House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Hey, Good morning, everybody. Sorry for being so loud. I startled the Chair of Public Safety. My name is Mark Ash. My name is Mark Hashem. This is the chair on the Committee on Water, joint with the Committee on Public Safety. To my left is the Chair of Public Safety, Representative Della Belatti.

It is Tuesday, March 11, 2025. 9:00 a.m. and we are in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. And I need to make some statements before we start on there. There's no set time limit. We're not going to have a hard time limit, but try to keep it to two minutes.

If you go beyond that, I'll ask you to sum it up. This is morning. This is a morning hearing. So we have floor session at 12. So please, everybody be aware of that. For everybody that is on Zoom, please be mute.

Please mute your yourself and turn off your video while you're waiting to testify until you get called. If you're on Zoom, please do not have any trademark material with you or in the background because we will get knocked off of YouTube. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, we will try to get you back on.

But if we can't, well, too bad. In the event of network failure, we will reschedule this hearing and that's it. And first up, we have SB11 relating to vegetation management near utility lines. First up, we have DCCA with comments.

Chairs, vice chairs, Members.

Okay, next up, we have DLNR in opposition.

Aloha. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Walker. I serve as the statewide Fire Protection Forester for DLNR, Forestry and Wildlife. The Department stands in strong opposition to this bill.

In short, it would grant the rights to the benefits of the easement and place the responsibility and liability upon the state and private landowners for the easement. I'm available for any questions that you may have.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, you have PUC with comments. Leo, is the PUC here? Okay, next up, we have IBEW Local 1260. Okay, next we have Hawaii Association of Dust, Hawaii Association for Justice with comments. Evan? Nope, not here. Hawaiian Electric in support.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Wendy Oda and I'm here on behalf of Hawaiian Electric. We have submitted our written testimony in support of bill with requested amendments.

Hawaiian Electric understands the community's continued concerns about wildfire risk and believes this bill is a first step in addressing their concerns and creating a framework for moving forward in helping to address public safety and system reliability. Thank you for the opportunity to add to our testimony and I'm Available for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau with comments. Brian.

Good morning Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. I'm Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony providing comments. Do apologize Chair for the late testimony.

You know, Hawaii's farmers and ranchers recognize the devastating impact that that wildfires can have not just to our communities and natural resources, but also to agriculture. And farmers and ranchers can actually help with wildfires with their land management and stewardship. We do appreciate the intent of the measure.

However, we do have concerns about the potential impact in burdens on Hawaii's farmers and ranchers. One, the cost the burden cost to farmers maintaining vegetation to meet new requirements can be costly and and labor intensive, especially for small scale or family farm owned farms or ranches.

Maybe some financial assistance or caution could be incorporated if this Bill moves forward. Also, risk of liability issues if a property owner, small farmer, rancher cannot immediately comply due to financial or logistical constraints. Will they be held liable for any fires that occur? Clear liability protection should be considered.

Again we talk about farmers and ranchers and their razor thin margins, sometimes not even breaking even. This is another cost that could affect our ability to produce the food, feed, fiber, fuel and floriculture that Hawaii needs broad authority for utility companies. The bill gives electric utility companies the ability to enter private property to remove vegetation.

Clear notification, engagement, property owners should be required before any action is taken. We understand that there is some certified mail, phone calls, other things in there. But again, farmers and ranchers aren't always the easiest to reach. They're out in rural areas.

Potential crop damage without clear guidelines, vegetation removal by utility companies could disrupt farming operations, damage crops or remove windbreaks that protect fields from erosions. Again, farming is unique. Without a true understanding what that ag operation is, there could be potential negative impacts to that farm or ranch.

While wildfire protection is important, this bill should not create excessive burdens on farmers and ranchers who are already managing their land responsibly. Again, we're asking for support for farmers and ranchers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Kamehameha Schools. The comments.

Morning Chair Hashem, Chair Belatti, Members of the Committee, Vice Chairs, Steve Tevis for Kamehameha Schools. We have submitted comments but really what this is we would like to point out is many of these easements are decades old, centuries old. A lot of them have no compensation.

They did it for community service that the utilities could run over this bill would put some burdens, especially financial burdens, on those landowners. So we agree with the Farm Bureau, we agree with DLNR. We think this is premature.

We like the idea, don't get me wrong, but there was no consultation with, I think, any of the landowners when the bill was introduced. You can tell from the beginning, if you look at the original SB11, it's just a utility bill.

These are complex issues, a lot of different moving parts because the landowners are different in what degree they are small, large farmers, nonprofits and all. So we would ask that the Bill be deferred.

And I think already there's two concurrent results that's been introduced regarding a working group, and we think that would be the better way to go or to have the chairs informally convene a working group. And Kamehameha Schools would more than be happy to participate here to answer any questions. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. That's. Anybody on Zoom? Nobody on Zoom. Okay, anybody else wishing to testify?

Henry Curtis, Life Land. I believe I sent in testimony. Okay, go ahead. Electric lines are the purview of the Public Utilities Commission. The Public Utilities Commission should be addressing this issue. They opened a non docket that preemptively and illegally banned any public participation. I repeat, preemptively and illegally banned any public participation.

And they have not issued any decision on. On electric lines dealing with fire in 19 months. It is the purview of the Public Utilities Commission to address this issue. They should be involving all stakeholders, should be able to intervene, and there should be a full discussion at the Public Utilities Commission. Thank you.

Okay, Henry, I don't have your. I don't have you. Can you give it to them in the front? Okay, thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify? See? None. Members, are there any questions?

Go ahead for Henry Curtis. So were you standing in opposition to passing this bill or this bill?

Yes, opposition.

Anybody else?

Public Utilities Commissions, please. What is the timeline for the docket that appears to have been initiated? And what I'm interested in is I understand that that docket is covering topics of, like, the wildfire maps. And can you explain a little bit about what's going on in that area?

Yeah, so the docket we mentioned in the testimony is focused on reviewing and evaluating Hawaiian Electric's wildfire mitigation plan. And part of that plan does discuss their vegetation management program. So I believe this docket would be the appropriate venue for developing vegetation management rules.

Okay, so can you comment on the timeline? And then with respect to the wildfire maps, is The PUC in that docket going to be dealing with just wildfire maps with respect to HICO or with generally overall or what is the intersection? What is the, what is happening with wildfire maps within this docket, HICO has.

Developed wildfire risk maps based on like, their infrastructure. And so that is part of the proceeding. And we were aware that, you know, other states have done their PUCs, have done a lot of work on wildfire maps with their utilities. So that's definitely an area we want to explore more.

In terms of timeline, we intend to make a decision on the wildfire mitigation plan by September. And both KIUC and HICO file their plans annually, every January.

One last question. What is the process for the public to participate in that docket?

We allowed intervention. Life of the Land was the only entity that applied to intervene. I believe the intervention window has closed, but we are hosting two public meetings on April 23rd and 24th and intend to collect input from the public at those meetings.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing or anybody. Go ahead. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for Hiko, please. I guess my question would be, what is the current setup? How is it set up currently as far as addressing these concerns?

Currently, sorry. We currently have an inspection program and also a cycle of which we do vegetation management. So we do go around the island, we check, and we then do the work to schedule and clear the vegetation. So we do have a system in place that does it. Again, you know, that's what we're trying.

We're, we're maintaining right now.

So what would be the improvement of this Bill based on what is currently being done, which I, I, I'm hearing is pretty sufficient as far as addressing the concern?

Well, in terms of the Bill, it does provide us with some access abilities to access some of the lands that we can't. In some cases, we don't have easements and we need to access. So it does provide us with that ability. So we don't have easements all over. That covers every single line.

So we do need to have that sort of piece. And also, in, in the cases where we've added some amendments, it is not very easy to get access to people's property. Sometimes they don't allow us to get on the property.

There are gates that then stop us from one place to the other, especially in rural areas, like the Farm Bureau said, right? They have gates and things to keep us out. So it's not as easy just because we have an easement. Sometimes our easements are very far into the property.

We have to gain access, we have to clear trails and. And those things. So it, it does provide some of that information or ability for us when we don't have easement. So there, there are some, you know, things in there that allows us to, you know, know, improve our process, shall we say?

Go ahead.

Thank you. So currently, does he pay for all of this vegetation clearance?

Yes.

And, and with this new Bill, would he still pay for all of that vegetation clearance?

So, because this would require that we have additional work, there's clearance requirements in the Bill that we would ask for, you know, some recovery for the additional cost.

And who would you pursue this reimbursement with?

So we would be hoping that that would be part of the Bill so it probably within the PUC realm of we can recover the additional costs.

Okay. And I'm sorry, I don't understand the answer to that. So who would pay for that? So it would go back to the ratepayers then.

Right.

For the additional cost, like a special assessment or something.

We haven't determined how it would be in terms of what the, you know, what the cost is. So. Again. Right. It would be the additional cost, not the total cost. We.

We have some of that now, so we would have to see what those costs are to determine, you know, what that would be and how would it be included.

All right, thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Question. Anybody else? Representative.

Thank you. So are you just clearing the easement for where the lines are going? I mean, are we afraid of lines snapping and hitting the ground, or is it where they're connecting to poles?

So when we clear, we clear the corridor. So it's the poles. The area. Right, the poles. And from the line outside, we clear. So if we believe that, you know, there's a tree that might fall, we would clear. So there's an identified sort of corridor.

So all those spaces that you currently have east midsor access, are you currently. Yes, that's part of.

That's part of our, you know, our, Our process again. Right. Is we don't. We do clear. If it's eminent, we clear it, you know, to that point. However, trees grow at different rates. They grow based on where it's located, what kind of tree it is. So we do our best to clear what we can.

People call us, and we go and we check it and we clear if we need to and do all those things. So, yes, there's, you know, it's a community, people asking, and then our system going through and doing.

I'm sorry, it might have been in your testimony. But what percentage do you have access to currently and what percentage of your lives?

We, so we're, we essentially have the right to, to. We'll access it when we can. I can't tell you how many percent of what easements we have because some of the easements, some of the lines are on right. Are on the public right of ways and things of that sort.

But there are places where we don't have any easements. But for the most part, you know, a lot of the easements are in state property because they're out on the mountainsides and everything. So we do have those, but it is still hard to get to some of them. We have to fly helicopters to.

We can't, you know, just go up there and access. We have to clear trails and those things. So there's for, you know, these high wildfire areas, you know, there could be, you know, a lot of places where access is difficult. And so we're clearing trails and doing those things. So sorry, I don't have a percentage.

I don't have a percentage. Okay, thank you.

Two questions for you. First, one should be easy and I'll start with the good stuff. So there's complicated things moving pieces in this Bill on the piece about tree trimmers and work being done. I mean this seems like it's really kind of specialized work.

So do you have any problems with that language in here about the requirements needed for those people who are going to be doing this vegetation clearing?

No, we believe that we will have, with our increasing staff and everything to cover some of that and then all also with the third party people doing the clearing. So we should have sufficient.

Then the second question is in the area of kind of like these, these agreements, these easements is part of the solution, something where you and private landowners can renegotiate easements to make sure that responsibilities for clearing access that could be worked out more within the setting of. Between private parties.

Yes and no. So when we negotiate easements in some cases, right, it's if. And we have to look out in terms of what is reasonable for, for the ratepayers and everything to bear the cost and those things. So yes, we try to do negotiate and get reasonable terms.

In some cases, you know, it, the state, the counties and everything, we, we are sort of subject to their conditions. We don't have the ability to say we don't accept it if we have to be on your property. And in some cases the, our, our lines are on the state property.

We can't move them out because they're in, you know, the forested lands and everything going on hill. So we do our best to negotiate the terms in, in terms of that. So yes, we do take the time to negotiate with the landowners to see if we can.

If you're asking, can we go back and renegotiate all the easements, that would be a time consuming effort to go ahead and do. We do have, like he said, a lot of easements that go back, you know, since the beginning of time, shall I say.

And so to have to negotiate all of those would be a large effort and in some cases they would then, you know, maybe ask for more compensation because what was included in the previous easement is, is now we're asking for more requirements. So it can get complicated in that respect.

So I understand it can be complicated, but between two private parties, I mean, if you want to ensure safety of the community, I mean, I'm not suggesting that it needs to be done with like all of your folks, but if you have large landowners with whom you have easements with and to protect the community, isn't that something that private property folks can do to renegotiate and find the best so that we don't need legislation, is what I'm saying, Is that an also an option?

It's an option that we can look at, yes. Again, right. If what they're asking is that again, we have to look at where it is, what we're talking about, what they're asking us for. So it is an option.

Until we see the exact language, it'd be hard for me to say that it's, it's, you know, it can happen as easily as possible. But yes, it is an option.

Okay, I guess. Can I, can I follow up with a question for KS?

Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Chavez, I think you know where I'm going with this, right? I mean, part of this solution and what's complicated about this is that there's multiple private landowners that are involved, there's lots of city and state county agencies. And look, I get it, it would be very difficult to renegotiate reasons with any government entity.

But is part of the solution for private parties to renegotiate easements and agreements so that for the protection of the community, certainly large landowners and private companies could do this work and we don't need this.

I agree. I think there's a provision in the Bill that says subject to, you know, contractual relations or something of that nature. One of the problems for KS is some of it is so old it's perpetual easement. We're not getting compensated for it.

So yeah, we would like to renegotiate because if we're going to be taking on some of the risks, you know, we're not getting compensated for the easement. So I mean, for your, your question, Chair. Yeah.

At least for private owners, we would, we would be willing to renegotiate the easements to put in whatever language that both parties can agree to.

One last follow up question. Is this something that should be done in the PUCC docket or can it be done? Are you a party in the PUC docket?

We're not a party in the PUC docket, but I would leave that to the PUC to decide how they would do that. But yeah, we're not a part of the PC docket.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

You're not.

I got a question. You're not particularly opposed to this, opposed.

To the language of the Bill, but not the idea that things would, that at some point if you, if it's better for everyone, it's easier that it be in statute, but something that's agreed upon by all because like I think you have DLNR, you have state county easements, you have small farmers, large landowners.

And I think one of the problems is it's not one size fits all. You're going to need, you're going to need some work to kind of get maybe even tiers of language on depending on where it is. And like Hiko said, I agree it's depending where the easement is.

If they're flying in with helicopters versus they can walk 100 yards into the property. That's two different things. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

Sure. I have another question.

Sorry. Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you. I agree with what Rep. Belatti was saying and I have a question for you. I'm sorry, I should have asked you when you're standing there KSP. So I'm sorry for this really elementary question, but as far as easements, do you get compensated for easements on your property?

Some we do, some we don't.

Okay.

Depending. Depending, I guess, when it was given. And also like I said, some of our easements is over a century old.

And, and for easements that, let's say the ones that you don't get compensated for, do you hold the liability for what happens on that easement?

I wouldn't, I wouldn't know without having the easement in front of me right now with the language. But I know there's some easements we don't get compensated for. It's just given as a community service. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. I have one last question with PUC. Thank you, Chair. And it's related back to Brett Bilates. Question is, without this legislation, can parties just have conversation and address these concerns and work it out?

So I think what would happen is the PUC would develop more specific guide or rules regarding like the clearance distance from between the electric line and the vegetation. But I think it would be helpful to have statute that is a little more broad and, you know, takes a step towards defining the utilities obligations.

I hope that makes sense.

You actually answered my question. Go ahead.

So is the answer yes, you can have conversation without legislation to work this out?

Okay, that's great. Thank you.

Yes.

Any more questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1296 relating to disaster recovery. First up we have Michael Cain, DLNR, in support.

Ryan. Ryan Kanaka'ole, DLNR. Good morning, chairs, vice chairs. The Department of Land and Natural Resources supports this bill. We believe that it will help in the post disaster recovery process by easing some regulatory burdens both on the landowner's side as well as the regulatory agencies who have to process these permit reviews.

Okay, thank you very. Thank you. Next up we have OPSD in support.

Okay, next. Do we have somebody on Zoom? What's her name? Jeff on zoom.

Oh, good morning. Jeff Weoka here, Front Street Recovery. Submitted the written testimony. Stand by that testimony. Be available if you have any questions for me. Thank you.

Okay, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Yes, I have a question for DLNR. Were there could properties have been originally built lawfully that were before we enacted HRS 6E which is, you know, the bone. Yeah. So. And then in rebuilding you start discovering like. Like, oh, there's all these bones here. I mean, so what would happen in that instance?

That's a 6E question. So I mean, if during the process, if there's an inadvertent discovery. Oh, sorry. If there's an inadvertent discovery, then in the process of rebuilding, then 6e would be triggered and so there would be, you know, stopping work.

So it's not an exception to that?

No, no. That's. This is an exception from 205A, the SMA process.

I have a question. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, I have a question for DLNR since you're here, please. The question is for homeowners that have to rebuild. Is there a time limit on. On when they have to accomplish this by.

I'm not. I don't think we're the appropriate person. I think that. Are we talking about like building permits? Because that would be a county question. The bill itself, I think. Did we put the five year limitation.

Sorry. Michael Cain, also with Department of Land and Natural Resources. We've talked a lot with the county planning departments in developing our testimony. It does impact 205A is the Coastal Zone Management act, which is under OPSD. So we support the five year amendment.

But I would have to defer to OPSD on the details of that since it's more their Kuleana than ours.

Right. Okay. And are they here?

Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm just questioning and relaying a question that was posed to me by my CPA. Actually. He has a property in Maui and he's receiving some insurance monies and he was wondering is there a time limit for him to make decisions, get the planning and complete his rebuild?

Yes, for exemption purpose. Because if we don't have the timeline, the property or developer maybe take advantage forever. Also not good for the disaster recovery. That's why based on federal requirement that we also refer to the original beer. That's why we give the five years from the proclamation start. Yeah.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Anybody else wishing has any questions?

Yeah, thank you. For any of the proponents of this bill, are you. I guess. Is anyone opposed to the amendments offered by the Attorney General's Office and the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development?

Attorney General, we have no objections.

Okay.

No.

I have a question. DLNR, what is the process to go through an SMA and how long does it take?

Ooh, that's actually OPSD question. Okay. We don't handle 205A. That's fast.

Thank you for the question. Definitely SMA depending on the application is complete or not. Generally speaking for SMA major or SMA user permit take about six months. But SMA minor normally much more fast without hearing requirement. Please pay attention to House Bill 732.

They will give the development of single family residency no matter how much cost becomes SMA minor requirement only. So it will be sped up for streamline for SMA permit for single family residency. Also raise a threshold for cost.

So this is two bills combined can streamline as may permit it's did you say only three months for a minor?

Yes. zero, less than that. Because that planning without this Bill it's only three months.

Yes, for SMA minor.

Okay with this.

Okay, so we're shaving off three months of how much is the cost of a sma cost the application or cost the cost to do an SME? That depends on the trigger. If for shoreline parcel that sometimes if shoreline area they'll trigger year requirement.

Otherwise if they trigger 343 that's just based on the nanny, the zoning or this kind of policy. If consistency is kind of requirement, they can submit the application. That whole process based on my knowledge, I monitor this kind of process timeline. For SMA use permit or SMA, just call SMA major permit is 6 months mostly.

But sometimes applicant didn't submit the complete application, they take much longer. But again for SHA9 parcel, the requirement for SHA9 certification they will take a little longer for get a certified SHA9. That's the other requirement.

Okay. Yeah. All right, thanks. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up, we have SB 1170 relating to the expeditious redevelopment and development of affordable rental housing. I need to catch up here. First up, we have SB 1170. HHFDC in support. Next we have. Are they here? Oh, you're here. Okay. Sorry.

Good morning, chairs and vice chairs and committee members. Randy Chu from HHFDC. We respectfully support and stand by our submitted testimony. Thank you.

Okay, that's all the in person people we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nope. Anybody on Zoom? What's their name? Jeff on Zoom. Go ahead.

Jeff, you're on. Go ahead.

Oh, sorry chair. Is this SB 1296?

We skipped 1296 already.

Yeah, that was the only one. Sorry about that, Chair. Thank you.

All right. Oh, JF. Sorry, Jeff. It's JF. On 1170. Go ahead, JF.

I'm here.

Go ahead, JF.

Are you calling? Is this for SB 1170? I'm sorry, I'm in a phone on Maui trying to testify.

Yes, that's correct.

Yes. Okay, thank you. We strongly support this bill. We need this bill in order to build rebuild the Weinberg Court Apartments, which is an affordable housing project in Lahaina. Unfortunately, we're an experimental housing program.

And so the way we were built, without this passage of this ordinance, it is extremely difficult for us to rebuild because we are on land, the county let us build on land that is zone residential. And the way the experimental housing ordinance is written. It actually makes us go through a very stringent rebuild process.

And so we have submitted language in there to hopefully help expedite that. I mean, we are 63 units, all affordable, 60% of median income. We're not asking for any government monies. We have insurance funds. We just want to start rebuilding. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else? Okay, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none.

Katherine Peroff was here. She's actually in the car, too, but she stands on her testimony as well.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Members, do you have any questions?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. So I think this is for HHFDC, which was. So I actually asked my question about Evie Kupuna on the wrong bill. This is the bill. So if somebody. If there's an affordable.

I don't know if there were affordable rentals bill built before the enactment of 6E, but if in rebuilding would they also have to address that issue if this bill passes or is there an exemption to 6E from?

I believe this bill is. Addresses just existing structures that were damaged during events. Right. So, yes, we would. We have one project in particular on Lahaina, Front Street Apartments. It's 100% affordable.

Can you use the mic?

Yeah, sorry.

We need it on record. Yeah.

Yes, we have a project in particular in Lahaina, Maui, called the Front Street Apartment. It was a affordable housing project that severely damaged during the wildfire. We would really want to rebuild it as quick as possible because there's a need for permanent affordable housing. The DHS temporary homes are just that. Temporary.

And, you know, the residents there want some permanency. So we're really trying to strive to do that. And this bill would help us expedite it by cutting down the SMA process time.

Got it. So going back to the. When the. When these apartments were originally built, could that have been before HR6E was enacted? And so it might have been lawfully built, but before all of these, well, environment but also cultural safeguards.

It was built. This particular project was built during the time it went through an SMA process. But then, you know, when you rebuild it, you know, the configuration may change a little bit. And so that's why it may trigger a new SMA if you can't stand on the original SMA.

Got it. So my question is, if they rebuild and as they're rebuilding, if they discover EV component, are they going to. Do they have to stop and address that?

Oh, yes. You know, doing construction, we would stress that, you know, if there's any kind of fines that are discovered, we would certainly address it at that time.

Okay, great. So it's not an exemption to that?

Oh, no, no. You would. You know, if you find any kind of archaeological or other points of interest, we would definitely address it during the construction.

Okay, great.

I have a question. You can stay right there. Ryan, right?

Randy.

Randy. Thank you, Randy. So 1296 and this bill is kind of similar in a sense, but it does different things. But I wanted to have you explain the difference and how this bill works in conjunction with 1296. I know you didn't comment on 1296 because.

But I wanted you to explain why the redevelopment part is so important versus reconstruction. Can you talk about that?

Well, unfortunately, we did not provide comments on 1296, so I'm not too familiar with that one. We were really trying to address existing affordable housing, and that's why we wanted to.

Right. What I'm trying to get at is for you to explain why redevelopment is needed versus reconstructing those structures that were previously there for the parcels. Specifically that you folks are.

Okay, yeah. I may speak on that. Redevelopment may mean that the project will be substantially the same, but it may not be exactly the same. Reconstruction is like a major rehabilitation project, whereas redevelopment is you're starting from scratch and what's the best layout for the site at this point in time.

And then this bill would exempt you. So upon receiving the SMA permit, they would be exempted from the EIS process, is that correct? 343.

Yes.

Okay, so then to wrap your moto's point, would it still. If there is EV Kupuna found on the parcels, would you still have to consider salt ship D?

Yes. During construction, you know, if we encounter EV, we will certainly stop, address it with the ship D, and take the appropriate actions at that time.

Okay, thank you.

Welcome.

No questions. Seeing none. Okay, Members, we're moving on. Next up, we have SB 1099 relating to IAL. First up, we have Department of Agriculture with comments. Thank you. Next we have Hawaii State Land Use Commission Chair. Okay, next we have Farm Bureau with comments.

Thank you. Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Brown Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony providing comments. The Hawaii Farm Bill is a strong supporter of IL. In fact, we helped craft the language that ultimately passed in 2005. We also helped with incentives in 2008.

That being said, we do have some concerns with IL and with the Bill, we believe the state should fulfill its Kuleana first. We do support the counties mapping out and ultimately identifying and then the state designated IO lands. But the state should take care of their Kuleana first. They have not yet identified any state lands.

In fact, to this point only I believe private land, about 136,000 acres of private land has been identified as IAL. Secondly, we support the county's ability and knowing what's best for the counties and knowing the intricate of their AG lands. So we don't want to see the county's voice taken away.

Now, we understand that this Bill, the implementation isn't until December 31, 2027. That's two and a half years from now. But instead of a stick right now, maybe provide a carrot to the counties and provide them some funding to complete their mapping. Yes, putting a deadline I think is warranted.

I'm not sure if the deadline of 2027 is the deadline, but we want the counties or provide the counties a billion. So we're asking the Legislature to humbly consider providing funds for the county so they can proceed with their mapping of IL lands.

And again, in our testimony, we do also indicate that we don't know if LUC has the necessary staff or the funds again to complete this task. So we are strong supporters of IO. We want the counties to. To map, to identify the lands.

And those lands would be dedicated in IL, which would keep them in AG, in our opinion, in perpetuity. But we prefer to see some funds going to the counties to assist them in identifying those lands. That should be IL. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. We also have Frank Schultz testified or written testimony in support. Are there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Chair.

Okay. I don't know if this is better for the LUC, for Department of AG or possibly for Farm Bureau, since Farm Bureau has tagged himself as having been here since 2005. But I was here as a freshman in 2008 and passed part of that incentives Bill. So I actually think that this measure is somewhat.

There's a germ of a good idea in this Bill because we have dragged our feet on identification of IALs. Since before I've been here before, at least for me, for 18 years. So can someone explain to this Committee why the county has taken so long? What has been the roadblocks and the obstacles?

And then how can LUC do It better because I think holding your feet to the fire of giving you folks, if the counties are going to continue to drag their butts since they've done it since 2008, this is a good idea. So anyone can answer that, why is the county dragging?

And then can LUC do this within 2027? Good idea.

Chair Arnold Wong, speaking on behalf of the LUC and Vice Chair this. The intent is good. The language is suspect at most.

Sorry, Brian, but the way that language is crafted, yes, you did allow the counties to do the work, but it was an unfunded mandate, and the counties itself doesn't have the wherewithal at this point in time to do the work.

So that's why Farm Bureau, we agree that if you are going to pass it on to the counties, they should get some resources, because the way they came across the LUC prior, it was very haphazard, to say the least, and they didn't reach out to all the farmers. So that's why.

And LUC is now positioned to potentially do it better

If we have the resources, because right now we're very limited.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, any other questions, Representative Iwamoto?

Well, if we had a certain limited amount of state funds, shouldn't we fulfill our Kuleana to address or recognize or map our own ag lands? First? You're asking, I mean, to those who are maybe in support of allocating money to the counties at this point, shouldn't we do what we should do at the state level?

And then if we need further monies, then if, then if we have more money to expend on this, then then secondarily give it to the counties.

We would agree with that, Rep, but again, if there is funds because right now LUC is barely holding on to what we can do. I mean, right now, even I am not at civil service, I'm exempt. So to tell you the truth, they brought me on just to do a certain work, and I'm behind schedule, as the chair knows, for certain items.

Any other questions? Question? No. Thank you. See? None. We're moving on. Next up, we have SB739, is that correct? Yep. First up, we have OHA with comments right here. Next we have DLNR. Hello, chairs.

Vice Chairs Ryan Kanaka'ole, Department of Land and Natural Resources. So we've submitted our written comments. I just want to highlight our two recommended amendments. The first would be on the authority of the land exchanges itself.

So when we're talking about state lands, we're talking about public land trust lands, also known as ceded lands, and in this Bill as written, it would allow or authorize the governor's sole authority to engage in those land exchanges when we in the status quo.

In the normal course, these types of things would go before the Board of Land and Natural Resources. It would allow the public to see what parcels are up for exchange and therefore weigh in on the impacts to the public. And that's why that's one change that we're recommending.

The second change is after these lands go out of the state inventory and go into public private lands, private hands.

In that situation, we would want to at least ensure the public that affordable housing or whatever type of housing that these lands are being, you know, transferred over for that the private landowners do keep to their end of the bargain.

And so we would recommend language regarding reversionary clause back to the state if those, if the intent isn't there when it goes over to private hands. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have ADC in support. Not here. Next up we have Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

Oh, sorry, Chair. Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm rules down on this. Written testimony in support.

Okay. We have two other people that submitted written testimony in support. Is there anybody on Zoom. Seeing none. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu, go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

DLNR, please. So without this Bill, how does this happen? Or does this is this even possible to happen as far as this arrangement?

So land exchanges are something that happens. It's a longer process. Oh, sorry.

Ian Hirokawa with DLNR. Yes, there is a land exchange process under hrs 171.50. The requirements are a bit different. This gives a lot of discretion to the governor's office. The way the bill's written now to do these land exchanges, normally, they're under the purview of the board.

As you know, the first deputy mentioned and I believe 17150 even has a requirement for legislative approval for land exchanges. So there is a process already established in statute, but this is a different process for certain types of lands.

Follow up question. Chair, go ahead. Thank you. So is there would there be any concern that the Governor has unilateral discretion to make these decisions?

Well, I think we believe that like our testimony says, it should still remain the authority to approve it should remain with the Land Board for transparency.

And that's really where it is. It's because we're talking about public land trust lands and it's. And the beneficiaries should be able to weigh in. In this type of. When we're talking about changing the laws with the broad brush on the statutory level, the public doesn't have the advantage of seeing what lands are being impacted.

And, you know, I can't expect the public to come here and provide that type of, you know, on those particular lands. But when we go through the board process, those that are impacted do know, and they do show up.

I'm sorry, and I'm asking these questions, but. So right now, the Bill authorizes or gives the Governor this discretionary authority, but it still comes under subsequent approval by the board.

Sorry, right now, the. The Bill requires consultation with the land board, and it's not. That's not further defined. We are proposing an amendment to say essentially subject to the. The Governor can still negotiate these exchanges, but it's still subject to the approval of the land board. So it's a little different than what the Bill is written.

So that would be amended language then, to clarify that. Okay, I like that. Thank you.

We have the suggested amended language. I only have one copy. I'm sorry. This is a Joint Committee. Oh, we have two. Never mind. I can give it to both chairs. Thank you. Thank you. Can you give it to her?

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Poepoe does it look like you have a question? No, I have a question I don't want to ask. You know what, Ryan, come on. So as I read this. Go for it. Yeah, well, as I read this, I kind of have an idea of which parcel this they're trying to convey.

I'm assuming it's the West Oahu because it talks about a rail station and whatnot. So I'm assuming it's the, the parcel that you guys have right by uh, was the Oahu potentially and transferring with other land egg land up in probably Dola State or somewhere out there.

I don't know. I, I mean that's one. We're concerned about that and that's why we've, it's in our testimony. You know, we've put in a lot of money going through the planning and development stage and we're just gently suggesting, hey, can we continue on our planning process. But you know, this legislation impacts all state lands.

And so we're trying to ensure that there's a process or process that engages the public, a process that ensures that the public lands that duo go out, they, you know, know, for the right purposes.

And yeah, because I read your testimony, it says comments but it sounds like opposition. So.

We would be accept, we would like the bill with our amendments and we'll. That would be more optimal for us. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Nope, See none. Sorry, I have one.

One last question. I'm sorry, sorry. Chairman, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Brian, you are in support of this bill and I guess you see this as being an advantage to farmers. So what is my question?

My question is without this, this bill giving the Governor authorization, do you see a problem with this bill not proceeding and being a hindrance to having farmland, more farmland?

Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau thank you, Representative Shimizu. We believe this is a tool. The reason we're supporting this bill is we're trying to protect agricultural lands from potential development. So, so this is basically exchanging AG land with a landowner for Tod land.

Again, the bill says it has to be a half a mile from a rail station. This is a Tod based. It's addressing our housing concerns and our agriculture concerns. It's well known that a lot of not a lot but agriculture lands always under threat and there's tension with development, certain landowners, even gentlemen farms.

So what we like to do is we like if there's an opportunity, again a tool to exchange lands that are agricultural lands. So it's not Other lands, agricultural lands. With that landowner and exchange state lands near Tilde again, a half mile radius from the rail stations is the requirement.

So again so that they can build housing, affordable housing. In the meantime, the state as a landowner and you can see ADCs listed in there. I think.

I don't know if DOA is listed there, but at the state as a landowner has a more clear mission to support agriculture and to have ag production versus some landowners who own ag land. Their intent is not necessarily agricultural production. So we look at as a agricultural land preservation measure.

All right, I appreciate that. Thank you. Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, we're moving on. Next up we have HB8 relating to affordable housing. First up, we have HHFDC in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, community Members. HHFDC stands by submitted testimony.

Okay. Next we have DLNR with comments.

DLNR stands on its comments.

Next we have DHHL with comments.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committees. Oriana Leao of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. DHHL stands on its written testimony with comments, noting the three distinct rights of DHHL and its beneficiaries. And we also strongly recommend the inclusion of the chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission in the working group.

Joining me today is water export Jonathan Scheuer if you have any questions. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Board of Water Supply in support.

Kathy Mitchell with the Board of Water Supply. Yes, the Board of Water Supply supports Senate Bill 867 SD2.

Okay, that's all the people we have registered in person. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seein none. Anybody on Zoom? What's their name?

Aloha, Chair.

Go ahead.

Joanna Seto for the Department of Health, standing on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

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

Sorry, I jumped the gun. It was actually Ciara's bill. I was just so excited for the previous conversation.

Thank you. Good morning.

Ciara Kahahane, DLNR Commission on Water Resource Management.

Thank you. In reviewing the bill, do you not find that a lot of what is being requested to be completed is kind of redundant of the work that the commission already does, the information that you already have compiled? That's the question.

Sure. Yes, we. We do already have a lot of information on the availability of water and we are already working to try to streamline our well approval processes where it's appropriate.

To me, one of the advantages of this working group is the opportunity for further collaboration with the counties and water purveyors, others who are involved in the actual delivery and creation of water infrastructure. This is not the only vehicle that we have to do that. I meet with the county boards of water supply monthly.

We are always very interested in further collaboration and cooperation to try to keep things moving forward where we can. So if this working group does happen, we'll be happy to participate and take it as the opportunity that it represents. But I do not see this as necessary.

Okay, thank you. Just a follow up. In the bill, it also speaks specifically to counties taking on water allocation. Is that something that? I guess that was a flag for me and it was concerning because the county does distribution, the CWRM does allocation, the Department of Health does water safety.

So do you think that that is appropriate or do you. Do you support exploring the counties taking on allocation? Do you think that because that's the CWRM's job? What's the CWRM going to do if the counties take allocation?

To me, it was not clear perhaps from the language of the bill what exactly that means. So, for example, under the water code, once one of the counties gets a water use permit and an allocation, they have the freedom to redistribute that specific allocation from that specific source as they see fit.

So they have the flexibility to do that already within the water code. So, yes, allocation decisions beyond that are within the purview of CWRM and it would take an amendment to the water code to actually put any deviation from that into practice.

It's something that I would be willing to look at to give the counties more authority with the very substantial caveat that all political subdivisions of the state have the same public trust duties. We're all stewards of the public trust. And so CWRM currently is the primary steward of those, the primary decision maker for things like water allocations.

If the counties were to take a more active role in that, they would be sharing in that aspect of the public trust duties that we currently have.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can I ask a question?

Thank you, Chair. Question kind of related to Rep. Poepoe's question. And maybe I'm asking the same question but worded a different way. But. So this analysis and information, does it already exist?

Go ahead.

The. I'm sorry, I don't have the bill in front of me. The analysis and information about.

As far as forming a working group to analyze the water situation and so on and so forth.

Right. A lot of that is information that we already have as far as water availability. What's there? The information that is in the county's water use and development plans. Of course, we already have. So to answer your question briefly, I think the answer is yes.

It's just the ability to all sit in the same room and lay it all out on the table and have a a holistic conversation about it.

Follow up question, Chair. I guess, you know, I'm outside of. This is my freshman year and I'm learning the ropes on here, and sometimes I feel like we create laws and that creates bureaucracy and it might be an advantage. And it might be a disadvantage. So I heard you say you don't feel this bill is necessary.

Did I hear you say it correctly?

Yes, you did.

So by passing this bill, you did say there might be more collaboration, but there might be more obstacles also because there's more people getting involved and there's opposing views and, you know, there's good and bad in that.

But do you feel like DLNR is able to have this responsibility of water resource and correctly steward that on your own without this working group?

I think in any case, we need to be having more conversations and communicating more. I would love to see the commission move towards more proactive planning for water resources, and I'm happy to do that outside of the framework set out by this bill.

Right, right. So in other words, without this bill, you can still have that conversation, and quote, a working group.

Yes. We'll still be doing the work as a group.

Thank you.

Members.

Any other questions? See? None. We are moving on. Thank you. Good testimony. Thank you very much. Next up, we have SB 1221 SD2 relating to stormwater system. I need to catch up myself, too. Okay, first up, we have DLNR with comments.

So DLNR, we submitted comments, but truly we are really concerned about this Bill. We do not believe DLNR is the appropriate agency for a program of this sort. The counties are probably the appropriate place for this type of program.

So going back, we believe, going back to this Bill itself and its reassignment, we were not initially tracking this Bill. It was the Department of Health assigned the Bill previously. It may have been by mistake, we're not sure, or a mistaken understanding of DLNR's functions.

But in the previous Committee at the House side, there was some testimony by the Department of Health that, you know, this type of program was outside of their functions and capabilities. And so there was also some conversations had that DLNR Had a dam safety inspection program.

Maybe that was why we got placed, this program got placed with us. But truly that our dam inspection program doesn't provide the same type of expertise required for this kind of like safety criteria for this kind of program where it's more of like an anti drowning program.

You know, the individual counties, because they oversee these, the stormwater runoff and all the drainage systems they have by comparison at the county level, it's variable. Right.

But they have similar programs already in place or at least the framework in place through their permitting, through their monitoring, through their inspections for this kind of program to be put in, put in place at the county level. So that's all. Thank you.

Okay, next up we have Allison Schaefers in support. Yes, you can hand it to her.

Thank you chair and Vice Chair and Committee Members for the opportunity to testify today. My 5 year old daughter Charlotte Schaefers, whom we called Sharkey, drowned in 2004 saving a childhood friend who was struggling in a flooded and improperly maintained detention pond.

The developers in our community knew that one of the knew that one of the pipes was clogged but chose not to fix it. And that choice turned an area and you can see from those pictures the pond is now fenced. That orange fence is the water. They fenced it after she drowned.

But the water level at that time because of a massive clog had actually turned the water above those culverts. And that fencing was only put up at my insistence. Now it's not being maintained. I went back on February 28th of this year, the day of her anniversary of her death.

And the weeds are so overgrown in it that it's blocking the drains again. So pretty sure that it's not doing the function that it's supposed to do. And that's a lot of the reason that I feel like these.

This bill is very important because some developers and community Member communities and managers and owners will do the right thing. But not everybody will when no one is watching. After Sharkey's death, my family was awarded a $2 million wrongful death settlement, the largest at the time for the death of a child in Hawaii.

If that same injury happened today, it would likely cost far more, potentially causing insurance rates to spike along with the price of rents and home construction. Drowning is preventable, but is now the leading cause of death for Hawaii's keiki ages 1 to 15. Why? Because we are not investing enough in our children's safety. That must change.

Now our math is bad. When we put more value on saving dollars than we do on saving lives, especially the lives of our children. I do however understand that state lawmakers have a strong desire to manage costs in the current environment.

I suggest making a slight amendment to this bill that will clarify and reduce the state's cost burden by making clear the responsibilities that pertain to owners operators of retention and detention ponds. He shall pay for inspections and will face fines for noncompliance.

If you amend the rules fines portion of this bill, you could just add in adoption of reasonable inspection fees which together with fines should provide a way to subsidize the cost of safety monitoring. I strongly support SB 1221, though it has some changes from House Bill 1233 that went through your Committee earlier.

That bill designated, this bill designates DLR to inspect and monitor, while your bill assigned the counties to enhance their requirement. Either choice is acceptable to me as I'm simply seeking a statewide consistent solution because this issue is too important to just let the counties handle it on their own which would result in piecemeal requirements.

If the counties are designated in this bill, it will require a cost share with the state. However, I do not believe that would be overly high. This Bill only applies to new construction. The survey requirements allow for a phase in process.

They require report and recommendation to the Ledge next year, but not an immediate solution for pre existing ones. And that survey may already exist at DLNR so that could be incorporated into this process to reduce the county workload. Developers and operators will pay for the fencing ring buoy and signage.

The counties just basically would have to add these requirements to their permitting process which I don't think is an it's just kind of adopting the checklist. I noticed that Hunt Construction is asking for scaling back of some of these requirements.

I just want to note that Hunt Construction was the developer of my community and was one of the parties that chose not to fix the clock and set out for my daughter's wrongful death.

Based on my recent visit, I do think that these rules are important and it sounds from Hunt's testimony that they may incorporate some of these ponds in Kailoa.

Stormwater management is important, but let's ensure that we're using the best practices in the state because often these ponds are placed in communities where the more affordable communities where you have wet lungs and low lying areas.

And so I think that's an equity issue too in that we want to protect the least of our people that live in these communities like I did. An affordable community 21 years ago, Sharkey stood on the banks of a flooded detention pond and watched a younger friend struggling.

She had a decision to make and she didn't hesitate to do the right thing. She saved her friend. I challenge you to do the right thing too. If a 5 year old can be a hero, I think we can all be heroes. Hawaii needs more water safety champions, so let's help Sharkey save more lives. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Gregory. Is Gregory on Zoom? Gregory on Zoom.

Thank you. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Masakian and I currently serve as the first Vice President of the Kakua Council. And I'm also a member of the Waikiki Neighborhood Board.

And both at the Kokua Council and the Neighborhood Board, we were able to hear a presentation on the concerns related to these retention ponds and also water safety issues throughout the State of Hawaii. It seems to be a very serious issue. We hear about it daily in the news. Someone's drowning, a tourist, a local resident, a child.

It's very sad to hear about these things. And we're all here today to hopefully try to improve the situation and get to a point where we don't hear about these deaths anymore. This is one area that you can help. And I'm a strong advocate for safety. I'm an advocate for Kupuna and for the lesser advantaged.

And I do what I do to help the community. And I know Ms. Schaefers is doing what she can do not just to help the memory of her daughter, but also to help hopefully so there's no more memories of loss. So I ask that you support this measure and I truly hope that it can be moved forward.

If there's any amendments that are needed, I hope that that can be worked out and we get to a place where it's a very good bill and we have a, a positive outcome. So thank you for the opportunity to speak today and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably 20 more written testimonies in support. Are there anybody else wishing to testify? See none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Belatti.

I really appreciate that your forthrightness in saying that you are not probably the appropriate Department, but I'm looking at the testimony from the Department of Health in the previous committees and they're trying. They seem to also say that they don't have any responsibilities.

Can you explain a little bit more about how Department of Health, with its oversight of the and its authorities under the Clean Water Act, it may be the more appropriate agency.

I believe we were talking more about the survey and inventory information because that's part of the bill. Right.

It's to get that kind of information and the information that is captured by the NPDES permits that go through the Department of Health would capture like retention basins in addition to other types of waterways that fall under the Clean Water Act. At DLNR, we don't have that amount of capture at this time.

So we identified their program, and particularly the information housed within their program as potentially a way where you can capture additional information as part of this program and then in being used by the counties.

Sure. Just to clarify, DOH does have more responsibility over stormwater management than DLNR. That is clear. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Members any other questions? See none. We're moving on. Next up we have HB657 relating to the Center for Climate Resilience Development. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Good morning, Chairs. Michael Cain, on behalf of DLNR, we stand on our testimony in strong support of this Bill. And I wanted to add that a lot of the policies that our office develops, Office of Conservation and Coastal Land is based upon the research that comes out of the center.

So we would be advocating that the center be funded locally with state funds rather than federal funds, even if the current situation in Washington wasn't happening, this is an important local asset for us. Thank you.

Good testimony. Next up, we have University of Hawaii in support.

Yes, thank you. Go ahead. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Chip Fletcher. I'm from University of Hawaii. This Bill would formalize create a Center for climate resilient Development that would formalize research that's been going on for 20 years at our school relevant to the coastal erosion problem, the sea level rise problem.

It has, the research produces maps that are key to over a dozen laws and policies that are listed on the front page and second page. Most of these laws and policies also require that the data set be updated on a regular basis. And that is the work that we do.

We are also modeling how sea level rise will affect Waikiki sea level rise floods in more ways than most people realize. There's not only coastal erosion and the flow of water with sea level rise, but the water table rises and creates new wetlands in our urban areas and waves.

Of course, those swell events in the north shore in the winter and south shore in the summer will punch into and across our coastal zone. Gravity based drainage fails and we need to move to pumped based drainage.

All of these are being modeled by this research team consisting of four or five graduate students who are funded and about 10 professional modelers.

And so we seek the establishment of this center to continue this vital data production and modeling for the health of the state as we move into very severe sea level rise situation developing in the next couple of decades. Thank you and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Keone Dudley. No, nobody. That's all the registered testifiers we have. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? I have a question, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for University of Hawaii, please. So the question would be, without this Bill, does the work that's focused on the scope of this Bill disappear?

Considering the actually current rejection of the term climate change and sea level rise at the federal level, our federal funding is in danger right now. I've already received for one of our bills, one of our grants from NOAA. I've received a set of inquiries related to how does our work relate to climate change.

17 different questions coming from NOAA and asking us to remove certain words and then explain to them how this would change the research that we're doing. So there's an ongoing and active threat to our research. We also have to. We have had county funding in the past.

We have had state funding, we have had federal funding, and we will continue to write grants for all of these. But this is an especially fraught time considering the present federal Administration.

Okay, thank you. So would you say that the majority of your funding is currently federal funding? Then that's possibly in jeopardy?

That's correct. All of our current funding is federal funding. I see.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much.

First, Dr. Fletcher, I just want to thank you for all the work that you've done. I mean, you've truly led the effort to make sure that we can be as resilient as possible. But in light of all the threats of climate change, I fear for our state. Thank you, Chair.

So I really appreciate the work you do in your testimony.

When you say that laws and policies depend on SOAS data, and you refer to things like real estate transactions analysis for Hawaii, environmental policy acts for shoreline setback ordinances for different counties, when you say that your work feeds into these types of things, would there be an economic impact if for some reason your ability to produce this data for things like real estate transactions, will that have a negative impact on our economy?

Absolutely. The most expensive way to deal with sea level rise and climate change is to ignore it until the last minute and our research lays out adaptation strategies. Each one of those types of impacts that I listed has their own adaptation strategy. And there's currently at the city and County of Honolulu, a project called Waikiki 2050.

Their entire project is based on our data and mapping. I recognize that that's a county initiative, but we all depend on Waikiki. It's the gateway to tourism which upholds our economy. So, yes, would have a very severe impact to our economy.

Thank you. And thank you for being really clear about that. Because I think, you know, we think about these threats, we don't understand the hard impacts, the actual impacts on our economy. We think they're just kind of out there. And it's research. What does research do? Right.

But this actually intersects with policies that have to get passed, plans that have to be made, laws that we pass on, data that we rely on from you. And if we don't fund something like this, we're essentially going to be shooting ourselves.

Thank you. I appreciate that. We are the only group doing this in the state and this is applied engineering scientific research that we're doing.

Again, thank you, Dr. Fletcher, for all the work that you were doing. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much.

Anybody else? No other questions? Well, last question. How much are you asking for? 3 million.

Okay.

All right, thank you. That's all Members. Any questions? Seeing none. We will, That's the last Bill we have on our agenda, we will recess.

You guys ready? Okay.

So gaveling back in on our Committee on water and land and joint with public safety for the first two bills. First Bill we have SB11, SD2. We are going to defer this to time certain Thursday morning's agenda 9am with that, moving on to SB 1296 relating to disaster recovery.

Chair's recommendation is to pass this with an HD one taking DLNRs and OPSD's amendments. Any questions or concerns? Question Joint Chair, Are we going to defect the date? Zero, thank you very much for pointing that out. So we're going to make tech amendments and defect date the Bill to 713000.

And if I forget again, all the bills we're going to make tech technical amendments and defect date all the bills to 713000. Thank you for catching that. I appreciate that. Any comments or concerns seeing? None. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll call]

Okay, thank you.

Same recommendation for public safety.

We should have took them both at the same time.

No, go ahead.

[Roll call]

Okay, thank you very much, Members. Next up, we have SB 1170 SD2 relating to the expeditious redevelopment and development of affordable rental housing. The Chair's recommendation is to take K Comms Corp. Technical amendments. We're going to make tech amendments and defect date to 713000. That's about it. Any concerns, questions? See None. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, we are on SB 1170 SD to recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. And also noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting with reservations. Anyone voting no. All other Members present. Chair vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, next up, we have SB 1099 relating to IAL. The chair's recommendation is to take this Bill and to change it so the LUC to designate state and county land versus every other land. So it's only government land. With that, any questions or concerns, I'm going to vote wr. Sure.

Okay.

And we're going to make tech amendments and defect 8 to 713,000. See? None. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on SP3. 1099. Sorry.

Yeah. 1099.

[Roll call]

Okay, next up, we have SB739SD2 relating to land exchange. The Chair's recommendation is to make technical amendments defect date to 713000. And we're going to take DLNR and OHA's amendment. So any questions or concerns?

Yeah, Chair. I appreciate the amendments. I'm gonna vote no.

Okay, say none or see Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll call]

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have SB867SD2 relating to affordable housing. Chair's recommendation is to. Is this the correct one? Let me reset. Yeah. Okay. This is the one. Yeah. Chair's recommendation is to defer this. Wait, hold on. Let me. Recess. Let me get my notes together.

Gaveling back in.

Okay. Chair's recommendation is to defer SD867 based upon the testimony. It's redundant. Next up, we have SB 1221 SD2 relating to stormwater management. zero, I defer to my Vice Chair for this measure.

We are going to insert the language from HB 1232 HD2 based upon the testimonies that we received and any discussion seeing none, I will be taking the vote. Voting on SB 1221. SD2. Recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting with reservations? Anyone voting no. I'm sorry.

With reservations.

With reservations for Representative Iwamoto. Anyone else with reservations? Seeing none. All other Members vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have SB657SD1 relating to the Center for Climate Resilient Development. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1 defecting the date to 713000, putting in the Committee report that they are requesting $3 million annually, and that's it. Any comments or concerns, see none.

Vice Chair for the Vote voting on SB 657 SD1. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments voting the excuse absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting with reservations with reservations for Representative Shimizu. Anyone voting with reservations, seeing none. All other Members vote aye Chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you very much.

We are adjourned.