House Standing Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems

Aloha Kakahiaka Kakou. Welcome to the hearing for the House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. Today is Wednesday, March 12th and we're here convening in room 325 at the Hawaii State Capitol for our 9am agenda hearing. I am chair of this Committee, Kirstin Kahaloa and with me is my amazing Vice Chair Kusch.

Representative Kush and our other Members will be joining us later today. I'm just going to go over a couple housekeeping rules today.

We have a long, long agenda to get through our triple referral hearing deadline to so we ask that if you've submitted written testimony and feel comfortable standing on your testimony, that helps us expedite our process so we can make it to session at noon today.

That is our deadline to close this hearing and we would ask that you limit your remarks to two minutes. If you are joining us via Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and and after your testimony is complete.

The Zoom chat function is for technical assistance only and please use that to communicate with our IT technical staff. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may be attempt you may attempt to rejoin our meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections or technical issues on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure here at the Capitol, it may be necessary to reschedule this hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making only. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademark or copyrighted images and please be cordial and refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may cause removal from our hearing today. Thank you folks for being here and for your testimony. We're going to start with our first measure on our agenda. SB177 SD1 relating to aquaculture.

This authorizes the Division of Animal Industry and Department of Agriculture to adopt amend repeal rules to develop an assessment and approval process to move aquatic livestock within the state. First to testify in this measure is Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture.

Thank you, Chair Hurd. Next to testify is the Agri-Business Development Corporation.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chairman.

Thank you. Next to testify we have County of Hawaii Department of Research and Development Age in support and Hawaii Farm Bureau Morning.

Chair, Vice Chair, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. We'll stand on a written testimony in support.

Thank you. In total, we had seven written testimonies in Support one in opposition. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Members, any questions?

Members? Seeing none. We're going to move on to our next measure on the agenda. SB890 SD2, relating to business regulation, requires any product labeled, marked or sold as poi to contain a label stating whether the poi product is made whole, wholly ingredients grown in the state or from ingredients sourced outside of the state.

First to testify as Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Thank you. Next to testify, we had Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. I don't believe they're here today. Hawaii Farm Barrel.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee or just the Chair? Vice Chair, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony in support. We appreciate the Legislature's efforts to protect our Hawaii crops. We do have a concern or a few concerns with the measure though.

As written on page one, starting on line four, it does say that the product shall bear a label. So stating that the product is 100% grown. Our read of the bill is that it has to be on there versus not allowing it if it's not 100% grown.

So we'd like maybe to tweak that to be similar with our macadamia nut labeling and even our coffee labeling in Chapter 46. And also we'd like a little bit of time maybe for those millers or manufacturers who may have, if the Bill passes with the current language, that may have inventory on some of their packaging.

Because again, our understanding is that if it is 100% loan, you grown, you have to put the label versus a labeling law that you can't put 100% grown if it's not 100% grown. So it appears that if it's 100% local color, you have to have a label. Current packaging may not have that label.

We believe that every poi manufacturer, everybody who's producing poi would want that label on there. But again, that would be their choice to put it on. Also, if they have current packaging, we would allow them to use that package without that labeling requirement or instead of purchasing stickers.

And also as with coffee, macadamia and hopefully mamaki, we would like the Department to get the resources, get those bodies, to get those inspectors, enforcement in the measurement standards branch in order to enforce these laboring laws. There's no sense in passing labeling laws if we can't enforce them.

So again, those are our concerns, but we are in support of the measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next to testify is would anyone else wish to testify in this measure. We had eight in support and one with comments. Member, Vice Chair, any questions?

Not at this time. Chair.

Seeing no other questions from Members, we are going to move on to our next measure. SB 1276 SD1 relating to agriculture extends the offense of false labeling of Hawaii grown coffee to include roasted coffee and imposes a $10,000 fine. First to testify in this measure. Is. Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Thank you. Next to testify is Hawaii Farm Bureau.

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

Thank you. In total we had five in support and no one else wishing to testify or indicating they wish to testify in this measure. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Vice Chair, any questions? None of this time neither nor I. We are going to move on to the next agenda item.

As you see, we're pacing quickly. That's going to change as we get further into our agenda. We are moving on to SB 763 SD2 relating to the Department of Law Enforcement. Establishes the agricultural enforcement program within the Department of Law Enforcement. Establishes agricultural enforcement special funds positions and appropriates funding.

First to testify on this measure is Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Thank you, Chair. Next we have Department of Law Enforcement.

Good morning Chair. Vice Chair me Jared Ruim, the Deputy Director for Law Enforcement. The D is in strong support of the measure.

Thank you. Next we have Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Good morning Chair. Vice Chair BDC Wendy Gady.

Thank you. We have Department of Budget and Finance with with comments. Don't see them here today. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Aloha Chair. Vice Chair Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony support and this testimony is the same testimony for the next or the next two bills. All three ag crime bills. Don't want to spend too much time discussing the impact that ag crime has to agriculture.

Just reminding the Committee the last survey I believe is $14.4 million is the impact to farmers and ranchers. It's another cost and expense that takes their focus away from the actual ag production. Unfortunately, it took a unnecessary and tragic death of a rancher to bring ag crimes to the forefront. It has been.

It has been a big issue. It an issue that needs to be addressed. So we mahalo the Department of Law Enforcement, we mahalo the Legislature for scheduling and hearing and moving these bills. We need to address ag crimes.

It is getting worse and worse and it we are unable to achieve our double food security goals, our food production goals, our farm to school, our farm to state Goals, our farm to family goals.

How are the farmers and ranchers supposed to able to focus on their ag production when so much focus is on ag crimes or issues like biosecurity? So again we ask that a bill pass. These bills are different and maybe the Committee may want to consider combining the bills because all the bills have all great points in them.

Again, it is an issue that we need to address now. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

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

Thank you Chair Kahaloa, Vice Chair Kush. This is Nicole Galase. On behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. We are in strong support of this bill because it will give the funding plus a directive to the Department of Law Enforcement to focus on ag crimes through this ag enforcement program.

The Department has already been engaging with the ag community already. So they also have the law enforcement expertise to make a difference and deter crimes at the same time. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony. We also have individual testimony and others in support. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Please join us and state your name before providing testimony.

Hello chairs. My name is Austin Salcedo. I'm from the west side. I'm an ag land owner and I fully support Senate Bill 763 because we're self sustainable. But we have suffered losses without being compensated for our losses and we are because of that. We are a small time farmland owners and these are pictures of suffering of wild dogs.

I wouldn't say wild dogs. Dogs that was trained to hunt and kill that was left behind by poachers. My area is hunting zone G where there's no hunting dogs throughout the year 24/7. But apparently poachers come on our land and we had a suffering of a loss of a rancher protecting his livestock.

Was was threatened by the dogs. Then had confrontation by poachers. Was not supposed to even be on the property. I own part of the mountain and the rest is by DLNR state owned. But Dufa is aware of the loose dogs that's on our area. But we suffering the losses. These are four milking goats in one morning.

Torn trophy style, not the abdomen. All head shots by all vicious dogs and about three dozen egg laying chickens. So we suffered the losses, we suffered the financial losses and the time to consume from a small baby goat to adulthood. So I fully support this.

We need state law enforcement because DLNR do fall, do care, do care, don't care, do far is too far for them. To come and come and protect us with law enforcement. We need DLE immediately, now and forever. That's how I support this thing. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Aloha, aloha, Aloha. Chair. Vice Chair. I'm Kaleza Ocero. This is the reason I'm here. My nephew, Duke boy, I've been reaching out for help for years before he's killing, okay? Execution style. It's not a game anymore. We want the help. We need the help. That's why we asked it for the special force.

Because I have faith in the special force more than I ever have faith in any other Department. The special force is the one that we need. HPD is shorthanded. Do care. Take away the do. Don't put the care there because it's not happening. I reached out, I had enough.

If the things these issues did not fall upon blind eyes and deaf ears, he would have still be here for years. From our sanitary to a rap at those times, he would have still been here. From board Members. I brought it up. Safety hazard issues. We're a sandwich. State owns in the back of me.

I own part of the mountain, city owns in front of me. We call everyone. It falls up on blind eyes and deaf ear. Enough is enough. Please do not let a mother and a father suffer again. Do not allow anyone to suffer like this or fall upon blind eyes and deaf ears. We're taxpayers.

We're honest, Legit, self sustainable people. We're not out there waiting for handouts. I work hard. My husband works hard. I raise my goats from babies. I raise chickens from little chicks. I collect eggs every day. I do not buy store bought eggs. After all the loss that I had, not once I had ever heard, Mrs.

Said, how can we help you folks? Not from the city, not from the state. They told us. This is private property. You're going to have to bury your goats or do something with your goats. Omg. Why do I need your number on my phone? Why is part of my taxpayer money going to them?

I tell you what, give me back my taxpayer money and I will hire my special security to stay up by the mountains that I know I can trust. Do not waste any more time pointing finger. State points to the city, cities point to the state.

Well, I got two fingers here and I'm pointing back to both of them. Take responsibility and do your due diligent responsibility. I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, and I'm soon going to be a great grandmother. I'm an auntie. I do not want ever hear in anything another child's life that I hold dear to my heart is unacceptable.

We look up and we put you folks in office. Please do the right thing. Listen to your inner heart. Put yourself in a mother, father's situation. If this was your ohana, how would you feel? You want action and action is what I'm asking and demanding. On the west side. Enough of the crimes.

Do not chop down my papaya trees. Do not chop down my Uru trees. No more. Do not take my hard work, fruit of labor that I put in my land for your bad habits. Enough is enough. The crime needs to stop. And I truly believe the Vice Chair and chair you will stop the crime. Mahalo.

Hello, everyone. Pikachu Shelby Billionaire. I don't have my glasses today, just so if you're looking for the yellow glasses. But since we're talking about Dole, Department of Law Enforcement. I do support the Bill, but because we live on the west side, we have a problem. When we call 911 and the cops come, maybe eight to 10 minutes.

If they already came with high powered rifles, they don't come with one person to rob you. They're going to come in multiple gangs or groups, at least three or more. So if you got armed weapons and they can kill you, rob you, kidnap you, we're supposed to be protected under hrs. 733.

But that's not what's occurring because obviously what happened to Duke, Pia, the family and other people on Hilo, Maui, Molokai, Kauai, that's not being reported because they're going to come with muscle to 86 you.

So talking to Dole, you know, we got Mike Lambert, we got Redulla, we also have Don Chang here for dealer, we actually have a chance to do something. But because they said the Salcedo is the jurisdiction issue, if you got private property, the cops can't help you. It's private property. You're going to need dedicated people.

And the first time we ran to this bill, they weren't going to give Dole weapons. I said these guys are high powered rifles, weapons, machetes, all kind of stuff to skin cut deer. They're going to be prepared. You just can't set some random guy out in Makaha to two in the morning without nothing.

He's going to get jacked. They're going to rob his truck. So we have to be thinking about practical reasons how we would implement this bill. Because Dole is statewide, they need manpower, resources and appropriations because they're supposed to Handle the ports.

I found out talking to the cops and Dole, who handles the ports where they're smuggling all the drugs, fireworks and contraband. State. That's not city and county. So it's supposed to go to Dole. Well, well, how can Mike Lambert and Redulla do all of this when they just started?

Like, we need to figure a way how we can enforce these laws. Just like agriculture guy is saying, how can we work this together? Whether it's the reporting with the community, the neighbor boards, when we call, we gotta send something.

We'll make sure they're protected so they can protect your land from robbers, rapists, murderers, and your kids because you don't want something to happen when you're not there. So thank you. Please support the bill. And I love your beautiful. All your Committee Members. Such great support. I love you, too. Aloha.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify in this Measure? We're on SB 763 SD2. We'll open up for questions from Committee. I have a question for Department of Law Enforcement.

Thank you, Deputy, for being here. When we move, the House version, and it's also a question in the Senate version, is who. Who kind of is the overseer and administrator of this program? So, you know, we have.

Good morning, ma' am.

We have language that indicates the Deputy Director and then the assistant chief, or is there an administrator of the Ag Inform? So I just wanted some clarity on what the intentions are so we can clean up the language. We know everybody has a role in this space, but who is in charge for this particular measure?

Thank you for that question, Chair. The way the Department is set up, the Director is in charge. Overall, I am in charge of law enforcement programs within the Department. So all of the sworn law enforcement officers within the Department of Law Enforcement fall under my purview. That said, this bill provides for an assistant chief.

In our structure, the assistant chief is a division administrator. So, for example, in this particular model, what we envision is that the assistant chief would be the division administrator and that the investigative personnel and the patrol personnel would.

Would fall under the responsibility of that assistant chief as part of a division under the Deputy Director's purview, similar to the sheriff's division and the Narcotics Enforcement Division that currently exists.

Okay, I think that makes sense or provides clarity. Do you have any questions? Please share.

Yeah, actually, a quick one just to build on that. Thanks for coming up and thank you for your testimony. So in that division, is there a further breakdown for outer Islands? You know, I recognize you guys Are based here in Honolulu and often a perspective from outer island.

You know, feel like the resources grow thin the further out.

Yes. So what the department's conversation is on this right now, this particular bill first mandates that there is a division of investigators. I believe it's two per county. So those are detectives. Now, the bill also at this point recommends about 35 or 36 patrol officers.

And what we would do is we would take those 36 officers and make a division statewide. Because what we intend to do is create multi county coverage with the existing staff provided in this measure.

When we have a large problem, something a project or now we have to like, for example, focus on violence on the west side or something like that, what we would then do is also take the collective law enforcement power of the Department through its narcotics division, its criminal investigative division, and our intelligence center and put those tools together and then also leverage our technology.

So what we have is a really sort of synergistic approach towards looking at crime in General and specifically how we would approach the problem of agriculture crime.

Okay, so you feel confident you'll have assets on the outer islands, Maui, Hawaii and Kauai? Yes. Okay. And then supervision and facilities vehicles, all the tools.

And that's part of the budget ask that the Department has also asked for. Yes.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I do have a follow up. So for the special fund kind of programmatic oversight in the bill we have that the Deputy Director would oversee kind of the usage of the special fund. Just want to clarify if that's accurate because it wouldn't be the program administrator. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay.

We're just making sure the bill is as tight and ready to go as possible because there was clarification on just Administration and authority. And so we're just clarifying all of those. I'm just checking that we went through every single question was asked about strengthening this bill.

One of the questions that came up was related to should the Ag enforcement Special Fund expenditures include maintenance functions authorized by the Board of Ag and funding for consultants to be a matter by the Board of Ag, or should that all be DLE? And that's a clarification.

And so maybe I need your position and then the Department of Ag's position on where the Board of Ag fits in because there is language of their role in the bill.

Yeah. So, you know, I don't think we put a lot of thought into how the Board of Agriculture would interact with us, but certainly we would expect that there'd be interaction. So part of servicing this. You know, there is precedent in our Department.

For example, I ran the narcotics Enforcement division and our customers were for example, the medical board, the pharmacy board and the Department of Health.

So similarly, what I expect is that we would also be the customer for the board of Agriculture in the sense that we are providing services to support their overall management and Administration of Agriculture Programs in our state. So certainly there is that interaction. I think that I would want to speak with chair Hurd more on this issue.

But we do expect that there would be definitely that interaction.

Thank you. Thank you Deputy Chair Heard we would.

Defer to the DLE for actions with regard to the enforcement piece. Things that have matters that involve money. With regard to the fund, the fiduciary responsibility would rely with the board. But there is a threshold. You know, if it's, if it's a certain threshold, then we the chair and we can work collaboratively with the Bill. Good point.

Should tighten that up. But we do leave certain fiduciary responsibilities to the decision of the board.

Thank you Chair Hurd. One just follow up question. So for other special funds, is it the board of Agriculture or should it be the Department of Agriculture?

Do you need to do all do your other special funds all have to get approval for and this is not on all decision maintenance functions authorized for the special Fund and then consultants and contract hires related to the enforcement of laws and rules applicable to the offense of theft of an agricultural product or commodity or by any other matters as determined.

And right now it's saying board of Agriculture. Do you know if other special funds the decision went straight to the Department or is this common that it's the board of Ag versus your purview.

Excellent research and question. This is the only special fund that I'm know that I'm aware of that requires the board of Agriculture approval. All other special funds we handle independently. This is one that we would handle in collaboration.

So I think that feature was added so that we can defer to deal e we can see where the monies would go.

Okay. Chair Herd, if that's the case, I think I'll. We'll look at making an amendment there because we want expeditious work to get this done. And so the concern with this stat, this part of the statute is you have to ask permission to utilize the special Fund for enforcement or support related to agricultural crime.

So the process would take longer. My goodness. There's a concern that you can't work expensive expeditiously.

Absolutely correct. Expeditious is not the word. We meet once a month. We. We can certainly, you know, hold an emergency meeting, but I. I defer to you for that. I defer to dle. It is the only special Fund that I'm aware of that requires board approval for expenses. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any further questions?

None.

Okay. See no other questions from our Committee. We are going to move on to the next Measure, which is SB 1249 SD1 relating to agriculture. Establishes an agricultural crime prevention program within the Department of Agriculture to provide grants, education, administrative enforcement and other services for the benefit of the state's agricultural industry.

Clarifies, creates and strengthens laws related to crimes and violations related to agriculture or agricultural lands and hunting on private agricultural lands. Establishes clear distinctions between administrative and criminal penalties and appropriates funds to execute this established program. First to testify in this measure is. Hawaii Department of Agriculture submitted testimony noting.

Thank you, Chair. Next we have the Attorney General's Office in person.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair. Deputy Attorney General, Mark Tom for the Department. Department just provides comments for Senate Bill 1249 SD1. Just one note to Chair and Vice Chair. We support the intent of this bill and what's in here.

However, the only thing that we wanted to let the Committee know and concerns is the potential constitutional title issue. It relates to agriculture. Some of the provisions in there addresses hunting on private lands which might not correlate with agriculture specifically.

One way to maybe address this issue is to take a look in section one, which is essentially the preamble, and be more specific that of how the hunting on private lands might relate to agriculture, to kind of tie that in.

I know that that's what it meant to address, but maybe tightening that up, that's one way to at least address that constitutional title issue. I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Department of Budget and Finance with Congress comments. County of Hawaii prosecuting attorney in support. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

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

Thank you. Hawaii Cattleman's Council via Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. Nicole Galase, on behalf of the Hawaii Cattleman's Council, we are providing comments respectfully suggesting some specific amendments to ensure this bill will work well on the ground.

We support this effort to update the laws, but as we highlight in our testimony, recommend that increasing livestock inspector positions would be a better way to enforce these laws without having to create an entirely new brand inspection program. So thank you for consideration of these amendments. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony. We had other testimony in support from various ranches across the state. We have in person testimony from Austin Salcedo. Hello. Yeah, if you want to go on the microphone, please.

Hello. My name is Austin Salcedo. I'm an AG landowner on the west side Kehau, close to Ojiki. Lola Ranch is about an eighth of a mile away. But these pictures that I presented in front of you, it tells a thousand words. These dogs that came attack are four milking goats that we had suffered a loss.

It was all headshot, no body. They were trained killers. Our area. Again, I want to emphasize Hunting zone G, do not allow. It prohibits hunting dogs throughout the year 247. And these poachers that I have on my videos as well too. They don't use the orange symbol of safety out there. They come right in my backyard.

I own part of the mountain. They're right in the back of the area. Hunting zone G is about. Maybe about three quarters of a mile in inland from the edge of the mountain. These dogs, these hunters are found in backhoe on the residential area of my ag lands. So that's it.

This picture I brought to attention shows a pit bull unleashed with a goat in back of him. This dog was never trained to hunt or kill. It speaks a thousand words. So these dogs that attacked my family's milking goats were trained killers. And this dog is unleashed. He has nothing to do with this goat.

In fact, he hates this goat. The goat picks on him, so he stays away. Tells a thousand words. But the encouragement of Sanabel 1249 is way too long overdue. This must have been imposed a long time ago. And thank God we're going to have DLE and this task force please Fund this thing.

And it's going to hold all those accountable, including the juveniles who's committing these crimes. Their parents, their legal guardianship. We will be hold equally accountable. Parents got to take an initiative to observe their children's actions and hold them fully accountable and penalize prosecute at the most and penalize them at the highest level. I support this Bill 1249.

Appreciate it. Have it passed. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify in this measure is Gina Salcedo.

Aloha, kakou. I want to thank you folks for even allowing us to be heard. As I heard that the city was private land. Let me tell you, it's an agriculture. Private land. That's what I was informed. Agriculture. What part of agriculture we don't understand? We all Know what is agriculture to be self sustainable Farmer, ranchers.

You know, I fully support this Bill and I do want you folks to the highest and hold individual because like I said, we're a sandwich. We're the rancher, we're my nephew. There's no hunting zone on there. But in the back of the premises, the property, there's a hunting zone.

They're crossing over to private property, to ranchers and everything. And it's our Kuleana. We gotta watch out for them. Aunt Ollie, we have signs all over. They know the signs. And as for the dogs, he would have been here.

The dogs had to suit his calves that he was caring for the law of rights in DLNR, DOE care. No dogs allowed. No exception accepted. Period. The law is the law. We don't write the law, we follow the law.

But if you go to erring and abetting allow this unethical hunters and poachers, two legged predators to continue violating the law, believe me, they're going to continue. They need to be pursuit prosecuted. Okay, no exception. No exception. Unacceptable unethical behavior. Did the parents train them that way? We don't know. But I train my kids one certain.

I teach my kids a certain way and I expect when you come in onto my promise, my property and it's private property, you're going to ask permission. That's the old days. You do not go in and just take things what you want. It's not the old way. Nowadays the generation had changed. They have no respect.

But it's the law that's going to be activated, executed to teach them how to respect. So I fully asking you folks and pleading with your foes, let's solve the problem and let's correct it. Starting from our own ethical two legged predators. We're not the hunters, they are. Mahalo.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. In total we had 19 testifiers in support and three with comments but no others indicating they wish to testify. Please join us.

Okay.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Sonny Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender. We testified on this bill when it was in the Senate. My apologies. We're our office tracking about 150 bills. I'm going to send this to your Clerk, but I'm going to discuss it. The Office of the Public Defender has no input on the previous bill, SB 763 REL.

Of course enforcement or the bill that comes after this, SB 1257. Regarding task force. This bill we find unconstitutional. Unfortunately part three, section three. Turning a petty misdemeanor after several charges into a felony is unconstitutional under the 8th amendment. There are other issues with the bill regarding HRS 142 B.

It confuses what is ordinarily administrative crimes with a C felony. So you're mixing these two things up. When this thing goes to a trial, it's likely gonna be dropped by the already overwhelmed prosecutors and public defenders and judges in the neighborhood neighbor islands. And it is immediately appealable as it's unconstitutional.

So you have an opportunity here to come back and maybe defer decision making to delete these unconstitutional essentially illegal parts or defer this bill and then pass the other ones. Regarding enforcement, the important thing I think to take away is that the conversations that have been had by the other testifiers, these are already illegal acts.

So terroristic, threatening, trespass, theft of animals, the innumerable crimes that were just presented to you, these are already C felonies. Some of them are B felonies. They have like high jail times. You know, these are significant crimes. So if you have issues with enforcement, you can do that. This one's just a mess.

I'm going to hand this to your Clerk and then I can be around for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure?

Pikachu Shelby Billionaire back. I did send a testimony and maybe I was supposed to go via Zoom, but we'll just run it with what we got due to what the prosecution says. That's our issue with wahine, you can't prosecute.

You can talk about this stuff all day long, but when he gets shot, murdered and dead, you can walk out the door not saying nothing. I said people already dead. I'm not Jesus. I can't resurrect and bring people people's back to life. But we can't prosecute because we got DLNR, DOE care and dough right here.

But if the prosecution office can't even prosecute because of the 8th amendment. Unconstitutional. You think these criminals who don't even speak English, from Russia, Sinaloa cartel, Jalisco cartel, they don't care. They don't even speak English. They're not going to read the eighth Amendment. The first amendment. They know the second amendment and we got real issues here.

So if you guys need to change the little verbiage and words, yes, please do. Just to get him off our kole puka so we can get stuff done. Because if they're going to get robbed in Molokai, Maui, Hilo, I'm so sorry you guys are on your own.

It's tough luck, but I don't like to be mean or rude, but hey, we just came all the way from wine and we still got to go with these issues. I'm not going to wait till next year for next legislation to get this stuff in the bill. That's just dumb. That is retarded.

And I feel stupider that I got to tell you guys this. And everyone who's going to watch this on YouTube. Why, why can't we prosecute the evil villains? We just had the whole torture bill yesterday. Irre Isabel Sellers, Kahlua and all these other things. We need justice. And I implore thank there's only you two guys.

We don't got to convince everybody that you guys can make the right decisions. Thank you very much. Aloha.

Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Questions from Committee Members.

See no questions from our Committee. We are going to move on to our next measure. That measure is SB 1257, SD1 relating to agricultural crime. Establishes an agricultural crimes task force to address the issues of agricultural crime in the state.

Establishes the offense of agricultural crime to increase penalties for property crimes committed on agricultural property and appropriate funds. So first to testify in this measure is Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Chair, Vice Chair.

Chair. Vice Chair, Department of Agriculture.

Thank you, Chair Hart. Next we have D.

Good morning. Jared Rua, the Deputy Director. Our Department is in support of this measure.

Thank you. Attorney General's Office.

Good morning. Chair. Vice Chair Kelsey Nagasa, Deputy Attorney General providing comments on SB 1257. SD1 on Section 4, starting on page 4, line 5. Proposes a new standalone offense which would increase penalties for property crimes that occur in agricultural property. The standalone offense may cause confusion and inconsistency within the criminal statutes that already exist.

To fix this issue, it may be best to amend each of the individual criminal statutes that should have an increased penalty. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hoy Farm Bureau will stand on his return. Your testimony and support.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Cattleman's Council via Zoom.

Thank you. Nicole Galasi. On behalf of the Hawaii Cattleman's Council, we support this measure and appreciate the inclusion of both Department leads as well as representatives from the ag community on. The this task force. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Ohana Unity Party, Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands. You're on this one.

Aloha, my cocko Pikachu. Shelby billionaire, back again. I am actually the Chairman of the Ohana Unity Party and we do want to represent our local farmers wherever you're at, on all the neighbor islands, not just in Waianae.

I know we get a bad rap out there because we're usually on our own and we definitely support this Bill and everyone backing up all the farmers who are suffering, you know, with water and other issues.

But when it comes to crimes and someone's going to try to rob you of your cattle, your cows, your chickens, you know how much eggs are worth now, they don't even put the price on Costco, but she's Auntie Calais. Sal got 100 chickens. Those, those eggs are like Willy Wonka factory.

Those are going to give you unlimited food, unlimited resources. You can sell it, barter, market, but they keep it for the family to be self sustainable. So Duke, if he didn't know the story behind him, he loved the community, he loved his Family and he would do whatever he can to help support.

But now that he's in heaven, I'm sure he's watching over from us. And like I said before in the previous testimony, we're not Jesus. We can't bring back the dead, but we can honor them with their life. They say you die two times in life, once physically and second, people forget about you.

So please do the right thing and honor Duke Pia and make this law into reality. Thank you very much.

Thank you. For your testimony, we have Griffith Livestock via Zoom. zero, you may start your testimony, but please unmute so we can hear you. Aloha.

My name is Bobby Joe Griffith, and I'm here to strongly support SB 1257, which seeks to establish an agricultural Crimes task force to create the offensive agricultural crimes and appropriate funds to address the increasing threats faced by our agricultural communities, such as myself. Agriculture is a backbone of our community and vital. I thought I did unmute. Sorry.

We can hear you. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. If you have further testimony. Okay, we may have lost connection. We're going to move on to the test.

Okay, sorry. Let me start again. By establishing a dedicated agricultural crimes task force, this Bill ensures that law enforcement agencies can better coordinate, investigate, share intelligence and take swift action to protect our agricultural sector.

Furthermore, by defining and increasing penalties for agriculture crime, SB 1257 sends a strong message that crimes targeting agricultural properties will not be tolerated and the appropriation of.

Funds we may have lost. You. Are you with us? Griffith Livestock was in support. We're going to move on to the next testifier on the agenda. We have Austin Salcedo.

Lawyer, chair, co chair. I'm very fully supportive of Senate Bill 1257. This is long overdue. In fact, I would like to introduce both parents of Cranston Dupia in the House. Suzanne and Mike. Pia, you can raise your hands and show who you are. I don't know if you folks can testify. I hope you guys testify.

This Bill provides a memory of Dupia, how he was vulnerably and unnecessarily murdered by poachers, bringing dogs upon the property, allowing trespassing upon property where there is signage like my property. So I hear prosecution right now from prosecutor, defense prosecutor. I mean, defense attorneys in calling this constitutional.

I think it's, well, unconstitutional constitutional to even murder someone on the private land when there is signage on there. Not allowing any poachers or anyone in that matter unknowingly come onto the land without asking permission first. I ask permission for reaching to somebody's icebox. Not these guys.

Their mentality is to come on and do bad things upon our properties. So you have all these perpetrators, they have the day in court. But increasing of this fine is long overdue. Increase the penalties, the pursuit, prosecution and punishment at the highest level is long way overdue.

We have suffered losses already in our area and human losses, not only our livestock, but again, I'm going to repeat myself, but you have the day in court to defend themselves and explain to the judiciaries, more so to our branders of law enforcement to explain to them why you're on private property to begin with and why are you acting in bad behaviors.

It's not administrative. We're going to rule that out. That's what this law is based upon, administrative and criminal. But first of all it's going to be cited as criminal. You have a day in court to explain your your case itself. But for the most part they have to be prosecuted at the highest level.

That's my my name is Austin and I approve this message. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Gina Kale Salcedo.

Hello. Chair, Vice Chair Committee I'm Gina Kali Salcedo. Like I said, I'm a farmer. You know, we have ranchers. But I disagree. What the prosecutor had made the statements. You know, we're the taxpayers. They're prosecutors for repeated offenders. Okay, repeated offenders. I've been through the court system where it's just a slap on the hand and gone.

It doesn't work. What works is enforcing the law. That works. Putting higher fines will deter bad behavior, I assure you. And if they cannot pay the fine, I tell you what, I'll make them sign a waiver. They're going to be working on my farm, on my ranch for every single penny.

I'm going to make sure they're going to have to sign it, the paperwork. I'm not going to take any more loss for unethical behaviors and I'm not going to sit down and wait for another life to be lost. We need action. We need Department of Law enforcement and we need it like it was 35 years ago.

We've been left in the back burners for too long. I ask you folks and I plead to you folks, enough is enough. We need and deserve justice just like Kakaako. No difference. We're taxpayers. We have the highest property on the west side. Agriculture where gentrification is taken over. Gentrification is not paying my self sustainable Bill.

They don't feed my animals. Our hard work fruit of labor feeds my Family. I don't sit and wait for hangouts. My family and I do the work. So did he do the work and be a little small business, self sustainable business that was stripped and taken away.

Don't let it happen again and don't choke Waianae in the back burner. This family, this island is so small. One way or another way to your blood vein line, there's relation. Are you gonna allow that relation to be destroyed or that bloodline to be destroyed? Ollie Tiakura have his watch. So does my Duke boy. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Raquel Achoo via Zoom.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Mahalo. Thank you. Chair and Vice Chair and Members. My name is Raquel Achoo. I am the North Shore Neighborhood Board Vice Chair and our Neighborhood Board's Ag Committee Chair. However, I am testifying as an individual. My husband and I are ranchers. Piko to our Wailuamoku.

For decades I've submitted Testimony written on SB 1249 and 1257. I stand by my written testimony. However, hearing some of the comments today, I just wanted to quickly add that I can't say it loud enough. The extreme need and desire for help. Our agricultural industry needs help. We have. You know, ranchers and farmers are not rich.

You're not getting rich off of it. It's a work of love for sure, but we do it to keep our culture and our sustainability somewhat alive so we can progress and not be so dependent on outside resources.

Yes, we have laws and penalties on the books, but to the public defender's office comments earlier making the comment of being unconstitutional when someone blatantly breaks the law, comes to your property and does wrong to you.

In my opinion, you've already waived your rights to any type of constitutional consideration and I know that's not something they would consider, but we have constitutional rights as well. We are surviving. We are providing. I think we lack enforcement and prosecution.

I attended last year's meeting at the Senate Committee for an informational briefing under the soon after the tragic loss of Duke and I was appalled at the statistics that were provided in the prosecution. If there's laws and penalties already, then do it, then. Then pursue it. But it's not being done.

We need to have a group that's focused and committed to stand for us. We want to ensure that our farmers and ranchers, regardless of city or state land, also privately owned properties, have the support and the recourse to stand our ground and be able to survive. There are significant losses made even when you Just cut offense.

They think no big deal. It's a big deal. Especially here. The cost to replace things is significant. It's a struggle enough. I think if we are able to provide a very comprehensive plan and structure to address these issues, create a stronger penalty, prosecution and enforcement, we're well on our way to ensure that the tragic passing of Mr.

Pia is not in vain. Don't let that be in vain. We've suffered way too many losses in 2021. We had a horse in haki pool in her own stall attacked. These are not hunters, they're poachers. We got guys coming in to just steal from farms heavy equipment.

So we are the ones suffering the loss and having to figure out how to navigate to move on. So I absolutely support please. However we can ensure the proper and appropriate wording and verbiage to give us some protection. Because you know these guys come back because the penalties are weak.

They come back stronger, more brazen and arrogant and we're expected to stand down. But I'm going to tell you honestly, if I'm caught in a position of me or them or my kids and them, it ain't going to be me. We need help. We need help. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony. We had 20 testifiers in support, one with comments. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure?

Good morning Vice Vice Chair and committees. I really want to see SD 1257 pass. I want to thank you everybody for the comments and it's really been hard. Duke was my youngest son. My youngest child of four and he was two today. You know, I just can't believe in my heart, you know, the boy was a good.

My children were good kids. They knew what was right or what was wrong. Because if they do things that when I tell them it only takes one time, one time, that's it. Because the next time it's not going to be nice. I'm going to discipline them and I think that's how it should be.

But today and to especially the final 117 year old kid. I'm a former marine. I've been in Vietnam. I know what is, what is guns. I know about guns. But the thing is I'm going to tell you guys the truth. For six weeks I didn't do a damn thing thinking why ask the question why?

You know, I know we are getting carry on but the thing is I need. I want this thing passed. You know, it breaks my heart even till every day and coming back here, I mean, I mean I'm retired. I got all the time in the world.

But the thing is, you know, and I read, I love to read the paper and I read every little S.B. you know, it educated me. I didn't take, I didn't know it takes so long. But thanks for the Salcedos and all the testifiers and, you know, all the departments. I thank you guys very much.

But I need, I need, I need this Bill to pass. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? We're going to move on to Committee questions. Can we start with the Attorney General's Office? Thank you for your testimony. Our question is can we get the language for the wording for each offense and is as indicated in your testimony.

Inserting that into the Bill was one of the potential requests.

So we, our Department is happy to work with you folks in the Legislature to draft wording to increase the penalties for the specific crimes.

However, if we can work together to have a dialogue about it just because we would like to know what property crimes the Legislature has in mind rather than all the property crimes across the entire penal code which may or may not relate to agriculture.

So if you we can have an offline discussion about that to have a more thorough and individual discussion of what specifically increase the penalties is and as noted in our testimony, there are certain penalties already that exist.

For example, I think was burglary, which already comes with a class B felony and with the application of this standalone offense would actually demote it to a C. So that kind of would be the rub that we're dealing with.

Okay, we will work on you. It sounds like we cannot amend this in this version, but can work before it gets heard by the Judiciary Committee so they have that ready to go for their hearing if they choose to hear this measure. Thank you. Thank you Members. Any questions?

Seeing no further questions, we're going to move on to the next measure. SB328SD1 relating to taxation establishes an income tax credit for capital infrastructure costs incurred in the conversion of a dairy farm to a hog farm. For testify on this measure as Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Hello, I'm chair Vice Chair on behalf of the chairperson Testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Department of Taxation. Thank you very much. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

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

Thank you. Hawaii Tax Foundation. Tax foundation of Hawaii via Zoom not present. They shared comments in their written testimony and we also have debed who didn't indicate public testimony but I am just noting their testimony in support. Purple Maya foundation in support and One individual in support. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure?

See none Members questions See no Committee questions. We're going to move on to the next measure, SB558SC2 relating to value added products. Establishes a food and product innovation network within the Agribusiness Development Corporation, appropriates funds for food and product innovation facilities across the state and provides an annual report to the Legislature. First to testify on this measure.

Is. The Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Wendy Gady with the Agribusiness Development Corp. And we stand in our testimony and very, very strong support. This really is about food manufacturing. It's also about rural jobs and growing our rural economy. We're here and present to answer any. Questions you may have.

Thank you very much. We have the University of Hawaii system.

Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Carlos on behalf of the community colleges. We stand on our written testimony in support of this.

Thank you for your testimony. Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Thank you Chair Vice Chair Republic on behalf of the chairperson.

Thank you. We had testimony from Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support initiative. Welcome back Mike.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair caught him right before he left. Representative Peruso I know it's okay. Good to see you folks. Just Mike Municatua Ulupono in strong support of this measure. Again. I think we've come here for a couple years now essentially trying to find avenues to make agriculture successful economically viable.

Bills like this look to create avenues that can really help farmers take it to the next step. You know we have a lot of young farmers and a lot of farmers that are struggling in General.

They that are looking to take that step and scale, become economies of scale and get into a marketplace where ag can really be an industry that is very much so at the forefront in Hawaii.

Again this Bill really looks to do just that, finding ways to bring more revenues to a farmer, even supporting some of these off grades that may not have much value in certain markets.

But again if you tinker with a little, do a little local value added processing, you can actually find a lot more value in some of your products. So again we very much so are in support of this and thank you very much for hearing this.

Chair thank you. Next to testify, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Hi Chair Ron Yimon on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau who's done on our testimony and support.

Thank you for your testimony. We had support testimony from the Maui Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii Forest Industry Association, support from the local food coalition and we have Hawaii Food Industry Association via Zoom not present but in Support and one individual testimony in support. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure?

Aloha. I support the SB558 as they said, studying the kids from young generation to teach them how to farm. That is the only way you can help them. I'm an example of one from second to third grade we farmed it, we ranched it, we milked it, cows, everything.

So if they get the education through these type of programs and knowing one day they're not, they can't depend on a shipment coming in, you're going to have to rely on what's on the island. And this is what this, this younger generation needs to know.

97% or a little more food is being shipped in be self sustainable because when that shipment is not coming in Hawaii you're on your own. And we all know that. But I am an example showing what I learned from a young child farming ranching.

You have to teach them from young and if we can reach to them and help them grow to that fruitful adult taking responsibility and learning how hard it is to be a farmer then we're in a right start. I support this Bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? See none. We're moving on to the next Members questions. Seeing none we're going to move on to the next measure. SB 1541 SD1 relating to the Waiahole Water system appropriates funds for the Waiahole Water system for bond debt service and tunnel repair.

First to testify is the Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair Rep Perruso. Wendy Gady with the ADC will stand in extreme strong support of this measure and our available brand investors.

Thank you. Next we have Ulupono initiative.

Thank you very much Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was done on his written testimony. Super strong support.

We have support testimony from Bear, Larry Jeff's Farm Lurf, Hawaii Crop Improvement Association and one individual testimony in support. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? See none. Members, any questions? See none. And no other additional super testimony. In super support we will move on to the next measure.

SB 1657 SD2, relating to the Agribusiness Development Corporation, authorizes the Agribusiness Development Corporation to acquire by condemnation any real property or interest in real property for the purpose of Chapter 163 DHRS, requires the ADC to make a determination that the property is necessary for the corporations immediate or future use, prohibits real property acquired by the condemnation from being subsequently transferred or taken for any other public use without the consent of the ADC.

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

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Member sof the Committee. Wendy Gady, ADC. We stand in strong support and we are here and available for any questions.

Thank you, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. Mahalo. Farm Rail stands on its written testimony. I apologize. It does say comments, but we do support the measure.

Says in support on our documentation, maybe not on your letter. Thank you so much. Anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Chair Chang.

Good morning. Good morning. I hope I'm. Senate Bill 1657 and I apologize. I think we did submit written testimony. So we support it. We provided comments to this measure. Our only concern is that we would ask that section 7B which specifically allows ADC to condemn state owned property, that we would ask that that be deleted.

That land held by the department or that has been set aside by executive order to another agency not be included in the bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure?

Members, questions. Vice Chair.

Wendy Gady, please. ADC. Hi there. Can you maybe provide some context for the nexus of this or this, the impetus of this bill? Is there any specific goal or there was a reason for it or what prompted it?

Okay. Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. I'm Wendy Gady with the ADC. And in regards to your question, I think a lot of people have been asking do you have something specific in mind? Do you have something that you're targeting?

And I can look you all in the eye right now and say, nope, don't really currently. But part of the reason that we would want this is it's for the benefit of public safety.

So for example, if there is a building, an irrigation system, or land that is in disarray, it allows us to have the opportunity to move forward with our goals, which are state goals, and help the state reach their mandated goals of increasing food production and developing a diversified ag economy.

Does that answer your question or does that prompt more questions?

No, just so it's for the purpose of maybe picking up dilapidated or underutilized agricultural properties?

Correct.

Thank you.

Members. Any further questions? No, seeing none. We're going to move on to our next measure on our agenda, moving into invasive species and biosecurity section of our agenda today.

SB 746SD2, relating to invasive species, establishes a two year coconut rhinoceros beetle eradication pilot program under the Department of Land and Natural Resources that incentivizes community members to collect and submit the coconut rhinoceros beetle and its larva for compensation. Requires a report to the Legislature first to testify. Department of Agriculture thank you, Jonathan. Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair, Rep Peruso. I'm Chelsea Arnot on behalf of the Hawaiian Basis Species Council. We support the intent of the bill and provided some comments.

I think we really do need to invest in community based programs for coconut rhinoceros beetle, but we also need to do this for the pests that are really widespread and established on some of the islands, like little fire ant too. Currently for the entire state there's only two dedicated staff members that do outreach for coconut rhinoceros beetles.

So really building up the program to support the communities, especially here on Oahu and a Kauai that are really seen the impacts of coconut rhinoceros beetle. The concerns with the measure are reflected in DLNR's testimony and DOAS is just incentivizing bounty programs.

You could have people that have ill will, you know, harvest breeding populations or go into traps and take larva that are really important for data tracking and monitoring. I'm available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify is the DLNR.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair. I'd like to apologize. I didn't introduce myself the last time I came up. Dawn Chang, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, we like the hisc. We support the intent of this bill.

We think that there is whatever creative ways we can to incentivize and attack, you know, this invasive species, in particular Fukunaranocerus beetle. However, we believe that there might be unintended consequence, as Chelsea was saying, perhaps people breeding these so that they can get a higher bounty. We would urge. We support House Bill 643 and Senate Bill 680.

They provide the alternative of supporting the University of Hawaii and providing them greater capacity so that they can continue their efforts. So with that, I'm also available to provide answers to any questions you may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Chang. Next to testify on this measure is Hawaii Farm Bureau. We have you listed two times, so.

Such an important problem. So do I sit back down and come back up? Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. I know we're under some time constraints. Do you have a written testimony in support? We didn't include in our testimony, but it is a concern. So we're glad that his and DLNR brought that up. And I believe DOA also.

We're just concerned or would like some clarity on how it's going to be determined if a beetle or larva was bred by human intervention. Is there a mechanism for that? Because that would be a concern. Again, whenever you do bounties, right, you have people raising these things to collect the bounty on them.

So again, we support the measure and we appreciate those concerns from the departments. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian. Next, we have Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in support, not present in person, and support from the County of Maui, Mayor. And we have Nickolas Olarti via zoom.

Hello, can everybody hear me?

Yes, Please proceed.

I am Nickolas Olarti. I am from Milani High School. I would like to thank you chairs for your time. I am in full support of Bill 746, SC2. I would try to keep this short, so I believe that this bill is necessary to save our coconut trees.

I understand that we do have more unfortunate neighbors like Guam, but I do believe that these coconuts are important as well for our food security and our stability, as other members were saying earlier. So I would like to highlight the fact that coconuts may not be a cash crop.

But they are certainly a very important cultural factor and are part of many locomotives and can be turned into many things such as lotions, desserts, candies, medicine. And there are also a very important emergency service such as, say we needed water services. Coconuts are a good source of emergency water if our sheds were contaminated.

So I believe that maybe, as other members were saying before on the breeding, I believe that maybe we should have more laws or perhaps penalties set up for that.

And so, you know, I would just like to also say that I know I may just be a passionate youth, but I really hope that my age somewhat reaches your ears.

And though while this may not be a pressing matter or certainly ending the world, I do hope that since I made time during school and made time out of my day missing classes, that it must be important of something of concern.

And this is more than just assignment to me because ever since I took AP Environmental Science here, Milani High School, I'm learning so much from my teacher, Ms. Jennifer Kuhar, who I would like to shout out and just going into our agriculture zone, finding those coconut rhinoceros beetles, learning what kind of damage they can cause.

I'm not saying they are monsters or villains, but I do believe that they need to be under control. Thank you chairs for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? We had about 22 other individual testimonies in support. Members, any questions?

Vice Chair Kush and this is a question maybe to Farm Bureau, HISC and DLNR. And I'll just ask whoever maybe has an answer to it. Does anybody have any recommendations to.

To thwart the issue of people breeding populations of these for Is there any other precedent, other bounty programs in the mainland or other places that you guys know of? Jonathan, come on down.

Jonathan.

I want to volunteer myself. Chair, Vice Chair Repruso, Jonathan Ho from the Department of Agriculture. So when you look at most bounty programs, they're designed for vertebrates, not necessarily for invertebrates, in that most vertebrates cannot breed at the rate and to the extent of an invertebrate.

Like, you know, for example, you can get a bag of grass clippings, throw it in your yard, CRB can invest it and you can get that and everyone can make that.

And again, I think, I think when you look at, I think a lot of the testimony from everyone, I think because the program is for so long, it's for two years, right? If you had an open bounty for whatever the cost is, right.

Don't turn in all your green waste, leave it in, leave it in your yard and just go through it once a month. Then you could get a supplemental income, depending on what that is. So to potentially address that, you could limit the bounty to a very specific date and time.

So for example, you could, and I think did this at Ho' Omauhia. You could go to a park that is in an infested area. Everybody comes in, pockets are empty, whatever you go and do what you do and you can then provide that remuneration. So it's very limited.

You can't bring anything and would be very hard to sneak in, you know, and depending on how you're doing, doing the, the compensation, I mean that that's one way to do it because I, I think realistically you're going to have to manage the people that come in and against the cost and or alternatively if you make it very small amount, you know, obviously that that can kind of offset it as well.

And then again, limited submissions. But I would think that that's probably the easiest way to manage the middle. Right. You have very, very limited time frames and then again you set everything up, boom, boom.

And then the next one comes up and nobody can really have time to really do a lot of that stuff over the two years period.

Okay, thank you, Jonathan.

One quick follow up. Sure. The bill currently has like a time gap and a certain amount of potential, potential funding appropriated, but it doesn't have like a financial cap.

If have we done anything like this with invasives before where there's a recommended way to tighten this legislation so people don't create these potentially large breeding grounds to generate stable. You know, hopefully people don't watch this so they don't know the playbook that you just gave them.

But how do we tighten parameters to make this a little bit more palatable to move this forward?

Right. And again. And I think so I guess the way that, you know, we envision. And again, I won't speak for Dylan or for his. I think with regards to the program, I think, right. It's designed to be educational. Right. You're trying to incentivize people to show up with the possibility of getting something for it.

Because generally speaking, most educational outreach and most outreach campaigns come because you're interested. Now you can get people that may not necessarily be interested, incentivized because there's something for them. And I think as long as it's focused to the educational component, I think the program can work.

And I think, I guess to the extent of using a bounty in Hawaii, I'm not aware of one. Maybe somebody else is, but I'm not aware of one. And then, you know, other states that do do them again for vertebrates and what they do is they license everybody.

It's like, you know, if you are licensed, you're registered there, there's all these requirements that are set up. It's not designed for the general, the public in general. Right. And I think that's where you can manage that as well. That's.

So that's another opportunity, I guess if you want to do it that way you can create very specific people that do it. But again, going back to the fact that breeding is not very, again, leave it out in the yard and stuff will happen.

So I'm going to ask one follow up question. Just coming from a neighbor island and a large island, one of the concerns with this bounty program is likely in rural communities. It's like one might be one location for this collection or drop off or two.

So what we're doing is we're also moving these invasives potentially into communities who may not have them for the purpose of the collection of the bounty. Absolutely.

So that's a huge concern where unlike Oahu, where it's not necessarily embedded in all parts or larger parts of the island, where we are trying to isolate in certain communities for no spread, is there language we can put in the measure that will ensure that because people aren't moving their bounty, just like we're trying to address movement of green waste, this is movement of the invasive pest, that it doesn't fly away as you're trying to get, go towards your bounty in a community that doesn't have the infestation.

Right. Like because Hawaii island, for example, Kona, we just started the infestation, we don't have it in Hilo. Department of Ag has offices in Hilo. Hilo as an example. But if we don't have the infestation there, but we have a collection location, we will likely then have an infestation in that community. So I struggle with that.

Again, on Oahu it's a little bit different. Oftentimes legislation doesn't look always at the statewide implication of communities that aren't as spread with CRB as this example in this measure.

Yeah. So I guess going back to the educational component. Right. These types of events again are designed, I think, for things that are generally widespread and you need more community activism to get, you know, to get past it. Using the Kona one. Kona, like this is not something that you would do in Kona.

This is where the Department, the invasive species committees, his and the CRB response team. We have a limited number of beetles found. So now it's hit the ground running. What can you do now to ensure that what is there isn't spreading? Right. And you don't involve the community at this point. It's just dedicate whatever reason.

And maybe you have to involve the community depending on what you find. But I think this is the part where it's like what can we do now with the resources that we have to get it to eradication. Right. I don't think that this program is designed for that.

So like for example, you wouldn't do this on Maui, I mean with a bounty for example, because there's no crb.

So we don't have any parameters though on this like legislation that states what you just said. So I appreciate your comments a lot. But then how. How do we narrow this? What is the target market? Is. Is it for a specific community on Oahu?

So do we need to amend the measure to just to clarify where these programs should or should not be?

Well, so I think maybe again, I think again I think managing. So I think when you look at the department's testimony, right. We were, we were kind of looking at a way to kind of manage how you deal with the distribution of the funds.

So again, if you limit the funds only to events that are, you know, run by DLNR, right. They you know, on specific dates and times and you could then again you would eliminate the movement because nobody can presumably movement move it because you can't bring anything with you to do the redemption.

You have to collect everything on that same date and time. So I think that that's one way of doing it without speaking for dlnr. I mean that's just my guess.

Thank you, Jonathan. I have a question for Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Now which Hawaii Farm Bureau first one.

Brian Miyamoto from Mililani. Brian, can you go into a little bit more detail of just. I think the intention of the measure is has the right intention. So do we say you need to be is because this is for community education.

We're not hoping that people create jobs in industry that you know, we have now trap collectors or this other stream of maybe people business versus community engagement. So do we tighten this by events and programs run by state divisions or biosecurity entities? Because are the his doing this?

Who's making sure they have the right expertise to ensure that the whole process and collection is as safe as possible?

Could you reword your question? Brahmi Moto here On behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau before I address that. And again, this is, you know, kind of all hands on deck. Right. We have our agencies addressing one, trying to get the community involved. We agree with some of the concerns. We don't want to be.

We don't want to create CRB farms. Right. So maybe limiting limited as a pilot program to Oafu. Right. So just for Oahu, which if you heard Jonathan, you know, same may not make sense on Maui, may not make sense on Kauai, so on in Kona or even on Hawaii Island.

So maybe Oahu or maybe Oahu and Kauai, but starting small on Oahu, again, we need some traceability. I like the idea of a registration or a license.

We're, we're going to collect data on those who are coming in with the bounties and we're going to be able to see and if we do maybe a shorter time period, sunset at a year, and if it is effective, there's efficacy there. Then we can continue the program with money being available.

But having data that may demonstrate that it's being effective and reducing in this pilot era or that it's increasing. And if in and the bounty may be a result of increase again, good idea. We want everybody involved, we want to address this pest, but we hate to see this lead to an increase in coconut rhinos.

You know, Jonathan is right. You could be spreading it. Right. But so if there's protocols also on what, what those bounty hunters need to do when they collect them, kill them and then bring them in. So again, developing some protocols, some safeguards and guard rails, but maybe limited it to just a waffle.

That might be a suggestion or way the Legislature goes at this point.

Thank you, Brian. One more question for Jonathan. I, I think limiting and starting it because it did say pilot program. So starting out on Oahu is probably a good idea because I have not had enough coffee this morning.

Can you remind me in if it is already a pest that is like dedicated, embedded in community and not incipient. What is that language.

Like widespread established.

Established. Okay. I think we will tighten some language because by saying establish, we're saying not incipient. So some of the places you said don't have.

I mean, you can have. Yeah, okay. Yes, you're right. No, no, no, no, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I think, yeah, I think that's fine. I think to the extent.

Yes, because I think I want to leave a clause. Stop. Or to make sure we say establish Oahu as a pilot in Establish where there's established.

Yeah. And you know, actually, Brian, I guess, kind of, I guess noting the pilot, I think the other way you could do it, conceivably, if you, I think really want to do like a flat out bounty, is make do it only for, I guess, a very short period of time once and then there's no way to breed.

So you just do it one time for six months because the, the life, the life cycle is longer than or whatever the life cycle tied to the life cycle, so that nobody could breed it because you can only collect because there's no way to breathe. I mean, that's another way to do it, potentially.

Yeah. Thank you. We appreciate your help coming up with ways to remember any further questions, Vice Chair Kush?

Quick one, Jonathan. Sorry. Sure. No, just waiting for you to sit down. Yep. So, you know, listening to this testimony, do you have any kind of precedent or experience that in public outreach campaigns might be.

I mean, I can see how this could get people interested and maybe pay attention to it better, but is there other methodologies for or allocation of taxpayer money to just like straight up outreach programs?

Yeah, you know, I have to say CRB is, I think one of, I think it's a better candidate for outreach compared to a lot of the other invasive species. To the extent that a lot of what it does is very visible. It's.

It, you know, you drive by a golf course and you see all the, like, you see matchsticks, it's kind of hard to miss. And then you have the, the cultural significance of, you know, the cultural significance.

And then you have, I think, the, the use of coconuts or coconut palms as like, I guess, kind of like Hawaii, I think, you know, in quotes, I think, you know, like Waikiki palm trees and stuff like that.

So I think from, to the extent of like education like this pest is I think, I guess, a little better suited to education because it's a lot, it's a lot easier to see and people are a lot more aware of it really without a lot of the programs there.

And you know, and I think to this extent of education, like when you look at us and all the partners, you know, his skin and the invasive species committees, DLNR, a lot of education is out is a lot of it is educating the public for the pests. When you think about like little fire ants, right.

A little fire ants have been here for 30 years and there are still people that have no idea what they are, what the impacts are. And again, you're talking about something that most people can't necessarily see, they don't go outside in their yard. They don't get stung, so they're not necessarily impacted.

They don't necessarily know they have it. Whereas this one, right, you drive on the freeway, you're seeing trees. Depending on where you live, obviously you're seeing damage. So it's a lot easier. Like I've never seen a coconut tree with these big V notches in it or with no leaves and right. It, it piques your interest.

And I think you know, using CRB as maybe the, the, the I guess the pilot for like a statewide, you know, outreach program for other pests I think would be a good thing because as far as I'm aware there's not been like a really massive concerted effort to deal with like LFA or COKI as this has been done.

Members, any further questions? See None. Thank you, Jonathan. We're going to move on to the next measure. We have SB562 SD2 relating to invasive species. Establishes a plant nursery registry program to regulate the sale of nursery stock. Requires certain plant nurseries to register with the Department of Agriculture. Establishes penalties. First to testify Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Thank you. Next to testify is Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Perruso. Chelsea Arnott on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, we will stand on our written testimonies.

Thank you very much. Next we have County of Maui in support. And next we have Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Representatives. My name is Stephanie Easley with CGAPS, the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this Bill. You have our written testimony which contains a long list of states that- other states would requirements for licensing and certifying plant nurseries. We included in that list.

That list has states like Alabama and Rhode Island. There's lots of other states we could have added to demonstrate that this is not what this Bill does is not onerous. It's not something that only big agriculture producing states do.

It requires someone who sells nursery stock to fill out a form online to register with Department of Ag, self certify that they are going to use good practices to keep keep pests out of their plants, and it authorizes the Department of Agriculture to inspect them as they have resources to do so.

Any penalties that for violations of that self certification are civil penalties. Unfortunately the definition of nursery stock now includes fresh fruits and vegetables.

Nursery plants because they are whole plants in soil that people bring home and plant in their yards and property are high risk pathway to spread invasive pests like Little Fire Ant and Coqui Frog. Fruit that we purchase at the grocery store and bring home to our refrigerators just does not pose that same risk.

None of those states on our list or any other state that I could find or any other government or intergovernmental entity that I could find regulates grocery stores and plant nurseries the same way because they have different risks.

So we hope that perhaps this Committee would consider removing fresh fruits and vegetables that are not attached the rest of the plant. And finally, we hope that any nursery registration program will treat growers fairly across the islands by having island specific lists of pests.

If for instance a Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle is found in a nursery on Big Island, the response would probably be different to a Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle being found on Oahu, as we were just discussing.

We suggested in our written testimony how to address that so that there would be nurseries would have to deal with just an island specific short list of pests. Thank you very much for this opportunity and I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, let's see. We don't have anyone else indicating they're testifying on this measure. Let me make sure I'm on the right Bill. Would anyone else wish to testify on this measure? See none, Members questions? I have one question. I'm trying to figure out who to ask Department of Agriculture, I think.

Jonathan, just a quick question for you is in the way that this Bill is written, I think the plant registry program, you know, we're trying to, you know, make sure that we're not bringing in new, any new pests or movement of pests.

So I guess one of the questions are, are we requiring local nurseries in this measure but not holding those importing plant materials to the same standard?

Not necessarily

like whether it was a-

I don't want to call out specific businesses that sell plant material but are not a full nursery that they do other thing sell other products. So it's more retail establishments that have plant material within there significant amounts, not just like one plant but big boxes, you know.

You know. I mean. No, no.

So, so and so when we look at I guess trying to, I guess parity and trying to manage risk, we do recognize that I guess the way that it's set up particularly I think the measure is set up, I think it's trying to regulate, I think the nursery trade in of itself and it is trying to regulate inter island movement and I think importation as well.

Importation particular, well, I would say inter-island and intrastate movement, so within an island. Importation is actually far easier for us to manage because there's only really two ways in either on a boat or on a plane. Realistically we're talking about commercial shipments. Okay.

So those things are very easy to manage to the extent of existing regulation because if it doesn't get passed, it doesn't leave the ports. So those things are a lot easier to manage.

Inter-island movement to some extent is a little bit more difficult, but yet still easier in that again you have basically everything either on a plane or a boat. The regs don't necessarily require inspections for non propagative goods, so cut flowers, fresh fruit and veg.

And then intra-island movement, so within an island. Obviously I think there's, I think intent and I think makes sense to try to manage intra-island within an island movement. It's just how do you do it? I think practically, you know, the Department always uses banana bungee top.

When banana bungee top came, we did on island quarantines they put signs, all kinds of stuff and the quarantines were immediately broken. And again, so when you look at the way the Department has been doing quarantines, we do it on islands basically because within an island just is very, very difficult.

So you know, and I think to add to a comment about like, I think again parity, trying to manage, you know, production of plants which are, you know, no question of high risk. But other goods, you know, again, the flowers themselves, fruits themselves do vector like Little Fire Ant for example.

So like for what is it like Lychee Longan season, for example, Big island. Like I get guys on overtime to stay at Hawaiian and Aloha to try to inspect all the shipments that are coming out because they're, they're finding LFA on the pallets and on, on those shipments. Those are not regulated. Okay.

You know, we've created a program, you know, working with thankfully with Hawaiian and Aloha to make sure that the stuff is inspected. Right. To really lower the likelihood of spread. So and I think right when you look at again the pests, the nursery trade is, is unquestionably a high risk.

But it's not the only risk, I think particularly as it relates to like LFA and Coqui, because those are like, I think they don't follow standard quarantine regulations to the extent that those regulations are tied to specific classes of goods or their host material. Coqui is on everything. LFA are on everything.

I mean we've caught coqui on cars, on boats, on porta potties, pipes. We don't regulate those things. LFA, you know, again, we've seen them on, you know, shingles, pallets, cars. We're not regulating those things. Sometimes we'll find them.

And again, for other things, we inspect the car, staff sees soil and Big Island soil cannot move because of rot. They're removing it. They find LFA in the car. So they, they get them to clean the car, but we can't check the inside of every single car. Right.

So how do you, I guess, manage parity for the nursery trade against all, all pathways of movement? And I think that's where the challenge is. And you know, when you look at, I guess trying to get it done a lot, I mean, there's no resources in this to effectuate it. And we don't disagree.

I think to the extent that, right, people can vouch that they're meeting the requirements, but if you're never checking, it creates kind of this chicken and egg thing. We're posting it on the website that says that they're compliant, but we've never checked to ensure that they're even in compliance or not.

And a lot of these folks, we have no clue who they are. And you know, we're in agreement that, you know, Hawaii is one state that doesn't have a registration or licensing program, that's unquestionable.

But you know, I think how do we go about doing it without resources, I think is going to be a different challenge to the extent that the Department and plant quarantine as it relates is very different from a lot of the other states in that we spend a vast majority of our time on import, whereas other states are the exact opposite.

They spend the vast majority of their time on export certification. We don't do that because you can't ship anything out. It's all prohibited for USDA. So. Right. So there's this weirdness in terms of trying to manage both sides without any resources.

Jonathan, one more quick question. Are you. Does the Department support that amendment to remove fresh fruits and vegetables?

You know, I, I mean, I, I, so, I mean, I, I do agree with the CGAP's testimony to the extent that, yeah, I think regulating a supermarket in of itself because it sells fresh fruit, you know, could consider, could be considered onerous. But again, like I said, it's not to say that they couldn't spread LFA.

I mean, we find LFA on long gone all the time and I'm sure in lychee and all kinds of stuff. So is that going to the Supermarket and then going to people's houses. It's very possible.

I can't say that it isn't because we're not going to the supermarket to determine it, but I know that staff are finding it on those goods now.

And this has been happening for, and you know, again we're talking, I think like, you know, the commercial guys, you know, the bigger, you know, the bigger chain markets, but then you have like these smaller pop ups, for example, at like, like a farmer's market or you have like Chinatown, like there's a lot of smaller movement, guys are bulking and they're distributing.

As we, as we kind of create and scale up this program, should that be included or removed at this stage? To simplify our focus and our efficacy of what we're trying to accomplish.

Yeah. So I think the requirements for a retail establishment need to be different from those that are producing. And this, this, this measure makes no distinction, even though it does cover sale even before we started adding a bunch of stuff of it.

But realistically, sale in of itself is a completely different set of standards than production. Because a seller doesn't necessarily have to do treatment because the plant should be clean before they sell them. Right. They shouldn't be having to treat their crop or the sale-

The, like the, the site where the plants are being sold for a craft fair, for example. That doesn't make any sense, but it, it's, there's no distinction and I think we kind of put something about trying to carve them out, but I, I don't necessarily know what that would look like as, as I stand here right now.

Okay, thank you, Jonathan. Members, any further, further questions?

Just so listening to your- Chair, I'm sorry, I have a question.

Please go ahead. Although it is nearly 11am but please be quick.

Thank you. Listening to your testimony, it made it sound like maybe the Department is not supportive of this because it feels like, you know, nurseries have been kind of historically our entry point of a lot of the top pests or implicated anyway potentially.

And self certification just says you're self certifying with the caveat that if someone says, hey, plants from XYZ Nursery have LFA and you guys go there and it's loaded with LFA, then you can say, hey, you guys certified that you, you guys were clean and you're not. And then there's, you know, statute to work with.

I mean, in my mind that is, Is that not how it is in your mind?

Yeah, so I completely get that because I mean that makes perfect sense. I think from, from, I guess from the, from an implementation standpoint, it makes sense. Okay.

And I think that idea of the Department posting and then, you know, not necessarily being able to determine whether or not we're able to, you know, that the people are actually doing it, because I think the Department has, you know, historically gotten a lot of flack for presumably not managing nurseries.

And I completely understand, I guess, that sentiment to the extent that again, there is no necessary, there's no regulation on the books, per se. But that being said, we're looking at it to the extent of, right.

Well, I'm of the belief, and again, I think maybe this is just me, that regulations should be enacted with commensurate resources to ensure that the regulations are actually being effectuated. And when you're looking at this, I mean, and again, I have no clue how many nurseries there are.

I think I was looking at the NASS, National Agriculture, the USDA one. It's about 1200 statewide right now. Certified nursery program for the Department is 120, 127 I believe we have right now. So you're talking a 10 times increase in nurseries that need to be regulated. I have no clue how big these are.

And you're now talking about the entire property, whereas the certified nursery program, it's specific areas. So you're talking orders of magnitude more work to look and should that be done? I don't disagree with it. Right, because those are critical control points. If you can manage the nursery trade, or actually any other trade, that's a critical control point.

To the extent that you can manage spread, that's great for everyone, but we don't have the resources for it, you know, like right now. Like right now, plant quarantine, you know, we're kind of doing.

We gotta go. And I'll take this offline, but I'm going after something different. Thank you. Yeah, appreciate it.

Members, any further questions? We are going to move on to the next measure, SB 252 SC2, relating to invasive species. Clarifies that the importation of any item or material infested or infected with an insect or other animal disease or other pests is prohibited.

Authorizes the Department of Agriculture to inspect any item imported or moved into the state from another part of the continental United States or between the Hawaiian Islands. Prohibits the sale of merchandise that a seller knows is infested or infected with a pest. Authorizes the Department of Ag to compel the quarantine, treatment or destruction of certain materials.

Clarifies penalties. First to testify is Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Thank you, Jonathan. Next we have Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Chelsea Arnott on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. We're in support of this measure, but definitely want to acknowledge Jonathan's comments. To really increase the amount of commodities that are being inspected before beyond agricultural commodities. I mean, this is a huge increase in force.

I mean, it's probably going to like quadruple the amount of inspectors that are needed to do this. But is it needed? Yes. Should we be having these measures heard and seeing this type of action being talked about and movement forward?

Yes, I think this is really important because like Jonathan mentioned, just with CRB and little fire ant and coqui frogs, it's not just agricultural commodities, it's other, other commodities. And then we have threats on the horizon like red and poured fire ant that definitely are not specific to agricultural commodities. So I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you, Chelsea. We also had testimony from Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support, the Mayor's Office of the County of Maui in support. Now we have Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species here in person.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. You have our written testimony. I just want to highlight to follow up. We absolutely agree that the Hawaii Department of Agriculture desperately needs more resources. These inspections of any item is not required that they inspect everything coming into the state. These would be administrative inspections. Hawaii Department of Ag could develop risk profiles.

If, for instance, tile coming from a spotted lanternflying area has been found to have that pest, maybe they would want to take a look at those tiles, which now they do not have the authority to do.

So while we recognize the capacity issue, you know, this is like a kind of like the nursery program, like a first step, like trying to figure out how to get a handle on the problem.

I just wanted to highlight, when you read the description of the bill, that it prohibits the sale of merchandise that a seller knows to be infested with the pest and authorizes Department of Ag to compel the treatment. That has actually been removed from the bill.

The Hawaii Department of Agriculture suggested its removal because they said it was duplicative of the authority in the Chapter 72 administrative rules. We do not believe that is actually the case. The Hawaii.

The Chapter 72 rules allow the chief of the plant quarantine branch on a case by case basis when they know that something is infested in a public area of the store, like bags of mulch with CRB larva, to stop the sale of that item.

There is no blanket prohibition on someone knowingly selling pest infested merchandise either in law or regulation. The compelling the treatment of items for sale for the public. Also again, it would be that case by case situation, not a blanket prohibition.

And also that same amendment removed this language that would protect the HDOA and the State of Hawaii from potential litigation for actions that say you can't sell your pest infested items or you have to pay to treat them. Actually, I believe that's extremely important language that would protect the state and department of ag from potential litigation.

And on the second page of our testimony, we outline how you could put it back in. Thank you very much and I really appreciate this opportunity.

Thank you very much. Next to testify is Hawaii Farm Bureau. We have testimony from the Maui and Chamber of Commerce in support, Hawaii Forest Industry Association in support, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in support, Purple Maya in support, Big Island Invasive Species in support, and several individuals.

Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure, please join us and state your name for the record.

Aloha. Pikachu Shelby, Billionaire. Back again once again. I want to support this bill and I guess I want to give my solutions to the past three bills with invasive species.

So the way we collect circumstances CRB is, it may sound stupid to you guys, if we got a coconut tree, we get a bucket, use duct tape or whatever and we put a solar light. One of my friends Pro-Act Products Nate does it. So the CRB comes out at night and they're attracted to the light.

Then they drop in the bucket. That's how we collect them. And then you kill them just like that. I'm not sure why it's so complicated. You need massive resources to do these kind of things. When you Google where the CRB come from, they come from Southeast Asia, so Thailand, Vietnam.

Word in the street is a lot of this stuff is coming through Home Depot. That's right, Home Depot and those big organizations because they're buying the cheaper wood not from America. They're buying from Vietnam and Thailand.

So when they're bringing the woods from Vietnam and Thailand, the bugs are already inside in the mulch and the moisture in the fertilizer. So by the time they get sent to the stores and you're buying your product, it's already too late. You definitely need customers border patrol, which we don't have.

It's on National Geographic where you can bust these people. You don't see the dogs at the ports. Which is why we're trying to work on Dole to get this enforcement. They're definitely gonna need more appropriation resources as we already discussed in these previous bills.

For the fire ants, I highly recommend you get anteaters and you hire them because you don't have to pay for labor and insurance. I'm not sure if you guys can pass these laws, but the ant eaters will eat the fire ants. The coqui frogs. You got to eat them. We eat frogs. They taste like chicken wings.

They taste great. I eat snake too. Just eat the snakes. I'm not sure what the problem is. Turn it into a delicacy. People eat snails and call it escargot. Call some French chef, cut that CRB up and sell it protein. Maybe it's last long stay strong. Maybe it cures ED. I don't know.

If you got to put in a bill, go ahead, put it on Capitol Hill. Pikachu doesn't really care. But if I CRB, I'm going to kill it. I'm going to smash it. I'm not going to talk about it. But if you want to give a reward system, sure. Reward people for collecting CRB. We'll turn it in.

Just you want it alive or dead? That's the only question. Thank you very much. Aloha.

Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Members, questions. Seeing none. We're going to move on to our final measure, SB 1100 SD2 relating to biosecurity. And it has a very long description so I would look that you look at your hearing notice.

But basically it establishes a lot of statute measures to strengthen biosecurity starting with adjusting the Department of Agriculture's title to adding biosecurity, establishing a Deputy Director. We will start with the testimony on this measure as this is has a lot of testimony. First, is Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Pest Control Board.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Candice Ito. I'm an Executive officer at the Department of Commerce. Unfortunately, Executive Officer Green could not make it. So we are standing on our written testimony with comments.

Thank you very much. Next we have DCCA. Thank you so much. Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. We provided comments on this measure and like you said, you don't want to read the description because there is so much on it and it really is addressing a lot of the needs to increase and improve biosecurity in Hawaii.

One action within the bill is moving the Hawaii Invasive Species Council to the Department of Agriculture. And we just don't see the need for this. I think there is a need to constantly evaluate the council and its effectiveness at achieving its purpose.

So within our testimony we outlined some actions to really improve the coordination of the co chairs, which are the directors of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture, increasing the amount of meetings and some other actions and also making a five year timeline to evaluate the council and that can include the administration of it.

Mahalo. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next to testify is DLNR, Chair Chang.

Good morning. Chair and Vice Chair and members of the committee. Dawn Chang, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We're here to provide comments to this bill similar to HISC and I think DOA, DLNR and HISC is in alignment on this, which is that the transfer of HISC to DOA we would.

Our preference is that it stay with DLNR and that that is we support the intent of the bill. We support DOE needs greater capacity. DOA needs greater capacity.

But I think until DOA has the capacity to continue having HISC with DLNR and as Chelsea indicated, I think what we recognize is we probably need to do some things at DLNR structurally to make it a little different and more independent.

They currently fall under our LNR172, like what we did with Kirk Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission and Mauna Kea and Ahamoku. They have their own DLNR ID number. So it doesn't get confused that it's part of like it's like it's part of dlnr. They are an independent entity.

So I think both Chair Hurd and I recognize with Chelsea we need to do better. We need to have better coordination. So that is our comment. I'm available for any questions. A little offline. I don't know if this is being viewed by anybody else, but yes, it is.

But we really, I think we very much support the House Bill 427 very similar, but it doesn't transfer his to the DOA. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Chair Chang. Next we have the University of Hawaii system. I don't see them present. Just checking. No. It with comments. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

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

Thank you. Next we have Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species.

Aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. You received our very long written testimony. There's a lot in this bill. I just wanted to highlight a few points of it. The first is the word state on the last line of page 22.

This word places all of the biosecurity initiatives of any department of the state under the newly created Deputy Chairperson for Biosecurity. This is an unusual provision.

You know, we believe that each Department has a role to play in biosecurity and the head of that department who is appointed by the Governor should be in charge of their own initiatives and not be overseen by a deputy from another department.

We also believe that the HISC should remain where it is really interested and fascinated by the comments of making it more independent and changes that could possibly improve the functioning of the HISC. And we hope that you will do that.

The next thing I wanted to highlight trying to go quick, Section 27 of the bill again, we're back to that 150A-8 the authority to regulate within an island and between islands.

This bill takes away that authority, which is one of the implementing authorities for the Chapter 72 amendment and replaces it with requirements that every agricultural producer within the state have their product inspected by HDOA prior to moving inter island.

The requirements that it puts on ag producers in the state are actually more onerous than and ag producers bring things from outside the state. Ag producers within the state would be subject to a criminal penalty for violations. Ag producers outside the state only a civil penalty.

We think, you know, this is going to be some islands don't even have an ag inspector. So it's going to be very difficult and we hope that you will consider putting back in the language that allows HOA to regulate within an island and between islands.

And finally section 22 of the bill creates the Biosecurity Emergency Response Program program, which sounds like a great idea, but we hope that it can include county and state employees the program authorizes the HDOA chairperson to provide pay and liability protection to individuals who are not state or county employees.

They will be so those individuals will be selected by the chairperson based on criteria established by the chairperson and receive a rate of daily pay established by the chairperson, including pay for participating in continuing education, professional education and training.

We hope these opportunities will be available to existing state and county employees to efficiently build up biosecurity capacity within the state. Mahalo. And I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you again.

Thank you. Hawaii Cattlemen's Council on Zoom.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Nicole Galase on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. We stand on our written testimony in support. Mahalo.

Thank you. Big Island Invasive Species Council via Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. This is Franny Brewer from Big Island Invasive Species Committee. We also submitted written testimony and we do stand on that. We, we are very excited actually about the interest that this legislature has taken in invasive species this session and we really support a lot of the measures that are in this bill.

But we also have some concerns about the the proposed move of the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council to HDOA and sort of echoing what Stephanie Easley had mentioned about putting all biosecurity measures in one area.

One of the things that we always go back to is the definition of invasive species as laid out in both federal and Hawaii state law, which is that invasive species are alien species that negatively impact the environment, the economy or human health and in Hawaii way of life. So it's really a broad range.

Invasive species are not just agriculture. Agriculture is one sector of the economy that could be impacted by invasive species, but it's much broader than that.

And I think putting this, you know, the purpose of the council was really to bring together all the different bodies in the state that have a role, such as Department of Health, Department of Transportation, the university and the HISC really does a good job of bringing those together and representing all of those interests.

Because invasive species is so broad in Hawaii. A lot of the, you know, we get a lot of our funding from the grant program from the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. And I would say that about 80% of our projects are not projects that would fall under the mandate of Department of Agriculture.

It would be a completely separate set of work that they don't currently engage in. So this would be adding more to the plate of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, which I think at this point is probably not the direction that we want to go in. For instance, the core work that we do at the ISCs.

We started out as early detection and eradication of invasive plant species. So trying to get ahead of the next Miconia or the next Albizia. Right. What are those things that are out there that are just getting started? And that's the work that we've been doing consistently for two decades.

Most of those plants are not noxious weeds because the noxious weed law was written in 1992 before the HISC and the ISCs and all of this was even set up. So a lot of the work that we're doing is on things that are, that have the potential in the future to impact our watersheds.

And we see a lot of interest and support from DLNR on that because they are trying to support us in preventing those things from getting into our forests and impacting our watersheds. So really just want to ask that this bill be reconsidered to remove that section. And thank you very much for allowing me to give this testimony.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Sierra Club of Hawaii and intern.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka with the Sierra Club Hawaii. We submitted written testimony just raising significant concerns about the movement of HISC under the HDOA, as others have mentioned. I'll just add that to the previous testifier's point.

Watershed impacts is probably one of the most serious and concerning impacts of invasive species in terms of how it interrupts the water cycle and our ecological and cultural integrity.

And you know, I think that's something that's well under the purview of DLNR rather than HDOA, which is more now the focus on its own important mission of food production. But with that, happy to answer any questions and thank you for your all of your attention to be able to hear this session.

Thank you. Next, we have retail merchants of Hawaii via Zoom. Not present, with comments. Next testifier is Hawaii Ant Lab via Zoom.

Hi, thank you very much. I appreciate the time to give testimony. I'm Michelle Montgomery. I'm the manager of Hawaii Ant Lab. We stand on our testimony, our written testimony, and echo pretty much everything that has been presented so far by the HISC, DLNR, CGAPS, BIISC, Sierra Club.

We believe that SB 1100 does a lot to address overarching invasive species issues and biosecurity, which is very much needed. We're really excited that there is a lot of interest in this shown in SB 1100 and the House Bill 427.

But for this particular bill, there are still some pretty big concerns with the reality of restructuring the Department of Agriculture to be able to do an overarching oversight of all invasive species issues in Hawaii. Implementation of that type of work and the impacts that it may have to multi agency coordination, funding availability for HAL for us and our partners.

And so that's all outlined in our testimony, our written testimony, as well as some suggestions. I do want to add a little bit to that testimony in regards to the creation and appointment of the Deputy Chairperson of Value Security, if this is to happen.

As stated in our testimony, the position should absolutely be a subject to legislative confirmation. And since this position would in fact be charged with overarching invasive species issues, not just in agricultural pests, any candidate should have some kind of cross sector background in regards to invasive species.

They should have a working knowledge of invasive species issues that would impact natural area or natural resources, conservation efforts, urban and residential areas as well as agriculture. This would better prepare any Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to be able to address cross sector invasive species issues and plan collaborative initiatives with the partner agencies, communities, and various industries.

I think that is a very important thing for consideration and other than that, I think everything is pretty clear in our written testimony regarding opposition to moving the HISC and concerns over the funding issues. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next is Lori Luers via Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Lori Luers and there's been a lot of excellent testimony today from multiple organizations. So I hope that it strengthens these testimonies that I am here as a concerned Oahu resident.

In addition to being a concerned resident, I also work with monitoring coral reef ecosystems and I've visited Pacific Island nations at varying levels of invasive species invasions and mitigations. I've also personally worked with the Department of Conservation in Aotearoa and seen the success of coordinating resources and responsibilities across multiple departments.

I respectfully understand the overall intent of this measure. Everyone's echoed. Increasing the DOA's focus on biosecurity will definitely be crucial to the successful management of these priority pests like little fire ant, coqui frog, CRB, and other high impact species.

However, I strongly oppose moving HISC from its current position from being administered under DLNR to be administered under under the DOA. And that's because HISC supports projects like the Island Invasive Species Committees. It acts as a second line of defense to stop invasive species from spreading into watersheds and backyards.

And of course biosecurity, as was just mentioned, is not just for agriculture. We should really talk about this in terms of protecting tourism, human health, transportation, marine resources, and watershed health statewide. Also, pretty impressed that HISC and DLNR have successfully raised millions in federal funds for biosecurity and invasive species management.

So any interruptions in this funding and HISC's funding and function could lead to irreparable damage from current high priority invasive species responses. And managing invasive species and biosecurity is too big for any one department and we've seen this exemplified in other countries and areas like Aotearoa.

And again, this bill has lack of clarity in regarding how his could be facilitated under the DOA. So with all the testimony so far today, I think we can all agree that, you know, CRB is devastating our coconut trees. More ant samples are returning as positive for little fire ants.

And we can all agree that this is a critical time. And making a disruption like this right now would be devastating for a fight against invasive species. Especially in light of the fact that UA has had little engagement so far and faces difficulties in filling critical positions, spending allocated funds and controlling existing priority pest populations.

And such a destruction could set us on a path similar to other Pacific island nations that have lost all their coconut trees and most of their native species.

Can you please summarize your testimony?

Okay. Yeah. I'm concerned that Hawaii could be forever changed if right now, during this critical moment, if there are any interruptions to funds and efforts and decisions about management structure are not thoroughly and meticulously thought out. So I back HISC comments, DLNR's comments, Ant Lab's comments to assess the efficacy and follow the actions that they suggested. Thank you. Mahalo.

Thank you. Melissa Chimera. Not present. Would anyone wish to testify on this measure? Seeing none. We're going to move to decision making. Members, any questions? I apologize, no. Members, any questions? Seeing none, we're going to move to decision making. Just let me get back to that page on our agenda. Members, thank you for being here.

Thank you for all of the testimony for SB 1100 we have- we had over 100 testimonies, so we appreciate everyone's patience. We're starting with SB 177 SD 1 relating to aquaculture.

We are going to move this forward and create a House Draft 1, change our effective date to July 1, 3000 create tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style and notate the appropriation requests for this in the Standing Committee report. Members, any questions? Concerns? See none. Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB 177 SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye and noting the excused absence of Representative Ward. [roll call]. Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving to SB 890 SD 2 relating to business regulation. We want to create a House Draft 1, change the effective date to July 1, 3000, make tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And then we also want to clarify the language around Ko that we want to to do the country of origin similar to macadamia nut legislation and be able to ensure that its poi is a value added product. But there are other products in there to retain shelf life as well as water. It is not just poi.

So we want to strengthen the language and insert Kalo and that is what we are labeling for the percentage of 100% similar to other labeling laws. Members, any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB 890 SD 2, the chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments and noting the excused absence of Representative Ward for this vote and all further votes unless there's a change to that. Is there any no's, any reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, vice chair. Moving on to SB 1276 SD 1 relating to agriculture. We're going to create a House Draft one change the effective date to July 1, 3000, make 10 tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. We would like to add a savings clause. And clar- clarify the definition of roasted coffee.

And that will be all. Members, questions, concerns? See none. Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB 1276 SD 1. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Is there any no's or reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to agricultural theft. SB 763 SD 2 important measure that we need to move forward. I do want to create a House Draft 1. Make tech amendments for clarity, consistency and silent defect. The date to the house date of July 1, 3000. And on page four, line 16, page five, line 11, it is the deputy director.

We just want to confirm that that is the kind of authority over this program. While creating the assistant chief to focus on the program work and then amend page 4, line 6 and 7 to include focus on the offenses listed under Section 708-835.55 involving the theft of an agricultural product or commodity.

And then on page seven, line 2 and 7, the indication of Board of Ag is the authority to define where funding goes. We want to make that the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and give them direct authority to make that decision. Members questions or concerns? See none. Vice chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on SB 763 SD 2 recommendation is to pass with amendments. Is there any no's or wrs? Okay. Seeing none. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Moving on to SB 1249, SB1 relating to agriculture, another agricultural crimes measure. We we're going to create a House Draft 1, change the effective date to July 1, 3000. Make tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Notate the HDOA funding needs in the Standing Committee report for staffing. All the things to effectuate this legislation.

We do want to take the AG's language recommendations from their testimony and match it to the Companion House Bill 859 HD 1. And we do want to take the Hawaii Island Office of the Prosecuting Attorney Attorney's recommendation. A slight change to cross out the probation or language that they indicated in their testimony and that is it.

Members, questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 1249 SD 1 recommendation is to pass with amendments. Is there anybody voting no or with reservations? Seeing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, vice chair. Moving on to SB 1257 SD 1. As we hope to effectuate this law or Duke's Law, we do want to acknowledge the loss of not just CR but others in our community. And we need to move forward and do something and this law can this potential statute can help move this forward.

So it's very important that we create a House Draft 1 and change the effective date to July 1, 3000. Make tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. We want to notate the appropriation in the Standing Committee report.

And then we're going to work with the Attorney General in hopes that they will hear this in the next committee to create more structure around each individual offense as indicated in their testimony. And that is all for that measure. Members, questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you. Voting on SB 1257 SD 1, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Is there any reservations or no's? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, moving on to SB 328 SD 1 relating to taxation. We're going to create a House Draft 1 and change the effective date to July 1, 3000. Make tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style. We're going to adapt- Adopt Do Tax's recommendations on page two, line eight to 16, notated in their testimony.