House Standing Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems

Good morning and Happy New Year. So, this is the Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. We're in Conference Room 325 and this is our State Capitol. And this is our scheduled Committee hearing for Friday, January 30th at 9:30 AM. Thank you for everyone for being here and also for those joining us on Zoom. My name is Cory Chun.

I have the privilege of being the Chair of this Committee and also, want to recognize my Vice Chair, Representative Kusch, and also to my left, member, Representative Perruso. So, I just want to go over some ground rules. So, because morning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify.

In that event, please know that your written testimony may not be considered by the community. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two minute time limit per testifier. For those on Zoom, please 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 the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you are 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 connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images if you're using a Zoom background, and please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing, without the ability to rejoin. I would also like to let everybody in the room know that we have a new microphone system in the House.

So, instead of the microphones at the table and also at the podium, the microphones are actually in the ceiling now. So, just know that you may be hot at all times and any side conversations may be picked up. So, just be aware. With that, let's come get this hearing started.

So, first up, we have House Bill 1601, relating to biosecurity. First we have to testify is the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, in support.

Hello, Chair. Cedric Gates, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. We stand on our written testimony in support of this. Here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Patrick Chi, Department of Land and Natural Resources, in support.

Aloha, Chair Chun, Vice Chair Kusch, and Representative Perruso. And so, thanks so much for this opportunity to testify on this Bill. As you know, we chatted about this just two weeks ago, actually, that the Hawaii Invasive Species Council will continue to be at the Department of Land and Natural Resources until 2030.

And in Act 236, the funding for fiscal year 2026 was allocated to DLNR, but in fiscal year 2027, it was allocated to the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. And since the management of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council will remain over at DLNR, it makes sense for it to continue to be the funding to be at DLNR.

So, we appreciate this Bill and it's being moved over to DLNR in 2027. So, thank you.

Next, we have Stephanie Easley, CGAPS, support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. A massive thank you to the introducers of this Bill and to this Committee for hearing this Bill, particularly so early so it can get through all its referrals.

As Patrick was just saying, Act 236 from last session moves HISC, the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, from DLNR to DAB, effective January 1, 2030. In the meantime, it remains—those functions and duties remain with DLNR.

However, the funding is going to go to DAB starting this year, which creates this sort of impractical, unworkable situation where the staff and projects are at DLNR, but the money's at a different agency, and this Bill remedies the situation.

We are very grateful for the testimony of the two co-chair agencies of the— DLNR and Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity—in support of this Bill.

And we just want to note that a couple of months back at the HISC Council meeting in November, it was—there was a unanimous passage of a motion seeking this exact solution to this problem so that the duties, the functions, the staff, and the important work the HISC does will continue with continuity through this next year.

I'm here if you have any questions. And thank you again for hearing this Bill.

Thank you. Next, we have Nathan Dube from the Oahu Invasive Species Council—Committee—in support. I present Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Member Perruso. Brian Miyamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. First of all, Chairman, congratulations on your appointment as the new Chair of the House Committee of Agriculture and Food Systems. Hawaii Farm Bureau stands on his written testimony in support.

I would normally just stand up, but because this is the first Bill, I figured I'd come up, test the mics. Also, I've noticed in previous hearings that this camera seems to make folks look a little bit skinnier. So, I'm testing that out also because that camera makes me look pretty fat, which I know I am.

You have our written testimony. Clearly states because HISC remains in DLNR, still is in DLNR until its statutory transfer to DAB in 2023, it just makes practical sense to have the funding in the Department that is currently administering the program. So, again, simple housekeeping. Appreciate it. HISC does amazing work.

We're super excited, though, about what HISC is going to do when it's at the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We have late testimony from Franny Brewer, Big Island Invasive Species Council, on Zoom.

Hi. Aloha, Chair. Aloha, Vice Chair. Thank you for letting me testify. It's actually Big Island Invasive Species Committee. We are closely related with the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council, but that is, but it's—we're separate entities. We are actually part of the University of Hawaii.

And I just wanted to testify in support of this Bill because as a grantee, someone who is receiving funds from the money that the Hawaii Invasive Species Council gets every year, we're really dependent on those funds. They're really important for the work that we do.

And if you've ever been in a position where you have to apply for a grant and you go through that whole process, you know that there—it's very important for that process to be smooth and communicated well, and that it's very easy to fill out all the paperwork you need to do and be able to get that in and have a good process for that coming back.

And believe me, I've applied for grant programs, especially new ones, where it's very clunky and it's hard and there's a lot of stumbling blocks because there's things that people don't plan.

And the HISC, over all these years, where it is situated with DLNR, has worked out a really good program for doing those applications each year and reviewing them and communicating about why they're making the decisions that they're making to use those funds.

It's very transparent, it's very open for participation, and it's really key for us to be able to maintain on-the-ground ground projects that we are doing.

And so, when that transfers to a new agency, to only have a few months to try and pull together a grant application program would be very, very challenging, especially with all the new activities that DAB is being asked to take on.

So, I would really encourage this money to stay with the program that currently has a functional system to make sure that those funds actually meet the intent of the Legislature in getting to on-the-ground projects that are doing important research for invasive species management, as well as important actions to control invasive species.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Thank you. We also have late testimony from Crystal Chavez on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Chun and Chair—Vice Chair—Kusch and Members of the House Agriculture and Food System Committee. My name is Crystal Chavez. I am a resident of Kona District 8, and I am testifying in strong support of Bill HB 1601.

Invasive species not only threaten our critically endangered endemic species, but also our ecosystem, culture, and way of life. As a fourth generation Hawaii resident, I feel a deep responsibility to advocate and speak up when resources are being mismanaged or underutilized.

Unless the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity is able to ensure that they can provide adequate services and allocate funding to be used in a timely and effective manner to combat the ever-present threat that invasive species pose to Hawaii, her Aina, and her people, the funding should stay or go back to DLNR.

I urge you to vote in the best interest of protecting Hawaii and perpetuating Aloha Aina. Mahalo for your time and the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, that's all the folks that I have registered to testify in person, on zoom. Is there anybody else that wishes to testify on this measure on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have House Bill 1828, relating to agricultural lands.

First we have to testify is Department of Taxation comments.

Hello.

Thank you. Next we have Mary Alice Evans.

Comments Department of Agriculture and B Security Comments Law Chair that stands on its written comments. Questions?

Thank you, Department of the Attorney General.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Mary Okota and this is Miranda Steve from the Attorney General's office. Our office submitted written testimony providing technical comments and recommendations regarding provisions of the bill relating to income verification through tax returns. We are available for questions if any. Thank you.

Thank you. Farm Bureau.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Perruso, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony supporting the intent. We absolutely support the legislature's efforts to kind of crack down on issues on agricultural lands, especially as it relates to dwellings and gentlemen farms.

We have long supported farm dwellings for our farm farmers and ranchers as A necessary component to their operations. They can provide labor availability, some security, you know, what's going on with ag crimes, animal care and just day to day farm management.

At the same time we are concerned about gentlemen farms and misuses and popping up all over the place. However, we do support reasonable standards that distinguish farming from residential use. But mindful that some of the thresholds that are proposing this Bill, I think we should consider amending.

First of all, the Bill requires that for to have a farm dwelling, agriculture activity must be conducted on 51% of the entire lot. On the surface it looks fine, only 51%. However, some farm lots, maybe they don't have that 51% as farmable. Gullies, ditches, streams, other things, roads, all could be part of that, that parcel.

So instead of 51% of the farmable, I mean of the entire lot, the farmable land, the land that is available for production. So I think that's a simple amendment and it's practical. Secondly, there is an income threshold they heard the attorney General talk about and again me sound reasonable. $30,000 may sound reasonable. However income can fluctuate.

We've got farmers here that can tell you natural disasters, pests, death, different things can impact your annual income and you may not be able to meet that threshold. However, you're a bonafide farmer, you should have that dwelling.

So we do encourage the Committee to take a look at some of these thresholds and maybe amend it so that they're more practical. And I think others have testified along those lines. And then finally we're concerned about the enforcement piece. Who enforces it? Is it dab, is it the county? Because a lot of this is zoning.

It's county function. Is there going to be some overlap and interaction and coordination? So again, we love the intent of the bill. We want to protect our ag lands. We Ag policy should be for bona fide farmers and ranchers. Ag land's primary purpose should be agricultural production.

Everything else, including dwellings and housings is secondary accessory to the primary production of Ag. So again, thank you. We support the intent, but we think the bill should be amended. Appreciate the time.

So you have Hunter Hevlin Way Farmers Union.

Strange not having microphone. Morning chair, vice chair, Committee Member Hunter Hevlin here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We sent out our written testimony again in support of the intent of this measure. It has long been an issue.

I was actually party to a study that the City Counties Department of planning and permitting commissioned about 10 years ago looking into trying how to address this county level and part of what we stumbled over was some of these same issues. Right.

The income threshold, particularly if you have fluctuating income, does that mean then that your roof is threatened not just by your ability to pay your mortgage, but by the state itself?

From a percentage standpoint, it gets into questions about the extent to which having another job that is successful then disqualifies you from being able to live in your home. Some of the mechanisms that were proffered in that study for DPP looked at having focused zoning overlays for particular areas that we wanted to ensure had meaningful agricultural production.

Zoning at the county level continues to vary based off of which county you're in in terms of minimum lot sizes and as Brian highlighted, the quality of agricultural lands that may or may not be included in that. Furthermore, the overlap between the state agricultural land use district and county zoning is not perfect either.

So aligning all of these spatial and regulatory overlays continues to be something that the state needs to pursue if we would like to ensure that there is meaningful productive activity centered on our agricultural lands. However, what this proposes I don't feel is a effective solution to address that mire of regulatory tangle.

One approach that has been explored in other jurisdictions has been having farm registration programs. If you were to receive various benefits from the state. On the Senate side, earlier this week there was a hearing about defining bonafide farmers.

And again, this seems like a mechanism where having a registration process not forcing you to register with the state, but to say if you would like the benefits that the state provides to agricultural producers in the forum by, say, state and including counties, right, in the form of, say, agricultural dedications of other forms of subsidy, participation and processing and procurement mechanisms that I believe would be a mechanism of making legitimate farming operations visible and legible to the Administration and functions of the state without incurring maybe some of the concerns that have been brought up by prior testimony.

Furthermore, just to add, the state, I believe, has an onus to support Native Hawaiian subsistence activities that are not, you know, they're more focused on biocultural perpetuation and environmental management over a commercial activity. And the extent to which the regulatory system is able to reflect the nuances is certainly not reflected in this measure.

So while we support the intent of good agricultural land management, we do feel that there are some major issues that need to be addressed. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Next we have Robert Bence on Zoom.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Representative peruso Robert Bence, 8th generation farmer rancher Kula strongly support this measure and it is a pretty good bill as written. I agree a little bit with Farm Bureau and Farmers Union. It could be slightly improved.

But their issue with the 51% is an interesting one because here in Kula, my neighborhood, we have a lot of 2 acre ag lots that are supposed to be agriculture. And it'll have a giant mansion using about 50% of the land, the farmable land.

Then maybe another 51% will just be orchard of avocados that was planted before the the mansion was purchased. So that's kind of a loophole.

And if that could be addressed with a 51% so that it's actually farming the farmable land and not having these mansions because I had so much neighbors that were here for generations and they had to move. I have neighbors that have multi million dollar mansions. They don't even think that they are required to farm.

They don't even pretend to farm and then they think it's residential. So they'll add like CCNRs, like a homeowner association and then they'll sue over the things that should be protected by the law. But you still have to pay for an attorney to defend your right to have a gate to keep your cattle in, for instance.

So this subsistence farming with a native Hawaiians here we have them in the county where they don't even pay any taxes. So that is one good way to go at that. On and address at 51%, the 30,000. Also you can do the percentage of your farm income. So 100% of my farm income is from farming.

I agree with the point Hunter made. When you get a good job like Senator Richards for instance, you should still be able to be considered a bona fide farmer. But I definitely support this Bill and I think we can work on them to make them even better. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's all I have. Who registered to testify in person online. Is there anybody else who wishes to testify on this measure in person or on Zoom seeing? None. Remember? Any questions?

No.

Okay, I have a question. I guess I'll start with D. Oh yeah, I guess. Whichever.

And I'm Sharon Herd, Department of Agriculture Chair.

Hi. Thanks Sharon. So the one thing I'm kind of looking at is the subsistence farming qualification. And So I know 51% may not be the best way to do that, but would there be a way, a practical way to account for a farmer's yields, annual yields, or would that just be too impractical?

Able to track and report that?

That is a question that has been debated for many, many years. And behind me we have our subject matter expert planner Royamoto, who can probably talk for days, but there is. On the, on the national level, it's $100,000 for the ratio. Hawaii county was 2000, 2000.

I would like to entertain that perhaps we can use production per acre as a metric to determine a bona fide farmer. But the reason I didn't add it to the testimony, nor has been have been hesitant is production opens the door for what are you producing? Right. How do you measure a bona fide farmer is producing?

You'd have to wall. You know, you have to put some quantity qualifications on, on defining production and that's going to be tough. So I do think though we should go look at production per acre as a measure to determine are you farming or not.

Because it takes into account subsistence, it takes into account commercial and it covers a lot of ground. But then again you do run into that defining that, as has been pointed out in previous testimonies, definitions. The devil's in the details on that. But I think it's a good way to start.

I think, you know, on the federal side or. Dean Deputy on the federal side, I. Do believe like even if they give. It on a subsistence matter, when they give it to family Members, like if. You can get a voucher or receipt for whoever received it as the final product, they can use that as a.

Determination of subsistence farming. So if you can get some kind. Of paperwork, the Federal Government programs will accept that as actually farming.

Yeah, just a quick follow up for you guys. You know, thinking about this. How in your mind would like changing crops like Mac nut. A lot of people in Hamakua District. 1 are swapping out their Mac nuts for, you know, just better orchard crops. And you know, there's going to be somewhere between five and eight years between.

The time you take out your trees and replant and you start having any kind of production. And unless you have like large acreage. You know, even on 10 acres, if you go to a high value crop and irradiate and export and do all. The things, it's pretty hard to, to hit some of these.

Do you have any proposed Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee on the National side, they have taken that into account because of all the lands that go fallow and they consider the potential for production as a measure of determining if you're a farm or not.

In our case, it would be the potential for the production and of course there would be some guardrails. And again, the devil's in the details of the, the definitions. But all that needs to be taken into account to consider if you're in fact a bona fide farmer on the Big Island.

We have some, some families that have, you know, cattle and subsistence farming and they too have periods where they don't have production. And again, it's the potential to have production.

Okay, and do you feel like you. Guys would follow up question? I'm sorry. Do you feel like you. Folks have the staffing to check this out statewide?

I think you introduced a bill, sir, 1855 that would help us with that. So not at this time, but with the two positions that you put in your bill, I think we will.

Okay. You think that would be adequate?

Yes, well, for the moment. For the moment. And Certainly our arm, AgResource Management people will help us with that, with that function. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair question for Farmers Union.

So sorry I missed the first part of this conversation, but I think I got the gist of it. Can you tell us a little bit about conservation plans?

Yeah, I think what some of the previous questions highlighted is like where is the enforcement? Brian's testimony, our testimony, also highlighted where is there, are there boots on the ground?

And one of the issues that's arisen with a lot of different counties is that the real property tax divisions, should they even have enough boots on the ground, aren't necessarily versed or trained sufficiently in agriculture or the various forms of agriculture to be able to determine whether that's, is that a working go or a show go?

And part of the mechanisms that we explored and the work for DPP a long time ago was looking at what other mechanisms are out there that signal active agricultural activity, one of which often is a conservation plan with the regional Soil and Water Conservation District.

So, if we're going to say to get a farm dwelling permit at the county level, we could also have a requirement then, if you're having a farm dwelling, you probably should be doing some farming. And maybe then, at the county level, requiring a Soil Water Conservation District conservation plan.

Those conservation districts have at least a body of people involved in natural resource management and agricultural production situated within that community, as opposed to handful of inspectors which have no shortage of other things that are on their lists and provides a little bit of an oversight to have clarity that there is some meaningful production.

And the conservation planning process also already affords most counties some benefits from grading, growing, permit experience, exceptions.

We have constituents in my community who do use those, that planning mechanism, and it is, it has been useful for them, and it does help document, you know, the fact that they're engaging in bona fide farming. And it then also allows them to apply for grants, and you know, provides this documentation basis.

So, this is, does that happen at kind of at the intersection of the counties in the state or is it more the Soil Water Conservation Districts is a statewide mechanism?

There is a Hawaii Association of Conservation Districts. There are county and regional entities, some counties, the one we're in currently not being one of them, provide funding to support those Soil Water Conservation Districts that can afford additional resources to ensure that there are good management practices being adopted, outreach, and so forth.

So, it's, it's sort of related to government activity, but it's not previously in this, where I think outreach with these parties would be valuable. It's not previously been a regulatory body, right? So, as we're thinking about who would do this enforcement, determining who has the capacity, the knowledge base, and the will is, is important.

But I think by looking at what some of these existing regulatory processes are and trying to link those together, as opposed to creating new definitions that then require new roles and activities to be taken on, may, may prove a little bit.

Yeah, that's what I'm attracted to.

Easier.

Thank you.

And ideally, if, for some reason, you're still not interested in doing commercial agriculture, you just wanted to live in your mansion on a large lot, and you may be going through the planning process, jumping through all the hoops of pretending you're going to farm or something, could at least induce something along the way.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Is Attorney General possible? You guys are like, we're here on tax, not on this. Just a quick question. I don't know if this is outside of your purview, and I apologize if it is, just.

So, I know in land use decisions and a lot of what we're talking about agricultural subdivisions, there is a demarcation in June 1976. So, any agricultural subdivisions prior to that have a different regimen of rules and farm dwelling requirements, and then after that have a separate farm dwelling requirement. Are you guys familiar with those statutes?

I think I know what you're talking about. Yes.

Any comment in regards to this?

So, I don't particularly have a comment in regards to that because right now, the Bill is proposed as amending Chapter 205, which talks about agriculture as a whole. So I'm not sure that we have to be particularly concerned about that demarcation at this time. But that being said, I would say that.

And we didn't necessarily want to get into it for this round of testimony because we kind of figured that there'd be a more robust discussion, not just about the tax concern, but about how enforcement would happen. But I did want to note that for the Committee that we had provided comments suggesting the LUC to enforcement.

And the LUC would, of course, have to look at all of the information regarding the parcel, and they're the ones who actually maintain all the records as to what historically of how land has been designated. So, in that sense, they would be appropriate.

Not saying it should be LUC, but I think maybe your question does actually relate to enforcement in particular and who is appropriate. But I don't want to opine on who should enforce, because I think that really is more of a policy column for the agencies themselves to opine on.

Okay. So, kind of defer to, as I understand it, pre-1976, it's a buy right farm dwelling. And post-1976, you have to apply and kind of prove your farm. And different counties have different thresholds for the—whether you can build a farm dwelling or not.

That kind of gets into another, again, secondary issue, that, again, we didn't want to dive too far into right now because we figured there's going to be amendments and whatnot.

But yeah, again I think this also whether or not it's going to be DAB, whether it's the LUC, or whether it's the county counties because generally counties do most enforcement right now. And so I would say that you're amending right now Chapter 205 which is the LUC, but it may make more sense to look at how this would play out with the counties themselves because they're probably going to be in the best position to actually do this.

Thanks, you guys. I appreciate it. Thank you. Chair, I'm sorry.

Questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. So, next up, we have House Bill 1616, relating to agriculture. First up, we have Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Hello, Chair. The Department stands on its written comments. Here for any questions. Mahalo. Thank you.

Next, we have Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau, in support.

Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Farm Bureau stands on its written testimony. Actually, we support the intent and if I can explain our intent versus straight support. Again, Brian Miyamoto, here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. First of all, we believe that this legislation is just targeted for the County of Hawaii, based on the population threshold.

We think it does support greater flexibility in agriculture parks to support farming and ag viability. Again, we understand this is just Chapter 166 relating to the DAB's ag parks.

Addresses some practical challenges that ag parks have faced over time by clarifying that limited ag based process and marketing value add uses can be approved when needed, rather than being locked in at the initial park development stage. And I think DAB could probably clarify whether or not that's the case.

But that's our read of the law and what we think the build is trying to address. And again, agriculture evolves over time. Farmers may want to do different things and we like that flexibility. But we also want oversight and rules that DAB has for their ag park lessees.

It also includes a narrow authorization for swine production on specific ag parks. Again, we support increase in hog production. We need it for our goals of doubling food production, farm to school, farm to food bank, or regional kitchens. So, we absolutely support livestock and hog farming, wherever it's authorized.

But we also understand that sometimes this type of operation has some additional concerns that do need to be addressed. And so, these operations, especially hog farming, even with Korean natural farming, which this does include, they need to be properly cited and that needs to have some, some oversight.

So, again, we do believe the Board of Agriculture and DAB has that oversight and has some expertise. We like that. This is kind of expanding things. Again, we want to grow agriculture. We don't like over regulations restrictions, but again, there does need to be some oversight. So, that's our intent or supportive intent.

Other than that, we support the flexibility. We want to grow ag. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. That's all I have who registered to testify in person or on Zoom. Is there anyone else wishing me to testify on this measure in person or on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, let's move on to the next measure. Next, we have House Bill 1603, relating to agricultural park leases.

First up, we have Department of Ag and Biosecurity.

Thank you, Chair. The Department stands on its written comments and here for any questions Mahalo.

Thank you. We have Haley McKinnon, Ahiki Acres LLC.

Aloha, Chair Chun, Vice Chair Kusch, and Member Perruso. My name is Haley McKinnon with Ahiki Acres and I'm in strong support of House Bill 1603.

I stand on my written testimony and want to underscore that farmers on Oahu face intense land pressure and without equitable lease extension opportunities, we risk losing productive farms that are already feeding our communities. This Bill gives farmers like us the security to keep investing in the land and feeding our community long term. Mahalo for the time.

Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto, here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony. We are in strong support. This, in fact, is the Farm Bureau's number one priority. This just builds upon Act 213 from 2023.

The Legislature did amend the law and allow the Department of Agriculture to extend leases for all counties except Oahu. So, this is an equity bill. Without the assurance of long-term leases, farmers will not invest in their operations. We understand that there are folks on the wait list.

We absolutely support new farmers coming on, especially our ag park leases. Long term, affordable leases, great lease terms, access to affordable water, all these things, all the infrastructure that the Department of Agriculture Biosecurity brings, who wouldn't want those types of leases?

However, instead of focusing just on our new farmers, we need to invest in those farmers that are already there, that have track records, that are producing the food, the feed, the fiber, the fuel, and the floriculture that we all want here in the state of Hawaii.

Why are we considering basically kicking them out at the end of their lease term and bringing somebody in who may or may not succeed, may or may not be producing what we want to produce. We have these lessees who are there or actually doing, I believe, what we want them to do.

If they weren't, I think that would kick them out already. I wouldn't consider their lease extensions. The bill and the law says the Department may extend, not shall, it's, they have the option and again, if it's a good farmer, good rancher, by all means, extend that lease.

So, again, we understand there are folks on the waitlist, we understand some of the Department's concerns, but let's take care of those farmers who are currently farming, like Haiti. Give them the opportunity, give them insurance, give them a future.

And if they're not doing what, what we, as a state, would like them to do, if they're not in compliance with Department of Ag's lease terms, absolutely do not renew them. Put them, put that lease back out. But again, let's take care of the farmers who are currently farming, doing what we want them to do.

Let's look for new agricultural park lands like the Kumia Agricultural Park. Let's develop that. Let's fund the department's 18-million-dollar request and open up new parcels for these new farmers. Let's look at other private lands that maybe are going to be developing the gentleman farms.

See if there are opportunities to buy that land, to have the state own that land, and develop more ag parks. Why don't we do that instead of kicking out the farmers who are really farming, the bona fide farmers. I think there are other options versus not allowing equity on Oahu.

And also, one humble request, Chair, we do request an amendment that the threshold go from 25 acres to 35 acres. We think it'll capture a lot more of these farmers and ranchers whose leases are expiring, who would like to continue farm, and would like to be eligible for this lease extension. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We have Amanda Shaw, Agriculture Stewardship Hawaii, on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Chun, Vice Chair Kusch, and Member Perruso. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I hope the bandwidth is good enough coming live to you from a farm in Haleiwa. Thank you for the opportunity.

We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure, but just wanted to underscore some of the points that we think this Bill raises, which is that we need to revisit generally how we understand our public agricultural parks and the important role that they play in boosting our production. They're a critical part of the picture.

They're so critical, in fact, because we have such high land prices, we have so many pressures for development on our agricultural lands. And so, we definitely want to see that role expanded, see it improve, to revisit some of the ways in which those lands get allocated.

You know, highest bidder doesn't always serve some of the goals that we have around conserving resources and stewardship of the land. So, farmers that are there putting years and years of effort into building soil health, for example, there's no way that we're actually currently recognizing that adequately, you know, if they... go back out to bid.

So, just want to share that piece and really appreciate the testimony already provided and your consideration of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Hunter Hevlin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Member. Hunter Hevlin, on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We submitted testimony in support of this measure but did want to articulate some of the concerns that we view as being related to this Bill and the bills from previous years.

While it is certainly important to have farmers—to support farmers having the ability to invest long term in the quality of their land and the parcels that they're managing, this is, to some degree, fundamentally a conservative proposal in that it is about maintaining the status quo and constraining the volume of beneficiaries from state programs to the form of ag parks.

Similar to the issues that we see in, say, the pursuit of addressing affordable housing, these issues tend to have a very concerted base of existing beneficiaries who may support the current single family home zoning, and a very diffuse base of potential beneficiaries who would benefit from, say, an affordable housing development.

What we see in these, the testimony and the producers that we also work with is that there is a very clear base of existing beneficiaries and a very diffuse base of potential beneficiaries. As many of the previous testifiers highlighted, the agricultural park system is critical and is important.

We do hope that a measure we'd introduce on the Senate side that tries to be requiring some of the agrivoltaic developers to establish agricultural parks as essentially a form of private expansion of the system that has, while under the management of the Department of Agriculture, you know, been in place for some time, but hasn't exactly been expanding at a rapid clip.

There are counties that have taken this up. There are private entities that have taken this up.

And we believe that as a sector, the energy developers who have oversee now the transition of thousands of acres of agricultural districted lands into what was largely not viewed as a primary agricultural use may want to be induced to support the development of agricultural parks, particularly because we know there is a standing backlog.

So, while we support this measure and the capacity for these existing beneficiaries to pursue the—to have the opportunity to pursue a lease extension, we do highlight that there are concerns with continuing to constrain who is actually going to benefit from the various programs the state provides. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. That's all I have registered to testify on this measure in person or on Zoom. Is there anyone else wishes to testify on this measure, in person or on zoom? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

I have a question for Haley.

Good.

Thank you for joining us today. So, I just wanted to talk a little bit more about your operation to better understand the lease terms that you operate under.

So, and then wondering about the public purpose that the lease serves. Is there any language in that current lease that requires you folks to engage in any farm to state or farm to school procurement processes?

No.

Okay. And is there any kind of language asking, you know, you to produce, I mean, limiting the amount of food that you're producing for export, so, so, as to focus your production on local consumption?

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's the least fair.

Is there—if there were, for example, long term contracts like futures contracts that the Department of Education or Department of Health for the hospitals or DCR were able to produce, is that something that you and your partner would be interested in engaging in? Is that something that you have talked about at all?

At our scale right now, I'm not sure, is the market that we would be serving. Right now, we're focused mostly on direct to consumer and we're still not able to provide enough for direct to consumer.

So, it is—so, your market is direct local consumption?

Yes.

Okay. But that's not required in your lease at all?

No.

I feel like you should be getting additional benefits for that, but okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Not at this time, thank you.

I have a question for Hawaii Farm Bureau. So, you know, in your testimony, you proposed to expand it to 35 acres. Would you happen to know offhand this is that way...?

Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Thank you for the question, Chair. We are actually—we anticipate that question. We are working with our partners at Hefno, where this is really being driven, on gathering that data to provide to the Legislature, just to show, again, that that data, so you can make the most informed decision.

I believe the Hefno has actually asked for 60 acres as the threshold because I think especially on Hawaii Island, in that Hilo area, maybe Panao area, we're trying to capture more of those family farms that are there. So, again, we will provide that data. I asked for it yesterday.

They're still working on getting that data, I believe would be from, from that.

Okay, so let's move on to the next measure. So next up we have House Bill 1606 relating to agriculture. First up, we have Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair Member Perruso, Sharon Heard, Department of Agriculture Deputy Dean Matsukawa this is a interesting bill for us. DAB agrees with the goal of improving support for our agriculture community of farmers, ranchers and aquaculture industry.

House Bill 1606 proposes to transfer both the Agricultural Development Division, which is marketing and Statistics, and the Aquaculture and Livestock Support Services Branch from DAB to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. DAB does not believe transferring either division is necessary. In one case, the branch is necessary to achieve the bill's stated goals.

On the marketing side, DAB believes the need identified by House Bill 1606 can be addressed by providing ADC with a dedicated marketing position rather than moving DAP's Agricultural Development Division and risking federal funding and program disruption. On the aquaculture side, DAB believes it has already taken meaningful steps to streamline and expedite the aquaculture process.

Within DAB, House Bill 1832 was developed over the interim in direct coordination with legislators and the aquaculture industry to address those concerns. House Bill 1832 improves coordination and spread feeds processing through debt without dismantling existing structures or creating federal and operational risks.

Good time to mention House Bill 2155, which Vice Chair Kush has introduced, which strengthens our Statistics branch. It's going to make a big difference. Companion Bill, Senate Bill 2318 also do wonders to help our Statistics branch and resurrect the damage done by the 2008 reduction in force.

Bottom line, DAP understands the intent of House Bill 1606, but believes increasing ADC's marketing and marketing staffing and advancing House Bill 1832 is the more effective and lower risk approach than transferring both marketing and aquaculture Divisions in branch. Dean Good. Thank you. Thank you for the chance to testify.

Next we have Agribusiness Development Corporation.

Happy Aloha Friday Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. I'm Wendy Gady. I'm the Executive Director for the Agribusiness Development Corporation Corporation and we submitted substantial comments. We understand that our statute does not include regulatory and so therefore perhaps some of the regulatory functions of the aquaculture industry should in fact stay within dab.

We also recognize and do not want to jeopardize any of the federal funding and recognize that that component should also probably stay within dab. There are, however, substantial opportunities to grow the aquaculture industry over at adc.

One of our special superpowers is the ability to purchase land and one of the greatest needs for the aquaculture industry is access to land. That's something pretty substantial that we can provide.

We also believe that there's great synergy between the fact that we have the Office of Planning Sustainable Development and luc, of which we're working on a Speed Permitting Workforce group in addition to NELHA as a sister agency in the High Tech Development Corporation as sister agencies.

And these are all things that will undergird the industry and help to grow the economy and help us meet our food mandates. If you have any questions I'm here for to answer.

Thank you. Next we have Kathy Gogo, Animal Rights, Hawaii on Zoom not present. Next we have Dick Jones, Hawaii Aquaculture and Aquaponics Association.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Member of the Committee. My name is Dick Jones. I serve as Executive Director of the Hawaii Aquaculture and Aquaponics Association. Got on a plane this morning from Hawaii island and flew over. Really important that you heard my voice over the last five years.

Prior to this new role I was CEO of Bluish Americulture, the largest aquaculture farm for fish here in Hawaii. H AAA supports HB 1606 with comments Aquaculture is a meaningful and growing part of Hawaii Hawaii's agriculture economy.

State data shows the industry generates hundreds of millions of dollars in annual economic activity, supports well over a thousand direct jobs and contributes significantly to rural employment, food security and local supply chains. Because of this, aquaculture depends on clear governance, consistent oversight and long term certainty.

HB1606 presents a unique opportunity to better align aquaculture development, land management and industry support functions in a way that supports the industry's long term growth. From a strategic and economic development perspective, consolidation makes sense. A significant portion of Hawaii's aquaculture industry already operates within deeped through NELHA HTDC and its SBIR program.

Also housed within DBED are the state's leading platforms for technology innovation, an area where aquaculture has been particularly active and in addition, ADC already administers land and leases for aquaculture operations for elsewhere in the state, bringing these functions into closer alignment under a Department focused on economic development innovation as the potential to improve coordination, reduce fragmentation and support more effective long term planning.

At the same time, it's important that specialized functions such as the Aquatic Animal Health and Import Regulation remain within the Department of Ag and Biosecurity where that expertise is best supported, including each AAA support supports HB 1606 as a proposal worth advancing for continued discussion and refinement.

We look forward to working with the Legislature, adc, DBED and the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to ensure this strengthens Hawaii's aquaculture sector and supports long term economic growth. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Next we have Hunter. Farmers Union.

Thank you. Chair Vice Chair Committee Member we submitted comments. We, like all the testifiers, recognize the critical importance of supporting our aquaculture, our livestock industries and agricultural development overall.

However, we do have concerns about the shifting landscape of who has oversight and to some degree which powers in this building express forms of oversight over some of these departments and some of their activities.

Part of what we've seen historically though there's drastic changes with the current leadership at the Agribusiness Development Corporation is that there was a sole focus, or at least a significant focus on large agricultural development programs that offered very little in the way of benefits of smallholders in family farm any family farm farms across the state.

Contrastingly, the Agricultural Development Division, the Marketing Branch which Sharon headed up for some time, was a ready face and a persistent supporter of smallholder and family farm development. Our concern is as more and more resources move from the Department of Agriculture into the orbit of ADC and those who control purse strings of that Department and division.

In many cases that the emphasis may shift in terms of who the state is looking to to support and through its various forms of subsidy. I would add that however that in recent reporting that's also come from the Department of Agriculture itself. It again seems that this focus is narrowing on a small set of agricultural operations.

Report over the summer focused on farm viability and profitability highlighted 57079 farms that they were taking there was a special interest in based off of their scale. However, that leaves about 7,000 farms out of the equation.

So our primary interest is to see which of these entities is best prepared to support the diversity of agricultural production that we have in the state, as opposed to a sole focus on ensuring there is a coalescing of alignment between the land resources they provide, processing, infrastructure they provide, and the types of contracts that are afforded through state procurement.

Our hope is that we would be supporting diverse economic development as opposed to a singular focus on productivity scale as the mechanism to ensure that we are making progress towards our goals. So with that, we offer our comments and our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all I have for register to testify, either in person or online. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this measure? zero, yeah, it's fine.

Hi, Chair. Vice Chair. My name is Dino Kimoro. I was former President of Farm Girl for 12 years. I am current chair of the Hawaii Ag foundation, and I am part owner of Nalo Farms, which was mine for 40 years. And we have just reopened in Kuneo. And we are producing now.

We went into aquaponics and right now, currently this week, we gave 2,500 pounds of lettuce to the DOE for the school program. And we intend to be producing two and a half million pounds a year for the DOE in lettuce. And also we have a project that we're developing to grow tilapia, turn them into fish sticks.

And our main customer is going to be DOE again. We've tested it at the DOE 89% acceptance rate, which was higher than beef, believe it or not. So, you know, part of the thing with aquaculture for us is we're trying to lower the price of food across the board. We are.

We grow organically, but we are not organically certified because we do not want to have our product on the shelf in the organic section because it's a higher price. So our business model is aimed at bringing prices down to match mainland.

So at the end of the day, what we're looking at is economic value in all of this. Right. And so development of, for example, the feed for fish is of keen interest to us, which ADC is already involved in. I am. You know, we've never had real interaction with the Aquaculture Department for our farm.

We've done most of it on our own. I've. I've only been with the operation. We changed the name two and a half years ago to Nollo Farms. It used to be Cunea Country Farms. So, you know, that's been my interaction.

But, you know, if we can get feed projects that can, you know, produce the feed for the fish and stuff and lower our costs, then we can always, you know, be able to deliver economic value to the schools and to our kids going forward. We also do sell to the General public, but everything stays here.

Everything is local. So in all of this, I do think that ADC might have more resources or the ability to, since they've already got their foot on the ground with the feed projects and stuff like that, to help the aquaculture industry in developing these types of things and going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Representatives, questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Oh, last measure. All right. House Bill 1605 relating to human and community resilience. First up we have Dean Grewal.

[Unintelligible]

Thank you. So, you have Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next, we have Hunter Hevlin, Hawaii Farmers Union. Alright. Thank you. That's all I have registered to testify in person and on Zoom. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

[Unintelligible]

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Dean Grewal. So, just generally, can you share with the Committee why this measure is necessary, what you're trying to do with the program?

This measure is really highly necessary. The reason being even after the pandemic we have growing food insecurity. Even more important is food nutritional insecurity that we have. Over 30% of our fellow Hawaiians, Hawaii residents, are suffering from this particular issue.

It impacts children's health, it impacts families' mental health, it impacts children's performance in the schools, which is our future. I think this is absolutely necessary. What has happened at the federal level, the loss of so many nutritional, nutritional education, Snap ed, really highly effective people embedded in the community for that kind of education.

The loss is going to accelerate the food insecurity issue that we do have, and I'm more focused on nutritional insecurity because with the loss of that, that's where it will have an even bigger impact. The idea here is to build a more data driven and community-based approach to uprooting this problem from our communities.

CTAHR's experiment stations that are embedded in the local communities throughout the state, they could be utilized for this work as local hubs of collaborative innovation and community prosperity where local organizations could be brought together to build solutions. If it would require building new community gardens on CTAHR's land, we would be, we need to address this problem head on and we can't just be swayed by what has happened at the federal level.

We have to address this issue and we think that we can bring so many of our centers or different programs that we have at the college together to address this issue and build more sustainable solution to this issue. Happy to answer any additional questions.

If there's any additional question, any questions? Seeing none. Let's take a short recess. Recess.

Okay. We're going to reconvene the Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. Going to decision making. Members, first up, we have House Bill 1601 relating to biosecurity. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass out a House Draft 1 and just going to change the effective date to July 1st, 3000, just to continue further discussion on this measure.

Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Next Bill we have is House Bill 1828, relating to agricultural land. Members, and for everyone who testified, I really do appreciate the comments and suggestions on this measure.

So, what I want to do with this is defer until our February 4th agenda and see if I can work on trying to refine some of the language, if it's possible. I know it's, you know, this has been an issue that's been ongoing for over a decade, so I don't expect to solve it in a couple days.

But if there's something we can get closer to, that's what I'm trying to do, so. Next measure is House Bill 1616, relating to agriculture. Declaration of the Chair's to pass out a House draft one, and we're just going to change the effective date to July 1st, 3000 to continue further discussion on the measure. Any questions or concerns?

Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Next, we have House Bill 1603, relating to agricultural park leases. So, my recommendation on this one is to pass out a House draft one and we're just going to change the effective date to July 1st, 3000, to continue further discussion.

I note that I, you know, would like to hear back from the Hawaii Farm Bureau on that one, just the number of leases if we did expand it. But I don't want to expand it at this time. But we want to continue further discussion on the issue. With that, any questions or concerns, Members? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, next bill we have is House Bill 1606. So, I know this is a contentious issue and we had a lot of discussion on it. So, I would like to do is I want to keep this moving. So, I want to pass out a house draft one.

Going to change the effective date to July 1, 3000, and have some technical amendments. And really, Members, I want to keep this moving because I want to have the discussion continue and I know there's issues within the industry.

I'm new to the sector and I'm learning and I want to try to see if we can come to some kind of solution on this matter. So, well, that's really the reason why I want to keep this moving for the discussion. But if there's any questions, comments, or concerns.

I'll be voting no.

Reservations.

Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, thank you. We are voting on HB 1606. Is that correct?

Yep.

[Roll Call]

Next, next bill up is House Bill 1604, related to agricultural workforce housing. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass a house draft one. Just going to change the effective date to July 1, 3000. Also blank out the appropriation amount, have that amount noted in the Committee report, and technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

And our last Bill, House Bill 1605, relating to human and community resilience. Chair's recommendation is to pass a House draft one, then change the effective date to July 1st, 3000, and technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Great. Thank you, Members. You're adjourned.