Senate Standing Committee on Water and Land

Good afternoon. The Committee on Water and Land on its hearing notice Monday, March 17, will begin shortly. But addressing some housekeeping measures for those on Zoom and those testifying as well. If you can limit your testimony to two minutes with the exceptions of the agencies that we sort of want to continue discussions on any matter.

And the live and video of this hearing can be found on the Senate's YouTube channel. Decision making will follow after hearing from all the testifiers and the time permitting as well. And for those of you and on Zoom as well, the Chair is going to make some changes to the order of the day.

And because we do have representatives from the neighbor islands and in particular the ranchers are here, and as often we try to take care of those that come from the neighbor islands to at least have a chance to catch their flight home.

So we're going to move the last on the agenda, SRv118 to the top of the agenda. And this is requesting the DLNR resources to transfer active agriculture land leases under the jurisdiction of Department of Land and Natural Resources to the Department of Agriculture to support agriculture in the state.

Now it's to get my thing going on here on the top of the agenda. Bear with me. Okay. I think automatically it's usually the recognition of the agency. Yeah, I need the last 1118. Okay. DLNR or who's representing the agency today on Sr 118. Sorry about that, Chair. Thank you very much.

Aloha, Senator. And Vice Chair and chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Dawn Chang, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, truly, in all due respect to all the ranchers who are here, and I've appreciated that they've all that they are physically all here today, we do oppose this resolution.

Since the Governor took office, Chair Hurd and I assumed the positions as chair of DOA and DLNR. We have been moving in good faith to transfer all of those parcels of lands that there's the mutual agreement between the Board of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of Ag to transfer those lands.

So we would oppose the resolution requirements to transfer those that we do not consent to. And then I'm going to stand on my written testimony, but we are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I also got Land Division. Durazo Suchi, are you standing on your testimony? Okay, Cattlemans.

Thank you. Chair Inouye, Vice Chair Lafonte, Members of the Committee, Nicole Galase, on behalf of the Hawaii Cattleman's Council, we are in strong support of this resolution. Unfortunately, the bill died as it was moving through the house. And so we are glad that this was submitted so that we can keep moving this forward.

We are only asking for less than 11,000 acres of land to be transferred to the Department of Agriculture. And these 11,000 acres are in active agriculture. DLNR is, you know, they've proposed transferring parts of these. These leases. Unfortunately for our ranchers, if they just transfer parts of these leases, they will not be able to stay in business.

A lot of the parts that the DLNR wants to keep have the important water systems that the rancher developed. And we just want to make sure that we are completing what Act 90 was meant to be for, which is to make sure that ag lands stay in ag production. Thank you.

I have a question. Yes. Okay. With that said, and the opposition of the agency is, with regards, it could be many acres because it's not specific on their testimony. However, from what I gather that the issue before the ranchers and the information that we got from Dhofar pretty much went on 4 tmks. Is that correct?

Correct. Yeah, it is. The Delouse Ranch, Botello, Hawaii. The Nobrigas and Diamond Bee on Maui. Three of those are on Hawaii Island. Diamond Bee is on Maui.

Okay, Members, I'm going to kind of continue the discussion with the ranchers. There are other. There's many supports, but it's individual. So that's. If you have any questions, please go with the Department that. Okay. All right. I'm done. Not done, Nico. Okay. Going back to what my comments were with regards to the 4TM case in question.

And if Doar is here, this has to do with, again, Delos Wo Noa Noa and Diamond B. Diamond B. Okay. Chair is too far here. Okay. All right. Okay. Emma, there are several out of those TMKs you are requesting for forestry as an example.

I'm sorry I don't have my notes with me, but I think there's a lot on my mind with regards to delouse. Okay. They have two parcels. One is for 3,000 acres and another for a thousand. Now there's. And you want the 3,000 acres. And they. You're saying they can get the thousand acres.

These are joint lands, one on the Makai side and one on the Mauka side. Now, the issue that they have asked renters and the protection of their businesses, that some of them has been probably close to maybe 50 years or 25 to 50 years. So as well as three of the other parcels.

So how many of those forestry lands that's already in ranching and why are you taking so many of the ranchers lands? In the last several years that I've been here, some you have taken, some are fallow. You guys have not done anything on it as well.

Some are fenced, such as the area in our districts on the Big island where there as an example the pale on I would think close to Parker Ranch on Saddle Road and as well. And now we find because it's fenced you still allow hunters to go in there.

But when you look at the overall picture of forestry, it seems like there's more. I would say no activity on the role of forestry to do what your plans were in trying to take out lands from the renters. Are you prepared with resources to do what you plan to do?

If you're taking out, I would think amongst the four tmks you're looking at close to correct me If I'm wrong, 5,000 acres or more.

So please one of them particularly I think it's Duluth or Hotelos in Paulo where the lands are kind of adjoining but Makai and Mauka but where the water is you're taking where the entry to the ranch you're taking. So I think we need to address these situations.

Act 90 I introduced in 2003 signed into law for the transfer of DLNR lands to do a How many years is that? And we're still dealing with issues that we tried to address back then.

So with that said, are you guys prepared taking the lands away from food sustainability for the industry and we're trying to increase the supply that now the back the school sustainability program is in force.

How do we address that and are you prepared to make sure that you're taking these lands away and you're going to immediately make use of it?

Yeah. I'm Emma Yuen with Department of Land and Natural Resources. Just to clarify, the areas that were being referred to with the Palela critical habitat were areas that was transferred because of the Department of Transportation's need for mitigation. And it wasn't DLNR's request and we didn't receive like extra funding for that.

So I do want to clarify that's. Because of the Saddle improvements improvement. So it wasn't like DLNR was grabbing that and trying to get that. And it wasn't like we provided many extra resources to manage that. So that shouldn't be a indicator of us trying to get more lands and then, you know, managing it.

So I guess what I wanted to clarify is also for the Patello lease we have talked to the rancher and worked out. What we are proposing would retain in a DLNR lease to the rancher, which still has about six more years on it and the opportunity to extend another six years.

So that's not a immediate, you know, transfer. We're anticipating quite a. A lot longer on that lease to begin with. And they have written back to us with a letter indicating that they're supportive of that, and we are working out that. To include all. To survey all the infrastructure that they want.

So my understanding is that we are actually in good. We're, you know, have consensus with that particular landowner or that particular sea and.

So how many acres are you taking from the.

I don't have the exact acreage of. What is happening here.

Can you. You. You need to come up. You need to speak into the mic. Okay. Introduce yourself and give. Tell us your issues.

I'm Joey Loyolo. I work for Botella Hawaii Enterprise. And I believe it's 856 acres, but that they want.

Yeah. Okay.

So we would retain. I believe it's 42 acres with just a. Basically a water tank and, you know, some infrastructure that we had put in. But, I mean, we see that 800 acres as supplemental pastures for our dairy operation. So. And we do use it, especially when the Kohala area that we have gets very dry.

Emma is saying that you've come to an agreement.

I believe it was kind of. We're kind of discussing still how much we need as far as with the existing water system, because that water system actually continues up, but we're willing to cut out a certain area if need be. But we do want to retain as much as possible.

Out of the 800 acres, how many. I mean, you have two tmks before us or one. Who has the two deluge. You have only one. One, I believe. Okay, okay.

Okay. So, I mean, we'd like to get as much as we can so that we can sustain the dairy operation as well. But 42 acres isn't. Isn't much.

Who put in the water system, or is it? Well, it was.

It was originally there, but we did a lot of improvements over the past five years to that water system, and we've actually branched off because we do send water different ways. So. And the water system is pretty complicated when it comes to making sure that we have enough elevation, drop and that kind of stuff that.

I mean, we can't just run a straight water line and expect. Okay, this is. We'll just run a water line here. I mean, we got to take, you know, the. The terrain into consideration and Making sure we have enough pressure and that kind of stuff. Right now we're pasturing about 180 head up on top. And that's.

And that's the most quality feed that we have on the ranch right now. It's the strongest feed. That's why we put a lot of the younger animals there. They. They tend to do a lot better there. They get a good start. And our biggest issue is we lost 2,000 acres. I believe it was 5015 years ago.

You lost because for the paleo management area and right now the. The grass stand in there is ridiculously high. And it's just a fuel load. I mean somebody can light a match. And that. That place is going up. Yeah. It's in a fenced area right now.

Okay, Members, we need to get going with the agenda, but delu's because you got two of the major issues before us. Thanks. Okay. Emma, why don't you stay.

I'm Stephen Daluz. I'm still lose range. Yeah, there's. They're willing to give me.

Okay, can you tell us on the two parcels how many each and with what DLNR is offering you and what they want?

So DLNR is offering me the 1900 acres below the road, which is on the Macai side. On the Mackay side, which is not very good land. It's over there. I can keep only about 230 cows to 250 at the most. On the top side, the 3,010 acres, we keep 700 cows.

Which one do they want?

They want. They want the. The. The 3,010 acres. They say that that place is the best place for core and they wanted do a road from Skyline to Mana Road. And which they acquired a potato leaks 20 years ago or more that they have access from Skyline to Mana Road.

So if they really believe that they needed that road, why didn't they put access to that property? Well, they had. Is in their control. Yeah, but. And our water system is all up pretty much up on the. On that side.

On the Malka side.

On the Malka side. And with 2020, we. We just built a new. New reservoir over there, you know.

At your cost.

Yes. So your nrcs. So this is the.

This is the. The. The big reservoir. So the, the cost share. The nrcs. Yeah.

You got grants.

That's the parcel that DLNR wants to do.

Yes. So this is the top one that we do and we did several. So we have like about 5 million gallons of water storage in this area.

How many cattle, how many heads?

So on top there is right around 600 calls we keep and then down below another 230 so that, that is the most the better land. The productive land is on top there. And I got only 5,000 acres.

If you put them together all together and if that, if I lose that we cannot survive because you know the cost of repairing water, the transportation, you know it's small. In 2005, well 2022, 2002 we lost 21000 acres in Puhova due to conservation. We were could get a 20 year extension on P.

When we're in there and Chris was Un. Was the Chairman he slowed it down till at least ran out. We didn't get to. And that was Kaitano sign he gave that you could get a transfer. They get 86,000 acres outside encumbered land aroUnd PO. Not doing nothing. But they needed a 21,000 acres that was in ranch production.

And so like so we lost that. We had to. We ran out of grazing permit. That didn't work because it was all one sided. You know. You know cows were poor, not, not in production. You can be there free.

You cannot, you cannot make it now they're like dude, give me an extension and up there 10 years and go on on grazer permit. I. It won't work because we tried it. The rancher won't survive. Wouldn't be to his advantage. You know we, we produce 115,000 pounds a year of US of Choice beef, grass Fed beef.

We put in the local markets. Yeah. And then another£68,000 of ground beef as co cows and booze. So. And that, that is from 224 last year. And I get all the other documents here, the slaughterhouse stuff and all the calibrations here and to, to back it up. Yeah.

Okay so you know if, if this happens, this angle, we're going to be cut less than half again, you know. So.

I, I don't see how this. We need to be in Act 19 to the Department of A. Thanks so much to survive.

Okay.

Thanks. Any questions? Senator McKelvey. Okay now Farm Bureau. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thanks Emma.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony. We're in support of this resolution. We've been in support of this for, for over 20 years. It's a 20 plus year journey. We are only asking to transfer the production land.

Land that's an actual ag production. You heard from the ranchers and if I be bold enough to say they're not going to come up here and tell you what they really think or how they really feel or how this will impact them.

I do want to commend Department of Agriculture and DLNR for the work that they have done thus far working on ranches like KK Ranch, Kapapala Ranch. But there's still more work to be done even with some of those ranches and lands that have been Transferred via Act 90. You know we've got multiple goals for agriculture, right?

Food, doubling food production, farm to school. We're investing in these central and regional kitchens. Cattle, beef is one of the critical components. We are fighting land use battles all the time. We're used to fighting against housing being developed on ag land, solar being developed on ag land. Most recently landfills being proposed on ag land.

We never thought that we have to battle the state. We have lost 80,000 acres of ag land in the last five years according to the census of ag. That's about 7.4% of our production ag land. How do we achieve these goals when we are crippling our ranchers and our farmers ability to farm?

We are humbly asking that you support and pass this reso. It is a reso and we understand there's no teeth of law in this reso. We prefer the bill. We'd like to see what amounts about 11,000 acres for the future of these ranches and future of farming.

If the Legislature truly supports agriculture, which you say that you do and we believe you do. This is a simple S 11,000 acres. Something that was recently brought up on on the funding mechanism on the funding of these conservation or what DNLR does. And they do great work. They have a noble mission.

But with the potential reduction in funding that we see from the Federal Government, will we suffer or will we be at a loss without potential funding for some of these conservation programs when the ranchers themselves are doing it on their own dimensions? We saw that tragic wildfire, Senator.

We didn't hear the tragedy on Hawaii island because those ranchers were there. They maintain their land and they're also there helping with some of the wildfire. Again, we can't afford that. They store their lands. They help with wildfire land management. It is a simple and humble ask from the ranchers.

So the Hawaii farm bill stands with our cattlemen and with our ranching community and asks get these lands transferred over. We're not taking conservation land on a conservation. These are active agricultural production lands. They should be under the Department of Agriculture. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Stand on my written testimony, I just reiterate that there's over 10 acres of land in conservation on Hawaii island for every one acre in agriculture. But when there's a fire, who shows up? Who puts them out? Last week, Saturday, a fire was started on our ranch boundary. There's two helicopters flying for four and a half, five hours.

What is this costing the county? The county? The captain on the fire called DOA and they said, it's not our problem. They said, yes, it is. It's unencumbered state land. It's unencumbered state land. You know who put the fire out? The captain said to my husband, you got a tractor? Really? He says, would you go get it?

We cut the fire break, put the fire out. Okay, so how much more land do you need in conservation and what is it costing our counties? Thank you.

And for those out there? Kapapala Ranch is in Kau, between Volcano and Pahala.

Oh, sorry. And you're getting 7,000 acres from our branch. Transferring. DofA is getting 7,000 acres from your existing. Well, we are one of the Act 90 transferees from 2023. Part of the deal was that 7,000 acres would be withdrawn and they've including it into forestry.

And you're remaining for ranching?

It'll be about. There's several parcels, but about 23,000.

Okay. Sorry, I didn't realize you had another fire. Yeah, and just my colleagues. There was a big fire at the national park, the Volcanoes National Park. And guess who was. It was a big fire. And who was there with their small staff? Kapapala Ranch. Okay, thank. And we thank you for that as well. Okay.

There's a lot of support for this measure, but let me. Is Ellen here? Gotley Bono. Okay. He sends testimony in support. Any questions? Yes, Senator. Well, I'm sorry, Senator McKelvey wanted to speak to DLNR and followed by Senator Elephant.

Could we have. Is there a Dylan R. Representative.

Yeah. Thank you, [unintelligible] Chang and miss [unintelligible]. So in reading your testimony, you did highlight the different parcels and all that. So these parcels, to give a better context, were all part of the transfer of Act 90.

No, they weren't.

They're not.

These. Well, these were. So the way that Act 90, both parties have to agree, DLNR and DOA. These were originally lands that DOA, DLNR did not agree. And then we received a letter from the Cattlemen's Council on these particular parcels.

So I had my staff revisit and really identify what do we really need and what, you know, a lot of the questions that Senator Inouye asked. What's our capacity? So based upon that revisit, then DofA went back and then decided, okay, let's, you know, we'll take the Mauka lands, not the Makai. So there were further adjustments, but these lands were not part of the original Act 90.

And then obviously, these particular parcels are subject to negotiation with the individual parties, and DLNR. It's not, even though they're separate and apart from Act 90, it's a separate negotiation for each of the private property owners. And it doesn't have to be the full amount of acreage or can it be subject to negotiation?

Yes. So. But they're. They're also considered under the umbrella of Act 90.

Okay.

So we are. That's the umbrella that we're using. That's why we're saying both parties have to agree, DLNR, rather than just, you know, DOA saying, okay, transfer these. We believe that we have to, there both has to be agreement. So Emma, them and her team have been working with the ranchers to work out some kind of an agreement.

And last question I have on this. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to ask these questions. Is, is DLNR aware of, obviously, you hear from the written testimony and oral testimony of the uses that these ranchers and cattlemen are using these lands for production. So are you, is the Department clearly aware of the potential impact that it may have?

We are, and I think that's why we're not taking these back. We're looking at the end of their lease term, and I think Emma indicated and then giving them an extension beyond that. But we do understand.

But also, some of these lands are really critical to call for us to watershed protection to the purposes that were identified under Act 90. Where there's multiple land uses DLNR, it should stay under DLNR's management.

Okay.

Emma, do you want to add anything?

With regards to the negotiation. We have met with all the ranchers that we're talking about and there are certain cases, I would say the De Luz and the Nobriga ranches that we have not reached a consensus about.

I do have letters from the Botello lease from the the manager who have accepted our proposal and also we have responded to them with the agreement to transfer the infrastructure that they want.

So it's news to me that there is some concern about our proposal because the leader that has been negotiate talking to me and emailing me has been in approval. And I did want to just mention that for clarity's sake, the Patella lease is 5,700 acres and we are actually proposing to transfer to DOA 4,800 acres of that.

So it's quite a large proportion that we are are planning to work on. And the other lands, I believe the diamond beyond Maui, we still are doing site visits and looking to renegotiate with the the rancher. So I, you know, we are really whittling down to the areas that we have the highest priority for some of the DLNR purposes as well.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thank you. No, let's talk about Diamond B because it looks fair when you take everything in the aggregate. When you break it down parcel by parcel, you basically want to give them 0, 0 acres. That's both sides of the lose Nobriga and Diamond B. Out of all the acreage you want 0 to be, this is working Ag right. These leases 0 acres to be to be retained by the farmers. So given that you're going to take all of this acreage and give them zero.

Is that the Solazar?

I'm looking at diamond P 1565.

What's, who's the owner?

It is Diamond B Ranch. I'm looking at Diamond B as one example. It's 1565 is the acres in question. DLNR supports transferring 0 acres.

That that is.

That's what the testimony says. So going off what you guys are saying.

Yes. And we got a response from the rancher indicating that he does have certain areas that he uses certain areas that he doesn't within that lease.

So we, we actually met last week to revisit looking at that particular release and are going to be doing site visits and responding to the rancher with a potential alternate proposal that could potentially do to split up what is useful for agriculture and what is potentially useful for conservation. So that's still one of the pending ones that is still under negotiation.

Probably start it next time to reflect the fact that it is under because right now says you want to do 0. What worries me is the fact that these ranchers are the ones who are basically doing conservation work in these areas on lands already. It's all going to go back to you guys. In case you haven't.

I'm sure you're fully aware of it. We're going to be slashed beyond to the bone by the beds. We're already short staffed with doe care officers and staff. You're now going to have to take on all this acreage. You have an access deer problem on Maui, which the ranchers and the farmers are integral part of the response.

So I'm assuming you guys are going to be able to step in and do all the access to your management for these acres. I'm just very concerned that right now that the writing is clearly on the wall. Now more than ever, if we want to protect our environment, we need the ranchers and farmers.

There needs to be some understanding of that fact because here's the bottom line. There's nothing coming. In fact, they're going to be taking. Whatever money you guys don't spend will be clawed back by the feds. So that's why I believe the bill is probably a better vehicle.

But the resolution, I think, speaks to these fundamental issues that we as a state have to wrestle with. So I hope that as you negotiate with these ranchers, you keep that in mind and that you can reflect the fact that there are discussions going on.

Because right now, given the testimony, it looks like a black and white 0, 0, and 0. And we need to do something to ensure we have agriculture and can have our ranchers as partners in our conservation efforts.

I mean, the fact they built a reservoir and took on that liability the state has put on is a huge thing. We need more reservoirs. So this is the kind of thing we should be doing.

So I appreciate you reviewing the testimony and if you could let us know about how these negotiations are going, particularly over there, that would be great. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Senator DeCorte.

Thank you, DLNR. I would really like to see the discussion go further with the De Luz ranch. I mean, optically, this doesn't look good for the Department. Right.

It looks as though you folks are taking a lot of the production land and just giving them the unproduction land which they've made investment financially, blood, sweat, and tears for the reservoir and just also to be able to ranch there. So it doesn't sound like these numbers are up to date and it doesn't reflect the current conversations you're having.

But please, with regards to De Luz specifically and all of the ranches that are affected, please have an understanding. Because I really want the Department to come out in a way that helps to promote and support our agriculture organizations and efforts. But just optically, it's not looking good right now.

So please do your best in having those transparent conversations and see what will benefit the ranchers the most.

Because we are in an industry that is tapering off and we need to do everything that we can to promote them and to help them feel like they're being supported and not that they're continually, as Hawai'i Farm Bureau said, that they're not continuing to fight every single battle every single day just to be able to help our production here be sustainable. So I just wanted to make that comment. But thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Emma. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. All right, let's continue on with the agenda here today at the Committee on Water and Land. Yes.

Important one.

No, but why don't you come up? Sorry about that. Okay. Department you want to hear? Department of. Okay. State your name.

Yeah, Brian Kau, Department of Agriculture. We just wanted to make sure that you did get our testimony. Apologize. We support the intent of the bill. We do have a few comments, but I'm just listening to the, the, the commentary. It seems to be limited to a very specific number of parcels.

So I guess if that were that that particular language was inserted into the, the result, then I believe that our concerns will probably go away.

Yes. Just for your info and for the ag industry as well, the bill, Senator McKelvey, the bill is still alive. He's willing to wave off.

Waved off already.

So Waterland will be hearing the measure on Thursday. I, we're trying to get a room to hear the bill as well. And that's the House Bill. Okay. Yes. All right. For your info. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Let's proceed to SCRE 51 and SR 33.

And this is requesting the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development to convene a working group to evaluate the establishment and administrative placement of an Office of Resilience and Recovery of OPSD. Is it Luke or Mary Alice? You're not Luke, that's for sure. Happy, Val. I was going to.

I keep Valentines keep on coming out of my mouth it St. Patrick's Day today.

Chair, Members, I'm Mary Alice Evans, the Director of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and DBEDT. And we have seen how valuable the Office of Resilience and Recovery has been in working on the Maui wildfires recovery. We've participated with it and therefore we are supporting this resolution to convene and make a recommendation on placement.

Okay, thank you so much. All right. Well, I do have Luke Myers from the governor's office. Aloha. It's great to have you guys come down to the second floor. Thanks for, yeah, that's good to see. And welcome.

Yes, ma' am. Chair, Members of the Committee. Luke Myers, I am the branch chief in the office of Carbon Resiliency and the state disaster recovery coordinator for the Maui Wildfires. We stand on a written testimony in support of this resolution. I do have one friendly amendment that we would recommend.

In the composition of the Committee there's a breadth and scope of a number of partners that are identified, including the emergency managers at the county. We would ask that you look at the recovery and resiliency leads in the county.

We do acknowledge that in many of our counties they've set up recovery offices or climate change disability offices which specifically focus on resiliency. So maybe it's a designee of the mayor from the counties and they could make that decision. But available for any questions.

Yes, ma' am. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you so much. Okay. Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority. Gwen Yamamoto Lau, in support. And the climate advisory team. I guess Jeff is still with you guys with their resiliency. So in support as well. Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Ted Volan. Okay. In support.

Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SCR 51 and SR 33? All right. Yes, come on up. Mr. Lau, thank you so much for being here during legislative week and we know you guys are just as busy as we all are. We appreciate you.

We appreciate all your hard work. Chair and Members, Ernie Lau Border Water Honolulu Border Water Supply. This SCR just this resolution just came to my attention and I also want to say I support the resolution. Unfortunately, the Maui wildfire disaster will not be the last disaster that the State of Hawaii will experience.

So we should prepare for the future. And I we support the the pro-proposed resolution. Thank you.

Well, we've heard from the cattle industry. Yes, more to come too. All right, thank you so much. Okay, anyone else wishes to speak to SCR 51 and SR 33? Hearing none. Let's proceed to SCR 47.

And this is authorizing the issuance of a term non exclusive easement covering a portion of state submerged lands C word of TMK 24-3-01009 at Kahana Lahaina, Maui for the removal of existing emergency sandbags and construction use, repair and maintenance of a rock revetment. Okay, do we have, let's see, SR 47. Wow. We got 109 in support and we got 122 in opposition. DLNR. This must be an important resolution. Okay.

And good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee, Dawn Chang, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. I know you have a lot on your agenda, so we're going to stand on our written testimony. Both Michael Kane and I are here to answer any questions. We provided comments for the resolution.

Thank you. The same for Land Division as well, [unintelligible]. Mihoko Ito or Representative. Oh, she is here. Thanks. Mihoko.

Good morning. Oh, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Losing my time already. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Mihoko Ito. I'm here on behalf of Hololani. This is a resolution for an easement at the Kahana Bay in the Kahana Bay Area. Hololani is a two unit, two building condominium project on the shoreline in Kahana Bay on Maui.

And I will be the first to admit that this is a very unique situation from a procedural perspective. This is a project that is fully permitted and went through rigorous federal, state and county approval. This last step to get this easement completes the project by replacing a rock revetment for sandbags.

Sorry, the sandbags with the rock revetment at Hololani, but also takes care of a major flooding issue on the adjacent lower Honoapiilani Road. It is legally grandfathered in under the passage of Act 16 from 2020. And the BLNR did already approve the easement for this project project in 2018.

So we're here today to ask the Legislature to approve the concurrent reso to replace these sandbags with a lower profile rock revetment. And if I may just show you a photo which is attached to my testimony of 2007, when this all started. There was a major erosion event that you can see in this photo.

And it came within 15ft of the property. The plan for this project was always to do a rock revetment together with a sheet pile. The sheet pile was actually installed in 2019. And you can see that in this photo and the change in the property shoreline.

And that was approved.

That was approved.

At that time.

Yes, it was. And it was already installed. So now you can see the question is, is Hololani going to be permitted to replace these sandbags with a lower profile rock revetment? If I can just show you these. This here's the sandbags. And the rock revetment would start down by the bottom of the sheet file.

So, because of legal delays, the rock revetment proposal to complete this project have not moved forward, and the sandbags have been there for 18 years. So they've created serious safety issues for many of the beachgoers who use it as a public access.

And Hololani has agreed to fund the construction of both a public access stairway and install a drainage system to take care of the flooding issues on the adjacent roadway. So you will also hear from a representative of the AOAO of Hololani, Robert Shaw. And also here today is Jim Berry, the longtime project engineer for this project.

We respectfully ask that for your support on this resolution. And I'm here to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Do you have any amendments?

We do have a couple of just technical proposed amendments because the title of the reso did not mention the public infrastructure improvements. So we just wanted to ask that those be included.

Why are you doing improvements for the public? Is, is the stairs connected to the road, the parking area onto.

It's being used, it's used as a public beach accessory, but it's on Hololani property, so it's already being used, and people are using the sandbags, which we think is unsafe to get down to the ocean. And so we're asking, and Hololani is willing to fund the inclusion of the stairs.

Okay. You applied for permits from the county?

Yes. This has all been gone through, you know, many, many years of permitting. And so the entire.

If the counties approved. You're making the contribution for the stairs?

Yes, the counties have approved this project, and it is ready to go, except for this resolution.

Okay.

All right. Thank you very much.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Jim Berry. I was the original project engineer for this project. I designed it. I wrote the environmental assessment for it. I got all the permits. And, you know, I am now retired, but I've come back because, because it was my project.

Thank you. Jim Berry? Aloha.

I want to stress that we, in developing this project, we work very closely with DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, the previous administrator. And we at the outset, before I wrote the EA, we gave them choices like, look, this is what we can do as engineers for this project.

This is what we recommend, which was our project, the hybrid project with both the sheet pile wall and a rock, a small rock revetment, a shortened rock revetment in front of it. And that was what DLNR. That was what they preferred. That was what the administrator preferred.

And again, in 2014, when we, the conservation district use permit was given to us with conditions and one of those conditions was to move the alignment of the structure further back. We had, we had put it where we thought it was very reasonable, but the administrator wanted us to move it back again.

We gave him a set of choices. This is what we can do and what we, our final design is the one that they thought was the best. And everybody who has reviewed this project on, on a professional level has agreed this is the best alternative. There really is not a, there aren't many alternatives here.

And people, if you want to talk about managed retreat, as an engineer I have recommended managed retreat to, to a client where it was very appropriate and they didn't like it, but that was the best thing. But here, there's no such thing. You know, there's not much you could do.

I've never seen anybody come up with a plan. This is what you do with managed retreat. This is how you pay for it. This is, these are the steps. We have a plan here. It's just almost done. One more thing.

Uh, it's about.

Not as far as the, the.

I'd like to say that I'm also the guy who designed the sandbags, put the sandbags in as an emergency measure and I've been trying for 17, 18 years to remove them.

This is our chance and I think in our end result, if we get a project, you allow the engineering project to go through, we'll have much nicer looking, much more environmentally friendly beach here.

Okay. I'm curious. The picture that Mihoko showed with the sandbags, it seems like the sandbags were almost to the water. How far from, I guess the stone wall that I saw, if you're going to do the revetment to go out towards the water area,

It's within the, within the footprint of the sandbags. It's probably a little bit less. But it will be mostly buried. You, you, you won't see it unless there's something off. But it, the actual, what you see aesthetically and usage wise will be much less than the existing sand.

It seems like we've been hearing or reading and having before us this session. When you do projects to use the rock revetment, is that the way we're all heading towards instead of sandbags?

Well, that's the engineering preference. I mean sandbags are temporary. They're all temporary. We can't, you know, there's only so much you can do with them. You put them in.

Well, I think DLNR already has abandoned sandbags up at North Shore. I think if I remember some of the parcels.

But I'll say the North Shore is a very different in. They really cannot compare the two, the two places.

Did this project start or the complaints we've had, the early 2000. This sounds familiar because I think I remember Senator Ross Baker came before us on this project.

We started in 2007, but there were issues before.

Okay, right. I think it was worse than what we're seeing today. I, I was here. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. All right. Okay, I will call. Since we did mention there's like 200 pieces of testimony, let's hear from Katie Austin. Lahaina Strong, are you on Zoom? Okay.

Aloha. Hi, Chair. Yes.

Katie, is that you?

Yes. Yes, ma' am.

Proceed.

Aloha, Chair. Aloha Vice Chair Katie Austin. I am testifying in strong opposition to SCR 47. Personally, I am struggling to understand why in the wake of the Lahaina wildfires, when so many of our community is struggling, that resources and decision making are being directed towards protecting beachfront investment properties instead of focusing on community recovery.

Seawalls and revetments accelerate erosion and destroy beaches. I do believe, as has been talked about previously, that is this the way that we're moving with rock walls? I think that we have this opportunity to say we are not going that way, that they are not working and they haven't worked.

And these seawalls and revetment project are the reason that we've lost continuously so much of our beaches. And so we need to really take a stand, even in 2003 on a similar project, DLNR specifically said, you know, we need to really look at managed retreat.

That is the only thing that is going to be positive for our community. So I do want to just mahalo you all, and I really hope that you take into consideration our community has fought for years against these projects, and we need to have all of our resources going to our rebuild. It doesn't matter whether it's ocean or up north or anywhere. So mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Malama, Napuao, Haumea, Aki, Kahoo, Hanohano on Zoom.

Not present. Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. As I did mention earlier, we did have over 200 testifiers on this measure. 109 in support and in opposition, 122. And many with comments. A couple of them as well. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak on SCR 47, Chair is going to be actually request that we continue to move on.

We are fighting for time this morning. Let's proceed to SCR76. And this is urging the Department of Land and Natural Resources to consult with the Kahana Bay Steering Committee, the County of Maui, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers regarding a path forward for the proposed Kahana Bay erosion mitigation project. And that's 76. Okay. DLNR.

Okay. Michael. Is Michael still, still here? I think I saw him earlier. Oh, okay. Chair. All right. Okay. This is on SCR76. Yeah, 76. The Kahana Bay. Okay. I have both. So.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee, Don Chang, on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. I also have Michael Payne here, who's head of OCCL. So in this particular case, we support the. The intent of this bill which is sort of looking at a regional solution, not just individual property, not just individual parcels.

However, we do believe that the more appropriate division department to coordinate would be OPSD, DLNR. OCCL is a regulatory agency. We would have to accept the EIS as well as accept the Conservation District use permit. So it would be really inappropriate for DLNR to also be in the position of the regulator and then the one that's coordinating.

And I think we have had preliminary discussions, and I won't speak on behalf of Mary Alice, but she is here. So that is our proposed amendment to this resolution. It is to change Office of Sustainability Development in lieu of DLNR and then to make some other corrections to the resolution.

Oh, I'm sorry again. Michael Payne, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, part of DLNR. We have reviewed the written testimony and had conversations with OPSD and Ms. Ito, and it, the proposed amendments that s high did seem to be consistent with ours.

So, introduce yourself.

And if I can real quickly.

Oh, okay.

So we could support their recommendations. They could support ours.

Their amendments.

I have it right here. And we also had a lot of talk in the breezeway.

Oh, okay. So. Yeah. Okay.

Yes, Senator McKelvey.

You support this one, but you're, in reality, you didn't support the previous one. Right?

Just real, real quick, real quick.

Yeah. Because we see this as part of a lot that should be polar. Lani should be part of the larger regional approach.

And your board did in December reject the application for the previous one.

So, you know, Senator, that's a little. Where we were seeking legal advice on that, because what the board did do was the board rejected the construction right of entry. So there's a question of what was actually before the board? Was it the construction right of entry, or was it just to, to permit the, the board to approve the construction right of entry before the concurrent resolution was passed?

I think there is a dispute as to what exactly, because I do believe the board's intention was not to approve the revetment. But there may be some differences of legal, legal interpretation. So we're seeking some guidance.

And your position on this and previous residue kind of aligns with act, I believe at 16. Right. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

If I can add this one. We're just asking Office of Planning and Sustainable Development to coordinate the dialogue. We're not actually taking a position pro or con on the project.

Thank you. Great. I just want to thank you.

Yeah, I understood.

Thank you very much. Okay. Obviously, you're being mentioned. Are you testifying this?

We're going to put everything with them.

And you didn't submit testimony, so.

I did not. But I have been in consultation with DLNR and I.

I'm sorry, can you state your name again?

I'm sorry. Mary Alice Evans, Director of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. And we also have within our office the state's Coastal Zone Management Program. And we have been undertaking studies of regional shoreline erosion and options. I will state that managed retreat is a last resort option for our communities that are shoreline.

We are not recommending that communities be forced to retreat before they have reached that conclusion for themselves. So, you know, we don't know when that might be, but we want to be prepared. We want to have plans and options.

Because sometimes, you know, you go for a long time and there's not, you know, not much change, and suddenly you have a disastrous event and you need to have those plans available when you need them.

But, you know, for managed retreat, though, wouldn't you think about project by project, or depends on the location? Because you absolutely do manage retreat if there's enough property.

Yes, exactly.

Okay. But it is like you don't recommend doing, but manage retreat at all.

But no, we want. What we do is we plan for it. And then, you know, and then let communities, you know, have a say in when, you know, say there's a disaster and rebuilding is not feasible. Well, then we have, you know, we've looked at it. We've got maybe a plan that would provide some options for them.

Okay. All right. Thank, thank you. Thank you very much. Excuse me, I need to kind of interrupt us for now. We are supposed to be at a joint hearing for one bill, can you make sure that she's ready for us? Okay. So we need to take now just one item, right. With the Committee on Human Services.

Am I correct? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah, we need to adjourn. Yes. Or maybe a short recess. Yes. Are you guys coming here or we're going there? It's scheduled for there. Okay. What room? Okay. Okay, folks, sorry about that. We're going to do, actually it's more like a recess rather than. Yeah. Rather than closing out this meeting.

So we're going to take a recess. She's ready only for one measure. She's in charge, so I think she's ready for her votes. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. I stand corrected. We can't do that. So we need to adjourn the Committee on Water and Land on the notice hearing at 1 p.m., and we'll hopefully return soon. All right, IT.

The Committee on Water and Land is. Okay, back to the agenda of 1pm as well. And we will continue on where we left off. And I believe we actually, we have finished 47. We were on 76 and SCR 76 and SR 59. No, we, we're on this one. We're on 76. And I did make announcements of the number of testimonies.

Okay, we'll continue on with 76 where we left off. Okay. And just for those who are here, we do have to my understanding is the end of the Waterland is at 2:30. And so all those resolutions that is not being heard today, we will continue on a hearing and decision making on Friday, March 21st in room 229.

Okay. One o' clock, I believe. Okay. Okay, continue on 76. We had Michael was here and we heard you. Thank you. Did we call Mihoko? Okay. Mihoko Ito.

Thank you and good afternoon again. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Mihoko Ito, on behalf of Hololani. In the interest of time, we will stand. On our testimony in support of this measure. Hololani has been involved in a hui of properties who have been trying to address this collectively.

We would just say that this is not an either or with the prior resolution. These work in conjunction with each other. And then second, we do have amendments that we proposed in our testimony. I haven't seen Dale in ours, but I understand it's very similar. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. On Zoom, if Paele Kiakona, Lahaina Strong. Did I say that correct? On zoom. Proceed.

Yeah. Mahalo. Mahalo for the opportunity to speak. Chair, Vice Chair, I will say this before I do give my testimony that there have been many community members who, especially on zoom that were bypassed with the SCR 47 that didn't get a chance to give testimony, myself included.

But I will address SCR 76 because it does all relate SCR 47, SCR 76 and SR 59 all relate to the same thing which we are in heavily opposition of here in West Maui.

I'm actually tuning in right now from Hanaka'o'o beach where I paddle for Kahana Canoe Club, which is not no longer located in Kahana because of us being displaced from the area.

So we're talking about giving an easement to these people to go ahead and dispose of, push through with these, this project when we weren't even given the right to stay where our canoe club first started, first of all. Second, I don't have to mention the irreparable environmental harm that this will cause to these beaches.

The, the reason that shoreline erosion is taking place at a staggering rate is because places like the Hololani and along the entire coast chose to build too close to the ocean. So now we're starting to look at other alternative options for them to fix their problem that they helped to create with a problem that's 10 times worse.

We don't even know if we put these tea grains out in the ocean or these beach revampment projects, are they going to stop the sand from migrating north and south when, when the time calls for it.

We understand that the beaches come and the beaches go at certain times of the year, but this could completely alter the path of, of our, of our sand.

Second to this, why are we focusing on something for out of state investors where the vast majority of these places are out of state investors and short term rental owners when our people in Lahaina are still struggling? Yeah, we shouldn't even be talking about this. This is not even a priority of Lahaina. Anybody in Lahaina.

This wasn't even proposed by the Legislator of Lahaina, so why is it even on the table? Yeah, so aside from that, my grandma's house is a beachfront property and we looking at maybe not even being able to rebuild back because of the shoreline setback.

Why were we never given the option to, to have a beach revenant project ourselves? Yeah. For an actual community member, for an actual person who's been here for generations upon generations, for families that have been here for generations, that's not a, that's not a priority or an option for us.

But we're looking at, you know what we're being, we're being as cooperative as possible because we understand that we're not the only people that live in this place. Yeah, we understand that our actions affect everybody else.

So why should we allow somebody else up north who's not even a local local to our, to our place to, to have such a big impact on our environment and our people. And because of the shoreline setbacks, now we got to move back. Can't even build back when we've been there for seven generations.

But then we're gonna go and do something and, and pave the way for a developer or an engineer who wants to make the money or other investment people who are basically just trying to protect their investment. So I'm sorry.

Yes, I'm a little bit, I'm a little bit mad about this being even on the table again because this was already denied in 2018. So why are we revisiting this one? It is not a priority of the people on the west side. But that being said, please consider the.

You're in opposition. Yeah.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Mahalo.

Mahalo, All right. Okay. We did have communications from the Valley Isle Resorts Royal Kahana Association of Apartment Owners in support and opposition, the Tatum Herrick as well as John Carty. I will go on to say those on Zoom, Virginia Keen. And I must add though I did say earlier that we're, we've been told we had to get out by 2:30. We've got an extension until 2:45. Proceed please. Virginia Keene. Aloha.

Aloha. Chair Inouye, Chair Elefante and Members of the Committee. My name is Virginia Keen and the Hololani has been my home for 26 years and I have voted in every election since that time. I'm 82 years old and substitute teach at Lahainaluna High School on a daily basis.

I've been part of the school district for 24 years. I've devoted 19 years to the after school tutoring program in Lahaina. And I'm electorate Maria Lanakila Church for 13 years and a parishioner there for 26. I am a year round resident whose children and grandchildren visit often and I also cherish being part of this island community.

My condominium is now 20ft from the retaining wall and the failing sandbags that separate my building from the ocean. And this has me worried. When I first arrived here, there was 50ft of property next to my unit as well as a beach. I have seen firsthand how strong the ocean impact is.

I strongly support SR 76 because we desperately need a real long term solution to the severe erosion along the Kahana Bay shoreline. If we continue to wait, this will become a catastrophic problem.

The only thing currently standing between our homes and the ocean is a temporary patchwork of sandbags, some of which have been in place for over a decade. The turtles have been feeding on the seaweed covered bags causing rips and tears, speeding the deterioration of the bags. And it's not healthy for the turtles as well.

The condominiums in this region have not been idled. The Kahana Bay Steering Committee properties have invested time, effort and significant funds to complete a draft environmental impact statement and they are willing to fund a viable solution. What we need now is for you to step in and help us to bring this project to completion.

As a teacher, I have always believed in looking forward to building a better future. This is what this resolution represents. A future where the shoreline is protected, where our community is safe, and where the beauty of Kahana Bay can be enjoyed for generations to come.

Thank you. Lenore. Thank you very much. And you're in support? Yes. Okay, Spence. Lenor Houston on Zoom. Proceed. Lenore. It is Lenore on Aloha.

Aloha. Good afternoon. I'll make this short and quick. As quick as possible. I live in the Hololani condominiums along the Kahana Bay shoreline. I'm also a voter and someone who works in this community. And I go to church here, too. I'm here today because I strongly support SCR 76.

I want to share why this resolution means a lot to me and to all of us who call Kahana home. Every day I see the ocean creeping closer. The beach that once stretched in front of these homes is vanishing. This isn't just a problem, it's a crisis.

And yet the only thing standing between our buildings and the waves are aging sandbags that were never meant to be a long term solution. Some of these sandbags have been there for 18 years. We cannot keep waiting. The Kahana Bay Steering Committee has worked tirelessly, investing time, money and expertise. Excuse me, into a draft environmental impact statement.

And they're exploring real, lasting solutions. The community is willing to fund this effort, but we need the support of government agencies to help make this project a reality. If we don't do anything, the consequences will be devastating. And not just for buildings, but for the shoreline, public access, and the very identity of Kahana.

I believe we can find a sustainable, environmentally responsible solution if we act now. So I urge you all to please support SCR 76. It's pono for all of us and pono for the aina.

Thank you, Lenore.

Thank you very much.

Spencer Schmerling on Zoom.

Hello, committee. Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay?

We sure can. And is Sarah related to you?

So, my name is Spencer Schmerling. I am a resident of Kahana. I'm a registered voter.

Spencer, just a minute. There's another Schmerling, Sarah. Is that related to you? Otherwise, we're fighting for time today, so can you speak on behalf of her as well?

She has different things to say.

Okay, but you're in support? Both of you are in support.

I'm in support, but I want to address what a lot of.

Proceed then. Proceed, please.

Thank you. So I hear people who say that what we're doing is going to not help the beaches. And the gentleman earlier who mentioned that his club can't be in the beaches of Kahana. That's exactly the problem we're trying to fix.

We're trying to make the beaches again have sand and make it so that locals, so people who live here, people who drive out here can use the beaches again. That's the whole point of this. I just get the feeling that some people are opposing it because they oppose everything. But in reality it's really going to help everybody.

It's going to help all of the community, not just people who live here, because it's going to give the whole community access to the beaches again. And the other thing is that right now we have these sandbags that are not safe, they're not attractive, they're not good for the environment.

And this is a long term solution that again will benefit the entire community. It's unfortunate that gentleman mentioned that his grandma wasn't able to do this and that that's terrible that she wasn't. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have our right to do what we're able to do here. So I definitely, definitely encourage everybody to the committee to support 76. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Leonard Nakoa on zoom.

Do you hear me?

I mentioned earlier.

No, you hear me? Okay. I am strongly opposed of this bill. Okay. We will talk about them in 2018 about this thing happening. Okay, right now my daughter is in the female, female housing right there because she lost everything in a fire. Okay?

We sell one of these, Carlos, right here on the, on in Honokauai. They build all these rock world, these, these walls and all that kind of crap. And now all the beaches is the Yonata Hotel. The, the beaches is falling in the ocean. This is not going to solve the problem. Okay? Let me tell you right now.

I was part of this Kahana restoration group. I was in a very, very, very beginning, okay? A lot of these meetings, these, all these guys claiming to be owners and all these residents of this place, they all don't make the meetings because why they live in the mainland, they don't live here, okay?

So they all know they all don't make the meetings. I make every single one because I live right across the street, okay? These guys gonna ruin our island. And I tell you right now I will be jumping in front of these tractors and anything that they're gonna do for the kind I went when Goodfellows was building.

They don't only sandbags over there, they get, they actually been put up on wall they had on tractor in the middle of the ocean. Okay. They did everything wrong so please do not support this bill. Okay? Lahaina suffering already. We don't need cater to these offshore investors and offshore owners. We Lahaina people losing everything. And you're gonna try slide this bill through and we suffer.

Thank you, Leonard.

I will be here Friday. If you guys don't do them on Friday. See you guys.

Robert Shaw on Zoom. IT, do you have a Robert Shaw?

Yeah. Yeah.

All right, Proceed, Robert.

Hello. Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I will be very, very short. Largely I stand on my testimony. I just want to accentuate that we're working very hard to ensure that we can bring a solution that addresses the region, a greater area of the Kahana Bay.

And not just one central to one property or two properties. And we've made very good strides there with the support of County of Maui Planning Department. And in this, as with the other project, we work in cooperation with the County Department of Public Works, very close cooperation, collaborating on these ideas, et cetera.

We are strongly supporting this measure and the amendments that have been proposed toward it. Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate your diligence, attention, and your support on this.

Thank you very much. Thank you. I do see either that's Sarah Schmerling or Julie Brockman, who's there on Zoom.

We are both present.

I'm sorry, would you like

Sarah? Is Sarah there?

I'm here, but Julie can go. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah. I'm Julie Adcock. I'm the Board President of Pohailani, Maui, and the representative for our Association for the Kahana Bay Steering Committee. And I forgot to say thank you for hearing my testimony, Chair, and I'll try to make this as brief as possible.

You know, I've been involved in this for almost 10 years. Even before we had the Kahana Bay Steering Committee, we were a group of homeowners. I do live in Maui full time. I have been a resident and an owner at Pohailani for nearly 20 years.

We do have 114 units currently, I believe around 75 to 77 units are full time residents. We do sit on both sides of the road. We do have issues with water and erosion at the area between Hololani and Pohailani.

The beach restoration would address this as well, which is a big concern for us because when we do get flooded out, we have no access into either of our driveways, either Makai or Mauka side. And as far as the previous bill, the rock rubble that would be placed there would need to also be there as a backstop for a beach restoration project.

We have worked tirelessly. We have, I think, met every thing that we needed to to move this this forward. We're willing to come in with the county and do a special tax district. And I would really appreciate your support in this and mahalo for hearing my testimony.

Thank you. Julie. Sarah, are you still there?

I am here. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Followed by Norbert Wilson. Proceed.

Thank you. I am a full time previously served on the Kahana Bay Steering Committee. I really want to make it clear that in our community, it's important that all of these different communities and condo associations, we're all contributing, we're trying to make it a better.

Norbert's here.

Oh, okay. All right, proceed.

We're trying to make improvements for the beach, the entire Kahana Bay and surrounding regions and for the local community so that they can access the beach. We're not trying to take away resources, we're trying to improve on them. And I just want to make sure that that's not lost and I'll go ahead and give up the rest of my time.

Thank you so much. Norbert, are you on Zoom? Norman? Norbert Wilson. IT? Okay. Hearing None. We. We can't hear Norbert. Chair would like to recognize that

Okay. My name is Norb Wolzson. I'm an owner as well as the Vice President and Secretary at the Valley Isle Resort in Kahana. I'm here in strong support of SR 76 and thank you, Chair and Committee for the time to speak today. I urge you to take immediate action to protect Kahana Bay and the shorelines.

I'm here on behalf of our community and stress the urgent need to restore the bay. This isn't just about the sand. It's about protecting the homes, the jobs and the local economy. Representative Tamara Palton survey from 2022 in August showed that 74% of the respondents supported beach nourishment to address the erosion issues.

And none of those proposed solutions involve shoreline hardening. None of them will use shoreline hardening. 63% of the respondents believe the homes, businesses and infrastructure in the area should stay in place as long as possible.

These properties provide hundreds of good paying jobs from the security and housekeeping personnel to electricians, carpenters, landscapers, and additionally the local businesses, restaurants and stores rely on the restaurants and the residents and visitors that these properties support.

The Kahana Bay Steering Committee has contributed over $1.0 million for scientific research and planning to come up with a long term solution and zero public dollars were used.

Thank you, Norbert. Norbert, if you can just summarize. We need to get out of this room. We got a second?

These properties. I'll summarize quickly. These properties are not for millionaires or billionaire investors. We help displace families and we continue to do so. And we will continue to do so.

Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your time. Mahalo. Thank you so much for waiting and the delay that we've experienced today. All right. Clock is before us, staring at us as well. We need to get out of this room for the next committee.

So we will hear, and I will mention the remaining SCRs from SCR 42, SR 27, SCR 54, SR 36, SCR 59, SR 43, SCR 106, SR 87 and SR 118 will be heard on Friday, March 21, at 2025. Of course. And I believe. Do we have a time? One o' clock.

[unintelligible].

One o' clock. I need to finish my speech anyway. One o' clock in room 229. All right. Okay. Thank you. Senator McKelvey, you had something?

No, no, I was saying we already heard the last one, so we're going to [unintelligible].

Yes, yes, that's SR 118.

I was trying to make so the portion can come back in [unintelligible].

SR 118. Yes, we've already heard that. But we'll do decision making on that particular item on Friday.

Yeah.

All right. Thank. Yes. Okay. And yes, I'm being corrected. Not corrected, but to add those that we've already heard, decision making will be then on the same date on Friday, March 21st. And those are SCR 51, SR3 3, SCR 47, SCR 76 and SR 59.

All right, this concludes then, the committee on Water and Land for today's agenda on Monday. All right, have a good day, folks. All right.