House Standing Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems

Aloha Kakahiaka Kakou. Welcome to the hearing for the House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. Today is March 19th and this is the 9:30 a.m. hearing agenda and we're convening in the Hawaii State capitol in room 325. I'm Kirstin Kahaloa, Chair of this Committee and with me today on our Committee is Vice Chair Kush and Representative Peruso.

Just a few housekeeping measures we do. We don't have that many measures today, but if you can keep your testimony succinct, that will help ensure that we can get through our other joint agenda hearings after this hearing today.

If you're joining us via Zoom, we ask that you keep yourself muted and your video off while we wait for other testimony and until your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function is for those that need technical issues only, so please utilize the chat function if you're joining us via Zoom. For technical technical issues only.

If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing and reschedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be be posted. Please avoid using any trademark or copyrighted images and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. First agenda on today's hearing notice is SB659SD2HD1 relating to the Department of Education. Exempts from the electronic procurement system the Department of Education's purchase of fresh local agricultural products and local value added process.

Agricultural or food products not exceeding a certain amount, subject to certain requirements requires the Department of Education to establish guidelines for determining a geographic preference for locally sourced products. Exempts the Department of Education from the requirement that certain agricultural products are subject to the Hawaii Procurement Code. Vice Chair.

Thank you Chair for an exciting change up. I will be announcing the testifiers today. Brian, remain seated, please. So, first up, Keith Hayashi, our Department of Education.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the. Committee, Dino Chida, Deputy Superintendent with Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony. In support of this measure and I'll. Be around to answer any questions you might now. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up in person we have Bonnie Kahakui from State Procurement Office.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Bonnie Kakui Administrator, State Procurement Office will stand on our written testimony providing comments and recommendations for Section one. And we oppose the changes in Section two. Thank you.

Thank you. We also had in support City and County of Honolulu Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency and then local food coalition in support. Next up we have Micah Onikata in person.

Ulupuna, sorry, good morning, Vice Chair, Chair Representative Peruso, Micah Munikata here on behalf of Ulupona Initiative. We stand on our testimony in strong support of this measure. I think we've been fighting this battle to try to find ways to get local food into our kids meals across the state for quite some time.

A lot of good things have come about, obviously a lot of momentum. I think that this Bill looks to add a tool that really looks outside the box. I think at the end of the day this really comes down to a policy call from the Legislature.

If we're really serious about putting more local food in our school meals, then we're going to have to make difficult decisions and we're going to have to take a step outside the box. And I think that this is what this policy does.

It looks to make it easier to support our farmers, bring local produce into our school meal system. So thank you very much for hearing this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian from Hawaii Farm Bureau.

The Hawaii Farm Bureau will sit on its written testimony.

Thank you. Oh, you're not just. Sorry.

I was just joking.

All right.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair Representative Perusa, Brian Miyamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau, you have a written testimony. We're in support. We're in support of any tool, as Udupono testified, that will help the state, help the Department of Education achieve our 30 by 30 goal.

I think in the Senate Committee or in previous Committee when we testified, speaking on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Chair Herd's, you know, phrase was 30 by 30 can. Right.

And Ulupuna testified, and this is specific to Section 2 of the Exemption which we had I think up to 2010, which offer that flexibility and the tools that we believe Department needs to achieve our farm to school goals. Ulupono testified that it's a difficult decision, a policy decision. It is a policy decision, but it's not difficult.

Give them the tools, offer that flexibility so we can see more local produce, more local foods in our farm to school program. We've been working on this for decades. Let's go back to the exemption. Let's give them the flexibility, right.

So that we can address some of the geographic challenges also and Give them the tool that they're going to need. And that's what we believe this exemption is where want to see more fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, even aquaculture. All that is covered if you if you look at the what the build is asking to do.

So we are in strong support of this and thank you for allowing me to stand and not sit. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Kavika Kahiapo from Hawaii Public Health Institute in person.

Aloha, Kako Chair, Vice Chair Reparuso. My name is Kuviko Kahiapo with Hawaii Farm, excuse me, Hawaii Farm to School Network and Hawaii Public Health Institute. We are strong support of this measure. Again, we've talked about trying to reach. The 30% by 2030 as ruled by Act 175.

We believe this is a strong tool that would allow them to procure more food locally. And we've been slowly progressing backwards. Dropped from 6.2 to 5.4% I believe over the last 34 years. And this is really something that we. Need to start increasing local procurement for our K key's health. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to Director Hurd. Chair Hurd.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture.

Echoing what everyone else has said, we do stand in on our written testimony, but the Department has been in this I don't want to say it's a fight, but this movement since Act 175 was repealed in 2009, as Brian mentioned, what that did, it's coincidental that Act 175. 30 by 30, is the same number as Act 175 in 2009 that actually repealed the two exemptions for the purchase of fresh meats and produce and animals and plants within the procurement code.

It is if you pass this, it will provide guidance to the Department of Education to source locally produced foods and it does give power strength to the geographic preference that has been in the books for a long time in the school lunch program and the national level.

So this particular measure does so much to move forward the local procurement of goods. And I defer to Bonnie at the state procurement office for all the percentages and the the details.

But in the macro sense, this bill will do so much for the purchase of locally grown foods in the largest purchaser for the state, which is the state DOE. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to provide in person? Anybody on Zoom? Oh, Wendy, ABC Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Member of the Committee. I'm Wendy Gady. I'm with the Agribusiness Development Corp. We did not write in testimony, but what I wanted to share with you is there are a few times in our life where we have that Helen Keller moment at the well where all the dots connect.

And on a recent trip to Sacramento. We'Ve talked about this. I've read about it. I'm kind of the new kid on the scene. It sounds great. It sounds lovely.

And it wasn't until we were walking into a reefer in a centralized kitchen in Sacramento, and we walked down, I walked the whole length, and it was pallet after pallet after pallet after pallet of local food. They had local rice, they had local. Grapes, they had local tomatoes, they had local lettuce.

And I thought, oh, my gosh, this could actually happen. And then we went to the high school and watched the kids eat lunch. And I haven't been in a high. School watching kids eat lunch. And. And to watch them come in and snag, like, fresh apples, fresh grapes, and. You know, to have the principal say.

For most of these kids, this is the only fresh food they're getting. Everything else they're getting at home is processed. And then we turned around and went to a farm, and they were growing all of the romaine lettuce for that centralized kitchen. And then we went back to the centralized kitchen.

And I said, yeah, how are you doing this? Because this is really hard where I come from. And they said, well, it's very simple. We just changed our procurement code. And I said, what did you do?

And they said, we basically went and said, we believe in farm to school so much that up to $250,000 in farm to school local produce, we require two estimates. We call a distributor, and we call. A farmer, and that's how we make it work. And I just wanted to share that with you.

I didn't write testimony, but, you know, I'm from Southern Iowa, which is close to Missouri, which is the Show Me state. And that definitely showed me that it could be done.

Great, thank you. That's great insight. Appreciate that. Anybody else in person to testify? All right, look carefully. Zoom. Okay. We had eight in support, none in opposition, and none. And one comment. I guess chair will be. I will assume these duties for a minute here. Next up, do we have any questions on the Committee?

No, I don't have. Just messing with you. Sorry.

It's freshman day. Next up, we have SB 125, SD 2, HD 1, relating to state enterprise zones. And now I see why she left because this is really long. Amends the definition of eligible business activity for state enterprise zone program purposes to include retail sales of tangible personal property manufactured and sold in the enterprise zone to the final consumer.

The processing of value added agricultural products grown within an enterprise zone, the provision of professional services by health care professionals in healthcare related sectors, the use of advanced manufacturing to produce products or the development of cybersecurity technology. Extends the eligibility period of the state business tax credit and general excise tax exemption for qualified businesses within the state enterprise zones from seven years to nine years and extends the eligibility period of the general...

I see why you left me. Period of the general excise tax exemption for qualified businesses within state enterprise zones engaged in the manufacturing of tangible personal product property or the producing of processing of agricultural products from 10 years to 12 years. Makes the extension of the state business tax credit eligibility period applicable to taxable years beginning in December 31st, 2025. Makes the extension of the general excise tax exemption eligibility to take effect on January 1st, 2027. Thank you for your patience.

Awesome, Vice Chair. Great job.

First up in person, Department of Taxation.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Representative. Garrison Kurth on behalf of DOTAX. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have James Tokioka, DBEDT.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Member of the Committee. Mark Ritchie for DBEDT. We'll stand on our written testimony in support, and here for questions.

Thank you. Next we have Joshua Wisch from Holomua Cooperative.

Collaborative, collective, cooperative, they all... You did say a lot of words. Chair, Vice Chair, Rep. Perruso. Thank you so much. And I'll just briefly note. Thanks, Vice Chair, for reading the entire description. One thing I'll just highlight for purposes of this committee is that one of the reasons that we're supporting this and this would help is because it really does modernize the enterprise owned system.

Whereas previously you really had to sell 50.1% of your goods at wholesale to be able to participate. So for farmers for instance, who are watching, who might now go directly to retail who were not able to fully participate in the enterprise zone, this would now allow them to do so. So for purposes of your committee, I think that's one of the important things to highlight. Thanks so much for hearing this. We're around for any questions.

Thank you. Next up we have Lauren Zirbel from Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. Lauren Zirbel on behalf of Hawaii Food Industry Association. We represent over 200 members from retail grocery to suppliers, farmers, distributors. We're in strong support of this measure. Thank you so much for hearing it.

As you know, Hawaii has one of the largest tax burdens and regulatory burdens of any state. So this measure is really helpful. We would love for these provisions to be expanded for everyone to utilize, but it's a good step in the right direction. So thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you. And then Brian from Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Perruso. Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Okay, thank you. Next up on Zoom, we have Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation.

Good morning, Vice Chair, Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We had primarily technical comments in our testimony. I'll be here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anybody else in person like to testify? Anybody else on Zoom?

We did receive your testimony.

Thank you. Anybody on Zoom? No. Okay. On that bill, we had in support 13, zero in opposition, and 2 with comments. Chair, Committee Members, any questions? Seeing none. We're going to move on to SB 739, HD 1. You want me to keep going? Oh, I can do it. It's up to you. You do you.

This is SB739 SD2 HD1 relating to land exchange allows the Governor to negotiate land exchanges subject to approval by the Board of Land and Natural Resources to acquire lands that are suitable for long term diversified agricultural production in exchange for land for private affordable workforce or other housing development. Requires a report to the Legislature.

Okay, first up, we have in person Ian Hirokawa from Department of Land Natural Resources.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Ian Hirokawa with DLNR. We'll stand on our written testimony offering. Comments on the major and I'll be available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Brian from Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Hello, Chair. Vice Chair.

So the Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on a festival in support. I'd also like to comment how smoothly.

This period is going so far.

I am grateful for your. For your testimony. There's no other testimony. Is there any in person? Wendy Gady from ABC. It was received. Thank you. Any others on Zoom? Chair, Committee Member. Okay, there was three in support, one in opposition and one comment to this bill. Moving on. We have SB 1099 HD1 relating to important agricultural lands.

And this authorizes the Land Use Commission to designate county or state lands as important agricultural lands and adopt maps for the designated lands. And counties have failed to identify and recommend important agricultural lands by December 31, 2027. First, in person, we have Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Ag. The Department stands on its written testimony offering comments on this measure. Here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we have the Land Use Commission.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Daniel Orodenker, Executive Officer for the Land Use Commission. We have submitted testimony on this matter, but I'd like to emphasize some of the points a little bit. We're in strong support of the original version of this measure.

The current version only allows the Land Use Commission to designate important agricultural lands on state and county lands, which is a very small percentage of the overall agricultural lands in the state. Article 11, Section 3 of the Constitution gave rise to the important agricultural land statute and the requirement for designation of important agricultural lands.

After almost 20 years, we still have not, the counties still have not accomplished those designations. This would allow the Land Use Commission to undertake what we believe is a very important constitutional requirement. And the original version of the bill would allow us to do it on all agricultural lands.

And I would emphasize that the designation is not a change in districts. The agricultural land is agricultural land. The important agricultural land designation is an overlay and is meant to give the state and counties information on what lands are most important to preserve.

And we would love to have the opportunity to complete this constitutionally mandated process on all of the land. But we're not in support of a measure that would just allow us to designate on state and county lands because that would have a very small impact.

Thank you. In person, we have Hawaii Department of Ag. Sorry, that's the next bill. So we had... Yes. Sorry, Cedric. We had one in support, zero in opposition, and two with comments on this bill. Chair, any questions? Representative.

For the Land Use Commission, please. Yes.

Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't... Oh, you weren't marked to testify in person. I apologize. No, no. And I should have seen that. My bad.

I'll make this quick. Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Perruso. Hawaii Farm Bureau. Brian Miyamoto on behalf of Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our testimony providing comments. We support IAL. In fact, that was landmark legislation passed in 2003. Hawaii Farm Bureau worked with the Land Use Research Foundation to compromise on passing that legislation. We also worked with the Legislature in 2008 to pass incentives, which started the clock on the IAL designation.

That being said, we do have some concerns. Again, before we, I guess, use a stick against the counties, the state should fulfill its kuleana first and designate their state lands first. The counties need to participate in the mapping of their own lands. They know what's best.

They know the lay of the land for their counties. What we have suggested in the past, and I think, you know, there's been, I think, legislation of providing county some funding so that they can do the mapping. To this date, only Oahu has really done the work.

We know Kauai's done a little bit of work. But again, we are in strong support of IAL, right. Preserving land in perpetuity for agriculture production. But we don't want to upset the county planning authority. They need to be involved in that. Understand that the timeline, the deadline would be December 2027, so there is a short runway. It's been years. We do understand.

We appreciate the Legislature, but we want to make sure that the counties are involved. And provide them funding may give them incentive. Give them a carrot and then come with the stick. Also, we don't know if the LUC has the staffing or the funding to do kind of what the bill is asking for, to really go and look at all the counties and identify the county lands. So again, support IAL. Got some concerns with the way this bill is written currently. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Quick clarification, sir. You said who has the staffing?

We don't think LUC has the staffing or the necessary funding right now.

The state or the counties or the LUC?

The LUC, the Land Use Commission. Yes.

Thank you. Rep. Perruso.

Yes, I still have my question. Thank you. Mr. Orodenker. So it's not often that we get agencies that come to us and say, no, no, we want to do more. And we have the capacity to do more and it's important and it's part of our constitutional obligation. My question, I guess, is why this bill was amended to delimit the scope in such a way in earlier committees. And you know, I can go back and listen to the hearing conversations. I'm not sure that I'll see, get my answer from that. What is your understanding or the explanation for why it was amended in that way?

We don't have an understanding with regard to that. I think it may have been somewhat because of, you know, Brian's position. But once again, I mean, with regard to capacity, we haven't been discussing that with the Legislature. We know that we currently don't have the capacity to do this.

But there's three years for us to work with the Legislature to figure out what we would need to accomplish it. And we were hoping that because of this deadline, the counties would finally do it instead of us having to do it. It needs to get done. And that is our concern and is that the counties have not done it. The the only one who has is Oahu, and they did it in a manner that resulted in an appeal to the Supreme Court. So we're kind of stalled on the whole thing and it is very, very important.

Okay, thank you. Chair, if I ask one more question. Brian. Mr. Miyamoto. So if you could, I mean, now I'm hearing the source of the kind of divergence. And I am wondering if you could kind of explain your thinking. Like, why would private property owners, these farmers, see the IAL designation as somehow, you know, restrictive or burdensome? Like, why would they be asking you to lobby on behalf of narrowing it, this bill?

Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Thank you, Representative. So, you know, private property owners have been the ones that that have designated, I think, of 136,000 acres thus far statewide. It's the small farmers because one of the challenges or concerns was the incentives, was the housing incentives.

Some of the language, and I know there's some cleanup language that we that, not we. But have been trying to pass through the legislations to clarify. The concern was some of the requirements that it seemed to the interpretation of it where they could lose the ability to be on their their land, living on the farm, if not everybody in the household was actively engaged in agriculture.

So again, I think this is just an attempt. We agree with the the LUC that we need to designate the lands. And it has been, again, the law was passed in 2003. The incentives are created to incentivize our private landowners to designate, right. And 136,000 acres thus far...

Well, if I could just interrupt, and I don't mean to interrupt. But I know that you could speak on the subject at some length. Because I'm thinking would it be fair then to amend this bill to make the length of time for implementation a bit longer, like five years?

And say within two years we want to have the state and county lands, and then within five years we want to have a good handle on all the privately owned lands. Because I think that if we just choose one or the other, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I hear what you're saying around the scaffolding. Is that an approach that was discussed in any of your other conversations?

I think extending the length is a discussion. Again, we support IAL. We encourage private landowners to designate and dedicate the IAL. There are some landowners who view it as private property rights, maybe a taking of their land. We don't necessarily agree. Again, it doesn't change the designation, truly. It doesn't really change the land use. Right.

There's just this fear. And maybe in that time we can do a little bit more outreach from the county level, from the state level, to farmers and ranchers to explain to them, to revisit what IAL is. Because IAL, when it was passed, when the incentives are passed, you know, there's a lot of discussion.

You find it on DOA's website, you'll find it on CTAHR's website. We did outreach on it, and then it kind of faded away. And now we're revisiting because, again, 2003 was quite a while ago. And so we do support, again, as one of the authors of IAL legislation, we support IAL.

But we also have membership that have some concerns. So Farm Bureau itself hasn't done as well of a job as we should have to educate our farmers and our ranchers what IAL is and what the impacts are. We strongly believe incentives should be there. We encourage the voluntary. But again, we want to see the state dedicate their lands first.

They were supposed to have done that. And, you know, let's let the state lead by example and dedicate their lands. And then maybe a longer runway, as you're suggesting, Representative, for the implementation. And then we can do some outreach. And in that time, if there are any other concerns, we can address it with the Legislature. We can come to the Legislature, work with the LUC. We work really well with the LUC.

Thank you. And I concur with your assessment. I watched those hearings, and there was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding of what the designation means. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. You know, is there anybody else who had any other testimony? I forgot to ask. Zoom? Okay. Chair, did you have a question?

Yeah. For the Land Use Commission. So can you, can you remind everyone what the original intention was? Because you asked in your testimony to go back to. The Senate. The Senate Draft.

The original bill allowed the Land Use Commission to designate on private lands and state and county land. And the private lands are the ones that encompass most of the agricultural land in the state. There is a provision, and I would remind the committee that there is a provision in the IAL statute that says that if you've already designated on your own 51% of your land, then the state can't designate anymore or the county can't designate anymore.

So I mean, there are some safeguards. The current controversy revolves around provision in the IAL statute that with on allowed uses. And there is a difference between 205.4.5, which is the allowed uses on agricultural land, and the provisions in the IAL statute. And Brian hit on one of them.

You know that there are some concerns by some of the farmers that they won't be able, their families won't be able to live in the house. I think that's a misinterpretation. I mean, it doesn't make any sense to interpret it that way. But there are some attorneys in town who have managed to convince some of the landowners that it's a problem, which led to the appeal.

This is tremendously important as a planning tool. When the Land Use Commission is faced with a district boundary amendment petition. Currently we have no idea whether the land, you can guess, but we have no solid evidence that the land should be designated important agricultural land or not. So we don't know how we're chunking away at the best lands in the state without this being done.

Do you, do you think, again to Rep. Perruso's kind of phased approach, that it at least... I know we would prefer private in there in that amendment, but if it started with just state or state and county at least, is that a start? And then we do private in the third phase. If we're really trying to start a foundation of this statute to move things forward so we can identify.

That's a very reasonable proposal.

Thank you. And another follow up question for the timeline. Is the three years long enough if we did not add private back into this statute?

If you didn't add private back into the statute, three years would be the absolute minimum. Yeah. One of the problems with what the City and County of Honolulu did was they took eight years to complete their process. And in those eight years the land had changed. Much of the land had changed hands, different owners who didn't know anything about it and all the rest of that stuff. So if you're going to do it, you got to do it and not let it drag out over a decade.

Thank you very much. No further questions.

Thank you, Chair. I have one question for LUC. What is the difference between the law, the act in 2003, and like Hawaii County has an overlay of important agricultural lands and Hamakua. Are you familiar with what their planning tool overlay difference is and what we're talking about here?

The main difference is that it's not an official designation. It is a planning tool, and it helps them in Hamakua. But the designation would change, for lack of a better word, the level of evidence that would be needed to take the land out of agriculture.

So it would be a stepping stone. I know in Hawaii Island, we just had this blanket approach, like lava fields, agriculture, rock farming. And there's a lot of talk about redesignating a lot of these agricultural giant subdivisions into rural so that they can be properly managed and resourced. And would this be like a stepping stone to something like that? Would this provide any gumption from the LUC's perspective?

Actually, we, we have been in support of a measure that was, I don't know, I think it might have been held in committee, to allow the counties within a certain period of time to redesignate land like that rural. From agricultural to rural. But once lands have been... Well, let me be, let me be a little more honest about it or plain about it.

It's theoretically the counties could designate those areas like Paradise Park or something like that as important agricultural lands. Theoretically. And then the conversion of those lands from ag to rural would become a little bit harder. But if the Land Use Commission was to do this, and this is one of the problems with what the City and County of Honolulu did, is they swept up a lot of those subdivisions in their IAL designation.

And when we were still in the process of looking at what the City and County of Honolulu did before it all came apart, the Land Use Commission was going to carve out those subdivisions because they're not appropriate for IAL. So theoretically, it's possible to designate them IAL, but it is unlikely given that they're already subdivided.

Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. On this, we had one in support. Zero opposition, two comments. Moving on to SB 1250 SD1 relating to farm to Families, establishes the Farm to Families program to alleviate food shortages in the state.

Requires reports to the Legislature prior to regular session of 26 and 27, and it appropriates funds first in person, Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of AG. I would usually sit on my testimony, but this one I have to stand on. We're in strong support of this measure. To make sure that we are filling the gaps to feeding our hungry families across our state.

So your support would be greatly appreciated here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. On Zoom, we have Master oh boy. Mr. Billionaire not present. And Micah from Ulupono Initiative. oh.

Little mix up. Mariah Yoshizu. On behalf of Ulupono Initiative, we're in strong support of this measure. With the uncertainties at the federal level, I think it's all the more important that the state step up to kind of, as Cedric mentioned, fill in those gaps.

So being able to feed our families and make sure that many of our population, unfortunately, that is food insecure. If we can give them options of. More healthy, fresh food and help uplift. Them, they'll have better lives. So we hope to support our communities. As well as our farmers by enacting this.

Thank you so much for your support.

Thank you. Okay. Daniela Spato from Hawaii. Appleseed not present. Melissa Pavlicek, Hawaii Food Bank. Thank you.

Aloha. I'm Melissa Pavlicek here today on behalf of the Hawaii Food Bank. Thank you for hearing this measure. Thank you to the House for prioritizing House Bill 428 as well. The Hawaii Food Bank recently completed a study that showed 1 in 3 Hawaii families are food insecure.

And, and that 9% of families with children go a whole day without having food in some months. My family, I really remember vividly hearing as we were driving on the radio, radio DJs mocking a popular and accomplished singer in 2020 who had been food insecure. And I remember our shock.

And I think it's very easy when we're hearing policies at the Capitol or hearing about statistics to forget that sense of shock that feels families and children are going hungry. This bill would be an important step to providing nutritious food for families, which will help with health long term for our community. And I hope you'll support it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next on Zoom, we have Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association.

Thank you. Lauren Zirbel, on behalf of Hawaii Food Industry Association will stand on our testimony and strong support. As our food banks do need additional support, we are looking at the federal budget decreasing SNAP funding by $230 billion. Hawaii is a very large recipient of SNAP dollars. We receive over $60 million a month from the SNAP program.

So it's a big part of our economy. As you already heard from the previous testifier, one in three residents are currently struggling with food insecurity. So we should really do everything in our power to help this cause. And we thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We have one more testifier, but is there anybody who's representing Hawaii Farm Bureau other than Ryan right now?

We have his written testimony?

Yes, we do. Okay, that's all the testifiers we have signed up. Is there anybody here in person who would like to testify on this measure? On Zoom. Seeing none we had. Sorry, I gotta go back a couple pages. 62 testifiers in support, 0 in opposition and 0 comments.

Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair. Yeah. Questions. Members, seeing that we have none and we have none, because that Bill is so important to us, we're going to move straight to decision making making on our 9:30 a.m. agenda. So first measure is SB659 SD2 HD1 relating to the Department of Education.

We're going to move this measure along and pass as is. I understand that the State Procurement office is opposed to the exemption on fruits and vegetables. We did have in statute an exemption for for this exact same measure.

So we're going to continue the conversation on this and get more clarification why there's opposition when it was in statute before. And we need this as another tool in the toolbox for farm to school measures as we move towards our 2030 goals. Members, any questions concerned, see none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. We're voting on SB659. SD2 HD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass. Unamended. [Roll Call] And noting the excused absence of Representative Ward, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Vice Chair. Moving on to SB125 SC2 HDA1 relating to CS state enterprise zones. We're going to pass this as is. Members, any questions concerns? See none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair. Voting on SB125 SD2 HD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass as unamended Chair and Vice Chair, vote Aye. Is there any noes or reservations? Seeing none and noting the absence of Representative Ward for this vote and any further further votes unless there's a change. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Vice Chair. Moving on to SB739 SC2 HD1 relating to land exchange. We're going to move this bill forward. Unamended Members, any questions, concerns, See none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Voting on SB739 SD2 HD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass. Unamended Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Is there any reservations or noes seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Just noting for the record, did you say Representative Ward is excused for the entirety of the. I did on the prior vote. Okay, thank you so much. Just clarifying for the record, moving on to Senate Bill 1099 HD1 relating to important agricultural lands.

I think we have some more work to do to tighten up this measure, but I will work with the LUC and with the chairs connected onto this subject matter just to see if we can tighten up some language or get some consensus to move forward with some form of way we can start to look at redesignating or important agricultural lands for the entire state, whether that is just state and public lands or if we can include private lands as well.

It's an important conversation. So we're going to pass this as is Members, any questions? Concerns? See none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on SB 1099 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Is there any nays or reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Vice Chair. Our final measure today is SB 1250 SD1. We're going to create a House Draft 1 and redefect the date to July 1, 3000. Make some light technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And to make it easier for the Finance Committee, notate the original $2 million request in the Standing Committee report.

This is an important measure. It's part of our House majority caucus package bill and Senate companion. So we want to keep this bill moving. Members, any questions? Concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on SB 1250. 1250 SD. 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote Aye. Is there any nays or reservations? Seeing none, Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Great job today. Thank you, everyone for your testimony. There's no further business on this hearing notice. Thank you.

Aloha Kakou. Welcome to the hearing for the House Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. Today is March 19, 2025 and we are convening for the 1001 Agenda Item. And this is a DM only decision making only agenda. And we're convening here in room 325 in the Hawaii State Capitol.

Again, this is a DM only agenda on Senate Bill 1582 relating to the coconut tree, which was previously heard on March 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. seeing that this is a decision making only agenda, there is no new testimony on this measure. So we're moving straight into decision making. So Members, my recommendation is to pass with amendments.

We would like to defect the date to July 1, 3000. This is our standard procedure for bills coming over to the House. We want to make tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

I want to note that DLNR gave a very nice testimony and written testimony about the significance of of the coconut tree that it's not just a food source, that it is a culturally significant plant.

So we want to strengthen the preamble language to talk about the importance not just for food purposes, but the natural, cultural and historical importance of the coconut tree or new as we call it in Hawaiian. We want to acknowledge other reasons while coconut trees are of high importance to Hawaii and that preserving them is significantly important.

So we're going to insert another section of language in the DLNR statute under Title 12, Subtitle 6. So how this bill created a section in Department of AG statute about its importance food source.

We want to create a similar line statement in DLNR statute to say something to the effect of the coconut palm or NIU is established, designated and recognized as a culturally significant plant in the State of Hawaii. I think this is important because for biosecurity measures which one part of this, this Bill hopes to address.

I think in future statute we want to make sure biosecurity is handled culturally and in preservation and forestry within the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture.

So if you think of the Christmas song two coconuts and a minor bird and one papaya tree, I think we're doing this bill injustice if we don't acknowledge the two divisions that work to protect and preserve plants, whether it's for food source or cultural and natural resources. So that is what we are doing to this measure.

Members, any questions or concerns? zero, we are. We have defected the date. So just to clarify, the date is defected and we do that for all House draft measures. Members, any other questions? Concerns? Seeing None. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 1582. Chair. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Okay, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And there's no other agenda items on this hearing notice, so we are adjourned. Thank you.

Aloha, Kakou. Welcome to the Joint Hearing for the House Committees on Agriculture and Food Systems and Energy and Environmental protection. Today is March 19, 2025 and we are here for the 10:30 a.m. agenda and we're convening in room 325 at the Hawaii State Capitol.

I'm Kirsten Kahaloa, Chair of this Committee and we also have Chair Lohan, who is chairing the Energy and Environmental Protection Committee and also sits on the Agricultural and Food Systems Committee. We have Vice Chair Kush and Vice Chair Peruso. Thank you Members for doing double duty today and voting twice on everything.

But before we get started, if you are joining us remotely, please remember to keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And after your testimony is complete, the zoom chat function will allow you to chat with technical staff only. If you're disconnected, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connection on the testifiers and if we have a network failure, it may be necessary to to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making only.

In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please be courteous and kind and avoid using any trademark or copyrighted images or we may have to ask the sergeants to ask you to leave on that note. Thank you folks for being here.

Our first item and only item on our agenda today is SB443 SD1 relating to agricultural lands requires that lands within the agricultural district that have a solar energy facility must also obtain certification from the Department of Agriculture that the lands are also used for a farming operation. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. First to testify is Hawaii State Energy Office in person.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs. Monique Schaefer with the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our testimony with comments and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Hawaii Department of Agriculture in person.

Good morning, Chairs. Vice Chairs. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. The Department stands on its written testimony offering comments on this measure and asking for clarification on some of the contents of this measure. Here for any questions, mahalo.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Brian from Hawaii Farm Bureau in person.

Aloha Chairs and Vice Chairs and then Members, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony. Support. We support this measure. We support any effort that would require agriculture production on agriculture lands that allows for solar.

And I believe that this is trying to Address some of the concerns that we and others have that that may not be happening on those solar farms that are located on B and C land as required by statute. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. That's all the testimony we have written down. Is there anybody who would like to testify in person? Wendy Gady, ADC.

Good morning. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of committees. I'm Wendy Gady. I'm with the Agribusiness Development Corp. I apologize, I think our testimony came in late, but we stand in support with comments and we are here for any questions.

Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to testify in person? Anybody on Zoom? Okay. Seeing none. There was four people in support, zero opposed, and two comments on this measure. Chair Members. Chair Member questions.

I guess Department of Agriculture. Sorry, in your testimony you have the underscored area is just for emphasis to figure out how to read it. Okay, sorry. A little confusing because we use underscore for additions.

Sorry, earlier Momoto, Department of Agriculture. The underscore is to represent emphasis on both the first and second pages.

And so I guess what I'm thinking is rather than create a whole new certification process and authority that would just add more paperwork and bureaucracy, is there a way to just have a more clear and detailed definition of farming operation so that we can address the issue more specifically?

Well, right now the reference is to connect it to Section 1652 which in itself doesn't provide an objective definition of what a commercial agricultural operation is.

So what if we just add a definition for commercial?

That's a tough one. What do you want to do? There's all kinds of ways to look at it. Income. And there's a lot of problems, as you can imagine, with each solution that you can come up with. Income, the amount invested by a farmer or landowner into the land. Licenses, authorities, permits, certifications.

Okay, what about language then? That just said. Because I think as we understand it, the issue people are having specifically has to do with the solar farms that have sheep or livestock present, but that they aren't being slaughtered and sold. Is that your understanding as well?

That seems to be part of it. The extent of which I'm not sure. I cannot.

Like, what if we just for this, in this statute, like farm reoperation means this.

We can put some provision in, provided that for solar energy facilities, presence of, you know, livestock alone without, like, we can just add more detail to clarify and address the issue and then presume that people will comply and not create a whole new certification process under Department of Agriculture. What do you think of that?

It still comes down to definition. What is satisfactory. What kind of threshold do you want? I've tackled that over 30 years with the counties as well as within the state trying to better define what is an adequate agricultural operation, a bona fide agricultural operation.

Well, I mean, I think we just want to address the issue at hand without creating an entire new process because there's one thing happening that we need to address. So we.

We're just saying, I think we could put more specific language in there relating to the presence of livestock on land, on ag lands being used for solar energy facilities and clarifying that that alone will not constitute a farming operation.

Okay, so you're not going into a definition of what is.

I mean, I'm just trying to figure out a way that we can address the problem or the issue that people are having without having to create more work for Department of Ag and a whole certification process as well as more hoops to jump through for these projects trying to get permitted to move forward because they already have a lot of hoops to jump through.

We're going to have to think about that.

Well, I think that's what this Committee wants to do. We're just asking for help coming up with the language.

Well, the language in here is already halfway there. Reference to again to 1652. A commercial farming operation.

Okay, let me ask. Can I ask the same question? Maybe a Farm Bureau.

Brian Miyamoto, on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Thank you, Chair for the question. And we appreciate the statement that I think that's what this build is trying to accomplish. Ensuring that solar on AG land is meeting the statutory requirement of having agriculture as part of it.

And yes, our understanding as referenced in, I believe other testimony, including the Department with the sheep and you heard the planner talk about that. So while we support those efforts, we'd like to see the ag production as we believe is required from statute. So to your question, we agree with Department of Agriculture with.

With the planner that we've tried Bonafide Ag definitions and it is difficult sometimes. You're going to try to come up with a definition based, as he said, on. On income or percentage of how much your land is. Is. Is being farmed. We'd like to work with the Committee. I understand we're on a deadline.

Committee would like some language. We don't have the language. I think your suggestions is somewhere that we can go to try to tighten it up. We absolutely agree that we don't want to burden the Department with additional work.

But again, in absence of what we've been able to do up to this point, I think that's why this legislation has been introduced, to come up with another innovative way or another idea or option to ensure that these lands are have some active. I think 50% have to have active agriculture.

What if instead of a certification, we put some language in the lucid statute that they should consult with Department of Ag because they're the ones, the renewable energy developers have to go through.

That, that could be something because they need to get a special permit, but also maybe a provision where that has to be recertified every so many years because you could do it initially. And if nobody's looking, then we're going right back to the situation that we are now.

So again, I think what this is addressing is a checks and balance on ensuring compliance with the law. So. Absolutely. Chair, I think, you know, the, the farming community, we want to protect agricultural land. The primary activity should be ag production. But we are in support, and we've come before this, this Legislature supporting renewable energy.

We understand the importance and the necessity of it. However, when it's on ag land without any ag production, we have some concerns. We have agrovoltaic coming up. So, so we want to make sure, and we are in complete support of that. We support the pilot.

But if that's going to be part of our future on renewable energy and agriculture, make sure that it is true agrivoltaics, not just agriculture. Right now, the ag and solar dual use is truly just solar in most cases. I won't say 100% all, but from what we see, that's what's going on.

So we understand that's what this bill is trying to address and that you're trying to just share.

So we appreciate your suggestions and we'd like to work with the Department, with the Legislature on finding a solution to address this problem to have that true dual use achieve our renewable energy goals by 2045 and our double food production and our 30 by 30 and 40 by 40 and 40 by 50 food farm to school goals.

Okay, thank you. Can I ask energy office a couple questions for our. For energy projects and those in the pipeline and I don't know if you know this off the top of your head, like how many are on ag lands? Is it most of them?

Most of them are going to be on.

Yeah. And I guess what do you, I mean, we read, we read your testimony, but now I'm also thinking about it from the other perspective where it's hard to Just have a definition.

You know, it seems like the renewable energy companies have looked at that definition and done kind of the least amount possible in order to meet the requirement of the law.

Sure. I would say, you know, perhaps the solution is not like you put it into statute like you're recommending, but that certification process, it would be more appropriate to check compliance after development on those lands because, you know, really those projects, the hard work to get those on lands, there's so many bureaucratic hoops to jump through.

That's on the front end, this issue of the agriculture and compliance with the law as it stands. That's after the facilities have been built. So I would encourage, if there are sort of any certifications, it be separate from the Land Use Commission's, you know, permitting process. And that certification would need to happen after development.

And it's hard because there has to be some kind of clarity. Correct. You know, for the companies, it's like a big difference in their operating expenses. If they're suddenly.

Absolutely. And it's farmers. That all comes back. If they are doing certain types of agriculture that, for example, requires the panels to be higher off the ground, that's going to add materials costs. That gets factored into the rate and that comes back to our electric bills. Correct.

So there really has to be a holistic, you know, approach, realizing we need this energy, you know, if we are to get to the state mandated goals. But we also have food goals that we're trying to get to. So there's a balance.

No renewable energy companies showed up to testify, so.

But we might have application to ask development questions of the ADC.

Okay. Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

ADC, please. Thank you. Thank you. Wendy, if you could provide just some context on how we best effectuate this as you hear the conversation. And you know, we want energy projects to be able to move forward, but at the same time we want want agriculture to happen on these B and C land.

So can you speak to how we tighten up this process or have a stage where there's a re. I don't know if certification is the right word, but re establish benchmarks to make sure that bonafide agriculture is still happening? Because it seems like it's going into the process of getting the development project off, often moving.

But then is there any backstops? One23 years after the approval process of that energy project.

Thank you for the question. Chair and Vice Chairs, I'm Wendy Gady with the Agribusiness Development Corp. Welcome to the intersection.

And we are at the intersection and I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee because there was a project announced in the newspaper yesterday in Kauai which is referring to ADC land for solar project and it is on B and C land. And you know, we do have energy goals, but we also have food goals.

Obviously agribusiness is in our name. So, you know, we're pro ag business. But we also have an interesting superpower in our superpower is we're able to develop. Agribusiness is able to develop energy projects.

So the ironic thing is, you know, we're talking about a solar project on BNC lands, on ADC lands and in an area where ADC is already operating a hydropower plant. And it is a delicate balance because I would politely offer up that you have to consider the ag component up front.

The reason being is the spacing between the panels. If you're going to be doing renewable energy crop, let's just say sunflower, you have to space it so you can combine in and around those solar panels.

And you know, ADC is also trying to address, you know, it's a real issue that people are calling you saying, well, I'm driving past all these solar fields and I see like three sheep. Like that's not really ag.

But in fact, when you talk to the ag producers, they're like, we have no place to slaughter, you know, and basically you slaughter young, you don't slaughter old. The younger ones are the ones you eat, the older ones become your dog treats.

It is a very delicate balance in and I don't know that there's an easy answer, but I don't think we can say it's all ag first and then we think about energy or it's all energy first and then we think about ag. It is really delicate.

And in our comments we offered up, you know, the reason that these lands are zoned ag is because they are ideal for some kind of ag production. I come from a farming family and we as farmers say the there's no such thing as bad farm ground.

You just haven't worked hard enough to come up with a crop to grow on it. And I think that's a lot of the times the case you're like, zero well, it's not alien where it's nice and flat and the river runs through it. So that's an easy ask.

But B and C lands, you can still grow really awesome things. You can grow coffee on B and C lands. And you know, even by offering up B lands for solar projects, it's a little nerve wracking.

You know, and we're already doing that, so I don't know that I'm answering your question other than to say they have to be done in parallel.

Jump in. Yeah, I mean, I think that the reality too, for the energy projects is that they're going to go on those lands or be more expensive. I know Ulupono did a study on using, like, more lands with, you know, more sloped topography and stuff, but.

Yeah, I mean, it's like those are always going to be the preferred ones that are more level and closer to infrastructure, and we need those too.

So perhaps we need to think about the ability to use technology in different ways. So maybe there's equipment that would allow for more production of ag land under and around the individual solar panels. You know, this is the third time ADC is coming to the ledge asking for money for a small animal slaughterhouse.

And, and I'm asking you, any day, anytime, any place, please let me know. And the industry wants to come to the table and explain what they're dealing with. It's not because ADC has nothing to do on Saturdays and Sundays, and we would like to have a new project. They are desperate for a small animal slaughterhouse.

They cannot grow up their herds because they have no place that they can slaughter. It's ones and twosies. And we really need to be slaughtering somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 small animals per week. So we're trying to come alongside.

We're here for any more questions or comments, but we literally are at the intersection between energy as well as food production.

Energy Office or do you have a question? I do. Oh, go ahead. You first.

Or adc. Thank you. So when we talk about this, and prior to the recording of this we talked about, solar is obviously attracted to the sunny leeward sides of the island, which tend to be drier and may have the soils that are compatible with some kinds of farming. But water is the issue.

And even with livestock, you're going to need water access. I mean, it's impractical to bring 500 or 2000 gallons of water a day to supply enough water even for a decent herd of sheep. Maybe goats would be the one solution, but then keeping them in, they jump on the panels. Yeah.

So, I mean, you know, that's what I worry about is it's easy to talk about crops and all these things, but water is the issue. I mean, the logistics of. Of keeping animals alive and thinking about in the Ewa Plains or leeward Hawaii Island, Waikoloa, there's lots of areas Okoni Puli highway seems a likely candidate. Water.

Do you know is there any kind of carve out for that? With lack of water, I mean, it's impractical to drill a well.

Again, I feel like we're on the bleeding edge at Agribusiness Development Corp. In the issue of water. And you know, you had mentioned cattle earlier and one cow needs 25 to 30 gallons of water per day. Yeah, that's a lot of water. And you know, in some ways ADC is becoming like the Coast Guard.

We're in search and rescue on water situations. Right now we are actively pursuing the acquisition of the Wahiawa irrigation system. And it's because there are 17,000 acres of land that will go dormant if we don't take over this irrigation system. Because to your 0.6 months out of the year they are fully dependent on this water system.

They do not have enough rain. But you're expressing another layer of complexity in terms of farmland without water is extra challenging. And Agribusiness Development Corp. Is trying very hard to be a part of that solution. But I agree.

Okay. Yeah, it was just in terms of this bvill. Thank you.

Okay, I guess we can stop. I'm just trying to think what my question is. I guess Energy office again, I mean, I'm just curious like what level of uncertainty this could add. I mean if we're talking about like kind of not knowing what Department of Ag would sign off on being okay, and then how do you.

You have a plan for a farming operation up front, but you have to get certified before your project's even built or it's even implemented. So. So like you were saying, a lot of it's checking up after the fact and then that might evolve over time.

So it's not like you have a 30 year contract for a solar energy project, but you might not know whether that farm would be a successful business for 30 years and might have to pivot. So.

And if you had requirements like having you're thinking of doing a certain type of farming and therefore you had to site the panels further apart, you would have to either increase the cost or be sort of assured that the farming would pay for itself somehow. So it just like adds this whole other level of complexity.

Yeah, I think you're spot on. And I just want to agree totally with ADC's statement that it does need to happen. Like the planning does need to happen up front. There has to be some of, some of that planning.

When I said, you know, sort of pushing the certification back, it's solely that, you know, check in from the Department of Agriculture. And I think certification is probably not the right terminology either. You know, as far as design goes, that is something that again, would all have to be sort of calculated up front.

When you're looking at if those sort of profits or revenue from agriculture are factored into, for example, a power purchase agreement price. I don't think that would be totally appropriate. I think those power purchase agreement prices need to be bifurcated from the revenue from agriculture. But my concern would be the added costs of infrastructure.

Like if you have to space your panels further apart, that lowers your net energy. Or if you have to, you know, like I said, raise them higher to do machine clearing of agricultural crops. All of that has to be considered. So again, it's not easy.

It's very dependent on the type of agriculture you're going to be doing under the panels. Yeah.

And then you sort of have no guarantee your crop will be successful. Like there's a lot of uncertainty in farming. Do you feel like enough and this could be for any of anyone else to answer. Also, there's not many people here, so we're being informal.

Has enough work, I mean, I know there's the UH pilot project, but has enough work been done to figure out compatible crops and how we make solar farms work together, together with agriculture while still offering a good rate to customers?

I don't know if I can totally speak to that honestly, but I do know it from conversations with both developers as well as Hark who does the sort of pilot scale facilities is it's very up and down.

And another thing which we pointed out in our testimony, and it may even link to the water issue, the Land Study Bureau. That study is an older study. There's a lot of fallow lands that are not being farmed and those are certainly the types of projects I would like to see going after.

I don't want to see solar panels being built on active agricultural sites, but, but there's a lot of room for co development on land that's fallow. So. Thank you.

Members. Any further questions? See? None. Do we have to ask the Hawaii Farm Bureau question?

Hawaii Farm Bureau, can you provide language or insight on how to strengthen the language of this bill?

Thank you, Chair. I did want to maybe revisit. Chair Lawrence, question on, on maybe how to craft some language. We don't have necessary language. This is some, maybe some suggestions first before we get to maybe what we could do. The Department of Agriculture does, I believe, some annual certifications or some regular certifications.

Good ag practices, possibly pesticides seal a quality organic certification. So they, they do. And again, it is a capacity issue. Right. Where is the best use of of state resources for the Department on priorities and policies that the Legislature wants. So we do appreciate that.

As far as our comment on, you know, up front, okay, sure we're going to do this ag and we agree with ADC and others that yes, you need to take in consideration the farming operations. That's why it's not always a good marriage to maximize what the solar farm is wanting to do.

You want to put those panels as close together as you can. We've even looked at projects, I think it was in Europe where they built the panels high enough for the tractors. But again, increased cost of that infrastructure will ultimately lead to increased costs for the the rate pairs.

And again this is addressing only B and C lands, not D and E the requirements owning bnc. So several things that maybe could happen to, you know, accomplish what you're. You're seeking to accomplish. Possibly chair is requiring annual filings of get of your schedule F which is the farm tax return. The ag dedication with the counties.

Not everybody does it, but ag dedication which would require the. So the counties will do the vetting. But it's 3510 years. But again it is at least regularly instead of just upfront. I can fool you and put the solar on, say I'm going to do this. Even have some active agriculture.

Something that we're looking at for agriculture. I believe it was Mr. Yamoto reminded me or DOA of aquaponics. That is something that I believe Hark is looking at along with Nalo farms. Right. And using gravity with aquaponics growing mostly leafy greens under the panels.

Because again, the panels are and are competing for the same resources that farming needs, the land and the sun. So again, these are filings GT every year, Schedule F. Every Year. Right. It would be at least some proof of agricultural production. So again, just some suggestions. Again, we want to find a solution.

We want to support renewable energy. But it is a difficult challenge. And if you look at the monoland that these solar farms need, the only option similar to what we're dealing with, landfills is agricultural lands. So let's protect our most productive lands and maybe look at the more marginal lands.

The challenge is they don't want the marginal lands either. Too far away from transmission lines, maybe a little slopey, maybe doesn't have enough water or infrastructure that they need. They still need some basic infrastructure for these solar farms. Thank you.

Sure. I have a quick question, Brian Mr. Takamoto, I have a quick question. So I just was wondering the number I really like the ag declaration idea because I've seen that form used really effectively.

And the counties, once they go through that process, then the farmers who are using that process, there is a relationship and there is accountability. So how many farmers do you think statewide, do you have an estimate of the percentage of farmers that might be using those kinds of dedication forms at their county level?

Brian Miyamoto HOI Farm Bureau Vice Chair, thank you for the question. We don't, but that that information is easily accessible per county. Another thought that we had was, was water rates. But not every farmer is on municipal water rates, so they wouldn't be like with border water supply.

But again, maybe it's an or this or that or this or that. Not every farmer dedicates and they can dedicate different times. Right. Which will which would lower their property tax rate. So depending on the years they dedicate. But again it's a way of proving right that there is agriculture activity.

I believe the counties have the right to go and check, right. Because they are receiving incentives benefits from it.

Right? In this county, yeah.

You know, upwards of 1% property tax. Right. So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Farm Bureau Members. Any questions? We are going to move straight to decision making on SB443 SD1 relating to agricultural lands. We've had a really productive conversation on this measure. So thank you to EEP and to our Committee for being thoughtful in ensuring we move this bill in the right form and way.

So we're going to put a few amendments into this measure. So I recommend that we move this forward.

We want to redefect the date to July 1, 3000 and we're going to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, cincy in style, and we are going to work on this outside of Committee and hope that we can have some stronger language to address all of the comments and feedback we got today prior to hopefully the request to have this bill heard in the next Committee.

Chair, thank you. Yes, everything she said and could the could like Energy office and DOA and Farm Bureau work together and come up with some suggestion for us prior to the CPC hearing and ADC and let us know how we can address this.

Okay, thanks. Thank you, Chair. AG Committee, any questions, concerns? Okay for the AG Committee. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB443 SD1. Chair's recommendation that passed with amendments. [Roll Call] And noting the excused absences of Representative Quinlan and Ward. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. AG Vice Chair.

Same recommendation. Committee Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. If any discussion, same Members. If not Vice Chair please take the vote.

Vice Chair, please take the vote on SB443. SD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Cal] Chair, recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you, Members. We are adjourned. And we just want to thank everyone for all of their honest feedback today to help improve this measure. We're adjourned. Thank you.

Aloha, kakou. Welcome to the Joint Hearing for the House Committees on Agriculture and Food Systems and Economic Development and Technology. Today is March 19, 2025, this is the 10:55 a.m. agenda, and we're convening in Room 325 at the Hawaii State Capitol today for the Agriculture and Food Systems Committee. We have most of our committee members here.

I'm serving as your chair, and we have Vice Chair Kusch, and we also have with us the Economic Development and Technology Committee Chair Ilagan. To get started, if you are joining us via Zoom, please note that--please be muted during, during the testifier time and only use the chat function with for technical purposes only.

We do have session at noon, so we want to keep testifiers' time limited, so please keep your comments and remarks as brief as you can, and we have your written testimony on file. If there is any network failures or you're disconnected, you can rejoin the meeting if time permits.

Please note that if there's bad connections that aren't on our end, we are not responsible for that, and if there's a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision-making. In that case, we will post an appropriate notice. Please be civil.

Avoid any trademark or copyrighted images, or any uncivil behavior or profanity. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from our committee hearing today. We're going to move on to our first and only measure on the agenda: SB 330 SD 1, related to invasive species prevention. Authorizes the Department of Agriculture to enforce quarantines issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. Vice chair.

Thank you, chair. First to--excuse me--first to provide comments in person is Department of Agriculture. And we can go--we can both come.

Yeah. So, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committee, Jonathan Ho, on behalf of the Department. We stand on our written testimony with comments and are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Stephanie Easley from CGAPS.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. Thank you for this joint hearing to hear this really important bill. Citrus is a crop that is really growing, expanding. That's market in Hawaii.

It's one of two states that is still growing citrus without this citrus greening disease. Like you used to see that label 100% Florida orange juice, you don't see that anymore because Florida is not growing oranges anymore, and we're trying to use this measure to protect that industry in Hawaii. This area of law is incredibly complex.

The federal government in 2000 passed an act that preempted states from regulating plant pests and noxious weeds if the federal government regulates them. That law makes some of the Department of Agriculture's rules not comport with the federal law. This bill will enable those enforcements to not be preempted. Additionally, HDOA indicated they could do this through cooperative agreement.

We put forward that they need this authority from the ledge, like if the TSA line is too long, the state can't just put up a new TSA, a new screening, because that's federal law. So this allows the state to enter into those cooperative agreements to enforce the federal law. We do request two amendments.

I just--this is--so this would allow HDOA to hold the material while they call USDA to try to figure out if it's under the quarantine. This is the quarantine from last month for all of Mississippi for citrus. Came out February 20th of 2025. HDOA would be able to enforce this under this statute.

And our request to add the pest and noxious weeds themselves to the definition is because they are included as articles. This is very technical, but this is the imported fire ant quarantine, and the first covered article is the imported fire ants in queens and reproducing colonies.

So that technical amendment we requested, the definition of article, would just allow them to enforce the full quarantine, same with the addition of the state definition, which is the same as the federal definition in the Plant Protection Act; would allow HDOA to enforce the full federal quarantine working together with USDA. I'm available if you have any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Really appreciate that thoughtful testimony. Is there anybody else in person who would like to testify in Zoom? Okay, seeing none. Committee, is there any questions?

Members for the Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems, questions? I have one. Department of Agriculture. Does the CGAPS's testimony and recommended amendments help mitigate the concerns that you placed in your testimony?

I guess to some extent because there's a clear statutory authority for it, but I guess to the extent of holding things--so right now, things--so I guess there's two things. So the feds are already effectuating their own quarantines, right? That's the whole point of their quarantines.

So we--a lot of times what we're basically doing is if we suspect there's a violation, we'll work with them, and basically our way around of holding is you just don't complete the inspection because you still need to pass things to release them. So the importation of anything into the state that's regulated requires an inspection, and after the completion and inspection, you need to pass it.

It's a, it's, you know, it's an act, but essentially you stamp away bill or something. Once that occurs, the thing is now entered into the state. So if the inspection doesn't complete--isn't completed, it doesn't get released.

So I mean, so we, I mean, this is not something that's new, and sometimes we are made aware of issues where there are things that maybe not necessarily are quarantine violations, but they, they--our other federal violations will work with USDA and assist them in figuring out whatever their appropriate mitigation is.

So, so, for example, you have things that are only allowed for entry into CONUS, the United--the mainland, not to Hawaii. We were made aware. We work with them so that they can take appropriate action or we can assist them with taking the action.

So I think a lot of it is, I think, to CGAPS's testimony, creating, I think, additional, I guess, statutory protection, I think, to the extent of, you know, biosecurity, but a lot of what's actually kind of trying to be held is already essentially being done. So it's, that's kind of where we're kind of, we're not like, yeah, yeah, we need it, but it's also, it's not completely unnecessary, don't do anything. So we're like really, like kind of on the line with it.

Jonathan, one further question. The, the definitions of federal quarantine, quarantine state, regulated, restricted article, yes, I believe they were taken from federal definitions? So you're saying in your testimony that we do not need those? Because I, I do think there is some bill skipping because--okay, who's the fed's responsibility? Now who's the state's responsibility? What's that purview? So by removing all that language, that's okay in your opinion and it strengthens the bill.

Yeah. Yeah, like so, like so, for example, like, if, if the bill, you know, makes it very clear that state can do the quarantines and then very clear that we enter into the MOUs, I think that's fine, realistically. And then, I guess regards to the definitions, right, the MOUs are going to--again, they define everything anyway.

So I don't, I don't think that you necessarily need another, a statute to define what the feds have already defined because we, again, we know what those things are. And again, creating a definition in state statute for a federal one, I guess I don't, I don't see it being necessary. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see it being necessary to the extent of what you need to do to enforce it because the agreement would do it for us.

Thank you, Jonathan. No further questions for me. Members of the Economic Committee? Chair?

Feel free to--

Oh, questions for the Committee on Economic Development and Technology. Questions, members? Any other further questions? Thank you, HDOA. I think we're ready to move directly into decision-making, members, on both committees. So we're moving into decision-making on SB 330 SD 1, relating to invasive species prevention. We would like to continue the conversation on this measure.

All measures for invasive species and strengthening our biosecurity are of utmost importance, especially to the agriculture and food systems subject matter. So we want to pass with amendments. We want to redefect the date to the House defective date or effective date of July 1, 3000, make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

We will take the Hawaii Department of Agricultural's amendments in its entirety as long as our drafting authority approves removing all of the federal language and definitions, and then we want to clean up on page four, line 16 to 18 to indicate that it's both the USDA's involvement and the HDOA, so both federal and local.

Just want to make sure that that is clear in that language. And then we want to also take CGAPS's amendments as well. We thought that was very important and helpful. And that that will be all, members. Any questions or concerns on both committees? See none, vice chair on the Committee of Ag and Food Systems for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB 330 SD 1, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. And noting the excused absences of Representative Quinlan and Representative Ward, chair, your measure--your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, vice chair.

Hold on, chair. We're going to also make the same recommendation for the Committee of Economic Development, and members, do you have any questions? With no questions, we are on SB 330. Vice chair, please take the vote.

Thank you. Recommendation's to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. [Roll Call]. Chair, the recommendation's adopted.

Thank you, vice chair, and thank you, members.

Thank you, members. This hearing is adjourned.