House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Waterland. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the Chair. To my Left is Rochelle Lamasal, the Vice Chair. Today is Thursday, February 13th, 2025. It's 9:40 a.m. I'm sorry that we're 10 minutes late. We're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. First up we have HB. Oh, wait, sorry.

I need to make my public announcement that there would, in order to allow many people to testify, there would be a two minute time limit. We're not going to make it a really hard time limit, but as soon as you. If you start to go into two minutes, I'm going to ask you to wrap it up.

Because this is a morning hearing. We have a 12 o'clock floor session, so please be mindful of that. If we don't get through the agenda, all the bills die. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and on video while you're not testifying.

The Zoom chat function only chats with our tech people, so we don't get to see that if you're. If people on Zoom. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

Please note, however, the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing for decision making. In that case, we will post appropriate notice. Please avoid using any kind of trademarks or copyright images when you're testifying on Zoom or in person.

Refrain from profanity and uncivil behavior. Okay, that's about it. First up, we have HB 743 relating to fiscal sustainability. First we have Department of Tax in person.

Yes.

Aloha, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee here on behalf of the Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our written comments.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have Office of Planning with comments. Okay, thank you. Next we have Hawaii Housing. Hawaii Future in support. Okay. Next we have Hawaii Apple Seed and support.

Arjuna Heim on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed. We stand on our written testimony and strong support.

Okay, that's all the people that I have registered to testify. We also have three individuals that submitted testimony in support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? See, none. Members. I mean, not Members. Is there anybody on Zoom? So nobody's on Zoom Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu, Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Actually, I have a lot of questions. But no one is here to answer them, so I can ask the questions.

Okay. zero, very good. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 1318 relating to affordable housing. First up, we have HHFTC in support. Not present. Next, we have ELNR with comments. Okay, thank you. Next, we have. That's all the people that we have registered in person. Wait, do we have some more?

That's all the people that we have registered in person. We have three other testimonies. Wait. OHAI with comments and two individuals in support. Is there anybody here wishing to testify? See? None. One person on Zoom. Their name is Adam. On Zoom. Go ahead. Oh, Adam from Kauai County. On Zoom. Adam, can you hear us? Yes.

Okay, go ahead.

Hey. Adam Roversi, Housing Director for the County of Kauai. Yes, we've submitted testimony in support. I'll rest with on my testimony, but wanted to make myself available in case there were any questions. Given that this was. Given that this was largely crafted because of Kauai County's experiences. Yes, I can. Apologies.

Aloha, Chair Adam Roversi, Kauai County Housing Director. I will, I will. Yeah, Adam, we got you. We can hear you.

Sorry.

I will largely rest on my testimony and support, but I wanted to make myself available for any questions since this was crafted largely based on Kauai County's experiences.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto, thank you.

Chair for DLNR, can you explain why you made a request to amend and insert or amend language regarding land set aside mentioning the same public trust fiduciary duties and obligations as the board?

Oh, that's. That is always a concern for the Department of Land and Natural Resources regarding the public. Because these lands are ceded lands, public land trust lands, they're held in trust.

And we want to emphasize that when these lands go over to another steward, whether it be the Conti or anyone else, that they need to be held and cared for with the same trust duty that we are held responsible. We are responsible to uphold as well.

And does that. Can I just turn to my. Yes. Is that referencing the share that's owed to OHA? Possibly.

So that would also come with. It doesn't necessarily. That share is statutory reference. But because it's a ceded lands, public land trust lands, those come with those obligations as well.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up, we got... Next up we have... Hold on just a minute here. HB 1409, relating to the, relating to TOD. HHFDC in support. Dean, I don't see him here. Next up, we have Office of Planning in support.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Holomua Collaborative, Josh in support. Okay, thank you. Next we have Hawaii Appleseed in support. Okay. Next we have Hawaii Housing Hawaii's Future in support. Okay, that is all. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify in person? Seeing none. Is there nobody on Zoom? Nope. Nobody on Zoom. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

I have a question. This bill references the Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Improvement District Board. And in a JHA Committee hearing yesterday, we actually passed a bill that changed that board to a different entity. So I'm just wondering if this language needs to be updated to track that? This. Yeah, there was a bill yesterday. I don't have the number.

Until that bill doesn't pass, it's not in law. So it's...

I see. But if it passes, then this law, if it passes, would become irrelevant also then.

Well, only 10% of the bills pass. 90% of the chance that it's not going to happen.

Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Right, right. Sure, sure. Can I ask one more question, Chair, to DLNR? So this bill doesn't include any money, appropriations or anything. It's just amending your mission and the scope. Is that, is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to pick on you.

I don't think I have answers for you.

Maybe the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. The question of this bill is not including any change in funding. It just amends the mission and the scope of the Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Improvement District Board. Is that correct?

Right. That's correct.

Okay, thank you for confirming. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions?

See None. We are moving on. Next up, we have 1410 relating to housing. First up, we have HHFTC in support. Not here. Next, we have DLNR with comments.

We submitted written testimony and we stand on it offering comments and a recommendation, specifically urging the Committee to maintain the existing 10% allocation conveyance tax revenue to the Land Conservation Fund and to remove the dollar amount cap of $10 million currently in the bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have DOTEX with comments. Thank you. Next we have Hawaii State Council of DCAP in support or not. DCAP, Hawaii State Council on Development Disabilities. I don't see Daintry

Hello, Chair. Okay, sorry, Chase with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities here on behalf of Daintry Bartoldus, we're going to stand our written testimony and support. We just wanted to highlight that oftentimes with our disability community housing bills like this actually support the parents, and a lot of our population lives with their folks.

So we are always supportive of these efforts. Thank you.

Yeah, sorry about that. You guys are not decap. My mistake. Next up, we have Office of Planning with comments. Okay. Next we have Hawaii County Council in support. And we have Hawaii Realtors. Is the Realtors here? Oh, you're hiding way in the back. Okay. Next up, we have Appleseed in support.

We send unearthed.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Catholic Charities.

Chair, Vice Chair. This is Betty Louvarson. I'm with Catholic Charities Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this. We know the crisis we're in. We have to do something to help our folks stay in Hawaii. And housing is the most critical need.

This is a predictable, dedicated Fund that has really helped over the years, but obviously it doesn't have enough money. So we strongly support this Bill. We also support the 10% to DIRF because of the fragmented infrastructure that really needs some dedicated funding, as well as the 8% for supportive housing.

In order to do this, you need to have both development monies, operation monies, and social services. Without this type of predictable funding, dedicated funding, it would be very risky for counties and service providers and developers to try to develop this type of housing, which is much needed.

It's been researched that this is a primary thing for ending homelessness, but it's also something that developmentally disabled elderly and many other populations need. Thank you very much for hearing this Bill.

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

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii. We do think that the restructuring of the conveyance tax is a good thing. We are not fans of tax earmarks to Fund any special Fund because that's a subversion of the legislative budgeting process that's constitutionally mandated.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people. Do we have anybody else on Zoom? Nobody else on Zoom. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have several other people with comments or support. We have Land Use foundation with an opposition. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none.

Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu, I have a question, and.

I'm not sure who I'm posing this to, but I'll throw the question out and whoever can answer it is we're creating this supportive housing special Fund and I'm wondering who is able to access this and how is it accessed?

This is Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities, Hawaii. Since HHFDC isn't here, I've been in the meetings. There is a Bill, you know, I think it's the House Bill 431 that's going through specifically on this issue in the Hollies. And what it does is it's brought together HHFTC as the coordinator, but also the counties.

They're looking at working with the counties so that there would be a county process because they can identify the service providers, the land that's available, things like that. So it's really a. It's beginning a system, a structured system that can look at this big issue.

And we feel that the amount of community support and amount of input from service providers and others has been very good and that's why we're looking at this. But to have the dedicated funding is essential because again, you can't create supportive housing. And five years later, zero, there's other priorities.

We don't have money to Fund the social services. That's the risk that these projects will take. And I'd be happy to answer any other questions from our viewpoint.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for answering the question and thank you for being concerned and following it to be able to answer that question. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else has questions? I have a question for totax.

I've been in communication with the housing chair and he said for the single family residents, the non owner occupied rate to eliminate commercial and for the sale of a condominium, single family residence or land zone agriculture with a residential dwelling unit for which the purchaser is ineligible for a county homeowner exemption.

Are you guys okay with that or no? Okay, maybe. I'm sorry, you're supposed to have some language for me. Okay, never mind.

Okay.

If you don't know, then that's okay.

All right, that's fine. Sorry. Sorry to put you on the spot. We'll go back. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have 528, relating to residential leaseholds. We have one testifier, HHFDC in support and they're not here. I guess we got to start subpoena people again.

Yes, we should.

Exercise our subpoena powers. Do you want to ask a question to nobody

Yeah, I mean I was surprised--

Anybody in the room is fair game.

If anyone can answer this question, can we get an example of this land? How it's-- Name one of these 99-year residential leases. Do you know any-- Well, they would have known, I think.

This is Betty Lou Larson from Catholic Charities Hawaii. I'm also on the board of the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. And although there's no 99-year leases, some of their projects that are development, you know, part of the 10,000 units they want to develop would have 75-year leasehold leases as part of a project.

Mostly rentals, but a few for sale. I think you'd have to go to HPHA for more information. But that is one example that I know of. I don't know about this 99-year lease, but of the 75-year lease that leasehold units that HPHA has as part of their development strategy.

Okay, to who though? I guess--

Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities Hawaii

Thank you, Chair. The question is the bill states that they'll be exempt from certain laws in chapters 516 and 516D for, for these special 99 years lease. So I'm just questioning what laws will be exempt? If you know Betty, I guess you don't.

No, sorry, that's not something that came under discussion at our board meeting recently.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. We're moving on. Okay, next up we have HB 1359 relating to flood mitigation. Here we go. First up we have DLNR with comments. Okay, that's all the testifiers or testimony that we received on this Bill. Is there anybody wishing to testify? See none. Anybody on zoom? See none.

Members, are there any questions to DLNR? Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. For dlnr, my question is flood. Flood mitigation. Normally, isn't that? I imagine a homeowner sends, you have a piece of land, the water kind of diverts towards the street. That's normally how drainage happens, right? Like you don't want it to flooding into your neighbor's yard, so things are done

so it floods towards the street. And a lot of streets have these channels that go maybe to the ocean. I'm not sure.

Typically that's conti. The channels go towards the flood controls which are conti.

Right. So this is, I mean, so that's why I'm concerned. Why? I mean, so if the county doesn't provide drainage when the thing hits the street and things flood and people's homes get damaged, there's no. They have no recourse. I mean, how does that. Is that fair to the homeowners? I'm not sure. Again, where.

What is a homeowner responsible for redirecting this water over streets and to the rivers?

So I guess this goes back to the common enemy principle, right? I mean, we're going back. I'm going back to like, property 100. So, yes, the private property owner is responsible for diverting water off of their private property. The responsibility extends to private roads.

If they own the road, for example, some private property owners do own the road. That's very commonplace in Hawaii, especially in the subdivisions, particularly in the older ones that weren't converted over to the county.

Okay, got it. But if it's a county road that this home is on, then the county's responsible. So when it starts flooding into people's personal homes, they. They can have a claim against the county.

That's correct. That would be. I'm. I'm not. I don't want to opine legally what kind of claim that would have. But that would be a claim against the county, correct? Probably.

Okay and your. Your testimony was to support this?

We just provided our comments, and essentially we. Because this is a grant program to the private property owners, we wanted to highlight the fact that there is currently authority by the counties to do enforcements, and we just wanted to ensure that there is.

The Legislature knows that there are responsibilities for the county, the responsibilities for the private property owners, as well as responsibilities for the state. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Representative Shimizu, thank you.

Chair, DLNR. Thanks, Ryan. I think this is a great idea. I was just wondering, does DLNR have the expertise and the capacity to do an extensive study like this? It's pretty extensive, I imagine.

No, our engineering division says probably not.

Oh, really? So we have this great idea. We hand it off to you and say, go for it. Here's this money, and where is it going to go?

So from the administrative standpoint, it's a matter because we have a grant program. The grant program also requires people to oversee it, and this Bill does not provide that either capacity. It gives a program, but doesn't, you know, provide any additional capacity to administer the program. But that's just the administrative side of this. Is that right?

Right. So. So we need some language in this Bill to enable you to contract third parties. Is that. Is that what I'm hearing?

If that is where the Legislature is going and you're going to create the program. We would recommend that we also have, you know, the additional capacity add from the Legislature, whether that be through funding or through, you know, positions.

Well, this, this does appropriate funding.

The funding I believe in the Bill is for the grant itself. So those would be going to the individual owners. But, like, operating costs are still. I don't think that they're covered in the Bill itself.

Okay, so would you be able to provide language that helps DLNR be efficient in this?

If, if that, if the program comes over to us, we can, you know, provide language.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Good. Thank you very much. Next up, we have. Next up we have HB 1087 relating to historic historic preservation reviews. First we have DLNR with comments. Next we have DHHL Hawaiian Homelands in support.

Aloha Kakayaka, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee Oval O Orianileal DHHL's Nahasa Government relations Program. Spanish specialist. The Department stands in strong support of this measure, which was approved by the Hine Holmes Commission and included in the governor's administrative package. DHHL remains grateful to DLNR's ship D division for their many services and work provided to DHHL.

However, the current timeline to fulfill historic preservation Reviews takes about 165 days. DHHL strongly feels that that time could be reduced if we had this ability. And we also feel that there is enough language and provisions within this bill that have requirements that would allow for accountability and transparency. I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have OHA in support. Not here. And we have Hawaii Historic Hawaii foundation in opposition. That's all the testimony that we received. Is there anybody here wishing to testify? See None. Nobody on Zoom Members. Are there any questions? See None. We are moving on. Oh, do you want to ask questions?

Oh, you can ask Shipti.

For Jessica for 1087. What is, I guess the current process or what would the process then look like now that DHHL is going to do some of these reviews on their lines?

I think that Shifty's positions that we're not entirely sure because I don't believe that the current draft of the Bill has language that says that DHHL is going to be adopting the rules set forth at HAR 13 or the statute at HRS 6E.

So I think that one, that could be specified in the bill and then two, if they did adopt the existing process, DHHL's projects mostly fall under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 68.

So there would have to be some sort of internal accountability for identifying project scope of work, identifying historic resources within that project, and doing some sort of analysis as to whether or not their project will impact those historical cultural resources or EV and then what? How they implement mitigation measures to minimize, avoid, or mitigate those effects.

And if there is a historical cultural resource that is impacted that is significant under Criterion E, under the state rules, how they will consult with, like, the public and potential Native Hawaiian organizations, that sort of thing.

Yeah. In the testimony, you folks did share that concern about how DHHL would consider the treatment and effects of projects to EV Kupuna. So I guess I'm gonna pivot to DHHL or.

Did I say your name right?

Aloha. Oriana Leao. Yes.

So I just wanted to know if that's something that you guys would be willing to consider adding, inserting that type of language and if DHHL thinks that potentially island burial councils should remain of DLNR and or do they think that it should be in another agency or department?

Those are wonderful questions. To answer your first question, yes, the department would concur with the suggested amendment to insert language in order to ensure that we are fulfilling the process. And for the second question, whether or not we think that the burial councils should be under a different department, I would have to defer to our chair.

However, for the sake of answering your question for this hearing, I don't think that's for DHHL to determine.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you. I'll ask a question. Ryan, there has been conversations before about the-- I mean, OHA comes out and talks about iwi kupuna, right, and the concerns about it. And there has been conversations before about moving the burial council. You have vacancies now, correct? Is that correct?

On the burial council itself? Yes.

Okay. Would you guys be opposed to moving that to, let's say, OHA?

I don't think we would be necessarily opposed to it. However, at this juncture, we have to think through the opera-- moving over the operational side of things. You know, whether that be amending 6e or the administrative rules. And then also within SHPD, there is a support function for the burial councils from staff.

And so that has to be kind of considered. But as far as opposition, no.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, good Members. And are there any other questions? Seeing None. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB868 relating to disabilities. First up, we have DLNR with comments.

We offered written comments and we stand on them. I just want to emphasize that the Department has already implemented and completed much of the work, not much of the work, but the work that is contemplated in this Bill through an Ada self evaluation and creation of a transition plan. That's all.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have people on ZOOM in person. What's their name? Okay. Louis on Zoom. Hawaii Disabilities Rights Center.

Yes. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Chair. I'm Louis Erteschik, Director of Disability Rights Center. We do support the Bill, and I'm pleased to see the testimony of DLNR and DCAB indicating that they've been working on these transition plans.

What I wanted to highlight in my testimony is this issue of beach access, which we brought to the Legislature some years ago. There's a lot of beaches. Some of them are county jurisdiction, but some of them are DLNR jurisdiction that they don't have appropriate access for people in wheelchairs.

Many many other places in the US are much further along in terms of providing beach mats so that people in wheelchairs can kind of roll down to the ocean and then go in. So this issue was raised years ago, and DLNR was supposed to be doing an inventory and reporting back.

And quite frankly, this was all pre Covid. And I'm not sure anybody's totally clear on whatever happened with that whole review that was going on. But I think. I think it would be good to get that issue back on the radar and back on track because it is an important issue.

So for those reasons, we are in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the. That's all the testimony that we have received. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Come up, please state your name.

Good morning, Chair. My name is Elizabeth Pearson with the Disability and Communication Access Board. I believe we submitted comments and we're going to stand on our written comments. We just wanted to highlight that beach access would actually be under hodag, not Ada.

So our Facility Access Unit at DCAB does still review that, but it would be a different law than Ada. And we do have our Facility Access Unit coordinator here with us to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Oh, yeah, I do have you on here. Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? No. Seeing none. We are moving on. Oh, wait, never mind. That's fine. We're moving on.

Next up, we have HB 1323, relating to the transfer of non-agriculture park lands. First up, we have DLNR in opposition.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources provided written opposition on this matter, and we stand on that.

And I just want to emphasize that in the opposition in our testimony, as you can see, since the change of administration in 2023, DLNR has been working cooperatively with the Department of Agriculture to transfer those lands where DOA and DLNR have mutual agreements and are consistent with the provisions of Act 90.

There are certain parcels where we have not agreed to transfer that we have identified for that have high value, whether that be watershed protection, native forest restoration, fire fuel suppression, habitat conservation, or recreational access.

We believe that this bill does not reflect the intent of Act 90, nor the diligence by DLNR to transfer lands to the Department of Agriculture.

Model. Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Department of Agriculture with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The department stands on its written comments supporting the intent of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, representative emeritus. Next up, we have Land Use Research Foundation, LURF, in support. We have Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brian Miyamoto, on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau, you have our written testimony in support. If I could just remind the committee that Act 90 was passed in 2003. It's over 20 years.

I should start by acknowledging DLNR and the work that they're doing with Department of Ag on transferring lands. I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge and thank them for working collaboratively with DOA and with some of our ranchers. However, the work is not done.

You can see in their testimony some of the leases that they want to retain. We have goals here in the State of Hawaii for agriculture: doubling fruit production, institutional purchasing, farm to school, farm to state. How we're going to do that if we continually lose agricultural productive lands? These lands that we're asking to transfer are in agriculture.

We're not asking going to take conservation lands out of conservation. They're agricultural lands in ag production. The losses of ag reflected in the past five years, we've lost 80,000 acres of agricultural production land. We lost 10% of our farmers.

How are we supposed to support these agriculture goals when agricultural land are under constant threat for other land uses? We're always dealing with housing on ag land, renewable energy on ag land, most recently landfills on ag land. And all are concerns and issues that we need to address in the State of Hawaii.

But in the last Committee, in the House Ag Committee, when DLNR was asked what was one of the reasons why they wanted to keep these lands and not allow continued ranching is for amazing hiking and outdoor recreation. Important issues. I, as you can see, am an avid hiker. That wasn't a joke. Very important.

And we don't dispute these important land use other land uses. But again, agricultural land should be for ag production. These are productive agricultural lands. Now, some of the ranchers, they are negotiating with DLNR, but they feel like if they don't negotiate, they potentially going to lose all of their lands. Again, we acknowledge what DLNR is doing.

We're not saying that they're not transferring lands. There is data on those lands they transferred. There's some ranches that are in ag production that we would want. We're all dealing with what's going on with Avian flu, right? We don't have eggs here because we don't have enough capacity of local production.

What happens if we have something attacking cattle on the mainland or pork or hogs? We can't rely imported foods. We need to grow our ag sector. We have to stop losing productive, let me remind you, productive agricultural lands. That's what we're talking about here. So again, acknowledge what DLNR is doing.

There are other productive ranch lands that we would like to see retained in agriculture, and there is a time clock on this because their leases are expiring. And there's a potential that if their leases expire that they'll completely lose all of their parcels versus just a portion that DLNR wants to retain.

So again, we urge the Committee to pass this bill to continue the dialogue and continue the transfers of productive agricultural lands to the Department of Agriculture, where the leases are much more favorable for our farmers and ranchers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have-- Oh, next up, we have Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. Nicole?

Thank you, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Lamosao, and Members of the Committee. Nicole Galase on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. We support this measure. We also appreciate the work that DLNR and DOA have done to work together, make progress on Act 90.

There has been more progress in the past couple years than the decades before it, and we're grateful for that. We are in support of this bill because there are still leases managed by families and active agriculture that the DLNR does not want to transfer to DOA. And I appreciate DLNR, including those listed in their testimony.

But this is the reason Act 90 was passed in the first place, to keep as much lands and ag production as possible to protect them from being converted to other uses, which is what DLNR wants to do at the end of their leases.

Yes, currently, Act 90 counts on mutual approval of boards, but that's holding us back from fulfilling the intent of Act 90. I want to highlight that we're prioritizing these family leases that are transferred-- that we'd like to transfer over because they're at risk of losing their livelihoods.

But Act 90 also intended to transfer lands available to be leased and classified for ag purposes under DLNR, all the ag leases. But back to those that we're focusing on. All of these family ranches have testified in support of this bill because of the situation that they're in.

They're being faced with being pushed out of ranching these parcels. These families contribute to local beef production, and this is beef that contributes to doubling local food production and reaching 30% local food purchasing for school lunches.

And these are families who have all made improvements to the land during the decades they've been stewarding it. They have multiple generations producing on the land, and they need to be under DOA to continue doing their work, which is what they'd like to do.

If you speak to these families, you'll find that they can do both the conservation and food production. And they've been doing it. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably 20 more individuals, ranchers and industry people, maybe 10-15 more people that submitted testimony in support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for DLNR. So I'm hearing the concerns expressed by Hawaii Farm Bureau and Hawaii Cattlemen Council, to name a few. Can you respond to their concerns, please?

I have someone from our Forestry and Wildlife.

I'm Emma Yuen with Department of Land and Natural Resources. We have indicated to these ranchers who either have-- They have seven-- most of them have seven more years remaining in their existing lease and the ability to extend another 10 years under DLNR's rules.

And we indicate to them that while we cannot promise anything because, you know, 17 years from now, we all will have all different governors and heads and all those sorts of things, our intention is to keep those areas and issue special use grazing permits to them to continue ranching even past their leases, while also managing for the multiple uses, whether that be additional restoration or additional having hiking access or recreation access through some of these properties, and having, like the multiple use that some of these properties afford to the public, as they are public land.

So we want to-- And we have written letters to them that indicate our proposed multiple use while continuing with the agricultural uses for these properties.

And a note that these lands are highly diverse and some of them are not what you would consider active, like fully used ranches. Some of them have very steep areas that are very hard to access that even the ranchers do not actually use. And we really--

It would be quite a waste to transfer those to the Department of Agriculture because they aren't usable. They're very marginal lands for agriculture. But they could be used for reforestation and DLNR type purposes.

So looking at having the Board of Land and Natural Resources and the Board of Agriculture with their different expertises look at all the uses of these lands is really important as why the Act 90 working group in 2021 specifically said both boards should review those lands individually to see what actual resources are on the lands. And that's in direct opposition to what this bill is proposing.

So we hope that you folks are consistent with the recommendations of the Act 90 working group from 2021.

Can I have a follow up question, Chair? So as I understand this bill, we're giving the DLNR a mechanism and authority to transfer lands to Department of Ag for ag purposes.

But if DLNR is not willing to do that or has different viewpoint on what is appropriate, then I don't see this bill going anywhere because we'll be in the same place that the DLNR is just going to say these lands are not to be transferred to DOA. Am I seeing this correctly or am I in error?

There is a correction I'd make. Act 90 in 2003 gave a mechanism to transfer the lands to Department of Ag. But knowing that some of these lands might not be appropriate for Ag, the bill required both the BLNR and the Board of Ag to mutually agree that they are appropriate to transfer.

So that's the current law right now and what we're trying to maintain because we believe that the BLNR does have that expertise. And so if this new bill passes, HB 1323, that takes the BLNR out of the picture and eliminates their oversight over all the other potential uses of these and resources of these lands.

So DLNR would basically have no power in determining what is transferred or not.

Right. Last question, Chair. Thank you. I don't know. It sounds to me that-- Let me ask a question. Are you folks in communication with Hawaii Farm Bureau, Hawaii cattlemen, these food producers that, as they correctly state, we want to improve and increase our sustainability. And that is a very important goal.

So how do we achieve these goals if they're not given land and access to do what they need to do? I'm just concerned that there's two entities that should be coordinated and communicating and carving out agreeable agreements so that it's not either/or, but it's a compromise and it's a win-win situation.

And that's what I'd like to see. And how do we achieve this? And I don't see this bill going anywhere based on the opposite viewpoints and testimony that I'm hearing.

Yeah, we also highly value agriculture and that's why we are communicating to the ranchers that we do intend to keep them on these areas past their leases, which are statutorily set to expire because DLNR's rules do not allow us to extend it past 65 years, basically. So that's in 17 years from now.

And we have indicated that we do want to keep these ranchers on these areas, but also manage for other uses as well that we believe can be compatible. And so in response to the compromise and working together, we have had meetings with all these lessees that you were talking about to go over what we seek to do.

Admittedly, some of the ranchers do not want, you know, hikers or that sort of thing on the areas. They prefer things stay, you know, under their lease. But as you can imagine, these are public lands that we manage for multiple uses.

And so it is a discussion that we want to have and be able to have when we have similar goals for carbon neutrality restoring areas and watershed protection. And so that's why we are seeking to be part of that picture of managing and having BLNR oversight rather than being cut out, which is what this bill does.

Okay, thank you. One last question. And thank you, Chair, for your indulgence. So who has the authority to make the decision that Ag has priority over hiking access?

Because they are two valid purposes, but one may be more important than the other and a decision should be made or could be made for the betterment of the whole community that the food production outweighs the access to hiking because there are other access hiking trails and you know, we can't always get what we want.

But what is better for everyone? Who has the authority to make that decision that this is what should be done?

Currently the Board of Agriculture and the DLNR have-- or the BLNR have that discussion. So for instance, we have negotiated in some cases leases where there are access hiking access through a lease.

And that's a discussion that the Board of Land and Natural Resources considers the need for keeping ag, but also the other uses that could be used in that are compatible. So, you know, I would say the Board of Land and Natural Resources is largely where those multiple use discussions would be determined.

And that's why we want to keep that part of the bill.

I do want to emphasize though and note that as part of that process of the BLNR making that determination, it is like publicly informed. So at the end of the day, the folks that are making that decision on the board are weighing the input from the lessees.

And I also want to add that agricultural leases have been under DLNR for decades. And so it's not as if the agricultural uses that are retained or the leases that are retained under DLNR cannot be continued forward. It's just a matter of transitioning to the multi-use. That's the bigger issue for this minority of lessees.

Okay, thank you very much. And thank you very much, Chair, for your patience.

Members, any other questions? I see my Vice Chair's dying to ask questions. No? Okay, I'm gonna pull a move from Bob Herkes, if you guys remember him from long time ago. Brian, can you come up and DLNR, can you come up so you guys can duke it out right on the-- So how do we compute?

Well, if it's Emma, I think I would pick Emma. I know she's very active. Anyways, no-- How do we come to a consensus on this? I mean that's basically my question. How do we come to some kind of agreement on this? Because can we do--

Yeah, I met with some of the ranchers and they continue to want to-- they want to continue to ranch. And DLNR has said yes, we'll extend your leases, but then why not just give it to Department of Ag? But how do we come to some kind of agreement?

And that's what we'd like, Chair. Brian Miyamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. But 2003, over 20 years we've been trying to do this and though DNR says they would like to or that's their intent, there's no assurances.

So these ranchers cannot invest in their operations. Without assurances of a long term lease, without assurance of continuing ranch, why would they do that? They're going to scale back. They'll be forced to scale back without an insurance of being able to continue--

And so there was a bill that I believe it was DLNR proposed to be able to extend the leases, but again, there's no assurance that they will. They've made it pretty clear that they want to take back these lands.

And so when we talk about dual uses, multiple uses, yes, they've got 2 million acres and understand ag land is always the desired land because there's some basic infrastructure already. But again, we're dealing with a lot of ag crime bills at the legislature this year.

So are we considering for those ranchers, the next bill's about ag tourism, which we support. So we're not talking about those, but those ranchers or those farmers who don't want others around or people trespassing or coming through their property, right. There are multiple ag crime bills. We just had a death of a rancher in Waianae.

So again, there are multiple reasons why we would like this transferred over, the management transferred over. These are productive ag lands. We're not taking any other land. Lands that you heard cattlemen say are in generational farmers. We want our ranchers. We want our ranchers and farmers to have succession plans to allow the continuation of the operations.

We are losing way too much farmers and ranchers, way too much ag land. And that's all we're asking. So, to be honest, we've been talking to DLNR, DOA, the ranchers. But if you read the rancher's testimony, you'll hear that frustration. The frustration I would prefer-- And again, they're out ranching.

They would love to fly over to Oahu to come here to testify. They do when we have Cattlemen's Day, at this rate, we'll just call it day. We are losing way too much ag production. We're losing too much ag land. We're under constant threat of competing land uses. So--

Okay, Brian, can I let the DLNR come up? Go ahead.

I don't know who to look at when I talk because I want to see their eyes. So you're looking for some kind of solution on this. And we-- DLNR did provide a bill. I don't know if it was last session or the session before, but it's essentially seeking the ability to engage in leasing.

And I'm looking at my line to engage in leasing with conditions similar as the Department of Agriculture. And if you-- And that would-- That's basically what the-- Not basically, but that is one of the primary issues we have here, right. It's the lease scheme under DLNR versus the lease scheme under the Department of Agriculture.

And that is created by statute. You know, the limitations are created by statute. And so the lessees, they want to go over to the Department of Ag because the scheme there is more liberal and it would allow them to, you know, for example, get lease extensions out beyond what we're statutorily tied to.

And so if you want a solution, that is a potential one where it would allow DLNR to engage in the same type of leasing scheme as the Department of Agriculture.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Yeah, Vice Chair, questions? No? Yeah, see, I know you're dying. I can see it on your face.

Okay. Nicole, are you still there?

Yes, thank you, Vice Chair Lamosao.

So according to DLNR's testimony, you know, they listed out the leases that will be transferred and then the ones that they will retain. So for like, let's see, Ernest and Marianne De Luz, Freddie Nobriga and Diamond B Ranch. So it looks like they seek to retain all of their ranch lines.

Yes, but can you share some of their struggles in regards to what Emma brought up and then also some of the things that Brian brought up as well. But that could potentially, you know, be a challenge for them if they decide to do a mixed use.

Sure, that's a great question. The De Luzes are who I wanted to bring up first, actually, as an example. If you see on DLNR's list, they are seeking to transfer about 2,000 acres, but they want to retain about 3,000.

With that, the De Luzes are not going to be able to stay in operation. Even with the opportunity that DLNR presents that they said, we'll work with you, we'd like to keep you on the land. The De Luzes are actually an example who have tried that with DLNR.

They had a parcel at Puʻu Waʻawaʻa that DLNR said, we'll work with you on this. We can do both our goals and your goals. But what happened was that DLNR's goals were different from agriculture understandably.

That meant that the things that they needed to happen was not putting cattle welfare and health and-- cattle health and well being at priority. That meant that the De Luzes, for the health of their cattle, for the well being of their cattle, they had to pull them out of that. That's less cattle for our beef production.

Freddy Nobriga that parcel, that's their entire livelihood. They have multiple generations on that land. This is the way that they live their lives and they want to continue producing food and they're willing to do forestry projects. Actually, everyone on this list I've talked to, they're willing to do forestry projects.

But what they're concerned about is that under DLNR, forestry is the primary reason for the land. Where they want to do forestry in a way that allows them to keep ag production going. We have methods of doing this where we're actually planting native trees, fencing them off and still being able to graze around those areas.

There's other ways as well. They're all removing invasive species, putting in water systems. Diamond B Ranch, you see his testimony has a lot of photos there. I think that with his parcel, that is one of the areas where it's difficult to access. There are gulches there.

But from his point of view, showing those pictures, those gulches are not areas that are going to be able to be easily reforested. The pasture though that he has been working on, he actually hand seeded those areas.

He spent thousands of dollars on seed, reseeded that area and now all that ground is covered, which means it is holding the soil, keeping it from runoff. Any runoff that you see is actually from the gulch.

I also think that that area is one where DLNR mentioned the amazing hiking opportunities. Brendan, who runs Diamond B Ranch has shared-- He is a decades long veteran of the fire department. The only time he's seen people hiking in that area he's had to do a recovery mission because it is so dangerous. Thank you.

Thank you. So I have a question for DLNR. You know, seeing some of those, the-- what they're willing to do and, and also some of the dangerous hiking paths that this-- that some of their lands could potentially pose. What do you--

Are you guys-- you still want to retain like 100% of these lands like specifically for the De Luzes, Nobrigas and Diamond B Ranch?

Yes, we know these parcels very well. And while it might be the opinion of the rancher that it is too dangerous to hike or not appropriate, we invite the legislature to visit these areas and maybe we can do a site visit to see that some of these areas are partially already forested with remnant koa trees.

Some of these areas are inaccessible for ranching and would be unusable like a large part of that ranch in Maui, the Diamond B Ranch, and thus not appropriate to transfer.

And so that's why we do want to look individually at particular areas which is what the ability of the Board of Land and Natural Resources decision-making process does is to actually see the resources on these areas very individually rather than wholesale just say it should all go to Department of Ag, which is what the bill proposes.

And we definitely do want to continue working with these ranchers. And if the all these lands go to the Department of Ag, they will have no reason or incentive to keep talking to DLNR or do any of these conservation or partnership activities with us because we will be out of the picture.

So while they may say they're willing to do that now, this having them continue under DLNR's--

But that's the same for them too, right? You guys are not putting them as a priority and they're currently on their lands. So. Ryan, you look like you want to say something.

I just want to go back to the Diamond B Ranch example. So you know, the testifier testified that there are certain portions of the property that are obviously not, should not be and cannot be used for ranching.

Correct. But you are-- you want to retain all of it.

Yes. So we're actually--

There's still ranching on portions of it.

Yes. So but the current review process allows us to look at those portions where you know, as the testifier says are not able-- And we can carve those out via, you know, survey out and then separate parcel. That's what the process allows now.

And DLNR can manage those parts that are inaccessible because DLNR is in the business of managing inaccessible property. I mean, I'll just point at the mountain. I don't know where the mountains are right now. We're in a closed room, but it's somewhere.

So that's where the process comes into play and allows us to make that fine tuning which is essentially where we're at at this point.

Okay, but that bill that you introduced last year that would consider long term leases for continued agriculture, but also does that also include mixed use as well or was-- Anyways.

But my concern is exactly what the ranchers have mentioned anyways and also the Farm Bureau that because they're actively in production and are willing to do forestry, but their needs are obviously not being met. And that's why we're here 20 years later, right?

And so I know it's not in your, your jurisdiction or in statue for you folks to be in that business of putting agriculture first, but I would certainly implore you to still look at the things that they're doing to keep these lands, you know, just in good condition and they're, you know, taking care of it and then potentially what type of damage it could do if you decide to do it for mixed use.

And like what are some of the unintended consequences, like looking at that type of broader scope of like if we do start to open some of these lands up for mixed use and for the public, where are they going to park?

So is that going to be added cost for infrastructure and then also for rescue, like, you know, all of those unintended things that could potentially happen. So just something to consider. I mean--

Thank you. Okay.

You can respond if you want to.

Okay. No, no-- I don't know if there is a response to that. I do want to note that, you know, because these are a lot of these lands are public land trust lands, the board-- The purpose of public land trust lands is multipurpose, right, to benefit multi purposes and one of them is agriculture.

And so the board when they're making that determination they are actually thinking about agriculture on balance with the other purposes of public land trust lands which is to benefit the public, whether that be through recreation side things or even just restoration of the watershed which is a public benefit as well. But I just--

That's my clarification that we are thinking about agriculture which is why we had the ag leases for decades. Anyway, thank you.

Okay, thank you, thank you very much. Members are there no more questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up we have HB966HD1 relating to agriculture tourism. First up we have ADC Agriculture Development Corporation

Vice Chair Members of the Committee, on when aided with ABC and we stand in strong support of this measure and are available for questions.

Next we have Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Aloha Chair the Department stands on uncertain comments supporting. The intent of this measure. Here for any questions.

Thank you. Next we have office and planning and with comments. Thank you. Next we have HTA Hawaii Tourism Authority with comments. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

Morning Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony in support. Just want to point out a few things. We are strong supporters of ag tourism with some safeguards. Again we'll repeat our message. Ag lands. The primary use on agricultural lands is ag production.

Other uses should be secondary accessory which we believe agritourism is secondary and accessory use. We believe any other use is a privilege but you need to be producing on those ag lands. We do support some minimum statewide standards. However we still believe that ag tourism is a county function and should have county oversight and home rule.

Again the different counties through their zoning me they should be able to determine what kind of ag tourism they want. Hawaii county may not want the same things as Oahu or Kauai or Maui.

We just went through an extensive almost three year land use ordinance update at City County Honolulu which ag tourism was one of the big issues that was being discussed.

And again we want to protect against abuse people using ag land for ag tourism that have no ag value or no ag production and gentlemen farms which a lot of times we see what's going on with with on ag lands.

So again we want to ensure and we do believe it's still in there that the county has oversight. Current law requires that the county has an ordinance to enact Ag tourism that is still in there. We know things have been moved around. In fact, this creates a new section in Chapter 205.

We did see that the last Committee changed the overnight accommodations, which is 21 days. No, no longer than 21 days, which I was trying to do some background and unsure why it's 21 days. That's a long time, quite frankly, for overnight accommodations for ag tourism.

However, the current law restricts it to counties with three islands or more, basically taking Oahu out. So I'm not sure if there was a move or desire from the city count of Honolulu or Oahu farmers and ranchers to be able to do overnight accommodations. Again, ag tourism is not short term rentals. We don't want any of that.

Vacation rentals. Again, ag tourism helps with the profitability income and supports farmers and ranchers, but also helps with educational outreach. So again, we support ag tourism. We want to make sure there's safeguards. We want to make sure the county still retains their oversight and determination on zoning for ag tourism. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered in person. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify? See, none. Is there anybody on zoom? There's two people. Robert.

Hi. Hi. I'm Robert Horcajo. I'm a resident on Maui. We have a small family farm here. I did submit written testimony about the importance of this Bill for us. We have been required to. We've been asked by the Planning Department to get a special use permit just to even put a farm stand on the trailers.

We have now applied for a special use permit to have our visitors, residents and our guests, I guess folks even string away for the lay plants that we grow. I'm going to stop here.

But I think the most important part of my testimony I wanted to reiterate is that within section 2B where it lists the three conditions for ag tourism operations, I do encourage you to add what I have here on number four.

And this kind of pertains to the comment just made by the testifier about different colonies having different rules, which I agree with. But I think the state needs to set that tone. And my number four comment says or condition, an agricultural tourism operation shall pertain to only farm products produced on the farm in a purposeful way.

Now, that may not make any sense to you, but you know, like, we grow Kala. We have, we have several mallas. We have a friend who grows kalo and he harvests five to 1,000 pounds per week. Somebody could have a kalo plant in a five gallon pot and decide because of that he can talk about kalo.

And that's part of his agricultural tourism, basically activity. We wouldn't feel right having activity making rope from cows because we don't. We're not ranchers. Same thing when making honey from the bees. So again, for me, the Bill should set the tone.

So any county who decides to actually create their own ag tourism legislation, as Marbury county is actually doing now, it just makes the most sense for us that it's. And that really makes it more secondary. That particular farm activity. Ag tourism activity makes it really secondary to the farm being produced on that farm stuff.

So that's my testimony. Thank you very much. And I've never done this before, so I appreciate your time.

Robert, you did a very good job. Thank you very much. And we have your written testimony. Next up, we have Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. Nicole.

Thank you. Chair Nicole Galassi. On behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, we submitted written testimony with comments as we want to ensure that gentlemen farms are not misusing land with ag tourism, but we also don't want to make sure.

We also want to make sure that this Bill doesn't negatively impact farms and ranches who are using ag tourism appropriately for education, for connecting people to where their food comes from, and for that diversified income to keep them afloat. Mahalo.

That is all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably 10 more individuals that submitted testimony and support or comments or oppose. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up we have HB 1423 relating to Hanalei Bay.

First up we have DLNR. Oh, wait, yeah. DLNR with comments. Okay, thank you. Next we have Kauai Office of County Clerk in support. County of Kauai and support Hanalei Wai Nih Hawaii Community, Hanalei Community Association support and Hawaii Watershed Hui in support. That's all the registered people that we have. That's all the testimony that we received.

Nobody's here to testify. Nobody on Zoom. I guess we don't have any questions. We will recess. Is that time correct? Canopy. Okay. No, it says 10 o'clock on the clock. Okay, we'll recess.

Okay, gaveling back in on our Committee on water and land for decision making. First up we have HB743 relating to fiscal sustainability. The Chair's recommendation is to take toll taxes amendments. They had it in their their testimony and that's it.

So pass out with an HD1 defect date and if there and tech amendments defect dates will be July 1, 3000 and if I forget we're going to make tech amendments on all the bills and we're going to make defect date on all the bills to July 1, 3000. Okay, Vice Chair for the vote. Any comments or concerns see none. Vice Chair.

Voting on HB 743 recommendation of the Chair's passed with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much Members. Next up we have HB 1318 relating to affordable housing. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this with an HD2 defectating defect.

Well it's already defectated and what we're going to do is take out take DLNR's amendments and put in the Committee report to look at OHA's comments and amendments that they brought up for the next Committee. I don't have prior to do all that. Good. Any comments or concerns seeing? None. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1318, HD1 recommendation of the Chair is to pass as is.

Ah no amendments. DLNR amendments.

Oh, I thought you were going to.

Put in the no OA comments. Oh okay.

Okay, pass with amendments. [Roll Call] All Members vote Aye. Chair present that are present your recommendation.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for your support Members. Next up we have HB 1409, HD1 relating to Tod. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is it's already contains a defect date and no tech amendments, comments or concerns.

Seeing none voting on HB 1409, HD1 recommendation of the Chair is to pass as is. [Roll Call] All Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, next up we I've been working with the or we have HB 1410 relating to housing.

I've been working with the Chair of housing on this and I he was saying that to change the non owner occupied rate to State for the sale of a condominium of a single family residence or land zone agriculture with a residential dwelling unit for which the purchaser is ineligible for a county homeowner's exemption on property tax. Okay.

Any comments or concerns? See? None. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 1410. HD1. Recommendation of the Chairs pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Okay. All other Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have HB528. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. It's a very short bill. Any concerns? I see concerns on your face. Sorry. I think this is.

It wasn't clear. This was the one. It wasn't clear who this is applying to.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. I don't know exactly who it's. I mean, I'm gonna vote no just because it's too ambiguous and unclear. Okay, thank you.

Any other comments or concerns?

Reservations?

Reservations for Belatti. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, Members, we are voting on HB 528, HD1. Recommendation of the Chair to pass as is.

Yep.

Sorry.

Yes, I believe as is. As is. Unamended.

[Roll Call] All other Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you, Members. Next up, we have HB 1359 relating to flood mitigation. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this as an HD1. It already has a blank appropriation. It goes to fin after this. And we're going to defect the date to July 1, 3000 and to put in tech amendments. Any concerns or questions, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I'll be voting no on this. This is a county liability if they're not having proper drainage. And I feel like the county has failed to raise revenue for itself to take care of issues like this. And I don't want to allocate tax state funds for something that the county's laxed on. Thank you.

So noted, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I will be voting yes with reservations. My concern was my line of questioning with DLNR and I'm not sure if I'm confused or I misunderstood, but I just wanted to make sure that they had the.

The language, the capacity to administer the funds in the way that they need to because of any lack of expertise or in House capacity.

Okay. Thank You. Thank you very much. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on HB 1359. Recommendation of the Chair to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] All other Members vote Aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have HB 868 relating to disabilities. The Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure. Oh, are we on 1087? Did I skip one? Okay, see, I'm going too fast. 1087 is your bill. So go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. So we are going to defect the date. Well, she already mentioned that. But we're also going to add a part two for this bill. We are going to transfer the burial council and also the councils under it from DLNR to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

And DHHL will work with the burial councils to address the treatment of IWI kupuna on their sites. Any questions? Seeing none.

Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1087. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Anyone voting no. Anyone voting with reservations?

Yes, I'll be voting with reservations. Based on the testimony from the Hawaii Historic foundation, the concern of the standards being kept by DHHL.

Anyone else voting with reservations? All other Members vote Aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Well, thank you very much. Next up we have now we have HB868 relating to disabilities. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this. Oh, no, not pass it. Sorry to defer this measure and DLNR. Can you get your report to the introducer of this bill so. And contact them. Thank you. Next up we have HB 1323.

Chair's recommendation is to pass this out as an. Oh, pass this unamended. If I know people are going to have a lot of concerns about this. Let me just tell you, I don't think this is the vehicle and I don't.

And the reason I don't think this bill is the vehicle because I'm assuming that the parcels that are left are the difficult ones. And I don't think those. The transfer of those parcels will be done in a bill. It has to be more probably. It sounds like every parcel parcel is specific and unique.

So you're going to have to transfer that with conditions. Being in the real estate industry, I know how that goes. So I don't see this happening in a bill. But I would like to continue the conversation going on. It is going to Judiciary after this so they can look into it even more.

We're going to defect the date and any tech amendments and that's about it. If you have concerns, feel free, bring them up. Oh, yeah, sorry. Pass it as is. Yeah, she's right there. Already has a defect date. So any concerns?

Yes, I have a concern. So I think the draft. Well, the H21 strikes be BLNR, but then it refers to the board, which I assume is BLNR. So there was some. It was. Had some confusion for me, but. So I'll just vote with reservations. Okay, thank you.

Any other seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1323, HD1 recommendation of the Chairs to pass as is. [Roll Call] All other Members vote Aye. Chair recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you for your support, Members. Next up we have HB966 relating to agriculture, tourism. Okay, here's another one. Chair's recommendation is to pass this with an horizon. Pass this out unamended. Usually I would defer this and clean it up a little bit and work with the introducers.

But since we have a deadline that we need to meet, we need to push this to the Next Committee, which is Judiciary. So I'm going to ask Judiciary to look into DOE's. DOE and Farm Bureau's concerns and put that into the Committee report.

Share with yes. Would you be open to doing HD2 which reverts to the original language of this bill? Oh, I didn't even look at the original language.

I'm sorry, I don't know. No, I don't have prior concurrence to do that from the agriculture, tourism, the two committees also. You want to put it in the Committee report?

Sure.

Okay. Thank you. oh, can you. Yeah. Good. Can you state your Committee what you want in the Committee report? Because last time they had a hard time. Can you re. Rephrase. Restate that?

Yes. Well, given the Department of Agriculture's concerns, I would amend it back to the original version of the bill.

Okay, thank you. We'll put that in the Committee report. Any other comments, concerns? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Next, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 966, HD1 recommendation of the Chair is to pass as is. Anyone voting? No. Anyone voting with reservations? All Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, Next we have HB 1423. Is that the correct one? The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1. There's no tech amendments, but we're going to defect the date to July 1, 3000 and that's it. So. Comments Concerns Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1423. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting no. Anyone voting with reservations? All Members President vote Aye. Chair your recommendation as adopted.

Thank you very much for your support, Members. We are adjourned.