Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Hello, my Kakou and good afternoon.

Mahalo for joining today's EIG Energy, Environmental, Governmental affairs and Agriculture Environment Committee Joint Hearing. It's Friday, March 212025 and we are convened in room 224 and video conferencing which includes the audio and video of remote participants. That's meaning streamlined stream live on YouTube in the like event that the hearing is cut short.

Well, it's kind of late. We won't be reconvening. But because of our 90 minute time limit, there will be a 2 minute time limit for all testifiers. And we start off with SCR 34.

SR 20 requesting Hawaii's congressional delegation to petition the United States Department of Agriculture to address the lack of parity between Hawaii and other states and territories pertaining to the export of agricultural goods. And first up is Department of Agriculture.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. Matthew Loke, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, we will stand on our testimony in support of these resolutions. Thank you for the opportunity. We'll be happy to take questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Lemoni Khan. Also in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, either online or in person. Members, are there any questions hearing that, I'll turn it over to my chair, co chair.

Okay, we're going to move on to the next two measures, Senate Concurrent Resolution 41 and SR 25, encouraging each county to establish its own biosecurity plan that prioritizes the needs of the county. First on our testifiers list we have Department of Agriculture.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, John Finnho. We stand on our written testimony offering comments available for questions.

Thank you, Dawn Shang or someone from DLNR. Thank you. Chelsea Arnon.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Chelsea Arnon, on behalf of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, we'll stand on our written testimony in support. Having county plans is a really great way to coordinate efforts to respond to invasive species. Mahalo.

Stephanie Easley.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Easley, with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pests Species. I apologize for our late testimony and thank you for any consideration you're able to give it. We appreciate your consideration of these resolutions. Counties have a huge role to play in invasive species prevention and response.

And the Legislature encouraging each county to develop a plan might catalyze their development.

We are requesting one small amendment on page one, line 30 that asks that the plans include legislative changes that the counties might like to see to increase their biosecurity There's a couple of areas where the counties might need legislative changes to really effectively support their biosecurity. Green waste is one of them.

Counties have a big role to play. Another one that comes to mind is noxious weeds. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture makes the list of noxious weeds and those plants can't be sold or imported into Hawaii. Counties are prohibited by law from adding plants to this list.

HDOA also has a cost sharing program to combat noxious weeds on private lands. The list has not been updated since 1992 and there are no cost sharing programs. Lots of states have county weed boards that handle the noxious weed issue at a county level. So that might be one that they would consider. And that's my testimony.

Thank you for your consideration. I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you, Stephanie. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on these two measures? SCR 41 or 25 Members. Any questions? Senator Richards.

Yeah. First, Chelsea.

Chelsea Arnon, Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Thanks, Chelsea. I don't disagree that the more we focus in on invasive species, it's a good thing. What I'm kind of curious. How would we. We're trying to struggle with that right now at the state level, at the county in less than one minute.

Describe to me how you could see an interface would be that way to work.

Yeah, I appreciate the question. And it's already working. We have a memorandum of understanding right now that's amongst the state departments, DLNR, HDOA and the University of Hawaii. Basically the entities that are doing on the ground response for little ant, CRB and Koki frogs. And from that MOU, one of the actions is developing county based response plans.

So we already have plans for each of the counties for little fire ant. And then we're currently drafting for CRB and Koki frogs. I think this is an opportunity to engage the counties more. Maui County invests a lot of money in invasive species in watershed protection.

And so I think this is a great way to engage the other counties on the islands to have more involvement, funding, resources, policy wise. And there are specific issues and different statuses of those species on each of the islands.

Okay, and then just a quick follow up on that. One of the challenges we have right now with invasive species, if there is one detected a quarantine need. I am thinking that we don't want to give everybody the capability to create a quarantine, but we need to strengthen up at the state level.

Is that your opinion of how we would do that? Because I know the state's struggling Right now, as far as designating a quarantine area.

Yeah, that's definitely. And maybe that's something Jonathan Ho from Department of Agriculture can better answer, but that is their regulatory authority. I'm sorry.

That's right. It's a big bus. We can throw everybody under it.

So. Yeah. Jonathan Hill Plant Quarantine Branch Manager so I think as it relates to quarantine, the ability to issue a quarantine isn't, I guess, the easiest issue. There's a very clear process on how to do it. We have interim rulemaking that allows for restrictions that are outside of 91. And I think, again, I think too.

I think going back to the intent of the bill or the measure is to write, I think getting the counties involved more so I think that we have, I think, a more collective response.

And I think to the extent of, I think, I don't know what the term is, where the state trumped or the preemption, I guess I think not allowing each county to do what they'd like individually at the county level does make for some challenges, particularly as it relates to commerce and movement.

I think particularly as it relates to things like LFA and koki, which are, you know, they don't have traditional, like host material. They're kind of on everything. And we're kind of dealing with that right now to some extent. We have a new cookie thing that we found like 45 minutes ago that we're working on. So.

Okay. So again, so what I'm gathering is, yeah, develop structure. Sounds like Maui. We could template a little bit off of that, get things done. Or other counties. Good.

But I think the quarantine thing make it easier for the state to affect one, but leave it at the state level and definitely not give it to the county level. Is that kind of the gist? I'm understanding. Okay, thank you. And Chair, one more question.

Before they lo. Can I just ask where the Koki. Where. Which island? The Ki thinks it's on Oahu. It's on Oahu. Can you tell us where?

It's right by my office. So it's on non agricultural goods.

So it's not on. I don't know where your office is.

It's San Island.

Yeah. So it's not. The likelihood of it becoming established in a forested area is unlikely at this point, but because of the material and the location that it's on, we're trying to figure out how to address it. Yeah, because the goods originated from Hawaii island, but they're. They're not regulated.

Okay.

But as they're doing the work, they found frogs in it. So we're working with them to see if we can use an alternative treatment such as fumigation to do it because it's quite a large shipment.

Okay, thanks, George.

Question.

We've been. Identify yourself, Stephanie.

Easily see gaps.

We've been talking about bugs, but we're also. There's the plant side of invasive species. And I was wondering this. I know in the Big island was probably 30 years ago now, Senecia, Madagascar's fireweed. Had we been able to respond quickly, we wouldn't have the problem in the state that we have today.

But we didn't have the ability to respond. Or at least the government side private could have, but they didn't. So I think there's a disconnect there. At a county level, this may be something that they could respond quickly. Your thoughts on that?

Thank you for the question. I absolutely agree. It's county by county with the invasive species and having a biosecurity plan that outlines how they could respond when something is found. Control action would facilitate that action, enable it to happen quickly for the listing of species and preventing the movement of species that's preempted from counties right now.

And, you know, again, Washington State has this county weed board. It's kind of the model they meet every year and they look at their species in their county and make a list and look at what they don't want in that county because maybe it's too widespread to deal with anymore.

So having programs like that in a plan at the county level, I think could respond to situations like that and prevent the spread.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Any further questions on these two resolves 41 and SR 25? We're going to move on to the next couple of resolves. SCR 56 and SR 40, urging the United States government to develop a national biodiversity strategy. First, we have Don Chang or someone from DLNR. Okay.

Jeanette Burdick from Purple Maya has submitted testimony in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on these two resolutions? Members, any questions for the Department of Land and Natural Resources? Okay, we're going to move on to the last set of resolutions.

SCR 110 and SR 91, requesting the Hawaii State Energy Office to conduct a study evaluating the feasibility of establishing green bonds, a green bonds program in the state. On our testifiers list, we have Mark Glick or someone from the Energy office. No one's here. They've submitted commentary.

And Beatrice Dirrego from the Coalition Earth has submitted testimonies in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on these two measures? If not, we'll take a brief recess.

Reconvening the one o' clock joint agenda. Chairs are conferred on the decision making on. We'll start off with SCR 34 and SR 20. Let's see. The recommendation will be to pass with technical non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency. Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Vice chair?

We're voting on both together? Yeah?

Yes.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SCR 34 and SR 20 is to pass with amendments. Chair Gabbard votes yes. [roll call].

Thank you, Member. Okay for EIG Same recommendation. Any discussion? If not Senator Richards, I vote yes.

On SC and SR 20, SCR 34 passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Senator Chang is excused. Senator Decoy is excused. I vote aye. And Senator Fevella. Chair, you have three in favor. Motion adopted.

Perfect. On the next two resolutions, SCR 41 and SR 25, the two chairs have conferred and we would like to implement the one suggested amendment from CGAPS Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species they suggested as was conveyed by Stephanie.

We're going to add at the end of page one, line 30 and identifies proposals for legislative changes at the state and county level to promote the county's biosecurity, which I think will make the bill even more effective. So that is the one suggested amendment- amendment to these two resolutions. Any discussion? If not, Senator Richards, I vote yes.

On SCR 25 and SSR 25 and SCR 41 passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Senator Chang and DeCoite are excused. Oh, Senator Chang just arrived.

He's a strong yes. I'm not. Just joking.

Yeah, absolutely. Hang on. We're fixing things here. Senator DeCoite is excused. I vote aye. And Senator Fevella. Chair, you have four in favor. Motion is adopted.

Same recommendations for AEN any discussion? Chair votes aye. Senator Rhoads?

Chair's recommendation. SCR 41, SR 25 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes yes. [roll call].

Thank you, members. Okay, the next pair of resolutions are SCR 56 as well as SR 42. Chairs have conferred on this love the language of the bill and would like to pass it out as is. Any discussion? If not, Senator Richards, I vote yes.

Of the five, the four members in attendance are any voting with reservations. Any no votes? Chair, your motions have adopted.

Same recommendations for AEN chair votes aye. Senator Rhoads?

Chair's recommendation SCR 56 and SR 40 is to pass unamended. [roll call].

Thank you. Members, the last pair of resolutions are SCR 110 and SR 91. This is an interesting tool that state could possibly use in its renewable energy aspirations. We'd like to pass this measure out with technical, non substantive amendments. Any discussion? If not, Senator Richards? I vote yes.

Of the four members in attendance, is anybody voting with reservations or no votes? Chair you have four in favor. Motion adopted.

Same recommendation for AEN? Chair votes aye. Senator Rhoads?

Chairs recommendation SCR 110, SR 91 is to pass with amendments. [roll call].

Thank you. And that concludes the one o' clock agenda. Adjourned.