apologize if I inadvertently did not press the right button to get my testimony submitted.

No problem.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is There anybody else in the room that's wishing to testify in person? See? None. We're moving on to Zoom. Nobody is on Zoom. Go ahead. Sure.

Aloha, Mai Kakou. My name is Kimmer Nahonu. Big Horse and Big Horse. I'd like to testify in support of this bill. I am actually a Hawaiian Kingdom subject because the kingdom is still here. We're just, like I said, belligerently occupied militarily. And this genocide ethnocide needs to end, like now. It cannot go on.

We have water aquifers that are being destroyed. And not just our communities. The Hawaiian. Native Hawaiian youth suicide epidemic. We have sex trafficking of Native Hawaiian women here. We have so many issues. We have mental health issues, depression, suicide, all kinds of issues.

Mental health issues, emotional disorders that are resulting from the losses of land, of money, of resources, of houselessness. And this is an urgent issue. It cannot be ignored. The result is destruction. And mahalo for your time. M.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify? I can't see you around the corner. I only can see an arm. Go ahead. Did you submit testimony?

I.

Okay, that's fine. Go ahead.

Aloha. My name is Barbara Alaska. And I'm testifying in favor of bill. Of this bill because I support any effort made in these islands. I support any effort to move forward ending military land leases in Hawaii. The military is testing.

I'm sorry, we're not talking about military land leases. We're talking about funding Oha. And it's a different issue. We already passed that.

You already passed this?

Yeah, I believe. No. Oh, sorry. Okay. You're on the wrong bill.

Okay, so I was just asking. Okay. We thought we were.

No problem. Thank you very much. Okay, so that's. Yes. Members. So are there any questions? Go ahead.

Chair Chang. First, I'm trying to understand the status quo around the current management database. The Public Land Trust information system that we currently have. How much does it cost to maintain that?

I have Ian. Ian is with our Land division. I don't want to misrepresent, but we do have yet.

And is there a staff Member dedicated to updating that? How is like explain how that is managed.

Ian Hirokawa with DLNR Land Division. So the PLTIS is managed. We do have two IT staff positions dedicated to Land Division and managing the pltis as part of their duties. Right now one of the staff positions is vacant, though. So we do have one IT staff.

We don't necessarily have the specific cost to maintain, but, you know, it is a older system and we just got an appropriation from the Legislature last year. I believe it was like $900,000 to upgrade, you know, the, what I'll call the sort of the system infrastructure to improve, you know, just improve a lot of technical issues.

So you know that's, that's the most recent, I guess expense that we have for that.

One last follow up question. What is the process for the self reporting by agencies to update that?

Well, I guess the agencies just provide information. We don't necessarily have a means to in enforce that. I mean we've, you know, we'd like them to submit data as on a regular basis but as far as I, I'm not sure exactly how often it's done.

Has there ever been a process and maybe this is for the chair, has there ever been a process to like annually ask agencies and counties to update that list and report that information?

So there are, there's two questions. So one, the inventory that we maintain and it is of all, all seated, all of all public lands, the self reporting. We do provide an annual report on the revenues.

So all state agencies are required to report their revenues to us and we provide it in an annual report to the Legislature and that's self reporting. We don't do an independent assessment of what they report to us. So they're to report what revenues they generate and then the percentage that goes to oha.

So I may be misunderstanding your question. We gather so the inventory of the ceded lands that's so agencies will provide us any information on the status of ceded lands, whether it's they're leasing it, whether they've sold it, whether there's an encumbrance on it.

That's what's in our PLT is separate and apart from that is the inventory is the revenues that are generated from that. So, so that's been the working group's challenge is fundamentally under the act that we were established, there's three tasks. The first task is develop an accurate account for all ceded lands in the public trust inventory.

And this bill is designed to address that is to do an independent, I guess it would be an audit or third party assessment. The ceded lands inventory.

Okay. So state's position is that that inventory that we currently have, you folks know it and it is correct and accurate.

We believe it is, but we also support the work. As a Member of the working group, I think we recognize that there's a lot of distrust and there isn't. I think there are Members of the public that don't that believe that our inventory is not Accurate.

So we support this measure, which is to have an independent audit or third party come in and develop a separate system.

Okay. So the testimony about what gets self reported is just the self reporting of revenues.

Of revenues. That's correct. That's correct.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wish any questions? Go ahead. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. I believe this is for Chair Changing regarding when a state. Let's say it's a state building on ceded lands and instead of renting out office space and collecting revenue, you're just occupying the building and you're using those facilities.

So OHA would get none of that revenue in kind, so to speak, or that loss revenue or I don't know. How you want to say it, but. You know you're saving money.

So that's a good question. Because under Chapter 171, DLNR manages our public lands. So there has been questions as to when we issue out land leases or for gratis, we don't charge. Let's say it's a non profit, we're not charging.

So there has been some questions about in those instances, we're not getting the highest and best use, we're not generating the maximum revenue. However, we believe our mission under Chapter 171 is to preserve and protect cultural and natural resources.

It isn't to maximize revenue off of public lands, but whatever revenue we do generate, we do account for that and transfer 20% of that to OHA.

One last question about submerged lands, and maybe this is for oha, but what is the economic value? How are revenues being generated via submerged lands?

You want me to answer that?

I'm sorry, I don't know who can answer that? Okay, come on in.

Well, submerged lands, you can make money by charging cash, cables, undersea cables, and that you do charge for those. Aquaculture in the ocean, fish cages, you know, moorings, mining.

But we don't have any leases for mining. So we also have submerged lands. As somebody gets a shoreline easement, let's say they're using. They built a seawall on state land, so we charge them an easement fee for that. And that's on submerged lands. Our challenge with submerged lands is they don't necessarily have a tmk.

And a lot of our inventory is based upon tmk. But whatever revenue we are generating from submerged lands like those easements, we do transfer 20% of that. So there are different uses of submerged lands. But that's as Sherry was explaining the potential uses and then how we report.

The inventory there's also money earned by the piers and the harbors, all the harbors. So there's a lot of ways that the submerged lands do generate funding. You know, we did do a report, the PLT working group, I don't know, it's like 17 pages long or something like that.

And then I did OHA supplement because I wanted to gather together all information that stood that explained OHA's position. But the PLT Working Group 17 page report is something that we all agreed upon to submit. And in there is a long list of items that are actually reported by DLNR and the PLT is website.

As to things that are not exactly right, you know, such as, you know, if the parcel is part ceded lands and part non ceded lands, if it's 50% or more than they categorize it as ceded lands, you know, the DLNR has an abstractor to make a determination to follow the title chain and everything like that, whereas no other state agency does.

So when they do do self reporting, we don't know the extent of their study, their research into whether or not it is actually the public interest. So I think for what we're trying to do that this bill is a modest amount of money to try to make a significant step forward.

But I urge you we file the report with the Legislature and we can send you all the link. But if you take a look at that in there are the things that were identified that could be improved.

And the last time when OHA did an audit 10 years ago, they did find that there was a lot of errors and things like that of the financial part. And of course I don't know if you know, but uh, doesn't report at all any revenue. So. So there's just some issues.

Aloha. My name is Kaleaka. I serve as a trustee at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Also having served as the chair and Vice Chair of our beneficiary Advocacy and Empowerment Committee, which a lot of the work we do is advocacy and legislative. I just wanted to add to what. Sherry had said earlier regarding the lands.

And the honor system with unfortunately with the honor system, what we have here is what should be 20% going to. The Office of Wine fare truly translates. In the end to 3 to 4, maybe 5% going to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. And that's what we found in our due diligence in with looking over the.

Reports from the various agencies the that are the various entities on our native. Hawaiian crown and government lands. Mahalo.

Thank you Representative Shimizu.

Question for OHA please, I, I want to honor the host nation. I'm, I'm blessed to be living in Hawaii. So this request is in addition to your other budget requests for OHA?

Yes. So in our. Well, this PLT working group Bill is separate from OHA's administrative package.

And I just heard the number 3 to 4% is what you believe you're getting right now. And what would 20% relate to, translate to as far as dollars that you believe OHA should be getting?

So if we use the NNK report that you folks have in front of you in 20, $25, it would equate to about 97 million, adjusted for inflation year after year.

Last question, Chair. So with this additional monies that is old oha, I'm just trying to think ahead. How would the beneficiaries benefit from all of this, extra monies that would allow you to do more?

Well, there are many ways. Right. So we have our strategic plan, Mana I Moliola, which cascades from our HRS mandates, Chapter 10 and 10H. Right. Bettering the conditions of Native Hawaiians as well as facilitating self governance.

There's a lot of work that needs to, to do to change the trajectory of all of these disparities that our Native Hawaiian communities are dealing with. And these are deep seated historical and generational trauma. So these are not things that are changed overnight.

As you know, in our budget Bill, we are looking forward to working more closely with the state departments because OHA cannot do this work alone. Now, if you think about our annual budget, it's 60 million. What we're asking for in this PLT Bill is 97 million.

Just that one annual payment is more than what in our combined funds that we're able to put towards our work every year.

Yeah, thank you. I'm glad to hear you say partner with state departments because as I've been sitting on committees, I see the needs across the board and as you say, the demographics are off balance for Native Hawaiians. So with OHA partnering to help the situation, that would be much needed, I think. So I welcome that.

Those ideas and those visions to help the Native Hawaiian population. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much, Members. I just want to remind you, we were on Bill 3 and we have 16 bills on the agenda. At this pace, I don't think we're going to make it. Moving on. You already asked.

It was actually a follow up question for OHA and I will be brief, I promise.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair. I 100% believe that we need to appropriate this Money. And I think we do need to have an accurate inventory in the audit.

Will there, is there a possibility that as the Auditor were to uncover lands that might belong into the inventory but are not currently in there, is there going to be a process to add it to the inventory, to the state inventory? Could that be done through this process?

Well, I think that's pretty difficult because, you know, we're talking about 1.2 million acres of, of land.

But there is certainly with regard to the submerged lands and the forest lands and other lands that don't have TMKs, because the reporting system now is based on TMKs, I think that we would be able to pick up a lot of lands. Whether or not we, for this amount of money, other lands statewide will be picked up.

I'm not sure. We have to work harder with experts, but I would predict that it wouldn't be possible to do it comprehensively. Perhaps we might identify lands that aren't reported to DLNR as being the PLT, but are high income producing lands.

One last question, just because you need to move on.

Okay, can you ask that offline?

Yeah, it's a question about the amount for the funding, but yes, I'll ask that offline.

It's in the bill.

Okay, thank you.

Next up we have HB 491 relating to land leases. First up, we have BLNR.

Good morning Chair. Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. House Bill 491, we have offered comments and we're going to stand on our written testimony and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay, next we have-- Okay. Kahului Hawaii in person in support.

Aloha Chair Hashem and Vice Chair Lamosao--I hope I'm saying it correctly--and Members of the Committee. Kahului Hawaii strongly supports HB 491, which ensures public lands are leased only to entities in good standing with the state. And you have asked us to summarize our testimony.

And in the interest of time, I will not read my testimony. But I do want to point out a couple things that this bill--

I want to point out Pohakuloa and point out the Board of Land and Natural Resources' testimony in which they state that provisions governing the lease default process as set forth by the Department of Attorney General, lessees are required to comply with all applicable laws and that this bill is unnecessary and that the board already has a way to correct a lessee that may not be compliant with the terms of its lease.

And I want to point out Pohakuloa, because in 2018, Judge Chang did order the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the State of Hawaii, to force the military to comply with the lease, to uphold the lease. They were forced to by a judge.

And then they actually appealed that decision, and it went all the way up to the Hawaii Supreme Court. So my question here, and I would like you guys to ask this question. We know that the military has not been compliant with their leases, that they've destroyed the environment, cultural sites at Pohakuloa.

That is one of the biggest examples of how this system is not working. The way that BLNR is managing, quote, unquote, the leases is not working. They're not protecting our natural resources, they're not protecting our cultural resources, they're not protecting our land and our Hawai'i. Has the BLNR ever canceled a military lease ever?

And if that is true, according to their policies, they are not supposed to allow that entity to ever have a lease again.

And so this is a necessary measure to hold the US military accountable for the contamination of our water, our land, the destruction of vital ecosystems that support endangered and threatened species here in Hawaii, which is the capital of the endangered species world, literally. So we need to really be Maka'ala and to malama this 'āina and this Hawai'i.

And this is a necessary step forward. And I just want to say that. And there is the plaintiff coming on who was on that court case to testify on this as well. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have in person Alfred Maderos? Nope. Is there anybody else in person wishing to testify? Yes, go ahead.

I amended my testimony. If you could please, everybody, please read it.

Okay. Can you-- hand it to the person out there. Oh, you can testify first.

Okay, so I'll try to make this as brief as possible in congruence with what Kahului is saying, OHA. The Hawaiian Kingdom here subjects the aloha 'āina sort of ideology and philosophy that is here prevalent in the islands.

As a Hawaiian Kingdom subject and a former global war on terrorism United States army soldier here stationed here actually, in Schofield Barracks. I have eyewitnessed the destruction by our combat arms, mainly artillery, armor and infantry men here.

They do not clean up after they have these ranges and these training exercises, heavy artillery rounds in Pohakaloa, all over. I've done a community assessment as a sort of macro social worker around all the communities, Kahuku all over, Waianae-- What's that called? The range over there? Makua, all over, right?

So there's a lot of pollution, as she mentioned. There's also now depleted uranium that lasts, how many, 300 years? Long time, right. So this is a serious issue. And now we have the Navy, you know, destroying our aquifers. It's a very serious issue. Not only that, it's all related.

So now the keiki and all the beneficiaries are affected, right. So I approve of this bill. We need to start taking action now. These islands will become uninhabitable like Kaho'olawe if we don't come together.

And we sort of at least confront the military with this sort of destructive posturing that goes on here. That's not even, like they're not even doing anything here really. I don't know what the missions are. I don't know-- They're just sitting here.

Like when I was supervising my soldiers, there's a lot of boredom and complacency and they're not really even doing anything in the barracks. There's barracks rapes and effects that-- Now we have Operation Keiki Shield, right? All the pedophiles that are in the military getting, you know, busted and the perpetrators and convicted now. Also all these issues, right?

The social issues that are happening because the military is here. The lease is up, they need to go. They can go like Fort Irwin in the desert, expand out there, you know, destroy the sand out there. I don't know what they're going to do out there, but we don't have any room for them here. Sorry.

We have an Aloha Stadium about to be built. We have so many, you know, other projects. We have cesspools. We have so much pollution here. There's overpopulation. Do you understand what I'm saying? Okay, mahalo. Mahalo for your-- Please read my testimony.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Greenpeace Hawaii. Dave Mullenix on Zoom.

Aloha Chair. Thank you for hearing this-- Okay, thanks. Thank you for hearing this important legislation and thank you, Representative Iwamoto, for introducing it. I'm going to be really short. The testimony was incredible.

We have such well-educated people here in Hawaii who understand exactly what the problems are and they've articulated so well. The main thing to realize is that the US military is the biggest polluter organization in the world.

They do not clean up their mess. There are scores of contaminated areas all over the world, the military does not clean up unless they are forced to, like at Red Hill. At every stage of Red Hill, they delayed, they lied.

They did everything they could to prevent us from going forward, to find out what they actually had done and then to get them to clean it up and it was a fight at every step. So we need every tool in the toolbox to protect our lands and to protect Hawaii's future.

And so this is just one more of those tools. I really appreciate you hearing this bill. Appreciate Representative Iwamoto for bringing this forward, and thank you so much. Aloha.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in person wishing to testify, go ahead.

Aloha. My name is Barbara Altemus, and I'm here to testify in favor of this bill because I support any effort made to move forward ending military land leases in Hawai'i. The military testing of bombs in these islands has brought only pain, suffering and destruction to the people, all living beings in the 'āina.

The damage is irreparable and the lives impaired, impacted by this desecration is passed down from one generation to another, causing so much hardship. The bombs tested in Hawai'i are used in Gaza and the West Bank, further perpetuating unimaginable horrors and suffering.

In little over a year, more than 47,000 people are reported killed by these bombs, and the number is estimated to be much higher. According to the United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees, every day, 10 children lose one or both legs, with operations and amputations conducted with little or no anesthesia due to Israel's blockade--

Barbara, can you stick to the merits of the-- We're not discussing Israel. Can you stick with the leases?

As you can see on social media and the news, homes, hospitals, schools, universities, mosques, churches and more are destroyed. And the land, air and water are so contaminated that Gaza is considered to be uninhabitable.

I've witnessed the cycle of creating these bombs, starting a Native American land where indigenous people have been poisoned by the mining of uranium and other materials to make the bombs, tested on Kānaka Maoli lands where the toxic white phosphorus and depleted uranium poisoned the land, water, air and all living beings and dropped on Palestinian lands, killing, maiming, and ultimately destroying almost everything.

Before the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and military occupation, Kānaka Maoli lived in balance with the land, making it possible for future generations to thrive and not only feed and care for themselves, but export to other nations in the world. As a result of the illegal US occupation militarization of Hawaii, today, these islands are facing a critical point.

Standing at the edge of the cliff, choosing to save itself from going over the edge by learning from the original inhabitants of these islands how to live sustainably and in balance. Or to believe in the illusion of egoic power and continue to bomb itself into extinction.

Let's stop the cycle of pain and destruction, end the military land leases, and become the human beings we are meant to be, caring for the land and one another with kapu aloha. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Is there anybody else on Zoom? Russell? Ella Russell, are you on?

Seeing none. Okay. Auntie Max, Auntie Max, are you on? Okay, thank you very much. Go ahead.

Aloha. Aloha, everybody. And again, here I am again. But thank you. Let's start with—I want to take you on Hawa Kai, 1893, the overthrow, attempted overthrow of our queen, military arrest. And we're going through the years of what the military has done. And in 1964, we're coming up now past statehood and all that heavy things.

In 1964, the DLNR gave—actually allowed it and gave the leases to the military. 22,900 acres in our most sacred ground of Phakaloa. 133,000 acres, and then everything just got wasted. And in April 24th, I'm moving kind of fast, okay, so keep up with me on the Hawaikai.

This, this testimony is dedicated to Koko and the chairperson. I Mahaloa, you guys. In 2014, Clarence Ching and Auntie Maxine went and got a suit there, and we sued the DLNR who gave those leases way back to the military. They don't have any right in giving leases to people who's very destructive.

We sued Susan Case at that time, who was on DLNR. Okay. First, was William Ila. Oh, my God. Hawaiian. Hawaiian, yeah—Koco like us. Then, Susan Case. Then all these other guys came in. No, listen. But anyway, giving leases to people who destroy the land.

Okay, so what we did was we took them to court and on 2000—no, April 3rd, 2018, we went to Judge Chang's Circuit Court. What did he say? Malama Aina, Take care of their land. What's the matter with you, Dilanore? And then he writes inside here.

Auntie Maxine, can you, can you sum up your testimony?

Oh, that fast already?

Sorry. We have a long...

It was triple this the last time. Now, you're giving us two minutes. That's not fair, you know. But anyway, what I'm saying is, DLNR is not even supposed to give out leases to anybody being destructive, please. Then, we went to the Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman, we won in Judge Chang's.

We go to Supreme Court, the state takes us, we win again. So, who is more powerful, the Supreme Court or the military or DLNR? Something is corrupt, Mr. Chairman. No more leases. 2009 DLNR. No more leases. Come on, Dawn. Enough destruction, enough desecration. We want our land back. We want the military out.

And it's not Red Hill, it's Kapūkakī. That is the Hawaiian name of the water that flows from Moanalua down to our ocean. So, please, hey, no more leases already. Paul, Lava, the Hawaiian say.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Thank you. Good job.

Oh, I tell you.

Okay, that's...

Okay.

Anybody else? That's the last testifier we had. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Kim Coko—Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. This is for Chair Chang. Thank you. So, several previous testifiers mentioned what appears to be the Department's limited powers of enforcement of some of the, I guess, what should be in the lease, in terms of compliance. Do you have a response to that?

And yes, we all, we could do better. There's no doubt. But please remember, these leases were issued in 1964. Very different time. And in those times, there were not stringent requirements on the conditions of the leases. So, yes, I am aware of Auntie Maxine's lawsuit.

Normally, we don't monitor, or we don't review a lease until it gets to the end. But in this particular case, the lawsuit did require us to do annual monitoring. So, we are doing annual monitoring of those leases. There was a question, have we ever terminated a military lease? I'm not aware of one. So, but...

Just to follow up, is that because they're, they, you deemed that they were 100% compliant with the leases?

We now, again, these are old leases. So, yes, we have not found them to be a non-compliance.

Okay. Got it. And I do understand in your testimony that you indicated that you do—there is a review process, in terms of finding out if any entity that wants to lease land through your agency, that they're not in arrears of any back payment on rent.

But also, you know, if it's the Department of Defense, for instance, that they're also not in arrears on, let's say, impact aid.

We don't, we—so, when we're looking at are they in compliance—or, before we issue out a lease, we're not looking at, we're, we're not necessarily looking at our, especially the Federal Government. Are you, are you in any kind of default to the State of Hawaii, as a whole?

We're looking primarily at that particular land and your compliance with DLNR. So, we're not looking at whether they're in compliance with DOE or any other department.

Got it. I understand that and that's why I—and you do understand that this Bill is written in a way to actually, to create room for that, to say you are looking to rent land from the State of Hawaii. How can you do that when you're not paying your bills to the State of Hawaii?

I mean, I'm just saying that this Bill is different than what you have been doing. Do you recognize that?

No, I do. I think that this—but nonetheless, this Bill will apply to all of our leases.

Right

So, I think you're throwing out a very big net that will affect farmers, ag users, recreational users, that—I'm not too sure if there's a clear understanding of an unintended consequence.

So, let's say a small lessee who has been—who doesn't pay some bill—we're going to now—I mean, we do have a mechanism to ensure their compliance. Or large corporation, you know, someone who leases property. We have our own mechanisms. We require them to, to ensure that they are—they do—they have insurance, they have a certificate.

They have all of the requirements of that lease. But we are not looking for, are they in default of other, you know, parcels that they own, or in arrears to other government entities, other than, for example, taxes. They're not paying their real property tax.

That could be a, that could be a basis not to issue a lease.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Members? Okay. Representative Poepoe.

For DLNR. I was just curious if you can provide us an estimated completion timeline for the EIS and AIS processes for the, the leases?

That's really in the hands of the Department of Defense. There's three different branches. So, as far as my understanding, the Army leases, I believe—I don't have any staff that may be here who could give me the timeline. But they did go out with their draft EISs for both their military leases.

The Navy and the Air Force are on a different timeline.

Are they expected to be completed before the expiration?

They better be. If they're not—we, we don't have a holdover period beyond 2029.

Okay, thank you.

Members, any other question? You know what? I got a question for Ryan—or DLNR, Ryan—or DLNR Don, you can come. So, right now you guys require vendor compliance, right? Whenever—would it be better to expand vendor compliance to make it a portal where if there's outstanding debt to—in anywhere in the state that the, all the departments can report that debt into that?

For on the lessee side or the prospective lessee side?

Prospective lessee.

Yeah, I think that could work. You know, it, what you're suggesting, I'm not sure if all of the information is captured, at this time. But, you know, that—that's what this type of legislation is for, right?

Okay, thank you very much. All right.

I have one follow up question.

Sure.

For DLNR. Ryan, you were here last week, and you were, you know—this topic of military leases is permeating throughout numerous bills. You talked about the complexity of the deadlines for all of this, the land—the military land leases. Does the Department have a master calendar of certain timelines? Because you talked about the complexity of the deadlines.

You know, we do have, I think, as far as informational, that was provided to us by the Department of Defense, we have timelines, prospective timelines.

Can we have a copy of those prospective timelines? Because I think that's kind of the question that Representative Poepoe was asking, and I would like to see a copy of what you were provided from the military.

What we'll do is we'll provide you—so, they've done a briefing to us. Whatever they provided to the Board of Land and Natural Resources, we'll make sure we'll circulate that to you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Now, always remember, that's subject to change.

Absolutely.

We have no authority over that, but we'll send you whatever.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Moving on. Next up, we have HB 314, relating to adaptation pathways planning. Correct? First up, we have Office of Planning with comments. No. Next, we have Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Leah Laramee with the Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. We stand on our written testimony in support and are available for any questions. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have DLNR in support.

Thank you very much. Dawn Chang. We're going to stand on our written comments.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have University of Hawaii Systems in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Dolan Eversole on behalf of the University of Hawaii. We'll stand on our written comments in support, and available to answer questions.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify for that. Is there anybody else wishing to testify in the room or on Zoom? No. We have probably another five individuals and organizations that submitted testimony. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

I have a question, and I'm not sure who to address this to, but the question is regarding this Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, which is going to be tasked to provide this work. The description in the bill as far as corrective requirement is kind of general, and I'm wondering. And the question is whether the Commission has the ability or the expertise to detail the correction required?

Mahalo for the question. Do you want to take that, Dawn? Aloha. Leah Laramee with the Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. The Commission has membership from 12 state agencies, including OPSD and DLNR, which have the Coastal Zone Management and the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands included on it, as well as several other, as well as all four county departments. So within those groups, we do have the expertise to carry out what's required in the bill.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. I have a follow up question for the testifier on Zoom. Earlier we heard a bill about these flood catchments, and I understand that your program would discuss and, you know, bring to the forefront all of the things related to flooding. So this is a... We heard about a flood, maintaining these flood catchment systems. Would you be able to address and propose recommendations around what was testified to earlier?

Mahalo for the question. This bill relates directly to sea level rise impact of flooding. So I think extreme storms that bring flooding from Mauka areas down Makai are a little outside of this scope. It's definitely something that we can explore and look into, but I don't believe that was the intention of this.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, any questions?

I'm sorry, I have one more question, Chair. The question, again, is to the Commission, and I guess I'm trying to wrap my brain around adaptive pathway. So you folks do this study, you come up with a pathway. And I just want an idea of, like, let's say Hilton Hawaiian Village. What would you put down for Hilton Hawaiian Village to do to address, you know, this bill and the concerns of climate change?

Mahalo for the question. And you know, I think that the intent of this is that every shoreline has a unique trigger or requirement. So it would depend on the rates of erosion of the shoreline, it would depend on the rates of sea level rise in that area. And it would depend on, you know, what funding is available and what the community wants. I think which is the most important piece of this bill is working with the community of that area to identify their needs. I'll pass it on to Dawn.

And Rep Shimizu, if I may. So as part of the Climate Commission, but separate and apart from that is our OCCL, our Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, that regulate shoreline, manage shoreline erosion and regulate those. So let's take for example, your hypothetical about Hilton Hawaiian, and it's probably not even a hypothetical. Waikiki is all looking at what kind of measures can they take. So they'll come in with separate programs or project proposals and they will go to OCCL for review because it's on Conservation District land.

So there's a separate mechanism to address some of those specific kinds of programs or projects. But Climate Commission is not an enforcement or regulatory body. They're primarily a convener. We bring all of these different agencies together to have these hard conversations about sea level rise, climate mitigation. And then each of the different agencies go out and they implement some of the policy directives that come out of the Climate Commission, but the actual implementation and enforcement are left up to the separate agencies.

So it's more like a recommendation then?

Yeah, or we try to do like a pot, like a... So this adaptive pathways is like a framework upon which to guide all of the different agencies on addressing sea level rise in climate mitigation.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I need to educate myself offline.

Thank you very much.

We will invite you to the next meeting.

Moving on. Next up, we have HB732 relating to shoreline management areas. First up we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development with comments. They're not here. Next we have Maui Office of the Mayor on zoom. Nope. Okay. Is Maui on zoom? Anybody? Is there anybody on zoom? No.

Okay, we have probably about ten testimonies in support. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions to nobody?

Is there no one from Office of Planning?

No, they're not even on zoom. We have subpoena pars. Do you want to subpoena them?

Yes, we should.

Okay, moving on. Next up, we have HB 1137 relating to restoration of beach lands. First up we have DLNR.

Thank you very much.

In person. Thank you very much.

No subpoenas are necessary. In fact our entire department is here. Thank you very much, Chair. Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board. Thank you very much, Committee. We're going to stand on our written testimony. Thank you. Okay, we are available if you have any questions.

Okay, thank you for being here. Next up, we have University of Hawaii in support in person. In person also.

Dolan Eversole with the University of Hawaii we'll stand on our written testimony in support.

Okay, next we have an individual, Tiare Lawrence, in support. And that's all the written testimony that we have for this bill. Members is there anybody else in the room or on zoom wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Yes, Representative Shimizu.

Question for DLNR. Just wondering who's going to do this work? Who is going to be responsible to do this work?

This will be our division, Department of Land and Natural Resources. In particular our Division of Conservation and Coastal Lands.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Next.

Oh, I have a question.

Representative Poepoe.

So the bill talks about activities related to beach restoration. Can you I guess describe some of the activities related to placing sand from an approved outside or adjacent source? What does that mean?

Thank you, Rep. Poepoe. Michael Cain with the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands. The current definition of beach restoration involves placing sand or moving sand around. So it can be offshore sand. It can be beach appropriate sand from a quarry. Although there's not many that are culturally appropriate.

It can be clearing beach appropriate sand from a stream mouth. We want to expand the definition of beach restoration to include doing restoration or removing derelict man made structures. So this will help us like expand the projects that we can invest in under the guise of beach protection. Okay, thanks. Thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 878, relating to landfills. First up, we have DLNR.

Thank you very much, Chair. Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. We're going to stand on our written testimony, and we've provided comments, and we are available should you have any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Department of Health, with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Glenn Haae, with the Department of Health. The Department stands on its written testimony providing comments. We apologize for the late submittal. We experienced technical difficulties. But we do appreciate the opportunity to. provide our testimony and I'm available to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have, in person, Ironworkers, with comments.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Cliff Laboy, Ironworkers 625 Stabilization Fund. I'm here on behalf of George G. Paris, Managing Director of the Stabilization Fund. We will stand on our written testimony. We just—we'll have one comment—is to leave Act 73 as it is. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have—that's all the people. Is there anybody else wishing to testify in person? Yes, come up.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Dwayne Bautista. I represent Iron Workers Stabilization Fund 625, under the management of T. George Paris. We have a testimony in, but I just want to make a comment, as same as Mr. Laboy said. Well, we just want to comment as leave Act 73 as is.

And we stand by that. Thank you. Or the half mile buffer zone, to be exact, of the Bill. So, we're just saying just leave it. Leave the Bill as half—half mile or Act 73, as is.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Next, is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify in person? Seeing none. Is there anybody on Zoom?

Aloha.

Oh, go ahead, Esther.

Aloha. Aloha, Chair and Committee Members. I stand in strong support of HB 878, which increases the buffer zone from 1/2 mile to 1 mile. Similarly to the previous testifiers, my preference would be to not amend the Bill. However, if the Bill is amended, I would like for the buffer zones to be increased.

For decades, Windward Oahu, including Waimanalo, Kailua, and Kaneohe, has already hosted nine landfills which impacted public health, the environment, and the quality of life for our residents. And so, I strongly support this measure if, indeed, you open Act 73. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you very much. Any—Hunter on Zoom?

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Hunter Hevelin here. On behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We'll stand on our written testimony in support and do seek amendment to try and prioritize agricultural land protection. Happy to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else? That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

I have a question for Council Member. The question is, how does this Bill, if implemented, affect the site that the city recently selected?

You mean with regard to Waihiwa?

That's correct.

The—I think the reason—you might want to ask the author—but for my purposes, the only reason I'm testifying is because I'm concerned that if we open Act 73 up, then other—other sites that have been identified, including on the Windward side, may be considered for the landfill.

Given the opposition by the Border Water Supply Director, that 77% of the island of Oahu, it will be considered a no pass zone, including the proposed Wahiawa site. Then my concern is that we collectively need to look at, well, where is the land site going to be?

And I just think, as a matter of equity, we should look at the whole history of landfill sites—where they have been. And I think that the Legislators have wisely put into place Act 73, which also provides us safeguards to protect our communities, with the half mile buffer zone from schools, hospitals, and residents.

And I would like to keep it that way. Having said that, because I see several bills being considered, which I adamantly oppose, the only Bill that I do support is this Bill because it provides a buffer for our residential communities.

Okay, thank you very much.

Since we're only allowed one question, I guess, Council Member Kia'Aina, this question is going to be for you. I want to be very clear.

If this were to go forward, does this proposal allow the current landfill site to then be extended and then, therefore, into process that, where the City Council might say the landfill then can be...?

You know, again, I'm just looking at the buffer zones. I'm not looking at all of the current—I'm just opining on Act 73 and its allowances. I'm not in any position to be opining on the current landfill or the proposed Waihawa site.

Thank you. Thank you Chair.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? You seem like you really want to—go ahead.

Thank you. I have a question for the Ironworkers. I'm sorry, it looked like you wanted to respond to something. What were you going to say?

No, no—we just stand as do not amend Act 73, and we'll just leave it at that.

Can you tell me what your—with the Ironworkers, how does it affect your industry?

Well, a lot of, a lot of our members, I would say a few hundred of members and family, live out on the West side, especially where PVT's at, and they're within the half mile. I mean, they're within the buffered zone. So, but as currently right now, we're just going to stand as do not amend and that's what we was told.

So, that's what we're going to ride all day. As of currently, right now, we're not going to amend Act 73.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a follow up. I have a follow up.

Go ahead.

Dwayne, I have a follow up. I just want to make very clear, you guys are in opposition to this Bill?

No, we're not in opposition. All we say is it's a comment based off of—do not amend Act 73.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I don't know how you take that because all it does is expand it from half mile to one mile. Anyways, Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We're going to move on. Next up we have HB 1348 relating to public lands. First up we have DLNR in support.

Thank you very much Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dawn Chang from DLNR. We stand in support of this measure and stand on our written testimony and I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Okay, next we have. Do we have people on Zoom? Three people on Zoom. Okay. We have roughly Jesus, over 100, I would say, testimony in support. Your staff had a hard time. Thank you very much. So we have three people on zoom. Go ahead. First up is Chipper.

Hello, can you hear me? Okay. Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I stand on the testimony that I support it, but I'd also like to add. A real mahalo nui to Rep. Morikawa for the introduction of this bill. It's been needed for a long time.

In fact, many of us have been working towards this day for 20 years. And I'm in awe, really, of the diverse testimony that you've received. 185 testifiers from all walks of life and from communities around the island of Kauai.

And that's in spite of the fact that Kokei only got power and communication back yesterday after six days of no power because of the storm. So a lot of people were hampered in their ability to get testimony in. You can see how important this issue is to the people of Kauai.

I personally have worked with state parks leadership, Kurt and Alan and Chair Chang to discuss and develop essential reforms for how state parks manages this unique historic resource. This bill is a major step in that direction. And I really thank you, all of you, for considering supporting this bill. I really appreciate it. Aloha.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Leah on Zoom.

Aloha. Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Leah Weldon, and I am in strong support of HB 1348. I submitted a written testimony.

But in short, I just want to say that I was there at the auction, and I had my hopes up and my dreams of getting a kokee cabin very quickly shattered.

And I just think that it's so important that we make it a better process because the last thing that our community of Kauai needs is to have all the people that are moving here and buying all the houses and driving up the housing costs, taking all of the Kokee cabins as well.

So I strongly support this bill, and mahalo for your time in hearing it, and I hope that it passes.

Thank you very much. Next we have Joanne on zoom.

Aloha, can you hear me? Hello, chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Joanne Kaona, and I am in strong support of this bill. I was born and raised here in Kauai.

I currently live in Anahola, and I work at the Waipa Foundation, where we are stewards of this aina, and we get to work with Keiki of the community and teach them about stewardship. And one of my favorite things is to bring them up to Kōkeʻe.

We've gotten to work with DOFA doing trail maintenance and other Malama Aina projects. And I was in a hui, part of a hui, with three other family Members hoping to lease a cabin during the spring auction. But it was clear that our budget was nowhere close to where it needed to be.

And it was heartbreaking to see the way the auction went down and realizing that I and many other local Hawaiian families would never be able to afford leasing a cabin in Koke'e. And so that's why I support this bill.

And I think making it a lottery process would be much more fair and give local families at least a chance to lease a cabin. And I believe it will ultimately be better for the future of Koke'e. Mahalo for your time.

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

This is for Chair Chang. In the bill, it mentions fair market value. So in lieu of a bidding war that drove prices up to $40,000 annually, land on kawaii is really expensive. And some of the homes are really built up. Is it possible that some of the properties--the fair market value might be 40,000, or is that. No way. Is it going to be way more affordable using this new formula?

We suspect it will be much lower than that. It's going to be based upon an appraise value that we. We independently hire. That's correct. Right? Come on. Come on up. So this is Alan Carpenter. He's one of our administrators with State parks who's been working on this a long time.

Thank you. Good morning. Alan Carpenter, administrator with State Parks. Great question. So the appraised value for these are as recreational residences, which means you cannot live in them. So it keeps the values low. And just to sort of reiterate what you heard.

You know, I was at that auction, and I watched the prices go from 4,000 to 40,000 in two minutes. Right. So we do not want to see that happen again. But the main point is that the appraised value was 4,000. That was the opening bid.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1141. 1141 relating to updating public land leases issued pursuant to Chapter 171.

It's me again.

Okay, first up, we have... You're quicker than I am. I gotta go through all these 180 lease testimonies. Hold on. I gotta go flip through 180 pages.

Sorry, Chair.

No problem. No, you gotta apologize to the Vice Chair and her staff. Okay, next, DLNR. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Again, good morning. Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. This is one of our admin bills, and we stand in strong support and on our written testimony. And I'm available should you have any comments or questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the testimony that we have received. Members, are there any questions to DLNR? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have 1143. DLNR in support. 1143, relating to historic SHPD.

Yes, thank you very much, Chair. Dawn Chang on behalf of Board of Land and Natural Resources. This is an admin bill, and we stand in strong support of this measure, and am available should you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have Department of Tax with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written comments. Available for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Yes. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. This is Jade McMillen on behalf of Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We'll stand on our written comments submitted on the measure. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Historic Hawaii Foundation in support. No. Is anybody else on Zoom? Is anybody else in person here wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Go ahead.

Chair Chang, so it's an income tax credit for amounts expended on renovations. My understanding of the historic qualities is that it's about preserving the exterior facade or is it also interior?

I think it... No, it's also the interior. So it is... No, it's also the interior.

So if somebody...

Okay, I'm sorry. This is a much more qualified person than I am. This is Jessica Puff. She is our... She's actually architect historian, but she's the administrator of SHPD. So I'll let her answer questions.

Just to expand on what Chair Chang was saying, the Historic Preservation Tax Credit takes into consideration anything that's considered to be a qualified rehabilitation expense. It can be interior or exterior work, but it has to be work on a building or a structure of some kind.

Right. But say the exterior of my home is preserved and it's historic and it's amazing. But then I want to do this totally modern kitchen inside. Am I allowed to do that?

You can do your modern kitchen, but the modern kitchen itself, the expenses, the cabinetry, the appliances, things like that, they wouldn't contribute to your overall qualified rehabilitation expense. So if you were to though restore, say original wood floors or do some restoration or weatherization work on interior windows. Maybe you had to put a new glass or glazing, maybe you had to put in new sealant.

Maybe you had to put on a new roof or even, you know, repair some interior wall work, get rid of lead paint or asbestos. All of those expenses would go towards your qualified rehabilitation expense. It's just the new modern materials, you could use them, but they just wouldn't count towards your total for the credit.

Good question. Thank you very much. Members, any other question? Representative Shimizu.

Question for DLNR. I was just wondering how come it's only six years?

So we, we asked for the allotted time in the bill because it echoes the previous tax credit program, which I think gave us, I believe, five years. I think last legislative session we asked for a longer duration in time and a higher cap, but that bill didn't seem to go very far. So we're asking for essentially the program to be extended for the same amount of time that it was created for before at the same cap.

Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up we have HB533 relating to historic property. First up we have DLNR.

Thank you. Chair. Dawn Chang with Board of Land and Natural Resources. We actually are opposed to this bill, changing the definition and we're going to stand on our written comments but am available for any questions that you may have. I as well as my administrator.

Okay, next up we have Maui Chamber of Commerce in support. Next we have Naya Hawaii in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Evan Oy. On behalf of NAIOP Hawaii, we stand in strong support of this measure. You know, ultimately the issue at hand is that far too many projects are being sent to Shipti for review during the permitting process.

Nearly half of Oahu's housing stock is over 50 years old, which creates the inventory and the backlog that we're currently experiencing. Ultimately, the slowing down of the permitting process is really hindering the much needed development of affordable housing and other projects such as commercial projects that our residents desperately need at this point in time.

So we understand the importance of these reviews that this has on cultural and historic places. But, you know, we would ask that this definition change does balance it and takes into consideration the current existing historic properties, you know, registry, which has a process that includes multiple criterias that are evaluated.

And we think that this would help expedite this while balancing the interests at hand. So we greatly appreciate the time Chair and we'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Cindy Frias on zoom.

My name is Cindy Freitas. I'm a native Hawaiian descendant of the native inhabitants of Hawaii prior to 1778. I'm also a culture practitioner from Mauka to Makai in many different levels.

I'm in opposition for HB 533 due to the fact the shift towards excluding post statehood properties may be seen as focus too narrow on one period of history and ignoring the ongoing culture evolution that has shaped Hawaii over the past several decades.

While it's important to preserve property that predates statehood, groups advocating for the recognition of post statehood properties might argue that it is eco-essential to preserve and protect the landmarks that reflect the continuing develop of the state diverse culture and historical landscape. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody in the public wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, you can testify too, if you wish. Are there any questions?

So my understanding is that as a historic home, like you can you choose to have your property and you can, can you declassify your property? I mean, are you, if you are the new owner and you want to do some renovations or something, can you voluntarily declassify?

Only because my point being, like, if you can, but the owners of the properties that you're trying to do work for and get permits for, they're keeping that historic classification. So there's pros and cons. They get tax breaks, but then things take longer. So do you know what I'm getting at?

No. I appreciate your question, Representative. I'm not entirely clear on the declassification process on that regard and whether, you know, you can take land on and off the registry.

You know I think when I was speaking to the portion on the registry in this regard, it was more to allow buildings, you know, such as buildings after post hate hood day to be classified as historic buildings and go through the registration process and then allow, you know, to prompt SHPD to review.

But in terms of declassification, I'm not entirely clear on that, but I can circle back to you on that if that, if you'd like.

Okay, then, sorry. Then DLNR. Okay. Sorry.

Hi. Jessica Puff, Administrative shpd. So you can, for any property that's listed in the Hawaii register, there is a delisting process we just went through it for the Falls of Clyde.

So essentially it's the reverse of listing, you would take a proposal to the Hawaii Historic Places Review Board saying why you wanted to delist your property and they would vote on delisting it. That being said, if, if a property is listed in the Hawaii Register.

And Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6010 is triggered in terms of having to do a review of the project. That review doesn't prevent you from doing whatever you want to do to your property just because it's listed. You could demolish it even though it was listed. It would just require for you to go through the 6010 process.

I believe what some of the supporters of the bill are commenting on though, is just the trigger for anything to come to our office under Hawaii Revised Statute Chapter 6042, which is a permitted project and that is up to the discretion of the counties to submit those permits or require those permits to come to us if they involve projects that are 50 years old or older.

That being said as just a comment to another comment that was made. Affordable housing projects, as an example, are typically high density projects and many of them are towers that are tall which require ground disturbance.

Even if this bill were to be passed and the change of state would happen, those projects would still have to come to us under 6042 in order for us to do an evaluation onto as to whether there's subservice historic properties or EV that would be impacted.

Thank you.

Representative, I have a question probably for historic. I'm sorry, I should have had you stay up there. But if this bill passes, would somebody still be able to apply as an exception to qualify as a historic classified place?

So if they fall out of this new definition, would they still be able to qualify? I believe they still could if they met the criteria.

Well, they wouldn't be eligible for the State Register of Historic Places anymore. They would only be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, if that's your question.

So if this bill passes, the way that historic property is defined and the way that we list historic properties in its current language, it would one make ineligible any property that is younger than statehood. So it was determined historic after statehood.

So in our testimony we made reference to the pavilion where Mary Monarch Festival is held and the campsites on Koolawe where the protesters when those sites would not be able to be listed in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places anymore.

It would also mean that properties that are currently listed and enjoy county property tax reductions would have to be delisted and they would no longer be able to be eligible for those county property tax reductions.

If I can just add a little bit more. Rep. Shimizu I think my suspicion is the intention of the bill is to help facilitate primarily larger developments, affordable housing, not necessarily individual residential properties and SHPD. I mean part of that is an issue related to capacity more than it is an issue related to definition of historic property.

We just don't have enough capacity within our staff to address all of the permits. But we are moving in a much more expeditious fashion through programmatic agreements with the counties on how we facilitate building permit reviews. But as Jessica Puffs indicated, a lot of the issues are not necessarily related to historic or architectural designs.

It is primarily issues related to subsurface human bare remains, cultural resources that sometimes we are not able to identify and they're subsurface. So this definition wouldn't necessarily protect those--it would still require our review to ensure that those resources are protected through a regulatory process.

Thank you. Thank you Chair.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB 316, relating to Green Jobs Youth Corps. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Thank you very much, Chair. Dawn Chang on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We strongly support this bill, and we stand on our written testimony, and I'm available to answer any questions.

Next, we have Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission in support. Not here. Next, we have Office of State Energy Office, Hawaii State Energy Office in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Representatives. Cameron Black on behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office. You have our testimony in strong support of this measure. I just wanted to point out, this program has funded our Clean Energy Wayfinders, which provide place trained young professionals in communities throughout the state that provide information on our energy transition, energy efficiency alternatives, transportation, renewable energy, and resilience to our communities and our schools throughout the state. So very much appreciate partnership with Kupu and DLNR, and thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have Kupu in support.

Aloha, Chair Hashem and Committee Members. Thank you so much for hearing this bill, and thank you for getting to the towards the end of the agenda today with us. So appreciate all the great work you guys are doing. We're honored to be able to partner with DLNR to help operate this program.

It's been a wonderful success. Over the last two years, since 2022, we've had over 320 young men and women from Ka'u all the way to Waipa who've been a part of this program. We're seeing really great results from it. It's getting young people interested and passionate about sustainability, conservation, agriculture, energy, and giving them pathways into careers.

So 75% of young men and women in this program are getting long term employment or other paid internships with Kupu after they finish the program. 75%. Now listen, remember that statistic because I'm going to give you another statistic. 68% of these young men and women come from households of 50,000 or less.

44% of them are coming from households of 25,000 or less. This is giving young people into pathways, but I'm not going to stop there. I feel like I'm selling on a game show. That's a great thing. But the next thing is really awesome is that this program is leveraged.

And so it's not just state dollars that are coming in, but other outside resources are coming in to leverage these funds. And not only that, but we're seeing a 1 to 3 cost to benefit ratio. So for every dollar we spend, we're seeing three times the benefit to our state.

And that doesn't include all the environmental, sustainability, and other wonderful benefits that happen. This is into the lives of our young people and to the next generation. Another really exciting thing about our partners here at DLNR is that one out of every three of our participants go into long term positions with the state at DLNR.

So this is a really wonderful way to create succession within our state, get young people passionate, and support the many important industries that are working in this area to give them the young people and the resources necessary to move our industry and diversify the industries within our state. Thank you very much. And I'm available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Okay, next up in person we have Josh Wisch. Not here. Next up, we have the Nature Conservancy.

Aloha, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Kainan Miranda. I'm with the Nature Conservancy Hawaii and Palmyra. The Nature Conservancy, since 1982, has helped protect over 200,000 acres of natural lands in Hawaii, and we directly steward over 40,000 acres right now through our 13 preserves.

The folks who are employed through the Green Youth Job Corps program, the Green Job Youth Corps program are absolutely critical to the work that we and our partners and other organizations like us do around the country right now or the state right now. It's a great partnership between state, the community, and employers and provides the critical capacity we need to actually manage our native forested watersheds and coral reefs.

These interns are already making a positive difference right now and are paving the way for kind of the next generations of conservationists and āina workers across the state. As we work towards a diversified economy, green jobs can and need to play a role, and programs just like the Green Job Youth Corps are critical to doing that. So we urge your support of this bill. Mahalo.

On Zoom, we have Hunter Heaivilin. Okay, thank you. Anyone in person wishing to testify for HB 316? Seeing none. Anyone else on Zoom? Seeing none. We're gonna move on to questions. Any questions in regards to... Okay, Garner. I mean, Rep. Shimizu, go ahead.

Question for DLNR. In the bill, it states that 350 people were, I guess, helped by this program. What is the time period for that number?

Yes. Hello, everybody. I'm Josh Atwood for DLNR. I manage the contract for this program. Your question was the 350 statistic. I think that's over multiple years. In our testimony, we say that about 150 people annually are employed in this program.

So 150 per year, and you're asking for 60 million. I mean, I'm sorry, 6 million a year. So if you do the math, 6 million divided by 150 is whatever that number per person, and that's the program pays them that amount to participate.

So in the past, the annual appropriation has been about 5 million, and that supported anywhere from, 150 a year is an estimate. I believe last year we did a little over 170 positions total. And so the per person amount goes partially for salaries. There are some administrative costs as well for Kupu, as the nonprofit that runs the program. DLNR does not keep any of those funds for our own administrative costs.

So the $40,000 per person, just doing the math, is not directly benefiting the worker. There's administrative costs. Is there like a percentage how much of that 6 million is administrative costs?

I think Kupu might be able to better answer that question.

Yeah, so roughly the cost per person is around $25-30,000. And so we, and we pay each individual about $17-20, depending on the internship they're in, so they're doing more than minimum wage as well, too. And then to provide a fuller scope, $25-30,000 is state funds, but we also provide matching funds of about the same amount outside of dollars as well, too. So we're providing, we're leveraging the dollars. To your question, our overhead is about, it's been about between 13 to 15% as an organization, and that's over, that's our indirect rate.

So are you saying that you match the 6 million one for one?

Generally, yes. I mean, we do provide financial aid and other reasons. And then also with our state agencies, they don't provide the same level of matching funds because it's state funded. But outside of state, yes, it's one to one generally.

So you will be matching 6 million a year?

Depending on how many are state positions. So non-state positions, like if it's a farmer, for example, or someone working in clean energy area, those organizations usually provide a one to one match or one to one cost share we call it. And so that is provided. But if it's a state agency, that's not the same requirement.

Okay, thanks. Thank you, Chair.

I have a question for Josh from DLNR and also maybe Chair Chang. I wanted to know, you know, for this program, you folks have been coming or you folks have been finding legislators to introduce similar measures year after year. And so why aren't you guys making this part of your base budget? So instead of having to make this request with a bill that's, like, not, you know, sustainable for the cause, and they've been doing a lot of great work across our state. So why isn't it part of that?

That's a really good question. And Representative, I wish I had a better answer. Other than our, currently our own budget is really tight. So this has permitted us to have this collaboration with Kupu to provide us that kind of training. But we've not, we've not incorporated that within our base budget.

Is that something that you could...

I hear what your concerns are. Wwe will consider that and look into that for this coming year. Thank you so much.

Any other questions? Chair is back, so.

No other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up we have HB 653, relating to non-General Funds. First up, we have DLNR.

Yes, thank you very much, Chair. Dawn Chang on behalf of the Department. This bill, we have provided you comments. We don't think it's really necessary. We've met with the Auditor. We are doing it administratively.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Tax Foundation on Zoom.

Yes, good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Jade McMillen on behalf of Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We have submitted our comments on this measure. We'll stand on our written comment. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the written testimony that we have. Is there anybody wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 800, relating to government. Wow, that's a broad title. Okay, Hawaii HHFDC, Dean Minakami in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Dean Minakami, Hawaii Housing Finance Development Corporation speaking in support of this bill. We particularly support part four, which transfers the roadways and infrastructure and the Village of Kapolei to the City and County of Honolulu. HHFDC has been maintaining those infrastructure systems for the past 30 years while the city reaps the property tax benefits. So we would greatly support that transfer.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. Dawn Chang on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We stand in support of this measure, and I'm available for any questions you may have.

Okay. Next up, we have DAGS in support.

Yes, good morning. Gordon Wood, Public Works Administrator for the Department of Accounting and General Services. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. And I'm available for any relevant questions.

Okay, next we have City and County of Honolulu in opposition, Mike Formby. Nope. Next, we have Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation with comments. That's all the written testimony that we have. Is anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. I believe this is for, I guess, any state department. Well, maybe Chair Chang. Were you surprised that the county who is receiving this land is saying, no, don't give us this. It's surprising to me.

I think they want the $64 million that they... Sorry, I'm not supposed to answer your question. Sorry.

But my understanding was that there was support. so I am surprised by this testimony. Maybe somebody didn't get the memo. I don't know. I don't know.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Sorry about that. Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Members, are there any other, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1138, relating to ocean user safety. First up, we have DLNR in support. As the Lone Ranger in support.

Thank you very much, Chair. Dawn Chang on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resource. We do stand in support of this bill. But I think perhaps there might be an opportunity to consider, or maybe not the necessity of this bill is if we're looking at another another way to manage this activity.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have... Is there anybody else wishing to testify in person on this bill? Seeing none. Okay. Ely, go ahead. Ely, you're up.

Hi, can you hear me? Hi. Thank you, Chairman, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Ely Spivack. I live here on Maui, and I'm an advocate for the wing foiling group here. I have a Facebook group that has over 2,300 members, and I'm also a part of a group called Friends of Kanaha, which has over 7,000 members. I'm in opposition of HB 1138 as well as the companion Senate Bill. The bill talks about new technology as far as watercraft is concerned, which is very vague.

It does not specify what new technology is targeted here. And it also is targeting new technology with a change in policy for the 120 day rule to a two year interim rule. So that's basically discriminating against new technology. As an administrator of the groups that I represent, we have, in Maui, have put together very strong measures to provide safety for ocean goers with regards to all types of vessels in Kahului Harbor.

We deal with the canoe clubs and commercial vessels, and my group states a calendar every day, which keeps everyone in their lanes, notifying people when there is vessel traffic, canoe practice, et cetera. So we have had a very strong commitment in safety with our wing foiling and as with foils as well.

And we feel that, you know, measures have been taken, certainly here on Maui, that provides the safety precautions necessary. And we do not believe that any new interim ruling as far as a two year measure would be helpful in this regard. Thank you very much.

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

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jon McCabe. I'm speaking on behalf of what the water sports community as a whole in Hawaii. You know, everyday residents, kupuna, individuals with disabilities who rely on the ocean for recreation, health, well being.

While I support ocean safety, I strongly oppose HB 1138 because it threatens public access, violates constitutional rights, and could limit life changing water access for kupuna and disabled individuals. I believe it's an overreach of government power. Due process violation grants unelected officials the ability to create restrictive regulations without public oversight.

It also violates Article 1, Section 5 of the Hawaii Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which protect against arbitrary government action. Our beaches and waters belong to everyone, and regulations should be transparent, fair, and accountable. The ocean is self regulating. This bill is simply unnecessary.

Hawaii's water community already enforces safety through cultural respect and local knowledge. Surfers, paddlers, wind sports, swimmers, self police each other, ensuring responsible recreation without excessive regulation. New laws won't prevent accidents. Ocean users looking out for each other will. In regards to the new technology, there's adaptive surfboards, motorized beach wheelchairs, electric assist paddle boards.

These are allowing our kupuna and disabled individuals to safely experience the ocean. Unnecessary restrictions could unintentionally block access, making it harder for those who rely on these tools to enjoy the water. In conclusion, I strongly oppose this and wish for you guys to protect public access and respect ocean culture. HB 1138 is not needed. It infringes on public rights, ignores self policing, and threatens access for kupuna and the disabled. Please vote no on HB 1138. Focus on not over regulating. Mahalo for your time and consideration. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Jon. Next up, we have... Next up, we have Alika.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Alika Ferreira, and I oppose HB 1138. I was born and raised and currently reside in Kailua on the island of Oahu. I'm very aware of the many advances in technology around water sports equipment.

I own a small business conducting eFoil and wing foil lessons, and I founded the Official Hawaii eFoil Association with over 200 members in its first year. This bill is proposing a new process of making rules in order to for the DLNR to quickly and efficiently implement interim rules that affect ocean activities.

There are already four methods of rulemaking that I am aware of. It appears to me that the proposed process aims to accelerate the process of making rules, increase the Board's power, and reduce public participation. In the interest of time, I'm going to cut to the chase here to highlight just a couple things.

This proposal is, the bill is proposing that they be exempt from HRS Chapter 91, which are the administrative procedures. Why is the Board cutting corners on, on the established procedures? HRS Chapter 91 actually addresses the emergency rulemaking process, and the purpose is to address the imminent peril to the public's health and safety.

The Board already has this emergency rulemaking process. We don't need another one to create interim rules, especially when they're going to last 24 months. A proposed 24 months where the emergency rulemaking process already in place allows for the rule to exist for four months.

And the most important part of the current emergency rulemaking process is that a simple phrase called that says without renewal. That means the rule that they make through the emergency rulemaking process is good for 120 days without renewal. They actually have to go through the regular process to put something in longer.

So why seek out a 24 month process or 24 month duration? Leaving out the phrase without renewal, that means the board can have this renewed indefinitely. So I strongly oppose what is in this current bill. Please reconsider, you know, revamping it or get rid of it altogether and use the existing rules. Mahalo for your time.