House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Good morning, everybody. Today, this is the Committee on Water and Land. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the Chair. To my Left is Rachele Lmosao, the Vice Chair. Today is Thursday, March 13th, 2025. It's 9:00AM, we're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. First up, this is our for our joint 9:00AM with Public Safety.

We're going to move this back to the end of the agenda. But I'll just let you people know that the intent is to defer this measure. I've talked to the, I've talked to the introducer of this Bill and we'll be working on it over the, over the summer and come back with a different Bill next year.

But officially we'll defer it at the end. So, going back to our Water and land hearing, our 9:00AM hearing, first up. wait, I always forget this. So I gotta, sorry, I gotta go through this spill.

In order to allow as many people as possible, we won't put a hard two minute deadline, but if you go over about two or three minutes, we'll ask you to please sum it up. Because it's in the morning, because it's a morning hearing.

We have session at 12 today, so we have a hard deadline to end, so please be aware of that. If you're on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while you're waiting to testify. Until you are called, the Zoom chat function is only to chat with our technical staff right over here.

And if you get disconnected unexpectedly, we will try our best to get you reconnected. But if we can't, then we're just going to move on. If you please don't have, especially on Zoom, please don't have any trademark materials because, because they will kick us off of YouTube if there's a network failure.

We will reschedule the hearing and meeting for decision making and post provided appropriate notice. And that's it. Okay, first we have SB 1456. We are going to take this, we're going to move this out of the border and we're going to put it to the end of the agenda.

I'm assuming there's going to be a lot of discussion on this, on this topic. So to save, not save time, to allow ample enough time for this to be discussed, we're going to move it to the end of the agenda. Okay, so with that said, we're going on to SB 841, relating to marine life Conservation districts.

First up, we have DLNR in Support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ryan Kanakaʻole, Department of Land and Natural Resources. We stand on our testimony in strong support. We support this type of funding for our carrying capacity studies for our MLCDs. They would help inform and provide justification for our rules and our policies. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Mālama Pūpūkea-Waimea in support. Are they here - is there. That's all the people that we have registered to testify in person. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify, on Zoom. We have two people on Zoom. First up, we have Activities, Attractions Associations of Hawaii Inc. on Zoom.

Aloha. This is Antoinette Davis, Activities and Attractions. We stand on our testimony. I'm here available for any questions. Thank you.

Next, we have Ocean Tourism Coalition in opposition on Zoom. Anybody there. Daniel Hazen, no. Okay. Is there anybody else wishing to testify. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions. Okay, Vice Chair.

Ryan, can you tell me how much this Bill would cost?

Morning. David Sakoda with Division of Aquatic Resources. So in our testimony we suggest 300,000 per year. That's on the low end, but that would enable us to do one study per year or at least start one MLCD carrying capacity study per year. That amount will cover more of like the visitor experience, the user experience carrying capacity.

But it doesn't get to like the ecological carrying capacity. If we were to do the an additional ecological component, that would cost significantly more.

Okay, so if so, this could potentially cost more than 300 then.

Yes, that's kind of the minimum.

Okay. Maybe give us a range then.

300,000 to a million a year maybe.

Maybe Ryan, you could answer this next follow up question. Would you consider offsetting some of that cost from funding generated by or revenue generated by parks?

So that would depend on if there was a nexus to the parks benefit. It's just because of the limitations of use under that special Fund.

Yeah, I see. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I got a quick questio. Ryan, can you come back up?

I will add, and they've actually pointed this out. We could use our ocean restorations. Ocean Stewardship Malama Kai or sorry, Aloha ʻIke Kai—not Foundation. I'm getting messed up. It's early in the morning. Aloha ʻIke Kai Special Fund or Stewardship Fund for ocean stewardship. It's a dollar levied upon commercial users.

Or not users, but a dollar levied on per passenger. On our commercial. It's $600,000 per like yeah - or like yeah. And it accrues at over a million a year.

Okay.

Can you come to the mic. Sorry, you know, why this is going to finance rates, so I just want to know.

The program in 2024, when it launched, has generated 2.4 million in gross. 20% of which goes to OHA off the top. And then we have some admin costs. So it's maybe 1.7 - 1.8 per year. And we're hoping that that increases as compliance increases.

Okay, So you could potentially use some of that funding to offset this.

Yes, we have a spend plan to spend it down, but I think some could be allocated towards carrying capacity studies.

Okay, thank you.

Ryan, can - or both of you can come up. My question is there's within the testimony they said they would like to. The current operators would like to be consulted in this. Are you okay with that?

Yes, most definitely.

Okay. Because it says, right now it says to include a non-profit community organizations. I would imagine a current operator is more relevant than a non-profit organization.

Yeah, I think we would consider or we would consult with all users, both the commercial operators as well as, you know, recreational users, especially local residents. I don't think it needs to be spelled out in the Bill.

But if the Committee wants to add it into the Bill, we have no opposition or no concern with that.

All right. Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. Members, any other. Representative Shimizu, thank you.

Thank you,Chair. Ryan R. Really appreciate you being here. You're so faithful in your testimony, and it really helps in our decision making, so I really appreciate that. Thank you. My question is regarding the scope that's being tasked to DLNR.

Is that something that's pretty much new, we're starting from ground zero, or do we already have some work started in this.

As far as baseline studies.

This Bill is asking regarding marine life conservation and doing analysis, and.

I think the carrying capacity program itself would be brand new. However, I mean, a lot of this information on designating the districts came with, you know, like studies, but this is a different program and it's an ongoing. It would be an ongoing tool to, like. It'd be an ongoing tool to continue our adaptive management as these, like, these conservation districts, you know, evolve and the use changes. Sorry.

And I'll have David.

I'll just add. So we do have one carrying capacity study in partnership with Mālama Pūpūkea-Waimea for the Pūpūkea-Waimea Marine Life Conservation District. That started about three years ago. And we're also just wrapping up a study at the old Kona Airport MLCD, in West Hawaii. So these are kind of one off pilot projects that we've got funding for.

This Bill would provide a consistent stream of funding for us to do this on a regular basis.

Right. Chair, can I have one follow up question. Thank you. You know, you mentioned 300,000 for quote, minimum for a tourist scope and possibly 1 million for beyond that. So when you say tourist scope, what does that involve?

Well sorry, it's more like a user satisfaction type carrying capacity where we look at what's the level that an area can sustain before the user experience starts to diminish. Like what's the ideal carrying capacity.

But that doesn't consider what's the level that the resources can handle in terms of human use and impacts, you know, disturbing fish stepping on corals, that kind of thing.

Wow. So interesting. All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Iwamoto. Thank you. I'm sorry for this question, but there are three MLCDs on Oahu, correct. Is one of them Kewalo Basin by any chance.

No, we have Hanauma Bay, Pupukea and Waikiki.

Okay. And what is the process to get added to that list.

We'd go through the administrative rule making process, do public consultations.

Okay, thank you.

Good. Any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up we have SB 411 relating to capital improvement projects at small boat harbors and the state. First up, we have DLNR, in support.

The department stands on its testimony in support. You know, this isn't our bill, but we support it because, you know, it expedites the use of our special funds for CIP projects. However, you know, I understand that there are certain procedures and reasons why these processes, these controls are in place. And so for that matter, you know, we defer to our friends at the budget and finance and their testimony. Thank you.

Okay, next up, we have BNF, Louis in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Luis Salaveria, Director of Finance. We'll stand on our testimony in opposition to this bill primarily because it does run contrary to certain provisions of the Constitution.

We understand the intent of the bill, which is to expedite and really kind of address the issues that exist within the small boat harbor community. So, we just believe that this may not nest, this is not really the mechanism to actually get that done.

Be happy to answer any questions and we are happy to work with DLNR to find a solution going forward.

Thank you. Next up, we have. That's all the people that we have registered to testify in person. Is there anybody in the room wanting to testify? See none. Do we have anybody on zoom? We have one person on zoom. Activities Attractions Associations Hawaii, in support.

"Aloha kakahiaka. Again, we stand on our testimony in support. I'll just make a comment. DLNR is constantly struggling to get things done. They need help financially, but this bill will allow them to get things done quicker. I just hope that they would more often use the public private partnership that is allowed now by legislature.

They don't go out to the commercial operators in those small boat harbors and collaborate and let them help. They're more than willing to help fix things, improve things, and also put money up to do that as well.

But the hand never gets extended and it's more adversarial than it is amicable and it should get improved and changed and we can make some real difference. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Next? Anybody else? That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have about 10 people that submitted written testimony and one, I guess only one organization and not one, one organization in opposition. I'm not going to mention who they are. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members are there any questions? Okay. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. DLNR, thank you. You know, I just heard testimony from the Zoom person. I didn't catch her name, but she stated that there are private users or people that would be willing to, sounds like volunteer and help do, I guess whatever they're able to do. Is that something that's within consideration that could be used.

So there is or I believe that there needs to be legislation to authorize public private partnerships in the context of our small boat harbors. There was a bill, I think, moving through the legislature this session. I don't know if it survived to this point.

Was that the water?

I'm not. Do you.

The private water?

I don't know the bill offhand. But it was related, I think it was related to a pilot project, maybe isolating to one of our small boat harbors and opening that up to a public private partnership.

Okay. Follow up question, Chair? Thank you, Chair. You heard BNF say that they're willing to work with you.

Yes.

How does that look like?

I would be willing to work with you as much as possible, Luis. You know, it really comes down to when we have our projects funded on the CIP side of things, and then when we go out to bid, oftentimes the CIP funding is much lower than what the actual contract amounts come out to.

And so when we get up to the wall on the funding side of things, we have to try and scoop from our special funds to complete the project so that we can deliver it to the public. It's that getting the money from the special fund over. It has that, its a, it's really an internal, you know, hang up, internal bottleneck. And so any help from BNF is appreciated. Yeah.

All right, thank you. Look forward to that.

Appreciated and necessary.

Unbottlenecking. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, to that point, though, Ryan. So you guys are doing RFIs, right, for these contracts?

RFPs, yeah.

RFPs. Well, trying to see how much it would cost. I know.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Right. So you guys have like, estimate already after doing those RFIs. And then when you.

I think the issue is when we're here asking for the CIP, it's a the ballpark figure and the estimate, it's a little cloud. Like there's less clarity on true cost because we haven't even gotten through the process of having an engineer really look into the parameters of the project.

We're putting, It's our wish list right at the CIP point in time when we come to the legislature. And that's really where the problem is.

So how can we minimize that? Because it's not just your department.

It's other departments. I'm not sure.

Maybe it's a question for Luis to have. But anyways, maybe we could have this conversation offline. But yeah, maybe it's a longer process.

And, you know, I think lately, and this is just from past experience, the construction industry has been dynamic and it's been responsive and it's all these macro pressures that we are kind of like not really not unaware of, but it's hard to put a clear, like, handle on like the pricing of everything. So.

Okay. I don't know if Luis, if you wanted to just add something quickly, but I think this is a larger discussion than it is. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Questions? No questions. I got a question. So, DLNR. Meghan, you can. Yeah, DLNR. Because I've heard this before, that you guys can't do repairs unless specifically stated by the legislature or allocated with CIP. I've heard that from DLNR before. Is that correct or no?

Meghan Statts, I'm the administrator for the division of boating. Great question. It has been that way in the past. Yes. But we have worked with Luis and his staff.

And so we have been using, and you see that we've used $18 million in the last 12 months to kind of supplement capital improvement projects as well as do repair and maintenance inside the facilities itself. Lahaina is a good, a good project. We've done a number of projects there specifically with boating special funds because we don't have the capital improvement project.

So BNF has let us know. I think it's been about a year and a half or so that we've had that conversation with them.

So they, going back to Luis now, so they can do small. I guess, small projects, right? Or?

So, like, as long as they have ceiling within the special fund, they have that authorization to do that. Yeah, they can do small RNM and repairs. I think the issue here is the way that the bill is drafted, it basically says, is that they could almost exceed appropriation ceilings.

And that's where I think it runs contrary to the Constitution, that no public funds shall be made without an appropriation made by law.

Okay, I see. Okay. Can. Are they allowed to charge CAM? I mean, I don't like. Let's say if you get, like any commercial building out there, you have a maintenance fee dialed in, right? Whatever, whatever expenses that are you have your rent and plus your CAM. Are you guys allowed to do that?

I don't know. That's an AG. That's truly an AG.

Do you know that?

You know, I know that there are certain entities within government that are allowed to charge CAM. It just depends on whether or not they have the authorizing statute to do so.

So I don't know if we do. We can look into it.

I think Meghan has the answer.

I don't have the answer. I'm definitely not an AG. But I think the way we look at some of the CAM fees that you're talking about, we put into our mooring appraisals. So within our facilities itself, right? If we have certain fees that we end up having to pay.

So when we do our appraisals, we're doing one right now, as a matter of fact, and our appraiser is looking at adding in those costs the deferred maintenance that are within the facility and then the CAM fees that we would be paying.

Can you pass that through to your tenants like they do in real estate? So whatever you have your basic rent fee and then whatever it costs to run your operation, on top of that for repair and maintenance insurance, and you can dial that into, like us to. To their, their fee for mooring their boat or using the facility.

So that's what we're trying topPut into the actual mooring fees, but not a separate charge. We do have separate charges. For example, in some facilities like electricity, it., there are some certain extra fees. But what we're trying is to put everything that we're, all of our costs, into what the mooring fee is that they would pay in our facilities.

Quick question then, do you need this bill?

I think what the challenge is, and I understand what, what BNF is saying, I think the challenge is the process that we have to go through that to use our special funds. And I don't know if, Curt, if you want to add some information as well, because it's not just boating.

Even though we're talking about boating, we're talking also about state parks. And I think a lot of the challenges are we have X amount of dollars for capital improvement projects, but the, the bids come out higher and then we have to go through the process to get approval just to use our boating special fund to supplement that.

And that's where we're having some of the challenges. So I don't. Curt, did you want to add anything?

No. That's pretty. We're in the same boat as you.

No pun intended.

Very good.

Okay, thank you.

Great Discussion. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. Sure, go on.

Thank you, Chair. DLNR, thank you. You mentioned something regarding engineering. So on every project that you do, is part of the process you got to have architectural engineering plans established in order to have the bid. Or can you just call somebody out there and say, you know, this, this thing is broken, can you fix it? And just get a quote and do it like that?

Depends on the scope of the procurement.But when we're talking about capital improvement projects, those are typically, you know, it's really two step, right? It's we get a consultant and I'm looking at our DOBOR folks to correct me if I'm wrong.

We get a consultant to do the bidding, the bid documents, prepare the specs for the actual project, and then we'll go out to bid for that project and then get the actual con, you know, the bids from the contractors. That's a very involved, you know, engineering's involved.

Sure. Yeah. And do you need legislative approval to initiate that?

At that point, you know, once the CIP, the project is already appropriated for, we. It's a matter of working with BNF, working with Gov. to get the funding and then also internally to get the bids out in a timely manner.

I see. Thanks for explaining that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Members, any other Questions. Seeing none. We are moving on. Next stop, we have SB15 SD1, relating to historic preservation. First we have DLNR in support. We stand on our testimony and support. Thank you. And next we have NAOP in opposition.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee of Anoa on behalf of Nā Pai o Hawaiʻi. We respectfully stand in opposition to the current form of the Bill as currently drafted.

The second portion of the definition includes, you know, a broader category of inclusion of Native Hawaiian cultural practices to the definition. Which we are, you know, concerned may broaden the scope and you know, be contrary to the intent of the Bill, which is to help narrow the definition and expedite, you know, reviews and help with the backlog currently at the Department.

You know, in our testimony, we did reference and recommend two potential amendments which align it with meets the criteria to be on the registry. But also proposed two additional amendments to Chapter 6E, 42.2. Which provides for, you know, additional exemptions for proposed housing projects as well as projects within nominally sensitive areas.

We feel as though this amendment would balance the interest at hand on both sides. So, you know, thank you for the time and available for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the people we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify. Seeing none. There's nobody else on Zoom. We have roughly 10 people that submitted written testimony in support or opposition or comments. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're going to move on.

Next up, we have SB 1462 relating to his historic preservation, relating to state historic preservation income tax credit. First we have Department of Tax with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. Largely, we'll be standing on written comments. Just want to add that the revenue estimate we prepared estimates that we would hit the cap in each of the years that the credit is available. Thank you.

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

Please stand on our testimony in support.

Okay, thank you. Next we have historic. Well, we got written testimony from Historic Foundation, Climate Protectors of Hawaii, and Sugar Creek Capitol and support. That's all the written testimony that we have. Is there anybody else wishing to testify. Seeing none. Nobody on ZOOM. Members, are there any questions. Sure Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I guess would be DLNR.

I'm not sure if this is in your scope, but the way that I understand this Bill, it's there's a time limit to this extension and, you know, based on trying to incentivize improvements, which is possibly a good thing there's time elements in getting plans, permits, getting contractors, getting the work done. So there is a definite time element.

And I'm just concerned that the purpose of this Bill is to incentivize this, this renovation. So would you folks be doing like a notification campaign on maybe certain places that are targeted.

Otherwise, I'm just thinking that people who are affected by this, they might not really be following all of this legislation and this time window is going to pass them by, so unless they're notified because of this time element and what I just explained, this Bill becomes almost meaningless because nobody's going to really take advantage of it.

I'm not sure if we've done outreach in the past on the availability of the credit and I have our ship, the administrator here with me. I'm not sure and I'm not sure how much of that credit because there's a $1 million cap, right. How much that's used on a year to year basis.

So I'll have her provide some background.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Jessica Puff. I'm the administrator of SHPD. When the tax credit existed previously at sunset at the end of last annual year. And there's also a federal historic preservation tax incentive program as well.

We have in the past done trainings targeted at different communities, primarily with a high concentration of historic properties that would be eligible for this credit. We've done training in partnership with Historic Hawaii foundation, who has helped to sponsor it.

I think the last one that I remember we held was in Chinatown, I believe, where we were targeting the whole community.

And then whenever we receive a project for review that is triggered by 6010, specifically, which is a listed historic property, we notify the property owner that they could be eligible for these tax credits if they are interested. And that we could like do the review for the tax incentive and the permit at the same time.

I know that during COVID we really toned down our outreach and we're trying to gear it back up again. And again we'd be looking to our partners like Historic Kuwait foundation, the local certified, the local historic commissions in each county and anybody else who'd be interested in helping us to get that out. But yeah.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions. Seeing none, we are moving on.

Next up we have SB 268 relating to Island Burial Councils. First up we have DLNR in support. Anybody on zoom. Nobody on zoom. That is all the. Wait, we have. We have probably 30 or 40 people with written testimony and support.

Is there anybody else wishing to testify. That's okay. Go ahead.

Aloha Kakahiaka. I'm Stacy Ferreira Ka Pouhana of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Mahalo Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members for the opportunity. We stand on strong support of the Bill and mahalo for the opportunity to provide comments.

So the Bill that you have in front of you, I just want to first and foremost say that there is extreme interest in this from all sides of our Hawaiian community, because there's such great aloha for our Iwi Kūpuna.

And most often it's in the how, that typically there may not necessarily be always agreement on, but what we do have in front of you is a Bill that has been. Has tremendous support as it's gone through session. We also have the support of DLNR, SHPD.

And I will share with you that OHA's relationship with SHPD and their new Administration has just been extremely functional and positive. And I think this is going to speak well and be very valuable for the Island Burial Councils moving forward. The Island Burial Councils have struggled. They've struggled with quorum, They've struggled with having expertise, if you will.

And I think you'll probably hear testimony from those here, in the hearing that the landowners bring a different type of expertise to the conversation, to the discussions. But really what's at hand and what OHA is really trying to bring forward is it's not about squelching access to landowners or developers.

It's not about not allowing them to have voice in the discussion. In fact, it's critical.

And I believe that their interest and their engagement and their genuineness in wanting to be pono right in all things Iwi Kūpuna related, that that would still occur as testifiers at the council meetings, that they would show up, they would attend, they would participate in robust discussions.

This Bill is really about who are the appropriate decision makers, who should have a vote in burial treatment plans, in identifying who the lineal descendants are. And we believe with the original intent of the Island Burial Councils was to have it be lineal descendants and cultural practitioners of that place.

And we would like to go back to what that original intent is. And I also want to put forth the Office of Hawaiian Affairs commitment to really surrounding the Island Burial Councils and providing them support that if there is expertise needed, if there is technical assistance, that's required. Right.

That our Burial Council Members might not have, as lineal descendants or as cultural practitioners. That OHA stands ready to provide consultation. And I would hope And I cannot speak upon behalf of the Ali' I trust. But I would hope that they would also step forward if asked by the burial councils to provide technical expertise or assistance.

Furthermore, OHA is also wanting to address many of the issues that the burial council has struggled with and wanting to make sure that the AG's office is engaged and providing the proper support, so that the burial councils can be operating in an optimal way and with the intended purpose that they were put together for.

And so, again, I show aloha to all of our beneficiaries that are in the room that are going to speak on behalf of our Iwi Kūpuna because I believe that we all want the best. And so with that, I will stand by for any questions that you may have. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have. You know, I'd rather anybody - who else wishing to testify when you stand up, please go up to the podium. State your name and organization and your position.

Aloha, Edward Halealoha Ayau. I am the Executive Director, former Executive Director—of Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawaiʻi Nei. Inevitably, we were named in the original legislation, Act 306, that created the Island Burial Councils by amending HRS Chapter 6E-43, 43.5, and 43.6 in the 1990 Legislature. I was one of three main authors of the original bill.

Can you state your position for support. Against. Okay, go ahead.

Because what was recognized in 1990 is true, still true today is that barrel decisions don't only require the input, of course, of the native Hawaiian community of direct linear descendants, but of large landowners and developers who have served on the council since its inception.

And that was reached in an agreement that the landowners had agreed to have a role on the councils but conceded control to Hawaiians. That's major. Major. We know who the power is in Hawaii. It ain't us. If it was, I wouldn't have to stand here.

And so we oppose this because there are far more serious issues facing the burial councils than this one. Over the past 25 years, SHPD has chronically: First, failed to support the burial councils and the management of bureau council appointments. Two, failed to provide effective training to burial site's program staff and bureau council Members.

Three, failed to produce consistently rigorous, timely reviews of reports required of those undertaking projects. Failed to develop the barrow site's inventory. Failed to respect the role of barrow council chairs to set council meeting agendas. Failed to comply with all legal requirements when EV coupon are inadvertently discovered.

Failed to seek prosecution of documented burial law violations and failed to advocate successfully to obtain adequate resources to support the Burial Sites Program. I was chair of the working group - Burial Sites Working Group. That was established by the Hawaiʻi State Legislature via House Resolution 113 and Senate Resolution 171 in the 2021 Legislature.

Our report is called the Report of the Bear Sites Working Group to the Hawaii State Legislature 2023 session. OHA cites this in their testimony. Nowhere in here did we recognize the role of landowners or developers as a problem.

In fact, it's part of the solution of having the two diverse interests at the table working together, engaging in the kind of consultation that's required to make these decisions. And so our concern is that you are. That this legislation would undermine that very critical engagement. And with that, I close by saying this.

This is one of my favorite quotes from Lord William Ewart Gladstone. He was a 19th century statesman and he said this. Show me the manner in which a nation or a community cares for its dead. And I will measure with mathematical exactness the tender sympathies of its people, their respect for the laws of the land.

And their loyalty to high ideals. In Hawaiian, to summarize my testimony, Ma ka hana ka ʻike, ma ka ʻike ka maopopo. And it means knowing by doing is the only path to understanding.

Thirty-five years of work on the Burial program and repatriation has led us to understand that in Hawaiʻi, if you want to get things done, you have to actively engage landowners and developers, not out of fear, but out of respect. Mahalo.

Thank you. Good testimony. Next. Okay, please stand up and state your name and organization in your position.

Aloha Chair. Aloha Vice Chair and representatives. My name is Alani Apio. I'm an independent consultant. I've been working in the world of Iwi Kūpuna as a facilitator and negotiator between. I worked 22 years for the Board of Water Supply, handling all of their burial issues across this island.

I've worked since 2001 and 2002 and continue to work for Hawaiian Electric. Before you ask, I am in strong opposition of this Bill. I worked since and continue to work for Hawaiian Electric helping them resolve all of their burial issues across this island and sometimes on other islands.

I've worked since 2006 helping to resolve burials in Kailua Town under, then Kaneohe Ranch and the Castle foundation and since 2013 until now under Alexander and Baldwin. I am in deep opposition to this because as Mr. Ayau has stated, I have real world experience with the burial councils and what goes down.

I've been in front of them over 50 times. And never once has the participation of one of the landowners been a problem. Indeed, quite the opposite. It has been a welcome and helpful tool to have the interaction of what the parameters of the business world are. The large landowners are relative to our burial concerns.

And having them on again, as Mr. Ayawa stated, they're always. They were by law, outnumbered. So there has never been a position when I've experienced them overruling what the Kanaka will is. Indeed, the actual people that we're talking about have been quite supportive and empathetic to the ends that we are trying to meet.

And if we can meet the ends of resolving burial issues without conflict, our islands, our communities and our Hawaiian people are that much more empowered and helped. So, once again, I think the intent. Tow more things. Oha, to my knowledge, has not been an active participant continually at the actual burial council meetings.

And that is important is because there's a saying in Spanish is one thing to talk about fighting bulls, it is another to be in the bull ring. If we read there are problems with the burial councils.

And I think the challenge for us is to find innovative ways to bring in the right people from the Hawaiian community, the lineal and cultural descendant and cultural practitioner communities, who have the right mindset and the ability to attend meetings rather than take out that critical element of the landowners. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next. Anybody else wishing to testify, please come up.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of this Committee. So to contextualize my testimony here today. I'm 25 years old. I've been attending Oahu Island Burial Council meetings as a recognized cultural and lineal descendants since I was 12 years old. My dad was sneaking me out of Kamehameha schools to attend these Oahu Island Burial Council meetings, provide testimony.

I've been a participant in the drafting of burial treatment plans, consulting on the treatment of inadvertent burials since before I hit puberty. And my thesis research is focused on inadvertent burials in the Kakaako and Waikiki area. And professionally, I work to care for Iwi Kūpuna that are impacted on development projects all throughout this area.

So although I am young, I admit that my testimony is filled with real life experiences. I grew up in that burial council chamber in that DLNR room. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen representatives from OHA at that meeting.

And I appreciate the sentiment that they showed here today because I do believe that it comes from a place of aloha. And I do believe that that's what the manao was behind this Bill.

But I stand in strong opposition of it because I while the spirit is good, the practicality of it, and I'm speaking from experience, it's not realistic and it's not going to continue to empower us. So I'll read my testimony as I've submitted or as I've submitted.

We have your written testimony. Did you submit it?

I did. I can read it. Did you sum it up? Yeah, I can sum it up. Essentially, what this Bill is doing is it's putting a band aid on a bullet wound to the shoulder, but putting the band aid on the wrong arm. Really what the Oahu Island Barrel Council needs.

And I say this as a Member of the Oahu Island Bureau Council, so I put my mana where my mouth is. I was recently appointed, and yesterday was my first meeting. The large landowner representatives were two out of the five people who showed up yesterday.

So even if we reduced the size of the Oahuani Bureau Council to seven Members, we still wouldn't have had quorum yesterday. The burial treatment plans, the descendancy applications wouldn't have passed if not for their presence in that meeting. And as my Kumu Ola Hou stated, their presence is about pono. It's about balance.

And that's why I hope that you folks, when you vote, vote in opposition of this Bill. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify.

Aloha. My name is Kawaiohawaiki Anakalea, and I am in support of this bill. I was recently appointed burial council for OHA. So I have a lot to learn. I, I don't understand why we should give. I don't believe no non kanaka should be owning land in Hawaii, period.

Why do they have a say in our burial grounds? Are our burial grounds being, being respected? You go in Waikiki, they're piling up all the bones in one place. That's not, that's not Hawaiian culture. So what have you guys done all these years to protect our iwi kupuna? I have a lot to learn, Uncle.

You got to teach me, because I, I don't know. Yeah, okay. So I'm in support of this bill. I don't feel that no non-kanaka should have a say in what goes on in our burial grounds. All right, you.

You guys take our kindness for weakness, and we're here to call you guys out on the disrespect you guys have caused constantly to our burial grounds all the time. So I stand on my testimony.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify?

Aloha mai kakou. Sherri Cummings, island of Kauai. I don't know what I am today. Hoaloha said some really interesting things. On record, I am on the burial council. The SHPD and the Boards and Commissions puts me up for question. So my term supposedly effectively expires on June 2025, yet to be debated. So there is problems seriously.

But I come as an kanaka and I come as someone who is learning about my honor. When I applied for burial council, I applied for a reason. And through the process and to Governor Ige, I was awarded that. And that's my story of one day why. Regarding this, I am in full support because, as the ohana stated.

And I'll tell her why she's my ohana in a second. It is so true. I do not believe that landowners, they have rights within law that governs what we, as protectors of our iwi can afford us opportunities to do. Because the IBC is governed by how and what they can do.

The landowners have their right of the parameters that we have to work within to assure the best way possible that we can protect our iwi. Kauai is in such a sad, sad shape today. And as far as what the perception of OHA is, yes, once upon a time, they were so unavailable to us.

But I did tell the po'o here that as a kanaka from Kauai, I am so amazed by how they become available and we can touch them. I've never seen them more present in the life of Kauai residents that they're here. And kiuke, I met him, and they come with such serious openness.

You know, Alan Murakami sits in the back with me, and he's kind of like my po'o. And he's amazed by what people say of how they become so available, because once upon a time, they were not, but it doesn't mean that they were not, they will never be. And I love the leadership now.

And so I am in full support and hope that the destiny of our iwi, that this process is to work with the IBC for the best that can happen for those who. That's our blood. We eat them because they fortify the food that sustains us.

And that's the circle of life in my mana'o of why we have to malama. So with that, I am in full support. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

I have a question.

Representative Souza.

Thank you. For Mr. Ayal, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your perspective. My question is basically centered on the fact that if we remove large landowners and developers, they won't be precluded from attending the meetings, correct?

Will not be. They will not be precluded.

They can still have a, a seat at the table, essentially, just not on the burial council. Right. They can still have a voice. They can still share their manao when it comes to different issues or whatever comes up that's in front of the burial council, correct?

It won't be an active engagement. That's the point.

Okay. So I guess my concern is, as a Hawaiian, just sitting on this committee, as a Hawaiian, it's so counterintuitive to have other Hawaiians come to the table and basically fight for large landowners and developers or the rights of large landowners and developers. So I guess that's kind of where the confusion is, is why.

And I know that without reiterating your entire testimony, I just don't understand why it's so important for them to have a seat at the table.

So the greatest teacher here, of course, is experience. And 35 years of the burial law has taught us that actively engaging landowners is the way to go. If they're not in front of us, then I would be worried.

And the reality is, over the years, the large landowners appointed to the burial council, Hawaiians who either worked for them or non-Hawaiians who had cultural understanding. So you guys are all making this assumption that Hawaiin good, landowner not good, developer not good, not true.

I'm not making that assumption.

The practical reality is that they have worked together on very challenging issues that are best addressed at a state board meeting rather than the courtroom. I know because I sued Nan, Inc. I filed other lawsuits against landowners when that engagement failed.

And what we're trying to promote is the discourse so that those decisions are made jointly and don't result in lawsuits.

Right. I'm just of the opinion that it can be made jointly without them actually having a seat on the burial council. And there can be that collaboration. And if they are, if they do have heart for Hawaiians, then they, then they will come to the table and they will properly engage without actually having a seat.

And they would respect maybe the fact that, that they don't need a seat on the burial council. That's just my opinion. I have a question, a follow up question for, for Stacy, if you don't mind, Chair.

Aloha.

Hi, thank you, Stacy. For, for your perspective as well. I guess my question for you is can you elaborate a little bit more about OHA's engagement or, or proposed engagement if this bill does go through? I know you mentioned consultation. Can you just further elaborate as to OHA's participation with the burial council?

Yeah, absolutely. And you know, I, mahalo. The beneficiaries in the room, recognizing previous administrations may have fallen short, but it is this administration and our board of trustees commitment to malama preservation, protection of iwi kupuna.

And so, you know, we do have Kamakana Ferreira, he is our compliance specialist, very well known by the burial councils and by the iwi kupuna community. And so consultation certainly regarding any kind of reports that may need further explanation.

You know, and again, we recognize lineal descendants, and the cultural practitioners may not necessarily have the legal expertise or the technical expertise. And so OHA stands ready to provide the compliance, the legal expertise, although the AG needs to be much more engaged with that. But we also want to start providing training--how to conduct proper board meetings.

What are the statutes, what is the role, and the responsibility of burial council members? So there's some basic context and training that should be provided that currently is not.

And I do see that as OHA's kuleana, to ensure that those that are selected through advice and consent are prepared and feel that they can be successful in making the best decisions possible on burial treatment plans and also on determining who those lineal descendants of that area are. They do need support.

And I think OHA, SHPD, I think it's all of us who really need to wrap around the burial council so that they can be effective, that they can feel supported, that they do have the tools and the resources. They have been neglected. There's no doubt about that.

Nobody's going to disagree here, but I don't think putting the landowners into that fixes that. I agree with you, Representative. That full, robust conversation, if we're pono on all sides coming to the table as a testifier should continue to happen. You don't need to have a vote to have that discussion occur.

But OHA stands ready to support the burial councils like we have not done in the past, but certainly we will be going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Representative Shimizu?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question. I'm not sure who to ask it to, but maybe I'll ask OHA. Can I ask you a question, please? You know, this, this is, I know, very emotional.

There's a lot of skin in the game, for lack of a better term, on both sides, and I don't want to get in the middle of it by any means, but here I am in the middle.

You know, I respect both sides, and I want to express my deepest gratitude for host culture, for the aloha that allowed me to be here and experience aloha.

You know, when I hear the testimony, it sounds like there are some things that could be improved, that should be improved with the burial council and that. And this is just my perception, it might be separate from the fact of who's on the board.

You know, these two landowners on the board, I look at it as that might be a separate issue. So my question would be, if you have nine members and two of them are landowners, I feel like the Native Hawaiian community has the strong majority and they will be able to dictate what.

What they feel is pono beyond these two landowners. And from what I'm hearing, that the landowners have not been out there and argumentative and destructive. So I'm just curious. Again, I have no experience attending council, burial council. I'm just trying to look at it very pragmatically.

And, you know, when I read this and I said, yeah, go OHA. You know, I see the new leadership. I feel the energy. I feel the vision. I know that is happening. I applaud you guys for what you're doing. And in concept, I would agree on this.

But when I hear the compelling boots on the ground opposition, it just really made me wonder. So, again, I think there's structural things that need to be addressed that's separate from this bill. And again, I just wondering, with 2 versus 7, wouldn't you have the majority to dictate what what Native Hawaiian community wants?

I think you raise an interesting point that deserves further discussion. So when I hear the beneficiaries talk about the benefit of the landowners, there's no disagreement. Our position is, do they need to have a vote to be able to have discourse? And I would say they don't.

Now, when you bring up the fact, and we just follow the logic that 2 is obviously going to be outweighed by 7, so what is the harm of taking them off then? So do we have the two on there for theater? Is it just to show?

Is it just to create spots to say that we have landowners being engaged in the discussion? If it's pono, they're going to come to the council and they're going to engage. They're going to provide intel, they're going to provide resources. If it's truly about engaging and wanting to do the right thing, that should happen with.

With or without them having a vote. Right? So if we're having two seats just for show, because no matter what they're going to be outnumbered or overruled, then why have them? What's the function? It serves zero function. If that's the case. Right. And so we can still have effective discourse. Right.

Robust discussions without having two of the votes going to theoretically no impact seats. Right. And so when we go back to the origination of the lineal and cultural descendants being the purpose, really the purpose of putting this council together so that they could weigh in. Now, please remember landowners and developers have the 6e process, right.

So they have an opportunity to bring their lawyers in, to have their archaeologists come in to get all the reports and have their say. This is the one, one venue where Kanaka sit and talk about it. When you say skin in the game, I'm going to say Evie in the ground.

This is their Ohana, this is their grandmother, their children. And of course we're talking hundreds and hundreds of years, but it's their families. So let's really humanize this. It's their family Members who are being decided upon. It's those burial treatment plans.

It's who's being recognized in that moku who should be talking about what is the best protection, preservation and malama of our family members, not the landowner's family members. If it were your family members, who would you want deciding on their burial treatment plan? A large landowner and a developer.

And I'm not to say that they're not being pono. I'm just saying who should be the decision maker. That's really what this bill is about. Who is the appropriate decision makers? Who should be voting on burial treatment plans, who should be voting on recognizing lineal descendants of that area?

Yeah, I don't want to get into that argument. For sure. Yeah. You know, as a minority member here, I have a voice and I may not, I may probably be outvoted, but I have the opportunity to express myself and share aloha, you know, in whatever perspective I have.

And my fellow members can know if I'm coming from a place of aloha or not. And they will consider that. And you know, we all vote our conscience. But I'm sorry, chair, thank you. Thank you for your indulgence.

You do have a stay at the table. Anybody else wishing any questions? I have one quick question. This would be, would be for DLNR. Who are the large landowners that are everybody are talking to, talking about?

I don't have the list of the representatives in front of me.

No, I mean just generally. Do you know? Yes. Okay, please come up, state your name and.

I can only speak to the Oahu Island Bureau Council of which I am a member of. The two large landowners are actually our chair and vice chair. The chair is representative of Kamehameha Schools. And the Vice Chair comes from Campbell Estate.

Okay. And they're not here today?

No. But there were two out of the five people who showed up for our Oahu Island Barrel Council meeting yesterday.

Okay. Does anybody know where the neighbor island? Large members like Kauai.

For the island of Kauai, the only large landowner currently that sits on the board and has space is Bruce Robinson. But prior individuals that did hold space at one point in time was Grow Farm.

But it, it hurts us as people of the islands because majority is large landowners and we're talking about large developers that come in and buy large lands, which our families were. And that's for a different discussion. But we're talking about people like Grow Farm. Mark Zuckerberg, you're talking about people like A and B.

You're talking about people like Kukui Ula, Gary Pinkston out in Koloa. You're talking about these types of people that have their developments and what's going on. And it impacts us as Kamaina to that place. But only one for now. Mahalo.

Thank you. Go ahead.

So for the gentleman who's been. Who's on the burial council, how did you? How did the large landowner seats become chair and vice chair?

No. Great question. So the previous chair before Kamenao Mills, who is the large landowner representative for Kamehameha Schools, was recommended by Kumohina Wangkalu, who was the chair prior to him, and she was the Konamoku rep. And while she was the Konamoku rep, Chuck Earhorn, who is the current vice chair, was also her vice chair. So the chairmanship.

And the vice chairmanship is kind of. At least this is per my experience thus far, which again, only lasts about 10 years. It's really at the recommendation of whoever serving kind of chooses their next chair. Yeah.

Do you guys vote for who the chair is?

Yes. Yes.

So everybody voted for them?

Yes, that is correct.

So the board basically agreed?

Yes, that is correct.

And then secondly, you also reference Kamehameha schools and Campbell Estate. Some may argue that some of the. I mean, that they represent that it may be their lineal just. I mean, potentially, I don't know.

Thank you. Thank you. Good question. Representative Poepoe, go ahead.

I think for DLNR, I just. What. What constitutes a large landowner or developer? Like, what are the criteria?

It's in the rules. There's a. There's a certain amount of land that they have to hold. And I, for the large land owner that I can't remember what the square, like the acreage is and then 100 acres. Thank you. Yeah, I was like, I'm going to look this up because I don't have. Yeah, yeah.

And then in terms of the developer, I don't have the definition. Do you remember what the definition is off the top of your head? Is it just anyone who can identify as a developer? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just one comment of note though.

The burial treatment plans that everybody's talking about, those are developed by the property owner, the project proponent, and they're submitted to ship D as part of the 6E review process. Thanks.

Sorry, Wait, I have one more question. If a project is proposed being proposed on the land of the land large landowner on the burial council, they will recuse themselves from the process of decision making?

Yes, they should recuse themselves.

Okay, thank you.

Any other? Seeing none, we are moving on. Thank you for that great discussion. Next up, we have SB 849 relating to wildlife conservation. We need to get. Give me a moment here. First up, we have DLNR in support.

DLNR stands on its testimony in support.

Okay. Next we have. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have five more individuals and organizations that submitted testimony in support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Anybody on. Nobody on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, you have questions to DLNR?

Yes. For DLNR. How many? So right now the only species is the hawk, right on the bill. I mean, I think it's been amended, but right now.

I believe it was expanded, but I believe the intent was the eel. Yes.

So how many are taken every year and does a fine not? Is the fine not adequate to deter the taking?

Oh, well, as far as information goes, I was hoping that one of our forestry and wildlife person. Oh, there's Kathryn. I thought you were online. Oh, no never mind.

Good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Kathryn Stanaway, DLNR. As for your question of number of take of EO a year, we don't have. We don't have a record of a number of take right now. Right now they're protected as endangered birds under 195D and also by administrative rule.

So we're creating. I guess my concern is that we're creating potentially adding to our mass incarceration system when there's no. I don't know, there's. I, I'm concerned that we're, we're mandating a prison term when we haven't even tried a fine. Like. Will a fine deter? Well, I don't know.

I think as a matter of policy, we support this bill because of the deterrence effect of increased penalties generally, whether that be in the form of a prison term. I mean, we defer to the legislature on what is the right thing, but for us, it's truly just increased penalties.

Would then therein logic dictates that there would be more deterrence.

I will note that as far as the violations go or the penalties on the state side, it's much less than on the federal side if there is a violation of federal law, whether it be like migratory birds laws or endangered species laws under the federal side of things. So we don't get close to parity.

But I appreciate the concern here. And as far as prison terms go, I mean, that's not. I don't. We don't have a position on the matter. You know, fines would be better.

And nor do you have a record of actually any taking at this point. I mean, there's, I guess my question, my concern is that there isn't behavior to deter at this point.

And that's why this is not our, this is not our bill. But we are supportive of deterrence measures generally. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

We do support. There's a rehabilitation measure in the bill and that has shown to be effective for there were some cases in past years of albatross on Kaena Point. And I know that rehabilitation was effective in that case. And so adding that to the bill is helpful for us.

Okay, what does. I'm sorry, just to clarify, what does rehabilitation mean?

So they can work with a branch, forestry and wildlife. Sorry.

Yeah, as a form of, like, repayment back for the violation.

Thank you.

It would be rehabilitation of what was, you know, destroyed.

Thank you. Yes, thank you very much.

Education, too.

Yeah, I appreciate it. Perfect. Thank you.

Okay, thank you members. Any other questions? Seeing none, we are going back to our very first bill. Thank you. SB 1456. Just a minute. Let me catch up. Relating to restoration of beach lands. First up, we have DLNR in support. Thank you.

So we. Ryan Kanaka'ole, DLNR. We've submitted our testimony in strong support of the original bill. However, we did raise some concerns about the house draft one. And mostly it was providing that historical context on the past projects, particularly on the status of the draft EIS for the rehabilitation of this stretch of beach. So thank you.

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

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Dolan Eversole with the University of Hawaii. We will stand on our written testimony in support, but just want to note that we prefer the senate version without the amendments. The recent amendments.

Thank you. Next we have. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Okay, go ahead. Mihoko.

Good morning. Should I proceed? Oh, thank you. Good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Mihoko Ito. I represent the Association of Apartment Owners of Hololani Condominium, which is in Maui.

We do support Section 3 of this Bill in the proposed HD1, which adds an appropriation for the Kahana Bay region beach restoration project and did want to offer some amendments.

Hololani and the other properties in this area have engaged and spent significant time, effort, and expense to propose a regional shoreline solution and they retained Oceanet to work on an EIS. The project has stalled and has not moved forward for various reasons.

And it's really left the properties with only emergency sandbags as protection without a longer term plan. The thing that's different about this project is really that the hui of property owners have.

They have hui'd up and they've decided to work together to try to find a regional solution and they are willing to move forward and put skin in the game and put their own financing as part of this project. So. So we appreciate the inclusion of that in this bill.

We did propose some amendments, mostly are technical to provide some preamble language and also correct the TMK numbers that describe the area.

And then secondly, with respect to the original language that expanded the definition of beach restoration, we do not oppose that, but would propose an amendment to clarify that the removal of abandoned remnant remains does not include emergency structures that the DLNR has already permitted and approved. So just a clarification there. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have on Zoom. Oh wait, before I go on Zoom, is there nobody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Okay, we're moving to Zoom. Kai Nishiki on Zoom.

Aloha chair, vice chair, and committee members.

While we support the original intent of SB 1456 to broaden the definition of beach restoration to include nature based solutions such as dune restoration and removal of derelict structures, we recommend an amendment to section two, number two of the bill's definition of beach restoration to ensure that stabilizing structures are not included as part of the restoration definition.

We also strongly oppose the inclusion of Section 3, which seeks to appropriate state funds for a proposed Kahana Bay tea growing and beach nourishment projects which are being proposed by some vacation rental owners and is highly controversial within the West Maui community. Many residents and stakeholders have raised serious concerns about the project's. Long term feasibility, cost, liability, environmental impacts, and its failure to adequately address public access, public benefit and public parking in the area. The DES published in 2021 acknowledged unresolved issues.

Additionally, neither the State of Hawaii DLNR nor the County of Maui has agreed to take on ownership or responsibility for the T-groin in structures proposed across the bay. With projected costs up to $40 million, this project represents a significant financial burden with ongoing maintenance and liability concerns that have yet to be addressed.

We believe funding should be prioritized for proven nature based restoration efforts and at much lower cost. This proposal in section four is for 250,000 and there have been demonstratable successful dune restoration initiatives carried out on Maui at many locations where government agencies and community stakeholders have already demonstrated positive outcomes and as proposed in section 4.

Therefore, we strongly support the inclusion of Section 4 with some minor amendments outlined in our written testimony. Hanako O Beach Park is one of the last remaining gathering spaces for our West Maui community. It is the place for healing, culture and recreation, including our cherished Ba' a traditions.

Protecting this area is vital to preserving Lahaina's connection to its shoreline and ensuring its sustainability for future generations. This is the only public beach park along Kaanapali Beach and home to all of the canoe clubs in West Maui and where the state championships are held when on Maui.

The Hanakao Beach Park Dune Restoration and the Adaptation Pathways stands as a proactive measure to address the significant challenges posed by sea level rise and coastal erosion.

Mahalo for opportunity to provide my testimony, I have included a more lengthy written testimony and included support letters from the County of Maui Parks Department, UHC Grants, and Council Member Tamara Poulton and also have the support of Lahaina Strong and you will see their testimony. But the Kahana Bay Project, please do not include that. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the testimony that we have received. We received probably 30 or 40 other people in support or opposition to this HD1 and is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Nobody else on Zoom? before we start questions, I want to let the members know that this was my idea to do a regional solution for this area. There's nothing in the bill that states it's going to be T-groins. Basically the first section of the bill states this is natural, natural beach restoration.

The concept is okay to do that type of restoration at these spots. So what they're. What a lot of the testimony that they were saying about the T-groins is not in the Bill and it's more about natural restoration that DLNR is proposing. So the concept is to do that natural restoration here with that. Go ahead, Kim Coco.

So, Ms. Nishiki, did you hear what the chair just mentioned? Because is your understanding of stabilization? Would that include a form of hardening of the coastal? Would T-groins be a part of? Could T-groins be a part of stabilization efforts in your understanding?

My understanding. And what is proposed in the draft environmental impact statement published in 2021 for this area included, I believe 7 T-groins and a headland. And that is part of the plan. And it was stated in the DEIS that beach nourishment would not be successful in this area without those T-groins.

And so that is exactly part of the proposal and one of the huge concerns in changing this coastline forever. So I respectfully shared that T-groins are most definitely included in this proposal.

And there is no proposal that anyone in the community or I don't even think any agencies are aware of that proposed this project without the T-groins. Members.

Members, you know what? I'm going to start off by asking the first question. Hololani, can you come up and give history about what happened? You went through this whole process.

Sure. And I don't have all the details, but I did bring Jim Berry, who has been involved with the Hololani Condominium for a very long time, and he can fill in some of the pukas that I cannot.

But I do understand that this really started in about 2007 when there was a catastrophic event along that coastline, and a lot of the properties had to get emergency protection against their lands. And, you know, it went through. Everything, has gone through many, many years of discussion.

And then in about 2017, as Hololani and other condominiums were working with DLNR and with the county, they were urged to hui together to come up with a regional solution. So that is exactly what they did, you know, recognizing that it was a challenge just to address each property piecemeal.

And so they did that, and they put a lot of time and money, they funded their own EIS to do a proposed project. I think they're open to any solutions that can come of these discussions. But the issue has become that the project has become stuck and it's in limbo and there's no path forward.

What do you mean by stuck?

Well, I can tell you that with respect to the EIS and the project that was proposed, the county said they didn't want to risk take on the liability of owning the project.

And then with respect to DLNR, you know, there were indications that they weren't willing to move forward on it either in any way.

So, you know, they put in all this effort at the request of the county and then, you know, once they got to this point, we're faced with, you know, just answers that didn't indicate that this project was going to move forward.

So they're looking for a solution and they're willing to fund it, frankly, because it's important to them in this region and it affects a really wide stretch of this coast. So that's basically where the project is at this point.

And I don't think that they are married to any particular solution and are open to suggestions, but they just would like to find a path forward.

Thank you. Michael Cain, do you have? Can you give your?

Yeah, thank you. Representative Michael Cain with the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, part of DLNR. If I can take a quick minute for some. Oh, am I.

Yes, go ahead.

Or did you have a specific question?

Yes, so DLNR did a pilot project on Kahului which did the dune restoration. Is that correct?

We permitted a a project. Yeah. So we're a regulatory agency.

Okay.

So we, our office in particular will review projects and make recommendations to our board, who actually will be the ones to permit or deny or modify a project. We do take on projects, but generally ones that are in state parks or county parks or with sister agencies.

Was that successful?

The one near Kahului I would say was successful. For other committee members, this is a small scale sand nourishment project that used small rock groins parallel to the shore to help stabilize the beach and in parallel restored some of the coastal restoration coastal vegetation along the private properties.

And what they accomplished there was a private project, was that beaches naturally migrate and we find when we have a natural dune, we have less erosion problems. Beaches will move back and forth over the years or with the seasons. So, yes, very successful.

Okay, thank you very much. Go on. Continue to.

For Kahana, for this project, we were the accepting authority for the draft environmental impact statement. I'm a little bit confused by earlier statements that we were did not want to see the project move forward. We don't want to take ownership of the groins, but when the applicant submits the final eis, we will process it.

But this, this is a private project, at least at this point. I understand the proposal might change that.

All right, thank you. Members. Any questions? Representative Poepoe.

So sections 3 and 4 appropriates funds to the department DLNR for the stated purposes. How would The DLNR utilize or implement?

Section 4 is relatively straightforward because that is a county beach park and we've actually met with community members and walked that parcel. So I know what the project is. So we would probably. Not probably.

We would partner with county parks, use our funds to help support the project, and we would expect either community members or the park to take the lead. Section three is more complicated and I do not know how that would work out.

Okay. So the county is aware of and willing to partner and do all of help with all of this.

I believe they have submitted written testimony that they are.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other questions?

Thank you for Mr. Cain. Thank you, chair. So again, this is regarding the colson. The T-groins are. Is that a form of hardening?

I do not consider it hardening, but also, if I can back up again, the. We reviewed the draft EIS for completeness. It recommended a range of options. It did say that beach nourishment without stabilizing structures would last a couple of years. So it's a. It's an expensive project. The EIS disclosed a number of potential stabilizing structures.

The groins were their preferred alternative. But it's not my EIS. I wasn't ready to assess the other alternatives that they discussed. But in terms of the actual question you asked, we consider beach hardening. Engineered structures that prevent a beach from migrating, like a seawall. Parallel to the shore is shoreline hardening.

The groins are designed to mimic natural headlands, so it does secure a beach in place. But we don't consider it beach hardening per se. So parallel to the shore, beach hardening extending outward from the shore is still engineered, but from our perspective is not beach hardening.

Interesting.

I mean, but just generally, I mean, because we're up against climate change, coastal rise, losing shoreline, and when these. When all of this erosion happens, it's going to leave this condominium complex with like no beach in front of it.

Correct. And I believe in many of these areas there is no beach. It's a seawall, a sheet pile, the temporary emergency sandbags that were mentioned earlier, and then water.

Members, any other questions?

I have one more. Just. Can you quickly describe beach nourishment? Because I think sometimes we water down terms and make them sound nice. And I'm not saying that it's not like a thing, but beach nourishment. Right. What is it?

Well, the original purpose of this act was to expand the definition. Current definition of beach nourishment is the placement of outside sand on the beach. Main sources are either quarried sand or offshore sand. Currently in Hawaii, there are not many sources of inland sand. Either there's cultural deposits there, or they're in quarries.

And we are competing with cement and manufacturing companies that can pay more for the sand. So in practice, it's bringing offshore sand onto the shore.

It's like pump and dump.

Oh, hope it's better than that. It's been well studied but it's.

But I mean, I know there are areas sometimes where it could be beneficial because sand accumulates, like in the harbor and the ships can't get in. I just wanted a definition, so thank you.

Okay. And it's actually required. If you're cleaning a stream mouth and its beach quality sand current rules require to be placed within the same littoral cell, the same system. Thank you.

Representative Belatti.

Just because I didn't see it in the testimony. What are the proposed appropriations for this? Is there anyone that can speak to what's going to be needed?

What was that?

What are the proposed appropriations?

Oh, nothing. I don't know. Have no clue. I was going to leave that up to finance.

Can. Do you have it? Can you respond?

No, I can. I can tell you the overall estimated cost of the groin project. And again, that's one of the alternatives. I. I have it in our testimony. I believe it was 24 to 40 million.

The restoration project at the county park, Hanakao, they had put in a grant for what I believe is a request for 250,000 to the federal government. Feds are not giving money for beach restoration these days. So I would say 250,000 for the county project. And that's an estimate, sorry.

Is Hololani still here? What is the estimation from your point of view?

I'm going to have Jim Berry help address that.

I'm sorry, I didn't get the whole question.

There's appropriations in this bill. Can you speak to what the cost of these projects are?

Just what's been said for the regional thing. It's 26 to 40 million dollars, and that's all I. And you're not going to know for sure until actually the bids come in.

The project is fully engineered and developed, plans are drawn up.

And the idea is that we would fund the full 26 to 40 million?

I don't know. That's not. I think the idea is to. I was going to change that.

Okay.

No, I don't think that's to fund the project at all. It's to help get it off the ground, get the you know, this, this is the first hui, I think, that's done this kind of thing that's been put together to try to have a regional solution.

And the fact that, you know, they're stalled because of the government is, is, is what we're, I think is what we're talking about here.

One last question, since it seems like the, the stalling is because no one wants to take ownership, state or county. Is that issue still unresolved even if we pass this bill?

I don't know. I don't know the particulars of that.

Thank you, Mr. Berry. Maybe DLNR can explain that because if we're doing all this and there's still going to be that problem, then what are we doing?

So, yes, the issue is not resolved. We are processing the application. So I mean, we would not take ownership of the improvement that would be, we put that upon the applicant.

Typically in most situations there are projects that we take on those are, I mean, there's Waikiki projects that we've taken on, but we've kind of gone away from that because we are the regulator, we are the receiving agency. So those responsibilities in like for example, the Waikiki context, that's been taken on by DBEDT.

So yeah, ownership and DBEDT's been willing to own those structures, their project, and that's really where it comes into play.

Maybe one last question, just as a follow up. So telescoping out from this specific project. I mean, I think there's a broader policy question, right. As Representative Iwamoto kind of talked about that. Are we now going to set a precedent for this is how we're going to deal with managed retreat moving forward? By hard.

Well, by, by basically like creating all of these regional plans that we're going to have to engage all of private property owners and then state is going to be infusing lots of money. If that's our, if that's what this is leading towards there, that's a huge serious policy question. Can you comment on that?

I can comment. Mostly I agree. That's a huge policy question that has not really been addressed or answered. Historically, 1930s, 1950s, the territorial government took the lead in any kind of shoreline protection, shoreline mitigation. Since statehood, it's been a hot potato that's been passed around. Every five to ten years it gets passed to the next agency.

So we do not have a consistent state policy. We do our assessments on a regional basis. The North Shore of Oahu is different than Waikiki is different than Ka' Ani. So we have to look at the unique conditions. So I don't know what precedents that was set. I just want to acknowledge we asked the same questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Well, I have a question. I guess any DLNR or Jim, you probably could answer this. If we do nothing, what will happen to those, to that shoreline?

If you do nothing, the sandbags will eventually deteriorate and will no longer protect the shoreline. If the shoreline is unprotected, it's alluvial soil, it's red dirt, essentially. They will erode and you'll have red water off this shoreline for a long, long time.

The concept that's been put forward with managed retreat is that as a shoreline erodes, the beach will follow it. That will not happen here. You know, there is a lack of sand as the shoreline erodes, as sea level gets higher, the waves at the shoreline will get higher too.

And the energy of the waves increases exponentially with the wave height. So the sand that's there now, the small amount of sand that comes and goes will no longer be stable. You need coarse sand, even cobbles, things that they are not there.

We do not have good sand in this area offshore that's going to move in and produce a beach. So if you do nothing, you're just going to have a mess. The shoreline is going to erode, you're not going to have a beach. The condominiums will probably be abandoned and somebody's going to have to pay for that.

So, you know, looking forward, I think we have disagreements with, you know, among the coastal community, but everybody agrees that sea level rise is coming. It's a dire situation and we need to address it. And, you know, doing nothing really is not an option here.

Would this be similar to like the Sheraton Waikiki falling into the ocean?

Well, it's similar, a little smaller scale. But, but yeah, these are, you know, these are, you know, 10 story condominiums. You know, there's a lot at stake here. A lot of, a lot of apartments, a lot of dwellings, a lot of housing, a lot of business. And it will not, it will be a terrible situation.

Catastrophic, I will say.

Thank you. Is it fair to say sea level rise is here?

Yes, it is. Can I, can I elaborate on that? You know, the actual global rise is small at the moment, but what we have seen are local systems that have given us one, you know, half a foot to a foot of rise. And that is when that happens.

That is when we have these situations where we have a lot of rapid erosion of the shoreline. Things get bad really quickly, so we have these transient temporary rises, meaning they last for months at a time. It's not the global situation, but it is gives us a window to the future of what will happen here.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We will. We're at the end of our agenda. We will recess.

Okay. Welcome back, everybody. We are gaveling back in on our 9am agenda on Committee on Water and Land. First up, we have HB 1456. We're gonna, the Chair's recommendation is to take some of SanHi's changes. The non-substantive preamble section, we're gonna...

I'm gonna change the preamble to explain the situation a little bit better so people will understand. And change in section, update the TMKs. So apparently that's not correct. So I'll change the TMKs and add Army Corps of Engineers. And for the pilot projects, we'll say we will exclude tea growings to make it explicit.

So would that be okay? Well, too late for questions, but I'll ask you later. Okay. Members, any comments or concerns? We're going to defect the date to 7-1-3000 and make technical amendments. Oh. Oh, yeah. Thank you very much. So, and appropriations, we're gonna... I've talked to the Chair of Finance and I mentioned this.

So put in 25% state funds and 25% county, and 50% should come from the surrounding residents. I'm not going to specify how they're going to get the funds. I'm assuming it's going to be some kind of special assessment levied over property tax or something. But we'll try that for now and let the other committees change or expand on the funding mechanisms. Thank you for reminding me on that one. Any questions or concerns? Vote your conscious. This is a difficult one. Vice Chair for the vote.

Right. We're voting on SB 1456. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much, Members, for that. That was a difficult vote. Okay, moving on to HB 841 or SB 841, relating to marine life conservation districts. The Chair's recommendation is to, on page four, section B, to add current permitted operators. Swap out nonprofits for current permitted operators as in the testimony. And that is it. And defect date to 7-1-3000 and technical amendments. Any questions or comments? Yes.

Chair, can we put in the Committee report what was mentioned by DAR as far as the estimated cost? That's actually in their testimony. But also that range that was mentioned by I believe was David from DAR.

Yes, good point. In the Committee report we'll put estimated cost 300,000 to $1 million a year. Good. Thank you. Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, Members. Voting on SB 841, SD1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson. Anyone voting with reservations? Anyone voting no? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Next we have SB 411, SD 2. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1 defecting the date. I know this one is a little bit controversial, but I think we should keep it moving along to keep the conversation going. Thank you. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, Members. Voting on SB 411, SD 2. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Representative Woodson, and actually noting his excused absence for the rest of the agenda. Anyone voting no? Anyone voting with reservations? Reservations for Representative Iwamoto. Representative... Also reservations for Representative Belatti. Anyone else voting with reservations? All other Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, next up, we have SB 15, SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with a HD 1, defecting the date, making technical amendments, and taking NAIOP's amendments. Any comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the for the vote.

Okay, voting on SB 15, SD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting with reservations? Reservations for Representative Iwamoto and Representative Poepoe and Belatti and Souza. Anyone voting no? All right, seeing none. Your recommendation is adopted, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have SB 1462 just for... Well, I'll make a... What is this? A disclosure that I've renovated historic buildings, but I never took this tax credit, so... But anyways. So I don't think there's a conflict. Anyways, Chair's recommendation is to take to do technical amendments, defective date to 7-1-3000, and take Sugar Creek's amendments. Sugar Creek's amendments mirrors the language in the low income housing tax credit. So it's already in statute. Any comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on SB 1462, SD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone voting with reservations? Anyone voting no? All Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have SB 268, SD 1. The Chair's recommendation is to make technical amendments, defect date to 7-1-3000. I was initially going to... I was initially going to put back the large landowners. However, at the hearing, as you notice, none of them are here.

So obviously it's not that, if it's not important for them to be on the burial committee and have a seat at the table, they should be involved in the conversation here at the Legislature. So because they were not here, I will... It's obvious it's not important to them, so I guess we will leave them out.

If they wish to be remain included on the burial council, I really highly recommend that they come and testify why they should be on the burial council. So with that, the Chair's recommendation is to leave, pass the bill with just technical amendments and defect date to 7-1-3000, leaving out the large landowners and the developers.

Any questions or concerns? So the testimony for the burial council, they said it was important for the large landowners and the developers to be a part of the conversation. But as you notice, none of them were here today. So if it's not important enough for them to come here to testify and to tell us why. We didn't even get any testimony from them. Right. So if it's... If it's not worth their time to submit testimony, I guess it's not worth their time to be on the burial council is what I'm trying to say.

No, I'm not changing the language. I'm just defecting the date and making technical amendments. So they are remaining out of the burial council as of now in the bill. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vote your conscience. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 268, SD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is pass with amendments. Anyone voting with reservations? Reservations for Representative Poepoe and Iwamoto. Okay. And... Okay. All right. Anyone voting no? Representative Shimizu will be voting no. Anyone else voting no? Okay. All other Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much, Members. That was a difficult one. Okay, last, we have SB 849, relating to wildlife conservation. Chair's recommendation is to pass. Keep the conversation moving. Pass this with an HD 1, defecting the date to 7-1-3000, and making technical amendments. Yeah. Vice Chair for the... Any questions or concerns? I see a.

A smirk. No, I'm just disappointed that we're jumping to imprisonment as a deterrent to something. It's just... It's problematic policy.

Yeah. That's on the second or third offense. Right. Yeah. It's going to Judiciary, so they can address that. Do you want to make amendments like put back corporal punishment or anything to that?

They said rehabilitation. They said making any wrongdoer participate in the restoration, and they said that that was effective. Thank you.

Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 849, SD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Noting the the reservations for Representative Iwamoto. Anyone else voting with reservations? Anyone voting no? All other Members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much for your support, Members. We are adjourned. Oh, wait. We are adjourned on this one. We gaveling back in on our joint hearing. Since we're all here, we're going to defer SB 11. We are adjourned.