House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, February 27th at 2pm here in Conference Room 325. Thanks everyone for being here to provide testimony. Appreciate that. We actually do a better job as legislators when we receive testimony, so you're part of the process. Thanks for being here.

Those who are providing testimony, I'd request that you keep your testimony to about two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point. And if you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And then again after your testimony is complete.

You can use the Zoom chat function to communicate with our technical staff to try to address technical issues. If you are disconnected, don't panic. Just reconnect as soon as you can and we'll try to fit you in to provide your testimony when you return,

if possible. In the event of a network failure or the power going off in the building here, we will reschedule and make sure we post appropriate notice so everyone knows when we're going to be having another hearing or decision making. If you're testifying on Zoom, please do not use any trademarked or copyrighted images.

That kicks us off of YouTube. And we don't like that because we want to be visible to the public and want everyone in the public to be able to see what we're doing here and why we make the decisions we make. Please conduct yourself with aloha and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

I ask, as always, it's okay. I say, as always, it's okay to disagree, but please, let's not be disagreeable. Okay? First up, we have House Bill 211 relating to stream maintenance. This measure requires the counties to remove and dispose of personal property as part of the maintenance of channels, stream beds, stream banks and drainageways.

It clarifies that personal property stored in or near a channel, stream beds, stream bank or drainageways for a continuous period of more than 24 hours shall be deemed abandoned property which may be disposed of by the state or county. First up, we have Department of Land and Natural Resources. Mr. Hirokawa, please proceed.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ian Hirokawa with DLNR. We'll stand on our comments. Our testimony offering comments.

We do want to point out that we are requesting an amendment because how the Bill is written now HRS 46-11.5 is really focused on giving the counties the one, the response, the responsibility and the authority for cleaning and you know, clearing out the streams and flood control.

And the way the, the Bill was amended, it kind of loops in the state. It says either the state or the county can remove property. And what we're concerned about is DLNR having to remove abandoned property on streams it has no ownership on. So either county owned or privately owned streams.

So we're requesting an amendment to clarify that, you know, basically that the, with respect to the state or the county, whatever entity has jurisdiction or ownership of that stream is responsible. I mean, or at least the state and otherwise, you know, the county can enforce against a private owner.

The other thing we're asking for is, you know, requesting that funds be appropriated to assist with the cleanup. Because, you know, as for us, it's kind of a. It's not really a budgeted in our operating and our already cleanup efforts are already very expensive. So our present cleanup. So we are requesting that. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Hirokawa, does Mr. Tsuji want to provide comments as well? Nope. Okay. Thank you very much for being here, Durazo. Next, we have written testimony in opposition from the city and County of Honolulu. Written testimony in support from two individuals and one person who said they wish to testify on Zoom. Taryn Dizon?

Not present; in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 211? If not. Questions, Members, any questions? Mr. Hirokawa? Maybe real quick questions, just as a way to educate the public and the Members here.

My understanding is that streams are owned either by the property owner, the private property owner, because it's often the boundary goes up to the middle of the stream, on many cases, sometimes not, and then so. And the state owns some streams. So the bottom line is that whoever owns the stream is responsible for cleaning it.

Is that accurate?

Yes, we believe so. It's just that the county through 46-11.5 has the authority to. If like an owner, like a private owner is derelict in it, they can go ahead, clean it, and then enforce for the cost later. But yes-

They already have that authority.

Yes, yes, but it is the response.

So I want to make that clear to everyone. The county already has the authority if a private property owner is derelict and taken care of and at the stream and it's full of stuff that they have the authority to enter, clean it, and then follow up and seek recompense or whatever from the private property owner.

Correct. That is an existing statute.

Existing statute as written.

Yes.

Got it. Okay. So that's important for everyone to know. And. But in the case of, you know, private, private property, people who own Property adjacent to a stream, if they were to look at their TMK map and they.

That would instruct them as to what part of the stream they own, and then they would be responsible for cleaning the part of the stream they own. Is that correct?

Correct. I mean. Well, I would say either a TMK map or probably more specifically their deed. Because a lot of times their deed could describe either to the middle of the stream or the bank and maybe the other side has. And of course, the stream can meander too, so that could affect it.

But, yeah, I would say TMK might, but I think better the deed would more specifically describe.

Okay. So the Members of the public who are interested in this, if they're concerned about a particular area that's part of a stream that's got stuff in it, if they were to try to figure out who is responsible for it, it would be in the deeds of those property owners that are in that area along the stream.

Yes, it should be lawless described in there.

Okay. And then one final question. This whole thing about part of the Bill says that, you know, anything personal property that is stored in or near the channel shall be deemed abandoned property may be disposed of by the state or county.

If I remember correctly, and I think the county has this in their testimony that we can't just throw it out. There's been a recent court case in the last several years saying that it's gotta be stored. And then that individual, let's say a houseless individual, and they've got stuff that they've been using there.

We can't just throw it out. Are you familiar with that case?

I've heard of it. I think I'm more. I guess what my familiarism is that in 171, I believe it's 31.5. It describes what's needed for state lands in terms of 31.5, I believe, is a session. But it does describe what is needed in terms of, you know, providing notice that this area is subject to cleanup and then.

Okay, you know, removing and then storing the property. I'm not clear exactly what you would do for private.

Yeah, that's okay. I appreciate it. Thanks very much, Mr. Hirokawa. Thank you. I would refer Members to. It's okay. Your pal. I would refer Members to the testimony from the city and County of Honolulu that is listed on.

From Gene Albano from the Department of Facility Maintenance, where in the testimony saying that this Bill is in direct conflict with the federal court stipulation reached in part of the American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit.

Accordingly, the city, and they quote the particular 1319.3 and 1319.4, requires written notification of abandoned property and storage of personal property rather than immediate disposal.

Per this stipulation, the city strictly adheres to the issuance of written notice and storage procedures for impounded personal property and must list on the city website the location of the planned enforcement area by 3pm the previous day.

So I think that's important for everybody to understand that that's how the city is approaching this, so that they're not in violation of. Of the court stipulation. I just wanted to make that clear because the city's not. City and county representative is not here to present that. Okay, let's go on to the next measure.

Unless you got a question, Representative. I was figuring. You did?

Yeah, I did. I'm sorry I missed that call. Thank you. Chair. Question for dlnr, please. Simple question, hopefully. I just wanted to confirm that as far as all of the streams that are being considered, the ownership is clear. There's no confusion about. It's clearly designated who's the owner and who has responsibility over any length of stream.

I think generally we're pretty clear, but I don't want to say that 100% of the time. There's always, sometimes it could be always some question, but I think generally we've been able to ascertain. Yeah, if there's a question.

This is Durazo Tsuji. Who?

Durazo Tsuji, Land Division Administrator. I was just going to try to answer your question. It's got to be stream by stream, and it has to be checked out that way because I just want to make. Make it known to everyone that it's just dependent on the deed.

So some of the deeds of the property that abut streams go all the way to the other side of the bank embankment, which means you have the whole stream. Some of them go toward. A lot of them go toward the middle. And so both abutting properties on both sides of the streams often own the stream.

And then they'll have. You'll have some where they don't own it and it only goes to the boundary line. So in a lot of those cases it's deemed like arguably that the state has some jurisdiction normally over those type of streams.

So it varies per parcel. So you really have to look at the deed.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks very much. Mr. Tsuji, Mr. Hirokawa, this is a good learning, educational experience for everybody. Okay, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 502 relating to land use.

This measure temporarily allows each county, by resolution of its County Council, to petition for the redistricting of land from an agricultural district to a rural district through the Land Use Commission's declaratory ruling process. First up, we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Aaron Setogawa, for the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. OPSD stands on its written testimony which supports the intent of this bill, but expresses some concerns.

I would usually what I do, rather than having everyone just stand on their testimony, I ask them to highlight what are I think are parts of the testimony. And for you, I'd like you to highlight what your concerns are and you do make a recommendation. Please proceed.

Yes, One of the concerns is that the time frame for these processing these types of district Bollinger amendment from ag to ruling is. We think it's a too short. Especially if you're considering that the LUC might have to do a rule change.

Also we've been it's understanding that for example the Big island, the Big Island Planning Department would have very difficult time informing every all of the adjacent landowners in a timely manner to process these things. So those are the kind of issues we are.

Thank you. But I also see that you strongly recommend. OPSD strongly recommends the establishment of a county plan based district boundary amendment process that enables the redistricting of lands in conformance with adopted county general development and community community plans. That's a significant recommendation. I wanted you to highlight that.

Do you have anything more to say about that?

Yes. We think that giving the counties a more permanent process or ability to do this process would be a lot more efficient to conform. Our- Our 22 state land use review show that the number of parcels not within the counties that are within the county's growth areas but are not in the state urban district.

So this would, if we came up with a permanent process, it would be more effective for them to align the- the state district boundaries with their county plans.

Yes, and I appreciate that. Your testimony also says you stand ready to assist in the development of legislative measures for a county plan based district boundary amendment that aligns and balances county and state land use policies and development and resource management interests. So you're volunteering to assist us?

Yes, we are.

Okay.

I just want to make sure everyone hears that. Okay. Thank you very much, sir.

You're welcome.

Okay. Next testimony is from the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Gates, welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha, chair. Aloha, members of the committee, Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The department stands on a certain testimony offering comments and a recommendation.

And our recommendation is that we respectfully ask that the counties who take advantage of the provision of this measure should it be enacted to consider concurrent revisions of their respective ordinances, plans and rules affecting the subdivisions or other means of land partitioning of agriculture lands as well to create unity amongst the laws. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have the Land Use Commission. That was a big sigh, Randy.

Aloha, Kakou.

Aloha.

Scott Derrickson, chief planner, State Land Use Commission we'll also stand on our testimony so supporting the intent of the bill. And I guess I'll highlight that this bill is really aimed at legacy agricultural subdivisions that were created in some cases prior to the state land use commission- state land use law in 1961.

I guess in a way this is- this is really a county thing. It's not something that the land use commission initiated. This is kind of a cleanup of these small lot ag subdivisions. As Office of Planning did indicate, we will have to enact rules. We'll have to do rule amendment process in order to make this work.

That takes time.

Thank you. That's important. I mean you highlighted the important things in your testimony. You also in your last paragraph you point to OPSD's role in this process. So the members will take a look at your written testimony for any more details. Thank you very much. Scott. Good to see you.

Next we have written testimony, support from Heather Kimball, Hawaii County Council, comments from Hawaii Farm Bureau and testimony and support from Hawaii Realtors Lindsey Garcia and testimony and support from Maui Chamber of Commerce. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 502? Go ahead, Ms. Angela.

Angela Melody Young, Cares in strong support. So I'm not an attorney, but as I read the very last subsection, I think that's what it's called. So Letter D. The Land Use Commission shall adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 91 Hawaii Revised Statute used to implement this act. Cares' proposed amendment

after hearing the discussion is to be considerate of the county's process. After hearing Egg's testimony you'd probably want to put into the law. And of course I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is appropriate. Letter D.

The land use Commission shall adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 91 Hawaii Revised Statute and the Four Counties Land Use ordinances to implement this act. So if the state would like to check with an attorney, because I'm not an attorney, but thank you. Yeah, just speaking to the technicalities and specificity.

I think it'll be very helpful to consult--

with the counties and their attorneys. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 502 House Draft 1? If not, questions, members? Nope. Seeing none. Thank you very much. We will move on to the next measure. House Bill 510 House draft 1 relating to declaration of water shortage and emergency.

This measure amends the conditions, manner and areas in which the Commission on Water Resource Management can declare and provide notice of water shortages and emergencies. First up we have Department of Land and Natural Resources. Wow. The Chair is here. Wow.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Dawn Chang on behalf of in this case it's the Commission on Water Resource Management. We stand in very strong support of this measure and we're going to stand on our written testimony. We believe that this measure will help CWRM more we can.

Welcome.

It will permit us to address issues on non water management designated areas. So it's a really important tool for us. Thank you very much and we're available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Chair Chang. Next we have the Board of Water Supply Honolulu. Welcome.

Good afternoon chair, vice chair and members of the committee. My name is Kathy Mitchell. I'm with the Board of Water Supply.

Border of Water Supply strongly supports House Bill 510 HD1 as it requires the Commission on Water Resource Management to adopt rules, formulate a plan for implementation, adopt a reasonable system of permit classification and set criteria for determining when a water shortage exists. We- We like to be-

We hope that the when they go out to adopt the rules that it's transparent and they welcome the stakeholder participation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we've received written testimony in opposition from the Land Use Research Foundation, written testimony in opposition from the Hawaii Farm Bureau, written testimony in support from the Climate Change and Health Working Group and written testimony and support from an individual.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 510 House Draft one? If not, questions, members? Please proceed.

Thank you chair. It's challenging to keep up with your pace here but the question is regarding do I have anyone from Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii?

Not here.

Okay. Can I ask a question to DLNR please?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the testimony from the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii but they are in opposition to this bill and even though well intended their concern is I guess overextending the commission's authority outside of water management areas and maybe creating a unilateral type decision making process that would alienate certain people or even unintended consequences negatively.

So could you comment on that please.

And thank you very much representative.

I've got Ryan Imato with our CWRM branch here and I'm going to ask him to provide any comments and then I may provide you an additional comment.

And just for the public, if they don't know what CWRM is, this is not an analyt that lives in the ocean. This is the Commission on Water Resources Management.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Ryan Imata with the Commission on Water Resource Management. So I understand their opposition. I, you know, think that this allows us to manage emergency situations in non management areas and we would go through rulemaking. So LURF would have the opportunity to comment on the process as we go through rulemaking.

Please proceed.

And if I may also add, so for example, in Lahaina it's not designated a water management area at the time of the fire, but now it is. But at that time when we had the fires, we could not regulate the private purveyors because it was not a management designated area.

So we believe that this bill will provide us to more timely respond in the case of emergencies. And we think it is necessary as while the intent of CWRM was to have the whole state perhaps designated as a water management area, we're not there yet.

So again, I think it does help us provide us an additional tool to more timely respond in the events of emergencies.

Okay, thank you. Did I hear you say that there will be a public input process?

Rulemaking to adopt the rule.

Alright.

Chair, can I ask one more question?

Sure.

Can you also address Hawaii Farm Bureaus? I don't think they're here, but they submitted testimony of their concern that water might be shut off or- or reduced to a disagreeable amount that would affect, you know, their agricultural production. And obviously they have concerns of needing a steady source of water.

So how would they be protected in their operations?

Yeah, and that's a good concern too. I think we need to look at it, we're looking at it from a water resource perspective.

And so, you know, I think there are going to have to be balances between where we cut back certain categories of use, which is why I think we're I think the language in the bill proposes like a permit classification so that we can figure out like I don't think it's necessarily spelled out in the bill, but we can figure out a classification whereby, you know, certain maybe non public trust uses might be cut back at a certain percentage versus agricultural uses.

And I think we can address it that way.

In addition, Rep. I think it would also be the rulemaking process would permit an opportunity for us to hear the concerns of the agriculture industry and make appropriate considerations when in the actual implementation.

Alright, that's good to hear. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Certainly. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Thank you, members. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 511 House Draft 1 relating to public lands.

This measure provides that a survey of the land to be set aside shall not be a condition precedent to the setting aside of public lands to any Department or agency of the state. First up, we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture with comments.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Cedric Gates, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The department stands on its written testimony offering comments and consideration. The Department of Agriculture acknowledges that not requiring a survey of lands to be

set aside will expedite the setting aside of public lands between state departments and agencies and will conserve government resources. We do want to be cons- if you guys can consider that the funding for these surveys after those lands have been transferred will still be needed to be done and that funding will be required. So thank you.

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

Good afternoon, chair and vice chair, members of the committee, Dawn Chang with the Department of Land and Natural Resources. I think many of you are familiar with Act 90 and this bill is really designed to help facilitate that. Last year we came to ask you for $1.5 million just to do the surveys.

We have one particular parcel that's costing us a quarter of $1.0 million to survey and under the current law we have to complete the survey before we can actually complete the executive order. So we believe that going from one agency to the next that the survey is not necessary. Should in the future there need to be.

Let's say they want a mortgage or they want to- when a survey is necessary. If they're going to subdivide at that point in time, we can do this survey. But we believe for purposes of the executive order to transfer that a survey may not be necessary. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would assume, Mr. Tsuji, you're just here for support. Okay. Brian Miyamoto with Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. I just called your name. House Bill 511. Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. And this 511 has to do with not needing the survey in order to set aside the land to transfer it to another agency.

Support.

Take a deep breath.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. My apologies, chair. We had an advice and consent hearing. So sorry for the tardiness. You're busy guys. Sorry for the other bills that we missed.

We're absolutely in support of this bill, again, this is in regards to Act 90. We don't want the surveys to delay the transfers that have been approved by both DLNR and or BLNR and BOA. So we- We- It doesn't eliminate the need for the survey. It just allows the process to continue.

And again, as you know, the Hawaii Farm Bureau is a stunt supporter of transferring those lands from DLNR Agricultural Production lands over to DOA. So again, we are in strong support and we do apologize for our tardiness, chair.

No problem. Thank you very much, Mr. Miyamoto. And next we have testimony from the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. Nicole Galassi on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee, I'm Nicole Galassi on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, HCC is in support of this measure. As like everyone else said before, this is an important piece of successfully implementing Act 90. Unfortunately, the surveys are expensive. They take a long time.

But in the cases where both the state and leaseholder agree on setting aside just a portion of the lease, we support being able to do that and complete the transfer between state departments

without that. There are currently leases that need surveys that are holding up those Act 90 transfers, as well as leases in the pipeline for transferring that will need surveys. So this is a measure that will be beneficial to both the leaseholders as well as the state. Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Galassi. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 511, House Draft 1, someone on Zoom, Clayton Kubo. Mr. Kubo, please proceed.

Clayton Kubo, Waimea, Hawaii. I understand the Act 90, but just to make note of this, when they take GOFA lands and give it into something else, you better watch that one there, because guys coming after agricultural lands and they, like, make them into what you call garbage dumps. Yeah. Mahalo. Aloha.

Okay, thanks, Mr. Kubo. Appreciate it. Anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 511 House Draft one? If not, questions, members? I have a quick question of Department of Land and Natural Resources. We're grateful that you're here. Chair Chang, you had mentioned there was one parcel in particular that's costing a whole lot of money to survey.

Which- Which one is that?

Kapapala.

And that's- that's one of the ranches that you've been working with for some time in order to complete your analysis and determine what portion of it is to be transferred. And so you're in the middle of that process now, is that correct?

Yes, chair. Yes, we are. So I think, Durazo, do we have a- do we have a completion date of that survey, or maybe. I'm sorry, I think our Doef people would know more, but they have been doing the survey. It's just that it's a very large parcel of land. So that's part of the reason.

But we are in the middle of that survey. I think we're very close. If not, we're very close to completing the survey.

Perhaps afterward you could just fill me in on the latest because I know there's stakeholders that have come in. They were wanting me to hear another bill, which I chose not to. But there's great frustration about how long this is taking. And I keep saying they're doing their process, they're doing their process.

And this bill touches on one of the things that causes the process to take so long. So I appreciate you made reference to that and I appreciate your comments. Now, just so you can help us, help educate us about this particular issue.

And we will get back to you the specific status of that particular survey. But we are trying both DLNR and DOA to work as expeditiously as possible. But I think this bill will help us facilitate that. Thank you very much.

And I'm sure that the family at Kapa Pala Ranch appreciates you moving as quickly as you can.

I know they do. Thank you.

Alright, thanks very much. Any other questions, members? If not, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 661, House Draft 1 relating to environmental review.

This measure permits, except in certain circumstances, a previously authorized activity challenged as being subject to environmental review to continue while the applicable agency or applicant conducts an environmental assessment, prepares an environmental impact statement or determines whether the activity is exempt. First up, we have the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. Mr. Tom Eisen. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair, members. Tom Eisen with Office of Planning and Sustainable Development's Environmental Review Program. It's still quite a mouthful.

We stand in our submitted testimony, which like some other testimonies, suggests ways that the temporary continuance provided for in the bill can be limited in its application so it doesn't end up having overly broad adverse impacts on the long standing and generally appreciated environmental review process. Thank you. And are available for comment or questions.

You make a specific recommended amendment. Could you highlight what that is, please?

Yeah. The verbiage in there includes this would apply to activities previously permitted, authorized or undertaken by an applicant. And in theory that could be just undertaken. So that could capture non permitted activities would still be able to fall under this. That seems like an overly broad application. So if you strike the or undertaken.

Aspects and just Leave it permitted or authorized that provides some guardrails.

Thank you. Appreciate your explanation of your recommended amendment. Thanks very much. Next we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Again, good afternoon, chair and vice chair of the committee and members, Dawn Chang on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, we stand in support of this measure. We believe that this is a prudent course of action to take.

It permits DLNR to be in compliance to pursue compliance with Chapter 343, but at the same time permit status quo of permitted activities those who have actual permits. It does not authorize a new- a new- a new permit for a new- new activity, but only those that have existing permits.

We are also proposing an amendment to narrowly tailor this to just chapters 187A, HRS. Excuse me. Chapters 187A, 188, 189, 190 or 200.

If you could explain to the public and to us what those chapters govern, what parts of your large department this covers.

Fair enough. Let me work backwards. Chapter 200 is our division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. So it would be mostly all of the commercial use permits that we issue. If you have a valid permit under Chapter 200 do bar and we're going through the 343 process.

You would continue HRS 187A, 188, 189 and 190 all deal with our Division of Aquatic Resources and permits that are issued by DAR. Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much for that explanation. Next we have Brandon Azama.

In the face to the numerous Windward Oahu boards, commissions and organizations including the Koolaupoko Hawaiian Civic Lab that have express- expressedly voiced opposition to this practice in our community. Ending commercial aquarium collection in Koolaupoko and particularly Kaneohebe, a collection hot spring spot, has been a club priority for decades.

In 2017, after the courts voided commercial aquarium permits pending HEPA review, DLNR authorized the loophole that allowed collectors to continue collecting with a Commercial Marine License or CML. In one year,

under the DLNR authorized CMLs from 2018 to 2019, aquarium catch in Kane Bay skyrocketed by over 420% with 8,604 reef animals taken from Kaneohe Bay in 2018 to 36,494 of our reef animals taken in 2019.

That same year collectors reported catch numbers of yellow Ting one of the most sought after species for collectors in Kane Bay alone, exceeding the island wide annual catch average going back to 2000.

This significant increase in reef wildlife extraction devastated our reef ecology and was a direct result of DLNR's decision to rubber stamp commercial aquarium collection activities without having taken a prior look at the action's environmental impacts.

A practice that HB 661 would not only authorize, but encourage DLNR to continue despite the potentially wide reaching and significant impacts it could have on our public trust lands, water resources in Koolapoko and beyond. On a personal note--

Could you please summarize?

Yes, I'll summarize. I'll summarize my personal note.

Anyway, I am opposed to providing a way for the state agencies fulfillment of its fiduciary duties. Allowing potentially detrimental work to continue as seen in Kane Bay results in a take, take, take. But at what cost for our future generations? Economic growth in Hawaii should not come at the expense of our environment and detriment to future generations.

These policies- These policies, as I see it, are not bad for business. But to prevent bad business to follow suit with a historic press- historical precedent on a particular activity negates the fact that our environment is changing. We are taught to kilo and then to adjust our practices based on our own observations.

And I ask the committee, as an individual and as a liaison for the Koolaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club to please vote no to HB 661. Mahalo.

Thank you and best wishes to your family. I understand you've got to go, so best wishes. Aloha.

Aloha.

Okay. Ted Bolan, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition Climate Protectors. Please proceed.

Thank you. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and members of the committee. Ted Bolan for the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and the Climate Protectors Hawaii in strong opposition to this bill.

I served for 15 years as the Deputy Attorney General representing the Environmental Council and the Office of Environmental Quality Control that does environmental reviews for the state. It's my opinion, based on that experience that this bill would undercut the basic purpose of HEPA which is to ensure that proper.

The projects with potential environmental impacts undergo proper review before they proceed, allowing for informed decision making, public participation and in many cases, improvement in the project. I won't go on in length because you've got 400 pages of testimony. You've got my written testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions, but we strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next person said they wish to testify as Antoinette Davis, Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii Incorporated on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha. Thank you so very much for scheduling this. Antoinette Davis, Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii we support this bill. We also support HEPA and the hamburger ruling. This bill in no way was meant to open the door for aquarium collection.

This bill is meant specifically for Kaanapali for commercial boats that are non consumptive that look and don't take that run off the shore there. Some of them have been running for 30-40 years.

What is a collateral damage of this is that due to a lawsuit from some activists, these businesses are going to be shut down while the EA is being done. And what we're looking for is a way to balance this and allow those operators to run while the EA is happening.

Our organization and most all of our members of our nonprofit trade organization are stewards to this place. They take people on safe, guided, environmentally friendly, environmentally protective tours and they should not be shut down. And this should not be used as a tool for a group of anti tourism people to shut them down, which is what's happening.

So we're just looking for a way to have this balance. So again, very controversial, but so I so appreciate you hearing this bill. I'm here for any questions you may have. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next, Daniel Hazen, Aloha Charters on Zoom.

Aloha chair, vice chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify via Zoom for my strong support of House Bill 661. I believe this bill is vital for ensuring that previously permanent activities can continue operating while ongoing- while undergoing these environmental reviews. We're not saying that we don't want

to do the reviews, we're willing to do them. But to shut us down within a year without giving us an opportunity to perform these reviews, I believe is unethical. These are current legally commercially permitted activities. Like Ms. Davis said, we are not takers. We are not the fisheries.

We are tour operators that perform these tours with culture, environment and history in mind. We serve our guests, Hawaii's guests, with plenty of knowledge. Not just good service, but knowledge about protecting the environment and being stewards of the environment. I'll keep it brief. That's all I have and I appreciate your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii on Zoom. No, not present. Okay, next. Kai Nashiki on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha chair and committee members. I'm Kai Nashiki, testifying from Maui and I represent Napapa' I Wai Wai Ula' Ula and we oppose HB 661.

In 2017, we filed a suit against DLNR asking it to consider the environmental impacts of increased commercial activity in Ka' Anapali because of concerns for public safety in the ocean as well as public access and parking discharge of wastewater, among other things.

In 2024, the court ordered DLNR to halt issuing and renewing commercial permits off of Ka' Anapali until they complete a environmental assessment or determine the permits are exempt from review. After the court's decision, we immediately reached out to DLNR to propose an interim solution that implemented common sense permit conditions and actions that would allow activity to continue

why- while assessments were ongoing and these were common sense conditions that protect public health and safety, it was DLNR's inaction that unnecessarily escalated the situation and has pitted our community members and families against each other. Thankfully, we took matters into our own hands and contacted the voters directly.

And the voting community was very receptive because these were very common sense conditions. And the parties are in discussion, and we are in discussion about a tentative agreement that would allow the voting activities to continue with protections in place.

But instead of engaging with the parties, DLNR has really dragged their feet in even responding or trying to be a part of the solution and instead just came to the state legislature for a blank check that would further enable their ongoing mismanagement while systematically dismantling environmental protections with no recourse. We ask that this commission oppose HB 661.

And I am available for any questions that you might have about the proposed settlement. And just to understand, I would like you folks to understand we are all about solutions and. And finding workable solutions that benefit everyone. And this bill and the urgency behind it is completely manufactured, and it's drastic, divisive, and completely unnecessary.

And we urge this commission to really tell DLNR, hey, these are real concerns. Get in a room. Work it out.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Nashiki. Next, Mike Nakachi on Zoom. Not present. Next, Victoria Takamine in person. Everyone knows you as Kumu Hula Vicky Takamine Kakami. She's a very famous person.

Thank you so much for having me. I'm here to represent a broad section of Kumu Hula that are concerned about this bill. We strongly oppose this bill. We feel, you know, we worked really hard on the protection to draft the agreement for Papahanamokuakea.

We were invited to the White House for the designation by President Bush, and this would really undermine and take away all of those protections that we put in place. We cannot open for extractive and commercial activities. This is unacceptable. And as native Hawaiians, we're strongly opposed to all of that. So thank you very much. Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Next. Ron Tubbs on Zoom. Not present. Next. Stephanie Fried on Zoom. Not present. Next. Kawai Warren on Zoom. Please proceed.

Okay, mahalo.

Hello, chair, vice chair, house committee members. My name is Kawai Warren. I'm testifying on behalf of Nakiaikai. We're a community based organization of fishermen and cultural practitioners from West Kauai. We strongly oppose this HEPA House Bill 661. We stand on our written testimony. We'd like to emphasize a point or two.

In West Kauai, we are no strangers to corporate greed and pay to play politics. For decades our community has borne the brunt of multiple environmental injustices.

From the wholesale plantation diversions of water that dried up our streams, to GMO corn companies that sprayed pesticides near our homes and our schools, to the island only landfill and only military base built right along the shorelines. Numerous other industrial uses that have polluted our land, our ocean waters. Through decades of-

Through decades of advocacy to protect our communities, West Kawaii has become maka' ala to the legal tools like HEPA that are put in place to protect our communities, our families from further degradation.

HIPAA require requires government decision makers to ensure that environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are fully thoughtfully considered before allowing further degradation of our public trust lands, waters and resources. It mandates public participation can voice our concerns and have addressed.

Our community has actively engaged in environmental review process that impacts our communities and we have utilized HIPAA to demand accountability from decision makers. But this bill cuts us off Japanese.

It threatens our continued ability to protect our community by giving state agencies a free pass to rubber stamp environmentally destructive activities without firstly looking at impacts and without giving a voice to the community.

You know, I'd like to also mention that with the harbors the state DLNR, they gave over 40 permits for a Kikiola boat harbor on the west side. This is a recreational boat harbor and not a commercial boat harbor. Not to mention with that increase on activities near the Nepali coast where we used to gather and collect fish.

Now it's been inundated by tourists by sunscreen that will kill the limu. That kills the fish, the very food that we eat. So by taking away HEPA, you're allowing these peoples to have permits that were illegally given.

May I ask you to summarize please, sir?

Yeah, yeah. So summarize. Thank you very much. On behalf of Nakia Kai, I urge you to uphold integrity and the necessary valuable legal to vote hourly no on HB 661. Thank you very much. I'm here for any question on the side of the island that I live on. Please ask me some questions.

Mahalo. Next, Inga Gibson on zoom.

Aloha, Makako, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and committee members, thank you so much. A strong opposition. And I did want to just remind the Committee that the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday passed Senate Bill 1074, which is the companion with some amendments.

So another reason we would really ask that you defer this bill, especially in light of the broadening, extremely dangerous, expanding amendments that the Division of Aquatic Resources, the amendments that they have proposed, expands this to fisheries, to anything related to aquatic resources far, far beyond the intent of this measure to address a specific case related to a specific court decision.

Basically, this would turn HEPA on its head. And as you know so well, Chair Tarnas, HIPAA is so critical to the protection of our environment.

You have in the past yourself, you know, expressed the importance of allowing the HEPA process to continue and making or not making certain decisions when it comes to resources held in the public trust. So we really urge the committee to hold this measure if there is interest in continued resolution. SB 1074 is still alive.

But right now, with accepting the amendments of DLNR or any other interests, commercial interests, you would basically be returning this bill to the same form of HB 123 and SB 22 that were previously killed rightfully in other committees.

So thank you for the opportunity and let's continue to protect our environment and work on this issue in another- in another form. Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Gibson. Next, Denver Coon.

Afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and members of the committee. My name is Denver Coon. I'm here on behalf of the Ocean Tourism Coalition, also here on behalf of Trilogy Excursions. That's our family business that's operated on Maui for over 50 years. You have our, my written testimony.

We wanted to kind of refocus the bill and narrow it down to avoid any unintended consequences. And the only thing, you know, to address some of the, I guess there's talks of a settlement and things like that. You know, we're not a party to the suit.

Ultimately, that would be the state and the plaintiffs that would decide that, I suppose, also the judge. So right now all I can do is speculate on that. But what, you know, we're looking for is I've gotten already multiple emails and texts from employees today saying, do you have an answer for me?

I'm just trying to get them some type of more concrete assurance that they're going to have those jobs. Some of them are trying to rebuild their homes, and they can't go to the bank on speculation.

So I just want to provide them with a more concrete answer that they're going to have their jobs at the end of year, the year. So thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Coon. Next, Mahesh Cleveland, Earth justice.

Yes, thank you, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and community members. My name is Mahesh Cleveland. I'm with Earth Justice, Mid Pacific Office. You've heard great testimony from community members across the PI already. You've, you've even heard the Ka Pali folks speak, speak to the sort of situation that they've been put in.

I think I just want to call it out. I think we all know what's going on here and it was totally avoidable. Years ago when Ms. Nashiki mentioned that they had filed their initial lawsuit against the Khanak Poly voters.

I mean, it's been seven years that DLNR could have and should have at least considered the HIPAA exemption route. This was totally avoidable. Like Ms. Nishiki said, the plaintiffs in that case, they put a settlement on the table. DLNR and their attorneys are the holdup here. They are the problem here.

This is an issue that goes back to before the current Administration. So all respect to Antidon, but like turning this bill back into 123, which, as Inga mentioned, was killed two weeks ago, is not narrowing the scope of this bill, it's broadening it by far.

And basically absolving our very agency that manages public natural resources absolves them from having to grapple with environmental effects of the permits they give out.

So this bill as written, goes way beyond its intended purpose, which was to help the Kaanapali guys stay in business while their- while their lawsuit plays out, DLNR needed to do an exemption, at least the consideration of an exemption determination years ago. They need to come to the table with this settlement.

If they can get that settlement moving forward, there's no need for these bills. And again, I'll just reiterate what Inga said is that there's a Senate Bill already that solves this problem with a bunch of amendments.

And so it may be the simpler- it may be the simpler route to just let one bill go through instead of have these dueling bills. So we highly encourage you folks to hold this bill and appreciate the time to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, Max Phillips, Center for Biological Diversity on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, committee members I'm Max Phillips. I am the Hawaii Director and Staff Attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

We're in strong opposition of House Bill 661, which would enable agencies to continue approving environmentally destructive activities and activities without adequately assessing their impacts until, as Mahesh just said, if ever the agencies decide to conduct a proper review or take care of corrective actions, this turns.

As you know already, my kapuna have said it better, my community members have said it better, my colleagues have said it better. But this will turn HIPAA on its head.

And really, the only thing to do is to shut it down, to defer it and not- we're not in a situation now where we can let there be less environmental protections. We need to stand ONIPA for. I just, I strongly encourage this- this committee to oppose or just defer. Mahalo.

Thanks very much. Next, Charlie Young on Zoom.

Charlie, you there? You want to unmute yourself and turn on your video? There you are. Go ahead, sir.

You may regret that. Chair Thomas and Vice Chair Poepoe. My name is Charles Young. I live in South Kwana on the island of Hawaii and I'm representing the Hawaii Island Ahamoko.

There's a subject matter that we're not talking about I think today that's relevant to this bill and that's the Kapa Hakai analysis, which is the analysis that the Supreme Court in year 2000 required that when state agencies make major decisions that they need to take into account the Native Hawaiian gathering rights.

The Kapaa Kai analysis also sets out a framework for that. And I can say honestly, although it was passed or approved in year 2000, there has been very little done in order to put it, institutionalize it within the decision making policy.

We've been working really hard to do that and I think the Chair Chang would agree as well. But we need to understand that while we're talking about HIPAA environmental issues, Hawaiian gathering rights are totally dependent on the health and thriving resources that we have. So we're sweeping away the Hawaii gathering rights.

These are constitutionally protected and I think we need to look at those issues as well before we look at what the superficial results are. There's some really deep underlying things that type bills of this type. And I'm not only opposed to this one, I would be opposed to all that.

Don't take into consideration the, you know, the Kapaa Kai analysis as well as HIPPA. And frankly, I think it's the, it's not any one particular person's fault. It is really the cumulative effects of years of, on ocean usage that in some ways is under regulated. I thank you very much for allowing me to submit this testimony.

Mahalo, Charlie. Always good to see you, sir.

Next we have Blake Moore, chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for allowing us to testify today. I am unaware of a lot of the folks that seem to have a lot bigger degrees than me on the, the environmental stuff.

I know that there are dozens of families that are watching on zoom right now wondering about their jobs. And I would disagree with some of the folks that are on zoom saying this is not an urgent matter. It's a very urgent matter. People don't know if they'll have their jobs in May. It's the end of February, so.

And myself being a homeowner in South Maui and managing about 50 families in Kaanapali, it's an incredibly urgent matter. Literally People don't know if they're going to be, you know, working at the end of May. So, you know, I'm here to speak primarily on behalf of those families.

I fully support, you know, any amendments that narrow the scope. I remember picketing against, you know, fish collectors. So I feel like I'm a little bit on both sides here. I don't want water taken away from your communities. I was here last week or two weeks ago. We don't want those things either.

But what we can't have is our West Maui families again out of work and nowhere to go. This time, there's not jobs available for us to move to. Those jobs are also taken. So we would ask you guys to consider the impacts of deferring this bill or even voting down this bill.

There are hundreds of families, vendors, many people that are depending on this moving forward. I know nothing about a settlement. We are not involved in that at all. We are very confused and very afraid that our jobs are going to be gone.

And we certainly can't wait a year or even months waiting on some other process that we're unfamiliar with to play out. So thank you for allowing us to testify today. On behalf of those folks watching online, we ask you guys to support this bill moving forward so we can work through the amendments as discussed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. Next, Bianca Isaki on zoom. Not present. Next. Greg Misakian on zoom.

Please proceed. Thank you. Chair, Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Misakian and I currently serve as the first Vice President of the Kakua Council, an elder advocacy organization in Hawaii since 1972. I also serve on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board. But today I'm testifying as an individual in opposition to HB 661 HD1.

I hope the Committee has had an opportunity to carefully read all of the opposition testimony, but it appears that quite a few have shown up today to show their opposition. So I'm very pleased to see that.

I understand that those that support this bill have skin in the game, as many want their projects or future projects to move forward unless restrictions and oversight are better for them.

But please remember that you are lawmakers and on this Committee, and you are supposed to uphold the laws of the State of Hawaii and not introduce bills to circumvent them.

HB661 is an affront, in my opinion, to Chapter 343, the Hawaii Environmental Policy act, and Article 11, Section 9 of the Hawaii Constitution, which outline requirements, regulations, and laws meant to protect the environment and the people of Hawaii. And I would just also like to mention there's another project.

But in my opinion and many people's opinions, there's other projects floating around that require full impact environmental impact statements, full AIs. One of those is the Alawai pedestrian bridge project, which is a $63 million project.

And I truly hope that our legislators are watching that project because there's quite a bit of opposition to not having a full environmental impact statement that is over a waterway and that is over a special district and a very well known landmark in Hawaii, which is the Ala Wai Canal.

So I truly hope that our lawmakers, when you look at these things, you look at the requirements for environmental studies, environmental regulations and environmental laws. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Captain Marker. Captain Jeffrey Marker on zoom. No. Okay. Not present. Next, Dave Rainey on zoom. Not present. Next, Gloria Jernigan on zoom. Not present. Next, Clayton Kubo. Oh, we just, we heard Clayton already on this bill. Did we hear you on this bill, Clayton? Go ahead. Clayton Kubo, you're next.

I think Koh, I'm in Kauai. I'm pretty sure that this bill is saying that not just cannon is this bill is basically saying that if they're going through a lawsuit that they gotta, you know, they can still participate yet doing what they're doing.

So in a way, I'm wondering right now for myself, can this bill come down on recreational fishing and this bill come down on hunting. So in the end, you know, sorry about that noise, but I see right over here on the side of the road because the signal ain't that great.

So in a way, hopefully you guys can realize that this bill is not just about aquarium, which they had to shut down. This bill is not just about commercial passenger. This bill is not just about CMLs. This bill can protect at least the guys that is on the bottom of the chain. Mahalo Nui. Aloha.

Mahalo, Clayton. Next. Isaac Harp on zoom. Please proceed Mr. Harp.

Tarnes, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the JHA Committee. My name is Isaac Paka Harp. I strongly oppose HB 661, House Draft 1, intending to weaken the Hawaii Environmental Policy act. Please hold. HB 661, if your Committee decides not to hold this bill, please ensure that it is specific to the tour boat industry.

Only state waters of Papahanamokua were designated as a marine refuge two decades ago where no commercial activity is allowed. We're now facing the potential full scale commercialization of Papahanomokukea under the Department of Commerce if their proposed sanctuary is approved by Congress in the coming weeks.

National Marine sanctuaries are not protected areas, but areas managed to allow multiple uses and to maximize commerce, as is evidenced by the humpback whale sanctuary. If a sanctuary designated state waters in Papaha no Mokuakea could maintain existing protections, but only if the Governor refuses to relinquish control over state waters to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

Relinquishing control over state waters in the past resulted in a devastation of lobster population by West Pack lobster fisheries and depletion of bottom fish by West Pack bottomfish fishers. Lobster populations have never recovered in 25 years.

No resource extraction should be allowed in state water to a Papaha no Mokuakea other than for research deemed necessary by state agencies, sustenance purposes, and to support cultural practices by Native Hawaiians. No impact to businesses would occur as no commercial activities are allowed. Mahalo.

Thanks very much, Isaac. Good to hear you again. Next, Mike Kelly on zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, thank you for your time today. I've been a West Maui resident for 47 years, so nearly 50 years I've worked on the beach in Ka Nepali, in the water in Kaanapali, at the resorts in Kaanapali, ocean recreation of all sorts for nearly 50 years.

We're unfortunately caught in the crossfires of this in the boating and ocean recreation business. It is tragic that the collateral damage may take away everything that we offer in the ocean for our visitors. There'll be no surf lessons, there'll be no scuba diving, there'll be no parasailing, there'll be no catamarans, there'll be no outrigger canoes, nothing.

So the crossfires is where we find ourselves. It's a very difficult place to be in, and I think the bill needs to pass. I encourage you to pass it. I encourage you not to defer it. The narrowing that happened yesterday with the Senate Bill I think was helpful, and the continued narrowing would also be helpful.

The aquarium fish collecting in the East Maui waters are certainly convoluted issues and issues that need attention, but they're different issues than what we're talking about. And we're caught in that crossfire in West Maui. So I would ask you for the families that are involved, for the businesses that are involved.

I did some quick math and it's 260 families. It'll be on the street. But it's more than that. It's probably 1,000 jobs lost. And this includes 225,000 meals that would be served in boats next year would no longer be served. Ayes, the beverages, the parking, the transportation, the concierge, the room nights in the hotels.

When you look at all the collateral damage that happens by this removal of all ocean recreation and boating poly, it's catastrophic. So I encourage you and plead with you, Please, to pass 661 and let's move forward with a solution. Thank you very much.

Thank. Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly. Next, Sans Dyer on zoom. Please proceed.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for taking my testimony today. I just want to start that. I'm in strong support of Bill 661. I'm a permittee owner on Kapali Beach.

This would negatively impact not only my business, but every single other business that Mike Kelly just talked about in the hundreds and hundreds of employees, their jobs. When we have already been affected so hard by the Lahaina fires.

The testimony I want to really drive home is we're not involved in the lawsuit that was mentioned by previous people. We, we do not have any sort of settlement agreement whatsoever. We're not involved in that lawsuit. So that's egregious.

The last thing I want to say is I hope you consider that all of these employees, more than half of mine own, lost their own homes and everything that they own. And this would be another blow to a community that's really, really struggling and is in disarray. And we're trying to recover.

And shutting down another huge industry and then giving the precedent to now shut that down across the state is not what we need. We need to build together, grow together, and get everything back on the feet. We're not affecting the environment in a negative way.

We're actually, we educate our tour guests, and we're very much stewards of the sea, and we are the ones that want to make our environment better. And if they want to do an environmental assessment, please pass this bill so that we can continue on operating while they do it. Thank you so much for hearing my testimony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dyer. Next, Kim Koch on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Committee Members. You know, as someone that has completed the EIS through this court ruling, for everyone watching the aquarium fishery did complete an eis. It went through the court's process.

And I think that's the reason you're hearing so many people scared of this process is because the aquarium fishery is still shut down even after completing it. So they're looking at it like it's a Chinese finger trap. Once you get in, you never get out.

So with that, unfortunately hearing test tourism groups complaining about fisheries requesting and stating they don't have impacts has kind of changed my opinion. No impacts is laughable as one of their boats sits on the rocks in a conservation district. As we split speak, all of these 343 bills originate for the tourism industry attacking fisheries.

The Maui dive and tourism groups went to court claim they don't see fish demanding immediate shutdowns. Remember, Umberger is from the dive and tour industry in Maui. The conflict is easy to understand. They want fish for their commercial activities. No sympathy for fishers.

They claim they support Umberger ruling while asking for grace with because they are not takers. They did not care about sad stories from the aquarium fishery. They demand full shutdowns. I would say this is the boomerang effect. Supporting data shows dumping hundreds of thousands of tourists a year at the same sites is impactful.

They might not take but they sure as heck displace. Read the Hanauma Bay Covid era data. Fish came back in numbers never recorded when the tourists were gone. It is hard. Is it hard to understand that constant human presence alters marine life behavior? Maybe this is the reason they are seeing left fish.

They asked for an EIS and the West Hawaii fishery did that. They argued it to the Supreme Court and the West Hawaii EIS was upheld by the same Supreme Court that started all this mess in Umberger. So let's play this bill out. What happened at the end of the review process? Nothing.

If you look to the aquarium fishery. Please add language that clears up this mess by stating once the process is complete and court approved it could continue or will continue. Don't cause more confusion. Don't give carve outs, don't prejudiciously apply if the intent is to clean up the mess.

Support DLNR's testimony and add that the project shall be permitted at the end of the completion of 343 if upheld by the courts. And all this funny language you know was currently permitted and whatever amendments that the the Senate Judiciary had. I think we need to be transparent because the reason this.

Could you summarize please Ms. Koch?

Yes, I support with amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Next Uilani Naipo on zoom.

Aloha Chair Tarnes Vice Chair Poepoe Members of the Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. I stand on my written testimony in strong opposition to this bill HB 661. When considering the subject matter of this bill there are so many stakeholders and for some of us right holders.

But the one that stands uniquely apart from all of us, Kanaka is HIPPA. Hawaii's Environmental Policy act is our pillar voice of governance whose function is to serve with authority over the protection of our resources. We are in unprecedented times where research, conservation and stewardship programs are being cut.

We cannot be liberal in renewing commercial activity permits that have already been identified as requiring eiss. We cannot delay the work that HIPAA asks us to comply with. Only now we finally conducting capacity planning exercises and research for cumulative activities in Marine Life Conservation District and another one being proposed in this year's legislation.

These are after the fact and while permits continue to be issued, these are long time running activities that once may have been okay but now cumulatively is putting too much pressure on our natural resources. Extractive commercial activities that have depleted the health of our reefs and while providing no benefit for food security of Hawaii.

Those need to be ceased. HIPAA prioritizes our natural and cultural resources at the very top as it should. Hawaii NIE needs your support for HIPAA, not allow it to be circumvented. Please hold. HB 661. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Next. Kaimi Kaupiko on Zoom.

Aloha, Chairness. I do have written testimony in opposition of HB 661. Again, like Nani and many of the others have shared, I'm deeply concerned how this bill will affect Hawaii's reefs and the practices. HIPAA is an important part to protect many of our cultural practices from being exploited through these processes.

Using HIPAA do its job to inform agency decision making before land rather than handing industries every task to continue causing firearm for years on end until they get around completing the environmental review process. This Bill will turn HIPAA review into an afterthought and meaningless formality to justify harm that's already being done and can't be undone.

This bill would get HIPAA's whole purpose and is unnecessary. HIPAA provides for exemptions of activities that have truly minor impacts. So I strongly urge you to vote no on HB 661.

Thank you, Mr. Calpico. Next, our last testifier, Kaylin Bray on zoom, not present. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 661 HD1? Ah, Wayne Tanaka, you're here. I called you earlier and you weren't here, so please go ahead. Nope, go ahead. You're trying to be in two places at once. Please proceed.

Yeah. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Wayne Tanaka, we oppose this measure. You have a written testimony, I think just like to add a few points or notes or questions. My understanding is that the situation with the Ka' Anapali Bowlers is being resolved through settlement discussions.

I think the representative for the plaintiffs in the Senate side submitted testimony to that effect and so they're fine tuning the language so we could potentially avoid having to start taking apart our environment Review law and still provide relief for some of the impacted businesses.

I do want to raise the issue or the question as to whether and to what extent DLNR has tried to move forward with complying with hepa. Like has environment Assessment been started?

Have they thought about looking at a petitioning the Environmental Council for a category of categorical exemption that could address this issue and then work on permit conditions that will ensure that there are no significant impacts?

I feel like there are multiple pathways that could have been and could still be followed that would provide relief and resolution without, you know, all of this controversy around this particular proposal. So with that, respectfully ask you hold this measure and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Tanaka. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 661, House Draft 1? Go ahead, Angela.

Angela Melody Young, CARES, neutral. I don't oppose nor support this Bill. Without prior knowledge of the recent court decisions, I can't be for or against it, but as I read it, it seems like the Bill is trying to protect environmental standards and expand statutory provisions for exemptions, right?

So, it creates a set of standards for exemptions for certain activities and if it were to pass in this chapter, it does list, as much as possible, the references to Chapter 6-E, so everyone in the state of Hawaii can read it and be like, oh, yes, the ship—iwi kupuna rules.

And so, the development and the permitted and unpermitted activities within this chapter, in consideration of environmentally sensitive places, you know, here in Hawaii, we want to transform the way we think about how we use and develop the land and to be respectful of natural resources.

So, it should be a balance of development, building to support small businesses, such as surf schools at the beach, as well as working with the Hawaiian culture and the unique characteristics of the state of Hawaii. So, in this chapter, yeah, it's very detailed. It goes over waste to energy facilities, landfills.

It also talks about helicopter facilities and historic sites, with sensitivity to environmental damage, and it goes above and beyond to what the other testifiers mentioned for harvesting seaweed and aquarium fish and permitted boating activities.

So, to be considerate of marginalized communities with limited natural environmental resources, as well as to be considerate of Hawaiian communities and the effect upon overdevelop—overdevelopment—in the land, ideally, no permitting that is harmful to the environment should be allowed to be exempt, yet the public pressure to develop the land then pressures the law to start to create the exemptions.

And sometimes, yet, we can also be overly cautious and not...

Can you summarize, please, Ms. Young?

So, you know the permi process, yes, it's an individual application, and so, I think from this perspective, are the people reviewing the applications understanding the specificities of the law?

Thank you.

And where in the spike in the numbers of the permitted activities, like what...?

Thank you.

...is the process for that internally? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 661, House Draft 1? If not, questions, Members? Representative Belatti.

DLNR, please. I know it's difficult to comment on current litigation, but since that's been a topic of this kind of hearing and I don't know, I was not watching—when do we have time to watch what the other body is doing? I don't know what happened in the Senate Committee.

Can you give a timeline as to when some of the res—there might be resolution?

Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. We're not part of those settlement discussions. The lawsuit—the commercial use permittees were not part of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was only against DLNR.

We did, as a result of this case, we did urge, we supplied, we provided a supplemental brief to Judge Cahill in this matter saying what the impacts are, so, we're not part of the settlement negotiations. I'm sorry. That is going beyond us. I don't know who's part of that discussions as well.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you. Other questions? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. You know, I've been hearing a lot of testimony both ways and this scope and history is very deep and I'm trying to decide what is—I don't want to say more important because I think there's a balance in all of this and I don't want to override any previous heap of protections, and yet, I want to protect business concerns and the realities of the economy.

So, I have a question for you, DLNR. You've heard strong comments and concerns that DLNR—I mean, what I've heard anyway. I guess you heard them too.

Yeah, I did.

Could have done more, to put it kindly. How does the public and we, as legislators, how can we hold DLNR accountable beyond verbal promises and how can we make things pono, because.

Let's go. Let her answer.

Okay. Go ahead.

Thank you for the question. I'm going to try to answer it as best as I can. One, many of these activities, including as you've heard some testimony, have been going on for probably 30 years. They were not at that time required to comply with Chapter 343.

However, DLNR, over the years, has seen a trend by the Hawaii Supreme Courts. It's not only the Umberger Case and the aquarium fish, and I want to make very clear, we are not in any way exempting aquarium fish through this exemption. They will be like everybody else. And they have, as one of the testifiers, completed a 343.

But we have seen the trend, so with respect to EMI revocable permits, the court has told us, told DLNR, you can no longer just issue revocable permits every year without complying with Chapter 343. So, we are doing the—so 343 was done for that. Umberger likewise, which is the aquarium fish, in that case, the Supreme Court also said you must do 343 compliance before commercial aquarium fish are issued.

So, in that case, the aquarium fish industry prepared 343 EIS. So, we have been seeing the trend of court cases that show that it's not isolated to just—and then, there was this Nepali Wai Wai, which is the commercial use permits in Kaanapali.

That case was filed in 2017. It only applied to six permittees. It was for thrillcraft and parasailing. As you heard today, this is much broader, so, over the last eight years, there's a lot more activity going on there.

So, we're in no way saying we're not going to comply with Chapter 343. We, too, are trying to seek a balance. For those activities that have already been permitted, they have a one-year permit. So, those who have been permitted, we are asking that while we go through the 343 process—so yes, we have looked at some of these activities actually fall under an exemption.

Some may require chapter, an environmental assessment. But the supreme—the court's case—in this Pai Pa'i case referenced the Umberger, a four-part test. So, we cannot just say we're exempt.

We have to go through the analysis which, to a certain extent, does include the Kapa akai analysis. We are working with our Division of Aquatic Resources to help ask them to help us assess what impacts do these activities have on the resources. So, we have not been sitting idly, but this case came up.

And I also want to—I want to be very clear. This is not DLNR's bill. We did not introduce this Bill. We were proposing to seek a process to comply with Chapter 343.

So, we believe the balance, at this point in time, is for those permittees who were actually permitted—that we would ask that you continue to give them the opportunity to continue, while we, at DLNR, we're not asking the permit—the industry to get a 343. We're going to comply with Chapter 343.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources. We would do the 343 analysis. But pending our completion of that, as we represented to Judge Cahill in the Pai Pa'i case, we thought that was probably going to take us maybe about six months to do that, depending if it's an EIS, an EA, or an exemption.

So, we are in no way asking this body to exempt us from 343, but to permit authorized activities to continue while we comply with Chapter 343.

Okay, thank you for that really good explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Vice Chair Poepoe.

Hi, Chair Chang. I guess I'm just really frustrated because that—just that we had to get to this point with this, right?

I mean, you spoke about that you've seen this trend happening over a long period of time and this seems like something that could have been gotten ahead of, instead of getting to this point where we're trying to like play catch up, and in your testimony—well, first, I guess, how long do you anticipate that review process to take?

Because it doesn't say that anywhere.

Well, what we represented to Judge Cahill in the Pai Pa'i case was we thought it would take us six to eight months. Because we do—it's not just we file with OAQC. We're doing an exemption. The Umberger Case does require us to at least address the four tests in the Umberger Case, even for an exemption.

So, we think about six to eight months if we're going to exercise the exemption. We believe that there are several exemptions within our—I think it's 11200—that does provide an exemption for renewal of a permit or an ongoing activity. But clearly, this activity has increased.

So, we do believe we have to do some additional assessment, but we think six to eight months.

Okay, I guess I have a few questions about just the permitting process. When you—when DLNR—issues permits, does it do, do you clearly articulate to the applicants the nature of these permits? That they're time limited, that they're not guaranteed renewal depending on changing conditions?

Because I feel like that information up front, there's, you know, a piece of informed consent that should happen so that all parties are aware of, you know, if someone's going to bank their entire livelihood on getting a permit that is not guaranteed to be renewed over and over again. Like is that being communicated?

It is. It is only a one-year permit. But under our existing rules that we are proposing to amend, it does provide that so long as you're in compliance and you reapply, we generally—we renew your permit. So, I recognize the frustrations. I too am frustrated by that. Now, I want to just provide some context to this.

In 1994, Small Boat Harbors and our commercial permits were all under DOT, a very different mission. Commercial harbors increase revenue. Coming over to DLNR, none of the resources came. Our mission is different. It is to protect and preserve the resources, and I recognize that we have not taken as—moved as quickly as some would like.

But we are applying kapa kai analysis to many to our permitting process, not all of our divisions. So, yes, we were aware we could see this in the Umberger Case.

We knew that this case was pending until the court came up with its final decision because previously, I think it was the intermediate court of appeals—did not require a 343. It was only when it remanded it back to Judge Cahill that he required a 343. I'm hoping my, my recollection is correct.

Thank you. So, in your testimony, you talked about finding balance, and we heard some other testimony mentioning that. How, how do you find balance in measuring, you know, the, the different things? Because I think balance is like chasing the horizon, right? It's very elusive.

And I don't think ever finding that homeostasis is not something that can be done. So, how do you really measure finding the balance between, you know, protecting the resource, the general public, and then, the commercial part of it?

Excellent question. I wish I had an easy answer. I don't. We are really struggling with that because we recognize that many of these are being treated almost as entitlement that we're going to get this. So, we are doing better. We are doing a better job. We can terminate a permit if you're not complying.

So, our—DOBOR is going back and they're doing audits of all the permits, and if they're not in compliance, they are given a notice that your permit is not going to be renewed. So, we're trying to do inside things institutionally to correct that.

But with respect to environmental balances, we are trying to work more closely with Division of Aquatic Resources to try to—when we're identifying a particular place for an activity, what are the potential impacts to resources? Are there coral reefs where they're proposing to do their activities? Are they affecting people's access?

Okay. I think my question was more about, like, how do you prioritize like the buckets of, you know, because you have your mission, and then you have these other things you're trying to balance in. And how do you prioritize all of those things?

Not well. I mean.

Well, thank you for the honesty.

Like I said, I mean, part of the struggle is this responsibility came to us that was not necessarily in alignment with DLNR's mission. I mean, we should be looking at public trust duties. That should be the focus of DLNR, given what our mandate is.

But we also recognize we have these long-standing activities that have occurred. So, we're trying to catch up. I assure you, we really are trying our best.

I get it. Can I have one more question? Okay. One or two more questions. Okay. So, it was just mentioned like six to eight months. How far along in that six to eight months are you—have you started the process?

So, we have—we've identified all of the permittee, all the permits, but we have, I'll be, I'll just be real candid, we have not embarked on a separate Umberger assessment for all the activities. I mean, part of it is the potential scope of this. We issue—is it 2,000 permits? 800 permits. And that's just DOBOR.

We've not even begun to look at DAR, all of their fishing permits. And even Klayton Kubo talked about potential hunting permits. I mean, I think if you look at the court's definition of action, almost everything we do is an action that would fall under 343.

So, we are trying to prioritize where are the areas that have the highest potential rate of impacts? Are they near an activity area where there's a lot of recreational activities? Is it near where there's coral reefs? But I will be candid. We have not embarked on the separate analysis for all of these activities at this time.

We're focusing on Kaanapali, because that's right now before us, but we've not looked at all of our permits statewide.

Okay, thank you. And I think my last question is, you know, the state does have a duty to—a legal obligation—to protect, protect public trust resources, under the DLNR. Do, does the state have a legal obligation to allow permits, these commercial permits?

Well, under Chapter 200, which falls under DLNR, we are, we are authorized to issue permits for activities. And so, in this case, many of those existing permits were authorized by statute, so.

Yeah, I agree that they're legal, like you're authorizing permits, they're legal permits. I'm still just trying to find the balance and how the prioritization is working. I, which you answered very honestly. It's not working very well. And you know, yeah.

I just hope that going forward, the permit process can be cleaned up, so we don't have to be here doing this.

Nope. I, I appreciate that and I acknowledge that we are trying our best given capacity and resources and just the sheer scope of what our Kuleana is. So, yes, besides triaging, it is—we're trying to get it better.

And it's not all on you. It's decades of issues before. Thank you.

But the buck stops with me right now, so I understand. Thank you very much.

Appreciate that. I have a couple questions. Looks like we've got all the questions. Let me ask a couple questions of you, Chair. Because of concerns that I've brought up in testimony, I want to clear the air about some of these things. Right now, the language of the Bill is not narrow.

This would apply to all different parts of the HRS. Your recommendation narrows it, just to pursuant to chapters of 187-A, 188, 189, 190 or 200. So, the way I read this, your amendment narrows the scope of this measure. Is that accurate?

That is correct. That's our intention with the amendment.

Okay. Because right now, without that amendment, the scope of the current Bill is very, very broad. It applies to all the different statutes. Okay, so you're suggesting to narrow it. With your amendments, how would this impact your consideration of the aquarium fish industry?

They don't—so, all we're saying is for those people who have a permit under one of these statutes, they would continue to be able to operate, pending our compliance with 343. There is no aquarium permit at this time.

So, this Bill, with your amendment, actually would not affect your current consideration of the aquarium fish industry because there are no permits at the moment?

That's correct. So, they're not, they're not part of this class.

So, let me clear the air about that. Okay. Now there's a concern. I mean, our anti—Vicky Holden Takamine over here is very concerned about Papa Hanauma Mokuakea. How, with this Bill, with your amendments, how will this affect that?

It doesn't affect it. We don't—we occasionally issue special use permits, but they also go through an analysis. So, it would not affect any activity currently going on at Papa Hanauma Mokuakea. They have their own permitting process that they go through, which is rather rigorous. But there's no fishing permits, there's no AQ permits in Papa Hanauma Mokuakea.

They have their own separate regulatory process.

Okay. Some have characterized this Bill as gutting the Hawaii Environmental Protection Act. How would you react to that?

That is far from that. If anything, we are trying to comply, we—so, we're not asking to be exempted from 343. We're just asking for somewhat of a recognition that there are people who had an authorized permit.

But we're saying we will comply with 343, whether it's seeking an exemption, whether it's doing an EA, whether it's doing an EIS. We have talked about doing a programmatic EA or EIS where we treat a program and look at the impacts of the program.

So, we're looking at different ways to address this, but we are in no way suggesting that we're going to exempt ourselves. I mean, the last thing I want is another lawsuit. I think the courts have been very clear to us. So, we are taking that into consideration.

We are also looking at—we're not asking the industry to do the 343. That is up to us because we want to manage the activity and the only way we can do that is by managing the regulatory compliance process.

And last concern that has been brought up, that this would provide a free pass for people to do things and it would basically encourage non-compliance.

No, that's an enforcement issue. You don't have a permit, you are not exempt. So, we're not authorizing any new activity. There, you know, are potentially new activities that we have not issued permits that they're not, they don't fall under this, this narrowly defined exemption.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate your response. Thanks for educating us about this Bill. Okay. Thank you very much.

Can I answer the question just because you're—it's along your line of questioning.

Go ahead, Representative Belatti.

OPSD offers striking the language of undertaken applicant. Does that hinder some of the things that you're trying to accomplish with your proposed amendments? Because I actually think that that might tighten up the language a little bit.

And Representative Belatii, I apologize, I did not read their—which section?

What I'm suggesting is that OPSD's amendment to strike or undertaken or an applicant.

And that is under?

Page 14, Line 1 and 2, states that the subject activities include those quote something and then they suggesting taking out the words or undertaken by an applicant.

Because then that takes out anything that's...

So, it would read, "Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, when an activity that has been previously permitted or authorized by a state or county agency is challenged."

Yeah, I think we're okay with that because I think, if anything, the undertaking was perhaps activities that we're doing, but I'm comfortable with, with deleting "undertaken" because it really was—this Bill, as we understood it in our comments, were really designed just to address those who actually have an authorized permit.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much to all the members for their questions and to the testifiers for your testimony and for the discussion. Let's move on to the next measure: House Bill 969, House Draft One, relating to waste or disposal facilities. And just so everyone knows, we're going to go through all the bills and do decision-making at the end, so if you don't want to hang around, I understand. House Bill 969, relating to waste or disposal facilities.

This measure prohibits the construction, modification, or expansion of any waste or disposal facility on land that is near or above a significant aquifer as determined by the Department of Health. First up, we have the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in support. Next, we have the Department of Health with comments on Zoom. In person. Ho Ho. Lucky us. Please proceed. Could you help with that, please? Just tighten it underneath. Go ahead.

Okay. Aloha, chair.

She'll work on it in between the testifiers. Go ahead.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and committee members. Glenn Haae with the Department of Health. Department stands on its written testimony offering comments. We respectfully ask the Legislature to define significant aquifers. There can be many interpretations of significant aquifers, and depending on that interpretation or definition, this bill could effectively prohibit landfills in Hawaii.

And as this bill seeks to protect the environment, it is important to note that landfills also exist to protect the environment and public health through proper management of solid waste. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have written testimony from the City and County of Honolulu. Next, we have testimony from the Board of Water Supply of Honolulu.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and committee members. I am Joyce Lin with the Honolulu Board of Water Supply. We stand in strong support of House Bill 969--yeah, 969. As the municipal drink--as the largest municipal drinking water utility of Oahu, the Honolulu Board of Water Supply has a constitutional public trust responsibly to protect our water resources, and House Bill 969 aligns with our mission to provide safe, dependable, and affordable drinking water to our--to the people of Oahu now and into the future, so thank you for the opportunity to testify and we're here for any questions.

Thank you very much for being here. Next person said they wish to testify is Chun James on Zoom. Not present. Next person said they wish to testify is Kika Bukoski. Not present. Next person is Mike Ewall on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. My name is Mike Ewall, and I'm the founder and executive director of Energy Justice Network. Two of our member groups, Kokua Na Aina and Hawaii's Clean Power Task Force are local groups we've been working with on waste and energy issues in the state, and there's a lot of concern about the new landfill in Wahiawa that is proposed.

Why is it dangerous? Why are people so concerned? Well, they're concerned because a double-lined landfill full of H-POWER's trash incinerator ash can leach toxic chemicals into the aquifer eventually. If that is a concern, I think you would be even more concerned about taking the same material and spreading it all over the island with no liners in the form of building roads with this material and then driving all over it.

These would be linear, unlined landfills in the form of roads that risk the aquifer and community health all over the island, and this is something that the city is proposing to do right now.

Roger Babcock, representing on the city and county in a presentation before the Legislature on January 7, held up a jar of ash from Bucks County, Pennsylvania saying it's just like sand and this is what the model plant that they're looking at to use and build in Campbell Industrial Park.

Well, that project has apparently failed as they stopped using ash on roads over two years ago in September 2022 and never restarted the next year in 2023 as they planned. Similar projects have failed around the country.

We urge you to amend this bill just as Senate Bills 446 and Senate Bill 438 were amended to ban the use of this toxic incinerator ash in roads, construction, or as daily landfill cover. If it's too dangerous to have it, the same ash over the aquifer in a double-line landfill is surely too dangerous to put in roads all over the aquifer with no liners. Mahalo.

Thanks very much. Next, Ryan Toyomura or Mihoko Ito on Zoom--oh, no, in person. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair. Ryan Toyomura, on behalf of Reworld, formerly Covanta. Reworld operates the H-POWER facility out here in Honolulu or out in Kapolei. We provide comments, just noting three issues. Reuse of the bottom ash aggregate will lead to potentially 60% savings in reduction of ash sent to the Waimanalo Landfill, so that's something that I think would be helpful in terms of expanding the use of the existing landfill.

Number two, what's being used, what the previous testifier talked about regarding ash is not really representative of what the particular project the city is looking into right now. So currently, the fly ash versus the bottom ash aggregate are two different things, and what this project intends to do or what our testimony refers to is taking aggregate out of the bottom ash, which is something totally different from the fly ash, which has higher concentrations of these potentially toxic chemicals.

And so those particular aggregates have passed EPA's TCLP standards. Additionally, the proposed amendments are really not germane to the existing bill in itself. So the existing bill is really about placement of landfills over aquifers and I think that the amendments being proposed regarding the ash reuse bans are really not germane to this particular bill, so with that, we have--we're happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Ian Custino, the Moanalua Gardens Foundation, on Zoom. Not present. Next, Wayne Tanaka. Not present. Next, Larry Meacham. You've been waiting so long, Larry. Thanks for your patience. Please proceed.

Larry Meacham, Wahiawa resident, speaking as an individual in support of the bill. First of all, this is not a NIMBY matter. In fact, the aquifer, when it leaks--and it will leak eventually--will harm our neighbors in Waialua and Haleiwa, not us. We are against having such a landfill over any part of the aquifer at all.

Second, we had a town hall meeting which 250 angry people showed up. So it's not just us. There's a lot of toxic metals in this, in these ashes. They will be--have--they will be coming out through the leachate which the city will pull and then take somewhere else. We just thought of a question to ask Mr. Babcock.

When you purify that leachate, where do you put the leftover matters in that? Do you put it back in the landfill or what? Anyway, that's an interesting question we should supply. The point is that all of these landfills will eventually leak--we don't know when, but they will eventually leak--and we have a responsibility to future generations to prevent that.

Otherwise, they will look back at us, how, that you let this happen. The other matter is that the city has just accepted the military's refusal to use any military land. That is not acceptable. They owe us big time. Red Hill leases are coming up. They should go back. For instance, they should consider Kalaeloa, I feel. And finally--I'll leave it there.

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Meacham. Next, Kimmer Horsen. Not present. That's all the testifiers that said they wish to testify on this measure. Anyone else wishing to testify on 969? We've got three individuals, so go ahead first, Ted.

Ted Bolen for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. We are in strong support of this bill. The people have argued that it's not a good idea to put a landfill over an aquifer, I think are right, and I think that's a reason that this bill should pass.

I also would like to propose an amendment that they not use the same material for roads as Mr. Ewall, I think, was saying, and I've included that amendment in my testimony and I reference it for your review. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bolen. Next, Angela Melody Young.

Angela Melody Young, testifying, commenting. So geographic boundaries are very necessary to establish when we're talking about landfills. And so it's not just a board of water supply aquifer issue. It's also a toxic emissions and pollution issues because it will require the building of a modern incinerator, I think which.

Produces this bill is about the location of a landfill. So let's focus on that.

Right. So the landfill would require an incinerator.

That's not in the bill. So just focus on the bill.

Okay. So for the specificity of this bill, it should take into consideration the toxic dioxins and ferns from the fly ash and the bottom ash which will be produced from the landfill with an incinerator for the facilities to process the trash. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Brian Miyamoto.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawai' I Farm Bureau. My apologies, Chair, we thought we submitted testimony, maybe we didn't click that we wanted to testify in person. If you don't have it, we will get the Committee our testimony in support. We have your testimony.

Just didn't know you're going to be testifying and. Thank you, Chair, Go ahead. My apologies. You know, there's been a lot of discussion about locations of a landfill, new landfill, especially since the cities has identified outside of Wahiawa.

And so there's a lot of discussion on protecting our precious groundwater and protecting our precious drinking water, which is absolutely the priority critical and important. Farmview wants to bring up the issue of protecting our precious groundwater resources for agriculture also.

So if there's potential for contamination to our drinking water, it applies for agriculture for our farms, for irrigation and for our livestock. So again we wanted to bring that up and we don't think it's a good idea. I know this is not about agricultural lands, but over aquifers precious water resource that is necessary for agriculture.

So again, our precious drinking water, we need to protect that. But also this water is used for agricultural purposes. And if we're going to achieve our goals of doubling food supply, institutional purchasing for farm to school, farm to state and just growing our sector, we need clean water. No water, no agriculture, no agriculture, no food.

We support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miyamoto. Okay, that's all the testimony on this measure. Any questions, Members? No questions. It was very persuasive testimony. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 732, House draft one relating to shoreline management Areas.

This measure increases the valuation of development that determines the necessity of a special management area minor permit or special management area use permit to 750,000 and requires that amount to be adjusted every five years for inflation.

It allows single family residences that are less than 3,500 square feet in floor area and not part of a larger development, regardless of development valuation to be eligible for a special management area minor permit on House Bill 732. First up, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Member of the Committee. My name is Honey. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development Office. Our office and our written testimony in support of this Bill with the amendment. But amendment really important. That's it. Thank you.

You want to explain what the amendment is that's so important?

Yes. The reason because every five years adjustment for inflation should be after the fact of the this bill if approved get effect this act then after five years. Will be adjusted instead of the right now. The language is adjusted right now after five years. That's totally meaningful change already very important.

Appreciate the explanation.

The other one is and. And is also important.

Yes. Thank you. Words are so important. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, next we have testimony and support from Jordan Hart from the County of Maui Office of Recovery on zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair and Members. This is Jordan Hart. On behalf of the Office of Recovery. I apologize, I'm not. No, go ahead. We hear you. We hear you. Okay, go ahead. In any case, we. We strongly support this Bill. The assessment of a minor action is. Interpreted by dollar value.

And the last time that was updated was in 2014 up to $500,000. Obviously there has been significant inflation in that time, including additional inflation locally in Lahaina. And so this would be the appropriate interpretation of that legislation to adjust for the value of the dollar. Minor permits are able to be administratively approved.

That greatly cuts down on the cost and time of completing smaller projects and actions for applicants. This would greatly assist people across the state, specifically people in Lahaina in their rebuild effort. And I would like to point out that pursuant to HRS.

205A each of the authorities assign for the Administration of the Special Management Area in their areas on their islands or in this on their islands. And in the case of Maui County, the individual planning commissions have the ability to to amend their administrative rules to further tailor their localized Administration and regulation of this process.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hart. Next we have Richard Bisson, Office of the Mayor of County of Maui on zoom. Not present. He's a busy guy. I'm not surprised. That's okay. Next we have Lindsey Garcia. Why realtors not present? That's all the testifiers we have who have indicated to us they wish to testify.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 732, House Draft 1. If not, questions, Members? No questions. Thanks very much. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 1137, House Draft 1, relating to restoration of beach lands.

This measure amends the definition of beach restoration to include activities undertaken to maintain and improve eroded beaches and degraded dune systems through the management of sand and native vegetation, placement of sand, and activities undertaken to remove abandoned and remnant materials that pose a risk to public and ecosystem health.

First up, we have Chip Fletcher, University of Hawaii, in support. Not present. Next, Michael Cain, Department of Land and Natural Resources. Oh, Chair, you are covering all of your different divisions today. Thank you for being here.

No, I think it's respectful that I should show up when I can. I'm not always able to do this. Appreciate you being here. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Dawn Chang, Chair of the board of DLNR. Now to resources. We stand in strong support of this bill.

This is actually an admin bill. It does permit us, by broadening the definition, it will permit us to expand the scope of what we include in beach restoration. So this is a necessary bill.

Thank you very much. Next person that said they wish to testify is Mylia Pax on zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, chairs and Committee Members. My name is Mylea Pax and I'm a resident of Honolulu and a student at UH Manoa. I support HB 1137. Since moving to Hawaii, I have come to appreciate how vital the beaches are, not just for recreation, but for environment and local communities.

I've witnessed erosion eating away at shorelines and seen abandoned debris and threatened that threaten public safety and marine life. Without action, these impacts will only worsen with the rising sea levels. This bill takes proactive and necessary approach to protecting Hawaii's coastal lines.

I urge you to pass HB 131137 to ensure our beaches remain safe, accessible and resilient for future generations. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Next, we have Arlene Velasco in support. Not present. Next and last, Erica Skyler Holokai on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, guys. My name is Erica, student at UH and have been a resident of Hawaii my entire life. I'm here today in support of HB 1137, which expands the definition of beach Restoration to include crucial activities such as sand and dune system management and placement, the removal of hazardous materials from coastal areas.

Ever since I was a kid, my family and I always the same beaches. But due to rising issues, there has been a drastic change in the beaches. Like the water levels are higher, there's more rock than sand, or the beach in general just looks smaller than it once was. This bill is an important step left.

Expanding on the definition of beach restoration allows us to be more proactive in preserving our beaches, ensuring that they are significance and environmental sustainability. And by efforts such as native dune vegetation management and the removal of hazardous debris. This bill recognizes that the beach restoration is more than just dumping sand and restoring our ecosystems.

Again, I need support. And thank you folks for your time.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1137? If not questions, Members. Representative Shimizu, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair for DLNR. Thank you, Director, for being here. I really appreciate your attendance and all of your wealth of knowledge. And thank you for leading that important Department. I'm going to ask a dumb question, you know, just I'm learning so much.

And as I just read this, it's almost in my simple mind wondering, how does this language just adding or broadening the definition make that much of a difference to your operations? Because in my mind, I'm thinking, if you need to do something, it needs to get done and you'll do it.

Thank you very much, Representative. Good question. Currently, the current definition is rather limiting. It lets us move sand. But we're finding that there's better tools restoring sand dunes with natural vegetation. That doesn't necessarily fall under the definition of beach restoration. We do provide grants and funds for those.

So if it's not authorized, we're not able to fund it. So this bill will, through the broadening of the definition, provides us more tools, especially to work with communities who can help us do some of that restoration.

Okay, thank you for that kind answer to that dumb question.

No, that wasn't a dumb question.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Any questions are allowed. Okay, thanks very much. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 11138 House Draft 1 relating to ocean user safety.

This measure authorizes the Board of Land and Natural Resources to issue emergency rules, which may be in effect for up to 365 days, for the regulation of commercial and recreational use of water sports equipment to promote ocean user safety. First up, we have Meghan Statts. Oh okay. Boy, the chief is here.

I know, but I've got all the experts that they are available to answer any questions. That's good. Please proceed. Chair Chang. So good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. This is an admin bill. We stand in strong support.

We recognize that there is an Emergency Rulemaking Procedure 91 3B. It only lasts us four months to do actual rulemaking. It takes us a lot longer. So we are asking for this longer period of time to adapt to a very changing industry. The technology or the equipment that they're using for various sports equipment keeps on evolving.

So we need to be able to timely respond. So that's what this provides us, the opportunity to timely respond to new equipment in our ocean waters. We recognize there are many people who are complying and, and we appreciate those who are complying with the rules, but this is for those who aren't.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next person said they want to testify is Eli Spivak, Maui Wing foil and Wing surfing on zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you. Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you. Please proceed.

Yes, thank you. I am opposed to this bill and although it does have a very sort of concrete change of the ruling from the 120 day period to a one year period, who it is going to be affecting is vague in a way. I am the administrator of a Facebook. Group called Maui Wing Foil and Wing Surfing.

And we here on Maui have worked. It out amongst ourselves how to work. With other groups that use the harbor, for instance Kahului Harbor, so that we can be pono and everyone can stay in their lane and not get into each other's way. And I think that is the way to be proceeding with state Hawaii waters.

We do have a strong statewide group. Of people who are in the foiling. Industry, who are recreational users and the like, who are stakeholders. And I think if we disseminate information. Like we have done here on Maui and have a good communication with our stakeholders, then we can avoid having problems.

With regards to what we do, which is a new technology that is basically. Targeted in this rule, that we can. Settle things on our own by providing guidelines for people using the water. And we've been very successful here on Maui and I think this can be done statewide.

For me to change the ruling from 120 days to 365 days does not. Make sense because there are businesses involved. There are people who come here to do these certain sports and for them to be, you know, restricted from doing. That is against the economy of the State of Hawaii and against people's.

What they'd like to do for recreation. And that is why I am opposed. Thank you very much for hearing me out, and I can accept any questions if you have.

Thank you very much. Next. Zachary Laprade on zoom. Not present. Zachary Laprade. No. Okay, next. Alika Ferreira on Zoom.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Alika. I live on the island of Oahu. I oppose this bill along with at least 78 written testimonies submitted for opposition of this bill. And I said on my written testimony, but I did want to highlight the main reason why we oppose this.

I am primarily in the foiling industry, riding on various foil boards. And although this Bill is not targeting foils, it's targeting water sports equipment. And for the past four years, we've had to defend our position and oppose bills at the House and the State Senate level.

With this bill that passes, there will be much less barriers for the rules to be put in place.

The Board of Land and Natural Resources will be able to prevent any foiling and various other water sports equipment from being operated in state waters just at the board level, Just at the board level of hearing and public notice, if any, and it'll last a full year.

In the past, with the state House and the State Senate, the bill rose to the state level by a single. Swimmer making a complaint. He was influential. He was powerful. He had the ear of a Maui Committee. Not Committee Member, but Council Member, and they took it up through the Maui package.

That was a single swimmer arguing about one simple incident in his perfect swim zone that he loves. You can't ban a sport or an activity based upon one person's complaint. And that's my concern, is that this is much broader reaching and it's going to be handled at a lower level. And I oppose this bill.

I hope you'll consider. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them.

Thank you, Mr. Ferreira. Next person said they wish to testify is Kate Thompson.

Good afternoon. My name is Kate Thompson. Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe. Not here. And Committee Members. Great to see you. Today I am a sailboat owner at the Alawai Small Boat Harbor. I do not live on my boat. It's just for recreation. I live in Kailua, actually, but I commute back and forth to sail.

And I'm like a retired state worker who golfs, except for I sail. So I sail two or three times a week. I really enjoy it. I've been pretty involved in things to do with Division of Boating over the last four years that I've had a little bit more time to get involved.

And I'm concerned about this Bill, HB 1138, because what is happening a lot of times is that the board we feel is although they're nice people and want to do their best, they are volunteers, they are not elected. They're signed by the Governor, approved by the Senate and House.

And they we're finding that they can't really go super deep into all the details of the contracts and nuances and that the responsibility really lies with Dovo, Dale and R to interact with the public. So one of the questions that Rep Shimizu brought up is what can be done? And I guess I'm hearing some whispering. Thank you.

Just go ahead and speak. I'll be listening to you. Good. Thank you very much. So I'm with Reptamuz's question to Dylan, our chair earlier was what can be done?

And I guess what we're recommending with the 70 or 80 testimony people testimony opposing this bill from the public and the boating and waterways groups is that we have that the Senate recommends and the House recommends that there are quarterly zoom public meetings because although in Act 100 they do LENR says they're having regular meetings, they haven't had regular meetings since well before COVID So we think that a lot of these things could be straightened out with some regular meetings, some agenda items.

Maybe they take Maui one quarter. They take Oahu one quarter. Thank you.

Yes. So my summary is we oppose lengthening. This is 120 days already, which is perfect for emergencies and extending will reduce the amount of required public interaction. Thank you very much.

Summarize, please.