Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Hello, my kakou and good afternoon. I'm Mike Gabbard, Chair of the Senate Agriculture Environment Committee, or AEN. Mahalo for joining us today's joint hearing with AEN and also the Health and Human Services, HHS, Committee. It's Monday, February 2nd and we're convened in room 224 and video conferencing which includes the audio and video of remote participants that's being streamed live on YouTube.

So, today, AEN has the lead on the first two bills and then, I'll be turning it over to HHS Chair, Senator San Buenaventura, for five more bills.

And then, after decision making of these seven bills, we'll adjourn the joint hearing and then, AEN will finish off with a decision making from a bill that we is held over from last week.

So, in the unlikely event that this hearing is cut short, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Wednesday, February 4th at 3:01 PM during AEN's time slot and a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

And because of our 90-minute time limit for hearings, there will be a two-minute time limit for all testifiers, and we'll have a virtual countdown timer on the zoom screen. So, first up is SB 2093, relating to the Fuel Tank Advisory Committee.

Requires the Fuel Tank Advisory Committee to hold at least one regular meeting during each calendar quarter and appropriates funds. We have 60—67—who testified in support, zero opposed, and one comment, and we'll start off with the Department of Health.

Good morning, chairs...with the Department of Health...waste branch. The Department stands on our written testimony providing comment. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Ernie Lau from the Board of Water Supply.

Good afternoon, Chairs Buenaventura and Gabbard and members. Aloha. Ernie Lau, Manager and Chief Engineer for the Honolulu Board of Water Supply. We stand in strong support of this measure. Mahalo for considering it. I just want to say Red Hill, not Powa yet.

There is now the more difficult work of cleanup and the greater—the more opportunities presented to the public to learn about that and to ask questions. It's important to keep this in front of mind in our community for generations to come. Thank you.

Thank you, Ernie. Next is Wayne Tanaka from the Sierra Club of Hawaii. Hello, Wayne.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice chairs, members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. We are in strong support of this measure. Thanks so much for hearing it. As Uncle Ernie said, there's a lot of work that still has to be done to get us out of this Red Hill crisis.

We don't know where the fuel is, there's always irregularities of water testing that haven't been explained, there's no proactive remediation efforts that are being done that are very meaningful.

And so, having this FTAC, which is the one place where we have all the regulators and the elected representatives and the community all together that can coordinate and talk story and hear about concerns and share updates and make commitments, that's so valuable.

But to have them only meet once every six months is just insufficient to address the ongoing issues that we're facing. So, very much think that, you know, as I think Ernie also pointed out, you know, the public has been such a huge part of getting us this far in, you know, navigating the Red Hill crisis.

And having more frequent meetings will ensure the continued public engagement and access that we need to ensure our kids don't inherit a contaminated offer. Thank you.

Thank you, Wayne. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Please come forward.

Hello, I'm Dr. Melanie Lau and I've never done this before, so please bear with me. I am a member of the Fuel Tank Advisory Committee and I'm the public member since 2019—one of the public members. And everything Wayne and Ernie have said is true. The issues are still very important.

It would be good to keep it front and center. We actually did try to make motion during one of our FTAC meetings. It was back in April because it was on the agenda that we discussed quarterly meetings. However, after it was passed, we moved and passed to have quarterly meetings.

The Attorney General decided that we did not meet Sunshine Law for some reason, even though it was an agenda item that DoH put on their agenda. So, anyway, it got on the agenda again in October and, of course, we were voted down. So, we won six to four the first time.

We lost five to six the second time. So, it would be really nice if this Committee would make it a formal instance that it would be four times a year meeting. I would really appreciate it. The issues are very important. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Members, questions?

The Department of Health's testimony was kind of scathing. What—did you have a chance to check it out at all?

Actually, I haven't seen their reasoning. I was looking at their other testimony, but.

Well, we can talk more. The bill's, you know, going to be moving and working on, but we can talk more later. But I just wanted to grab your thoughts and see what...

Okay, I'll review it and maybe.

Yeah, cool. Okay.

I got a question.

Yes.

So, DOH is saying that the public participation in the FTAC meetings, it has been decreasing. Do you feel that more frequent meetings is going to change that?

Yes, absolutely. Just having these meetings so infrequently means agendas are super packed. Public doesn't really have input into what this FTAC would be discussing, which I think is a problem and also discourages public participation. And then, yeah, just having more frequent meetings would mean the agendas will be more manageable.

There'll be more discussion between the public and the facilitator, as well as the members. And also, with that more timely response and feedback you get with that cadence, there's much more reason for public to be involved.

Because right now, if you go to one of these meetings, you wait four hours to testify and you submit your testimony, you don't hear back for six months, what's the point? Right? So, having it—have a more frequent cadence is going to I think significantly improve public accessibility and public engagement.

Thank you, Wayne. Anyone else? Members?

Yes, the last person. Come on up. I'm sorry. I didn't write your name down.

Nice to meet you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, so, my question is basically along the same lines.

Yes.

That according to the Department of Health, there's been a steady decrease in public attendance on their semiannual meetings. So, it kind of goes against what Sierra Club had testified to, that seems to me if there's a decrease, it gives more opportunity for the people who are there to participate.

With increasing the number of meetings—usually when you increase it, then people have a tendency to just disregard one and go to the other. I mean, it seems to actually decrease attendance, rather than increase attendance.

I think one of the problems is that statistic is misleading. If you get to the end of the whole report, there are comment sections and I made a comment, as well as Ernie made a comment. But basically, the meetings are held during the day, during when time people are working.

So, it's really hard for people to attend these meetings. If—we propose that we could have maybe meetings in the evening or on Saturdays, we could do a hybrid thing where some people are online like this and people are in person.

The argument that came back at us was that it would be difficult for people to attend from the mainland. I'm assuming it means EPA and the other issue was saving money. Well, then, if we didn't have to bring the EPA officials here, we would save money that way.

But they would have to sign on in the middle of the night, maybe. There have been actually specialists who have staff stayed until midnight our time in D.C. to give us testimony and talk about her study. Elizabeth Boyle, she's a PhD person.

Anyway, so, it can be done, and you could save money that way, as well as having it at the DoH premises. But all of these suggestions sort of fell on not so friendly ears and so, anyway, so, becoming—having more frequent meetings, like Wayne said, would bring the issues front and center more often.

And the other thing I've noticed is we don't really have old business. We sort of just start the meeting new every time and we don't really finish any topics from before.

I mean granted, we're never going to finish the remediation portion, but we could at least continue with their plans or their non plans or the, you know, groundwater model. We don't even have a groundwater model that both of them believe in yet, or the testing. Sorry.

So, maybe amending this to allow for off business hours meetings, which seems to me local people would be able to participate more, should be part of the Bill and not just making it quarterly. Because if it's going to be quarterly, it's going to be the same thing. Right?

I agree. That would be nice because then we don't get to set the time. You're right. Amending it for evening meetings and after and weekend meetings, even better, I think. I did bring up that point earlier in my comment with this same document.

There was a meeting in June of 2016 that actually the Navy called at Moanalu Middle School in the evening and about 300 people-plus attended because I think people could. But after that, the FTAC was created in October of 2016 and all the meetings have been during the day and initially, they've been friendly and, but—and collaborative.

But as you've—I don't know if you've been to the ones recently. This hasn't been collaborative. We don't get any information; we don't get any follow up. So, anyway, sorry.

Okay, so, so, that would be my request is to amend at least one meeting to be off business hours. Okay?

Yeah, you know, weekend, evening, whatever.

At least one annual meeting—at least one of the meetings here. Thank you.

Any other questions, members? Okay. Okay, moving on to the next measure, SB 2095 relating to environmental protection. Establishes a PFAS working group within the Department of Health to investigate the existence and environmental dangers of...and PFAS substances and other related chemicals. Requires a report to the Legislature. First up is Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Chair Gabbard, Chair Buenaventura, and Members of the Committee. I am Grace Simmons speaking on behalf of the Department of Health. The Department actually favors the creation of the PFAS task force—working group.

We have offered amendments to the measurements so that the working group could hopefully align with what we were already doing in the Department of Health. And also, because we may require outside resources to do the studies as proposed in the Bill, we are asking for funding as well. Thank you and I'm available for questions.

Next is DAB, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Hello, chairs, vice chairs, members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. The Department stands on its written testimony offering comments and deferring to Department of Health regarding upcoming studies. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Ernie Lau from Board of Water Supply.

Mahalo, Chairs and Members. We support this measure. To create this, this working group. We'd like to make a request that you include actually the Board of Water Supply as a written member of this task force too. We are going to be facing PFAS—we're a passive recipient of PFAS contamination.

There were over 12,000 different PFAS developed and this is going to be something that our community is going to be dealing with for a long time, getting into our drinking water, our water resources. So, I think it really is appropriate that BWS be included in this working group. We welcome the opportunity. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Department of Health.

I'm just looking at one of the testimonies of one of the supporters, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. What is exactly meant by other residuals?

I'm not sure. I don't, I haven't read the testimony. Is that?

They brought up the fact that you know what exactly is meant by the term "other residuals."

With respect to PFAS?

Yeah.

I guess there's, there's short chains and long chains and as you go through the process, it'll break apart and so, there might be left over PFAS components in the various medium like soil, water.

Do you think we should define it then so that the public—the agencies and others—would know what "other residuals" means?

Sure. I mean, there's, like Mr. Lau said, there's like over 12,000 types of PFAS being.

Well, yeah, because—just because I thought that was an interesting, good question because what is, what isn't, you know?

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

And I was glad to hear about your—learn about your internal working group that you already have within DoH. And it seems like this Bill, by expanding the scope of DoH's research and bringing in some additional experts—Board of Water Supply, for example, and others—would be, would help you out in the work that you're already doing.

Your thoughts?

We're very happy to blend the two, the working group as well as our internal working group, as we all have common goals and we want to—the provisions in the Bill says to look at sources of PFAS to do studies and I think that's all necessary in order for us to get a better handle of what's out there. It's everywhere.

So, I guess that's the.

And it's forever.

That's correct, yes.

Forever Chemicals. Yeah. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Chair, turn it over to you.

Okay, thank you very much. For next up we have - okay so with HHS as lead we have a one minute testimony for those who are used to having me as HHS lead in my committee. So, first up we have relating to underground storage tanks and...why have anybody testifying? Okay. Department of Health providing comments.

Good morning. Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. Iwalani Mcbrayer with the Department of Health - Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch. We stand on our written testimony offering comments available for questions.

Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Ernest Lau, Board of Water Supply in support.

Yes, Chairs, we stand in strong support of this measure and just want to mahalo the committee for considering it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club in support.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee: Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club. We are in strong support of this measure. I did want to just quickly I did look at the Department of Health testimony for this one. Just quick couple points. One, you know they mentioned concern about background levels of contamination like benzene and stuff in the air.

There should be no background levels of contamination in our aquifer. There's no reason for it to be there on the Red Hill except for the Red Hill Facility.

And if the department is worried about other facilities, you know, narrowing this scope to not impact other facilities I mentioned, you could make it apply only to like facilities that are over 100,000 gallons of capacity or something like that to further narrow if they're worried about, you know, broader applications. But, otherwise happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay. Next we have 350 Hawaii - excuse me, Free Access Coalition in support. That would be John and Rita Shockley, Sherry Pollock, 350 Hawaii in support. Lynette Cruz, Malama Makua, in support. Brandon Makaawaawa, Nation of Hawaii in support. Lenei Naipo, Ahahui O Hawaiʻi in support. Ethan Nguyen, Sierra Club Hawaii in support.

Thank you so much.

Kapono Tom Hansen, M.D., Ahahui o na Kauka, Association of Native Hawaiian Physicians in support. Melody Aduha, Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party Hawaii in support. Kupuna for the Mopuna in support. Keone Kekuhiwa in support, Red Hill Community Representation Initiative, Michelle Poppler in support. Dr. Melanie Lau in support. Is she present? Okay.

Do you want to stand in your written testimony? You registered?

Yes, I stand in support of my testimony, but also I would like to just add that a little synopsis. Maybe you made a mess and now you need to clean it up. This is a lesson we all supposedly learned in grade school.

And unfortunately, spilled fuel is not going to be as easy to clean up as spilled finger paint. The 2023 Red Hill Water Alliance Initiative Report will tell you that the plan of remediation is going to be long and difficult.

And Navy has already successfully kicked the can down the road for three years with no concrete plans or ways going forward. So it is imperative to continue to hold Navy's feet to the fire, hold them accountable, and responsible to clean up the mess that they made.

Passage of this bill is necessary, since we cannot rely on their honor as officers and gentlemen to get the job done. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Next we have 66 other individuals all in support, none in opposition. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 204? Members, any questions?

Department of Health, come on up. This is super fast because I noticed in the bill that large landowner is defined, I think is the same as 15214 but in there it also includes the state and the county.

So under this bill, if it were to pass, would the state or the county potentially be liable as a large landowner?

I'm not familiar with the land large landowner citation in this bill.

Could you please talk into the mic?

15214 is the definition of what large landowner is in this bill. You look at 15214 and it does include the state and the county. So. I'm just curious if under that would that - would that theoretically be possible scenario? Not that it's a bad thing, but 150...

Sorry. 15215?

1521. My bad, my bad.

I'm sorry. I'm looking at 342-L35?

Okay. Anyway, I don't want to get in the weeds. I know the committee's time limit. I'm just wondering if this bill with the reference of large landowner to this chapter would include the state of the county? That's all. And you don't have. You can get back to us on that.

Okay, I. I'm not familiar with that in 342L, but we can certainly check.

Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm saying. Thank you.

Okay, Senator DeCoite. Department of Health.

So, what conditions would the owner need to meet after confirmed release? And how would you verify whether the owner met those conditions?

Based on the current bill or current- based on current regulations?

Well, based on current regulations and then if the bill was to pass?

Okay, so when they do assessment, insight, investigations, they evaluate the nature and extent of the contamination, and then they need to remediate to our cleanup standards. Our standards are defined in our regulations and they're based on risk based levels. So that's the current way to do it.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

And so there is actually a standard to meet. In the proposed bill, they're to clean up to detection levels of what the instrument detects. And so because that detection level could be variable, it's harder for us to enforce upon.

Okay. It was 152-1. I'm sorry. Apologies.

Revised statutes 152?

Yeah. And there it says, "Landowner means the possessor of a fee simple, absolute title in land or real estate and shall include the state and its political subdivisions in their capacities."

Okay. So with regards to underground storage tanks, the responsible party is responsible for cleanup. And if there is no responsible party, it oftentimes goes to large landowners. So, in -there is cases where abandoned tanks are identified and the landowners will be responsible for any cleanup.

Which would be the state and county?

It could be.

According to this, it would be potentially.

Okay for Red Hill: who would the responsible landowner be?

Well, right now my understanding is the Navy owns the property.

Okay. But the Navy—Okay, thank you. Any other comments, questions, concerns? Okay, moving on. So, next up, we have SB 2096, relating to wastewater management. First up, we have Charles Taylor, Department of Land and Natural Resources, in support.

Aloha, Chair Buenaventura, Chair Gabbard, and Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. Charlie Taylor, on behalf of DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources, we stand on our testimony in support, and we do acknowledge this Bill is amending HRS 343, which is out of DLNR's jurisdiction.

But still just noting that PFAS do have a negative effect on our living marine resources, which we do care about, of course. Thank you.

Okay. It's another PFAS bill. Department of Health providing comments. Another Department, though. Oh, this Department.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. John Nagato with the Department of Health Wastewater Branch. The Department stands on its written testimony providing comments and we're here to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Brandon of Purple Maia, in support. Ted Boland, Hawaii Reef Booth and Ocean Coalition, providing comments. Melody Aduja, Environmental Caucus Democratic Party of Hawaii, in support. Uilani Naipo in support. Sherry Pollock in support. Marvin Heskett in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2096? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none.

Moving on. SB 2127, relaying to water pollution. First up, we have Department of Health providing comments.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Scott Miyashiro. I'm with the Surface Water Protection Branch of the Department of Health. The Department of Health stands on its written testimony and will be available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, next up, we have Agribusiness Development Corporation, Wendy Gaddy in support. Are you Wendy Gady? Come on up. You got cold.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Wendy Gaty. I'm with the Agribusiness Development Corp. And we stand on our written testimony and we're here for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Nicole Galassi, Hawaii Cattlemen's Counsel, in opposition. Hawaii Farm Bureau in opposition. Woody Child in opposition. Randy Cabral in opposition. Anybody else testifying? SB2127 Members, any questions? Question. Okay, Senator Decoite.

Hawaii Farm Bureau. That's ironic. ADC. Yeah.

So I would think under ADC, which I notice you support runoff. We don't support runoff. I mean, that you guys don't support in this case, in regards to this Bill, Agri Development Corporation, you guys are in support of this Bill?

Yeah, they're the only ones.

So the question is in the support of the Bill. I'm assuming that you folks are trying to also look at what's happening with all our runoff on properties that have impacted, whether it be our oceans, our reefs. What's your thoughts on having cattlemen in the Farm Bureau opposing the Bill?

Good afternoon again. I'm Wendy Gady with the Agribusiness Development Corp. And you know, I think we're talking about the NPDES and the Clean Water Act, you know, and within NPDES and Clean Water Act and Federal Law, there are exemptions for ag runoff. So, for example.

B.C. manages a water system in West Kauai and that's the Kekaha irrigation system. And we had applied for a permit, got a permit draft, and we are trying to comply with that. And you need to have that permit because the water eventually goes to the ocean, so you basically have a discharge point.

And so in order to have that, you need to have the Department of Health issue an NPDES permit. We are being held to a different level because the water actually originates up in the mountains where there's goats that walk through the water and defecate, and it comes through some DHHL land. They have wonderful ranchers.

And so the cattle are walking through the water and they defecate. Then it comes through the ADC land. And then the next area is it goes through the town of Kekaha, which has cesspool.

So every time that it rains, those cesspools overflow, and then it goes into the water system and that it eventually makes itself out to one of the discharges. It's a little hard to figure out where, you know, of the 131 things that we're supposed to be measuring, where did it originate?

You know, did it start on our land? Did it start at DHHL? DLNR? Where did it start? So, you know, it's complicated on how do we figure that out? And it's because you also said on Wham, it's about a million dollars a year to do all of the testing.

And the way the testing works is you actually literally have to go out and pull water samples out of the water, and you send the samples to a lab on the mainland who does the tests. You may be within compliance or not within compliance.

In some cases, when the permit comes down, the cost of non compliance is $60,000 a day in fines, which could be levied either by the Department of Health or the EPA. And so once you're monitoring, you also need to have that available for the public to review.

So it's a little hard to figure out where things start and originate to say, how is it that we can actually, you know, hold back some of these, you know, things that go in the water.

Do you think that's a good thing, that we want to know what country comes down into the ocean from landowners or at least try to have some kind of prevention measure in this case?

I think the conversation we've had was, when you have a conservation plan under nrcs, would that also help that if you're under conservation plan, that that be worked into the Bill, which most ranchers and farmers, I believe, are under an.

NRCS conservation plan I think a conservation plan does help. But you know, in the case of operating a water system that goes through like a town, a town does not have a conservation plan. So when the cesspools, you know, overflow, what do we do? You know, that's not part of a conservation plan.

And yet it goes into the water system and then it's going to get measured and then somebody's going to be held accountable for that. I think that's. It's a challenge.

So I guess the reason why I asked it was keep in mind that many of your sustainable people that fish and stuff are dealing with now eating that fish from whatever is going on. So I'm just going to leave it at that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yes, Senator Richards.

Okay, just quick follow up on that one. Okay. Yeah. I hear what you're saying concerning trying to figure this out. My concern for agriculture and this was some of the testimony. When we have massive rain events, things that are unmanageable, how do we hold people that happen to be occupying the lands unless they're doing nothing?

If they're trying, like on Senator DeCoite. Mission with a conservation plan, they're trying to manage these problems. And when I read your testimony, you support the intent, which is clean water. Yes, absolutely. But there are extenuating circumstances which were.

In my testimony and trying to figure that out.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay. And any. Okay. Senator McKelvey.

Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. I apologize everybody. I was actually, my previous questions were on this Bill. I'm so used to the speed of HHS that I got. But, but the question now is the same 1521 large landowner does explicitly include the state in the county.

So under this, the state and the counties could theoretically be responsible for the damage that's occurring to the state of the county. Right.

Yeah. Okay, thanks. So to basically follow up, why don't you come on up. So, on the Big island, east side of the Big island, large rainfalls and frankly the recent demise of our dairy industry was the result of water runoff they clearly violated. But there were huge fines that they ended up already being bankrupted.

So it was like the last major industry. Whereas when I was a kid, dairy was a huge industry here in the state of Hawaii. Now we have almost none. So would you support a working group? Because obviously there is a need for some kind of liability.

But with, with existing fines and EPA regs and already there, and with agriculture already in the brink, would a working group be a potential solution? Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. Moving on. Okay. SB 2155 relating to wastewater systems. First up, Department of Health providing comments.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. John Nagato with the Department of Health Wastewater Branch. The Department stands on its written testimony providing comments. Available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, providing comments. Ted Kapalas. Anybody else wishing to testify in SB 2155, dwelling units, wastewater systems? seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Moving on. SB 2243, relating to cesspools, County of Hawaii bill. First up...providing comments.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. John Nagato, Department of Health Wastewater Branch. The department stands on its written testimony providing comments and is available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Land and Natural Resources providing comments.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee, Charlie Taylor, on behalf of DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand on our written testimony providing comments are available for any questions. Thank you.

Next, we have Office of Planning and Sustainable Development providing comments.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. Dianna Settles with the Office of Planning Sustainable Development. Our office stands on a written testimony providing comments and we are available for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have County of Hawaii Mayor's Office in support.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. My name is Ann Chung. On behalf of Mayor Kimo Alameda and the County of Hawaii. We stand on our written testimony and strong support and we're available with any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in opposition.

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Ted Boland is not present? Okay, next, Hawaii Realtors in support. Lindsay - thank you very much. Wastewater Alternatives and Innovations, in opposition, Jessica Paisley.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, members of the committee. My name is Jessica Kai Paisley with Wastewater Alternatives and Innovations. I'm here on behalf of our strong written testimony in opposition of this bill and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Lisa Bishop, Friends of Hanauma Bay in opposition. Melody Aduha, Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii in support. Glenn Kagamida in support. Mark Hickson in opposition. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2243? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, shall we? We're going to recess for decision making.

Reconvening the joint 3 o'clock hearing with AEM and HHS for decision making. We'll start off. Okay, let's see. At the top, with SB 2093, relating to the Fuel Tank Advisory Committee. The Chair's recommendations will be to pass with an amendment to defect the date to July 1st, 2050, and also, add the amendment, Chair Senator Buenaventura, to have at least one of the four meetings held during the year to be held not during business hours.

Okay. Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay. For HHS, same recommendation, pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

And then, moving on to the next measure, SB 2095, relating to PFAS working group, DOH. Chair's recommendation for a AEM will be to pass with DoH's suggested amendments and add the Board of Water Supply to the working group, as well as technical amendments, including deferring the date to July 1st, 2050. For AEM, any discussion? Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members.

So, for HHS, same recommendation, pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay, for SB 2046, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. We will accept Department of Health's proposed amendments. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Same recommendation for AEN. Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. So, for next one, SB 2096, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments from Department of Health, as well as technical, non-substantive amendments, need for clarity and consistency. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Same recommendation for AEN. Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so for SB 2127, Chair's recommendation is to pass it with amendments. We're going to take out lines 3 through 10 on page 2. Section 2 is going to be completely replaced with a working group to establish liability and responsibility for water pollution runoffs.

That would include one member from the Senate, one member from the House, one member from DLNR, one member from Department of Agriculture, one member from Hawaii Farm Bureau, one member from Kalman's Council, one member from ADRC, and a defective date. Any comments, question—oh, of January 30th, 2050. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Oh, excuse me.

Clarification. Is ADRC or ADC?

ADC. Excuse me. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody who testified got into the work. Okay. Any comments? Okay with that correction, any—pass with amendments.

[Roll Call]

Same recommendation for AEN. Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you. So, for SB 2155, Chair's recommendation is to pass this with Department of Health amendments. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote. Okay.

Oh, go ahead.

[Roll Call]

No.

Same recommendation for AEN. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

Yeah, real quick. Question, what happens—can I ask this question to Department of Health or the attention here?

What happens?

We're in voting already. You should have asked that during.

I know. It was pretty quick, so I apologize for missing out.

Well, you can, you can ask us for questions.

What happens if you have seven bedrooms. Are you grandfathered in?

Set the maximum number of bedrooms. Usually, we are not allowed to do a exposed facto law, which means that this is supposed to go moving forward. Okay?

I didn't see it in there. That's how I read it.

Okay. So, any law that we are passing needs to go forward and not backward. Okay? Does that answer your question? Okay. Sorry. We've already voted, so it's Your turn.

Okay. Same recommendation for AEN of—Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. So, for SB 2243, HH—oh, I know you're gonna vote no, but I gotta say what my recommendation is. Okay?

For SB 2243, from being from the Big island, and this is a Big island Bill, Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments from OPSD and limited to count, but we are going to limit it to neighbor islands who are going to feel the effect of the cesspool conversion far more financially than Oahu.

So, with those amendments, Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments limiting it to counties with less than 300,000 in population and the Office of Planning and OPSD's proposed amendments. Pass with amendments.

[Roll Call]

And for AEN, the Chair's recommendation will be to defer this measure indefinitely. It's 2026. There's still 24 years left to meet the requirements, so extending the deadline isn't warranted at this time. In line with the DoH's testimony quote, extending the deadline would also be inconsistent with the findings and results of the Cesspool Conversion Working Group.

So, the Bill passage would significantly delay those requirements by decades for some cesspools, despite evidence that faster action is needed.

Thank you very much. And with that, we are adjourned.

We are adjourned. Thank you.

Okay. Calling to order the AEN 3:01 decision making on SB 2123, from last week, relating to farm dwellings. Prohibits residing on ag park lots unless within a farm dwelling permitted by the Board of Ag and Biosecurity. Authorizes DAB to conduct inspections of ag park lots for unpermitted farm dwellings during fiscal year 2026 and '27.

Members, my recommendation—I'm going to defer this indefinitely. We only had one testifier in support, one opposed, and with one comment, the bill's not ready for prime time. If there's a problem of misuse of unpermitted farm dwellings, then it's an enforcement and inspection problem. And at this time, I don't think we need to do that.

Thank you. The reasoning why is that even under enforcement, I think the question then becomes if it whether it be state lands or county lands or even private lands. We know that we've had problems with buffers based on dust, noise, pesticides.

If, if that is the issue, then state and county should also factor in the rent lease. Yeah. And I think the challenge is if this buffer gets set back, then they offset the rent leases. And a lot of them were in fear of retaliation on some of their properties, which is why they didn't want to testify.

Okay. Thank you. And with that, we'll adjourn the meeting.

So, thank you.

Thank you.