House Standing Committee on Water & Land

There's no mic. Yeah, it's different. I'm trying to look for the mic and it's gone. So, good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Water and Land. I'm the chair, Mark Hashem, and to my left is the Vice Chair, Dee Morikawa. Today is Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. It's 9:00 a.m. We're at the State Capitol in Conference Room 411.

I have some housekeeping ground rules that I need to read before we start. In order to have as many people testify as possible, there will be a two-minute time limit. It's not going to be a hard dead stop, but if you get-- if you start to ramble on, I'll ask you to summarize.

Because the hearings-- it's a morning hearing. We need to get to floor session by 12:00, so if not all the testifiers have their opportunity to testify, all the bills on the agenda will die, and that also goes to the members. Please don't drag on your questions forever.

So, for those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. Turn on your mic when you're ready to testify. Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only.

As you can see, I don't have a computer in front of me, so I'm not going to be able to see your chat. 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 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 use-- please avoid using any trademark copyright images while you are testifying your background images. So don't have a Coke can in front of you while you're-- or a Starbucks-- never mind. Or a Starbucks cup while you're asking questions. Please refrain from profanity. Such behavior may be grounds from removal from the hearing without any ability to rejoin.

So just for another-- what is this? No. Just for another-- I will be making tech amendments on all the bills, so in case I forget to mention it, all the bills will have technical amendments, non-substantive changes, and if I forget, all the bills will be defect-dated to July 1st, the year 3000.

It's not our intent to live that long and it's just to ensure that the bills will come back to conference. And this is-- yes, most of you here know that. So with that being said, we are going to start off with HB 1848. First up, we have DLNR.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Ciara Kahahane, Deputy Director, Commission on Water Resource Management. We appreciate the intent of the bill. We just recommended a few amendments to the language.

I reviewed OPSD's testimony, and I slightly prefer the language that's in our testimony to theirs, but they're very similar, and either one of the two will be fine, ultimately.

Thank you.

I'm available for any questions. Mahalo.

So next up, we have Office of Planning with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, members, Leo Asuncion, Administrator with the Office of Planning and Sustainability Development. We stand on our written testimony providing comments on the bill, and we will defer to CWRM on their language-- of their preferred language.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Racquel Achiu on Zoom. Sorry if I mispronounced your name. Racquel, go ahead.

That's okay. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Mahalo. Mahalo. Yes, Racquel Achiu from the North Shore, Wailua moku. I have submitted written testimony with some considerations I hope you can take on. There are some very significant concerns we have, so I'm glad with this bill that--<inaudible> water and all this-- <inaudible>. In consideration of time, I will keep it brief. You have my written testimony.

We absolutely-- I sit on the neighborhood board. I'm vice chair, but I'm testifying as an individual, and we have a lot of issue with the ability to access and get resource on water without going through appropriate purviews and oversights to ensure that we even have the ability to provide that resource. So again, I submitted written testimony. I did note a few things relative to how the bill is written. I hope you're able to take those considerations, and I'm happy to answer any questions at any time.

Thank you very much.

Mahalo. Mahalo.

We have anybody else? Nobody else? Go ahead. Okay. Please state your name.

Yeah. Aloha, Kakou. I'm Scott Derrickson. I'm the Chief Planner of the State Land Use Commission. I did not get written testimony submitted, but WC staff supports measures that will ensure that proposed and approved projects will be able to actually be constructed in a timely manner, particularly those that could provide affordable workforce housing and sustainable agriculture. So I'm available to answer any questions you might have.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Excuse me. What item is this?

Okay, do you want to put them up? So we have one more person on Zoom.

Is this H-- is this HB 1710?

No. Okay, moving on. Okay. We're gonna move on. Next up, we have HB-- oh, you have a question? Sorry.

No.

For the Department, probably CWRM. In your testimony, you offer an amendment that changes the bill language to say that the petition for the district boundary amendment, the petitioner shall submit a statement that they've consulted with the Commission of Water Resources Management on the current water availability in the hydrologic units where the parcel is located.

That's softening the bill language, and it just says that they would have consulted, but it doesn't really say that they would have had any kind of finding by the commission. Is that the intent?

The intent is not to soften the bill language but to put the responsibility on the petitioner themselves rather than on the commission to submit a statement. So the commission is able to submit a statement.

We're not going to be able to say with 100% absolute certainty what the availability of water is, but we can offer information based on the current sustainable yield and current withdrawals in the hydrologic unit for groundwater or if it's surface water. A little bit more complicated, but we can provide the best available information.

That consultation occur in an open meeting or just like in a meeting with yourself and staff?

I would imagine that it would be written correspondence, likely. Yeah. And it could be-- if you want to tighten up this language into a written statement from us, then we would be comfortable with that.

Okay. Sounds good. I was just wondering, like, consulted can mean they consulted and they had an, you know, adverse consultation. So, thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay, go ahead.

Just a follow-up, actually. Thank you, Rep. Poepoe, for bringing this aspect to light. But yes; so if there is a negative, how would somebody communicate that the consultation-- basically where you said there isn't enough water, how would that consultation be expressed, if it's on the petitioner to communicate that?

I imagine that the petitioner would submit something in writing to Land Use Commission staff in closing the advice that they got from the Commission.

Again, so if it's not favorable to their vision and goals and dreams, what would it say? I mean, but would you be double-checking to make sure that they're saying more than we consulted that-- do you know what I mean? Because then it's kind of against their own interests to be really forthcoming with how not helpful the consultation may have been for them.

Yes, well, they-- I mean, they should be honest--I would hope, right--and submit the actual statement that they got from us, if it is in writing. Our statement would be something like, if there's no water available, the current withdrawals exceed the sustainable yield for this aquifer, and I don't think that leaves much room for them to misstate what they received from the Commission.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask you a question also? And please indulge me. How is this new requirement an improvement over what is existing in place?

So the challenge for us at the Water Commission is that, by the time someone comes up with a specific project, things have been hardened. They have a team of consultants, they've gone through a lot of steps, they've gone through planning and design for the project.

At that point, there's a tremendous expectation that there is going to be water available, even if there's not. So, by bringing this up earlier in the process, it will help ensure that those expectations are clear early on and that alternatives can be explored before the project is fully planned out and vetted.

In addition, many of the counties estimate authorized planned use based on zoning. Authorized planned use is actually one of the criteria for designation of a groundwater management area under the State Water Code, and so, even though a district boundary amendment seems like, you know, you don't have a specific project yet, it actually is a significant development if there were to be a boundary amendment in terms of estimating what water needs are going to be in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

LUC. Has this, has this issue been brought up to the LUC before, specifically in November 23?

Yes.

How did the board vote on that?

The commission at that time wasn't disposed to changing—at that time, what was being discussed was a change in the LEC rules themselves, the administrative rules.

So, they unanimous—unanimously voted?

They were not unanimous.

So, what, but they—the board voted it down. And why was that?

You'd have to poll the individual commissioners to, to get their rationale behind that.

Okay. Okay. Was there—my understanding there was also an MOU between the LUC and CWRM to do this?

There were discussions between CWORM staff and LUC staff to put together an MOU, yes.

And did the board—did your board vote in favor of that?

I don't recall if there was actually a vote on it, but they definitely decided dissuaded us from...and that, again, it was not a unanimous, you know, from, from our commission.

Okay.

I, I have a question.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Can you answer the question personally, why, why it was voted down in your, in your own personal position and not, not deferring to the other board members, which, of course, you cannot speak for?

Well, okay. As a professional planner, I didn't see any particular problems with at least having an MOU between the Commission, the Water Commission and OEC, to ensure that we have better information flowing into our district boundary amendment process at an earliest stage possible.

Because you probably know, because you've probably heard, there are issues in certain areas on the Big Island, in Lahaina, where you've got projects that have been approved by the Land Use Commission for 20, 30 years. They haven't been built. Water is one of the main problems, water availability.

At the time they were being proposed, they said, hey, no problem. We got water. And sometimes, it's because they talked to the water—the County Boards of Water Supply—who said, yes, we can serve you if you drill a well. Not we can serve you because we have excess water.

But at the time, what was promoted before the Land Use Commission is oh, the Boards of Water Supply took a look at it. They got water to serve.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Representative Poepoe.

So, when you say that something like is proposed in this bill would be, could be, a helpful tool in helping the Commission make decisions more up front than ending up on the back end, like you said, with, you know, projects, a lot of money expended on projects.

And at the end of the day, there's water issues come up in the community. It might help everyone make a more informed decision as to where to develop things too. Okay.

Was there a question there? Sorry.

It was in the beginning. If you, if you would think that this would be a helpful tool in helping the Commission make more informed decisions on the front end of a project being, or a boundary amendment being proposed.

Yes. You have to realize what you're being asked to amend right now, it's not so much the decision-making process itself. What you're being asked to amend is basically the information that comes in early that's required of a petitioner to have a complete petition for us to start processing.

Once they get past that hurdle, then we have a real due process going on in our hearings themselves. They will have to prove in many different arenas, but with respect to water, that they either have the waters available or that they will do certain things like drill a well and install infrastructure in order to supply this project that they're proposing.

Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

I got a question. David...Can you explain about the process that you've been through or LUC, from your point of view?

I, I kind of ashamed to admit, but my first LUC petition was in 1983. 1983. Okay? So, I've been doing land use, you know, up and on over those years. I was city—I was corporation counsel for the city and county Honolulu, and we represent the Board of Water Supply, so, very familiar.

Under Mayor Harris, a lot of development was going on. So, familiar with water issues. I am now the Executive Director or have been for about 19 years—Land Use Research Foundation. So, that's the organization that, you know, represents the interests of the large landowners, developers, etc.

So, the issue of water availability is handled very well in the EIS. EIS. All that information is provided in the EIS, a report from the, their water and expert, water availability or hydrology expert, is in the EIS.

And that EIS, as, as you folks know, because this is the Land and Water Committee, is distributed or made available to all the state agencies and county agencies and they're allowed to comment, including CWRM, including CRWM. Okay?

And so, that is how the State Land Use Commission and others, the county ad zoning, all the government agencies that give permits to a development, that's where they get their information, through the EIS and through the letters that go back and forth—or the testimony goes back and forth between the state and county agencies, in this case, on water.

Okay? So, that is basically the process. And I don't know of anything that's broken with this. We do understand—we do know that if this law passes and it creates a certification process at CRWM, that a developer or somebody has to go through, that, that might be able to be appealed. That might be a contested case hearing.

So, if Mr. Derrickson can assure this Committee that there will be no delays or no lawsuits or no challenges, I mean, that would be something very interesting. On the process,Chair.

Well, I'm gonna, I'm gonna defer to Representative Shimizu. I think you answered our question or you answered my question, but go ahead. Representative Shimizu, you had a question?

I have a question, but before I ask my question, can I just confirm Mr. Akawa's position? Do you support or oppose?

Oppose. I'm sorry, Rep. Shimizu. Oppose.

Okay, thank you. My question is for Land Use Commission, again. Thank you for that answer, and I, I, I can understand what I heard about the pre-approval in the timeline might, might change the situation. I, I do see the benefits of this, this bill.

So to answer or to address your concern, would it be a benefit to add language to this bill, which, in addition to the pre-approval, qualifies a secondary updated approval to confirm what was pre-approved or something to that nature?

So, Representative, I don't think that what you'd be changing in the law or creating was a pre-approval. As the Water Commission and the Office of Planning Sustainable Development requesting changes to the language, it's to ensure there's early consultation and allowance for the Water Commission, who are the subject matter experts in water, to weigh in about the availability of water in a given area, prior to moving forward with the development process, permitting regulatory process.

So, it's not something that—well, I don't think, in my experience over 30 years with the Land Use Commission, that it's going to hold any process up. This happens before the petition is accepted to be processed.

And I'll have to say that not all the projects that come before the Land Use Commission have an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement completed or part of the process before the Land Use Commission. Some of those are happening at the county level first and then they come to us.

All right, thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Kim Coco.

Chair, a question. Thank you for, actually, Mr. Arakawa. EISs can be quite costly, and you mentioned that that is one of the opportunities to talk about water supply availability.

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to get at least that kind of consultation that CWRM, I spoke about early, before more monies are invested in this idea?

You know the concept, how that is explained is, is correct. However, this matter, Rep. Iwamoto, was addressed by the Land Use Commission already twice and rejected and deferred. First, they came in with a rule asking for the same thing, and there's nothing.

And the reason why the Land Use Commission, Rep. Iwamoto, rejected or deferred this is because this early consultation can occur. It occurs all the time. And you don't need a law, another law, to encourage early consultation. Right? These are state agencies. They should be able to play together.

So, in November 2023, this was proposed by the same people who are proposing it now, and it was deferred based on the testimony of attorneys, and I think DBEDT also testified. And it came up again because they realized they couldn't get it passed as a rule.

It came back in September of 2024, and a bunch of us testified, and they changed it to a memorandum of understanding—a memorandum of understanding that would let CWRM and LUC talk together beforehand like, like you described. And the, and the LUC unanimous—unanimously—rejected it. And you can read the minutes.

If they said, hey—or listen to the tape—they say, hey, you can do that already. We don't need a memorandum of understanding. We don't need a rule. And I would argue in this case, excuse me, respectfully, that we don't need a law. LUC already rejected this. And so, they're trying to circumvent.

LUC twice said this is not a good idea, and they're coming to the Legislature to ask you actually pass a law. Right? So, this early consultation is great, but it can happen without a law.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. Sorry, guys. We need to move on. Moving on, next up.

One second, one second. I, I apologize. The LUC is reviewing this Bill and other bills on February 11th. The LUC actually has it on their agenda. So, I apologize for interrupting you, Chair, but I just thought I'd put that in, that it's on the LUC agenda.

Thank you very much. We need to move on. Next up, we have HB 1728 relating to rainwater catchment systems. First up, we have DLNR Ryan or the representative

Aloha Chair. Comments. Members of the Committee, Katie Roth with the Water Commission CWRM acknowledges the intent of this measure, but we defer to the counties and other regulatory agencies, such as the Department of Health to comment on any regulatory implications. But we do acknowledge the importance of this measure.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Hawaii Realtors in support. Okay, thank you. Next we have. That's all the. Anybody on zoom? Nope, nobody present on zoom. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Who am I asking this question to?

Okay, nice question. Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on. Next up, we have. What's your question?

I just want to know what is this current situation and how is that going to affect what is in place now that the ramifications of this new Bill that we're trying to pass? I don't know who you would ask. I'll ask it in, hopefully JJ when it comes up.

Okay.

Yeah. All right. Next. Okay, Moving on. Next up. I think I know the answer. I'll tell you. I'll talk to you later. Thank you. Next up, we have HB 1652 relating to stormwater management systems. First, we have Hawaii Lifeguard Association in opposition.

Yes, I'm here. Good morning. Aloha Chair Hashem Vice chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Kirsten Hermstad. I am the Executive Director of the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association. I'm providing testimony today from my home on Kauai. I couldn't get over there to be in person. I apologize.

The Hawaiian Lifeguard Association is a statewide nonprofit focused on water safety, education and drowning prevention. While our roots, of course, are in ocean safety, we recently expanded our mission to include all aquatic environments, recognizing that drownings occur in many settings. Right.

In partnership with the Hawai'i Water Safety Coalition, we authored the Hawaii Water Safety Plan, which we introduced to all of you last year in January. The plan specifically recommends protecting detention and retention patients through legislative action. So I'm here today to testify in opposition to this Bill. I need to reiterate every time I speak.

Drowning is the leading cause of death for our keiki in Hawaii, ages 1 to 15. Many of these drownings in this age group happen in locations other than the ocean. They happen in bathtubs, pools and unprotected bodies of water. If anybody would like the specific number, I will get that for you.

Of drowning in ocean versus other environments. This Bill proposes to exempt certain water management features from the safety protections that were provided under Sharkey's Law last year, which is now Act 281. In doing so, this Bill misses an opportunity to protect children, developers and the state from foreseeable and preventable harm.

Sharkey's Law was enacted after the tragic drowning of Charlotte Sharkey Shafers in an unfenced, unmaintained detention basin. Its purpose was not to stop this, to stop development or green infrastructure, but to recognize that engineered water features can pose real risks to children and that basic safety measures such as fencing and access control save lives.

HB1652 moves away from that intent by removing barriers from categories of water features that still collect water and still pose a risk. Labeling something as low risk does not make it safe. Water is water. When access is unrestricted, drowning risk increases.

Decades of drowning prevention research show that restricting access to water reduces drowning deaths while removing barriers increases the number of deaths. This applies whether the water is in a pool, a detention basin, or a green stormwater feature. What we need is not broad exemptions, but criteria. Yeah, I'm just about done two more sentences.

What we need here is clear criteria such as water depth or public access that trigger safety requirements. That approach protects children, provides clarity for developers, and reduces liability to the state. Thank you for the time to provide testimony today.

Thank you very much. I just want to remind everybody that we do have your written testimony. So if you can, you don't have to reread your testimony, just sum it up or paraphrase it in different ways. Next up, we have American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii in person.

Chair and Committee Members. My name is Janice Marsters and I'm representing the American Council of Engineering Companies. I also provided personal testimony as a stormwater consultant who has worked in Hawaii for 35 years now. So I have a lot of experience in this field.

We have a lot of appreciation and respect for the Advocates of Act 281 and the great work that they did along with the Legislature in passing the Bill to protect children from drowning.

Why we are supporting this Bill is we feel that the clarifications to the language help to balance the protections for children with practical employment of green stormwater infrastructure. In particular, we also note that Act 281 included a exemption for recreational ponds, such as golf course ponds.

We suggested suggest and support the exemption of agricultural ponds that are not used for stormwater treatment as their sole purpose for irrigation, or they're used for irrigation or for animal water supply in stormwater infrastructure. You know, we used to think that stormwater.

We used to think of stormwater as a waste, something to get from Mauka to Makai as fast as possible. And we are reaping the rewards of that poor thinking in how our urban areas and developments handle stormwater. And environmental groups and engineering practitioners now are looking to green stormwater infrastructure to be distributed throughout a development.

So you have infiltration much higher in the watershed. The problem is that if you look, I just looked at a development plan for a large area to be developed on Maui.

They're proposing to do rain gardens and vegetated swales and so forth throughout the whole development rather than Putting a big pond at the bottom that often overflows and causes problems. But we can see that there may be a problem in that using those features throughout the development and having them all fenced is likely to be undesirable. The prior.

Janice, can you sum up your.

Yes. The prior testifier mentioned limits and we agree with the limits in the Bill that would have depth criteria for safety. So we feel this Bill balances safety while imposing strict limits on water depth. And that matches what's done across the country with respect to safety for drainage features. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

Good morning Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony, Farm Bureaus in support of this measure. We appreciate Act 281 and that it did address important public safety concerns and related retention and detention ponds. Retention and detention ponds.

Our testimony just focused on the provision of agricultural ponds and the exemption for those agriculture ponds. Again, we're not sure if that was intended. These ponds, the agriculture ponds, are primarily as you heard previous testified for irrigation livestock, even for fallout control out in Kunio where offices recently those wildfires use some of the AG water.

These ponds are usually located generally away from the public. And so again, we appreciate the intent of Act 281, but we are supporting the provision that is exempting agricultural ponds. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have Allison Schaefers in opposition.

Sharkey's law exists because industry failed to protect children. This is the Pearl City on this handout detention pond where my daughter Charlotte Sharkey Schaefers drowned on February 28th, 2004. These photos were taken the lower ones in 2025.

The basin is dry now, but when she died it held more than 6ft of water because the internal pipe was 89% clogged. Hunt Construction touted this feature as a low impact infrastructure, yet poor maintenance turned it into a deadly trap. A fence was added only after Sharkey's death, but the site still isn't maintained.

Overground vegetation now blocks the drain, potentially recreating the same conditions that caused the pond to flood in 2000. House Bill 1652 talks about fencing still being required for pond at depths of 18 inches or more. But if these features are not maintained properly, they can flood and swell with much higher water volumes.

Also, children can drown in very little water. Even a five gallon bucket must carry a warning label that says children can fall into the bucket and drown. Keep children away from buckets with even a small amount of liquid.

The American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii is lobbying for House Bill 1652 to protect the business interests of private engineering firms. I understand the need to balance business and safety, but human harm must always come before aesthetics and profits. Supporters of this Bill argue that fencing might discourage GSI solutions.

But the argument appears solely cost based and it's weak as alternatives may require even more fencing. For 20 years I worked to fix the deficiencies that killed my daughter and nearly killed a young boy that she rescued.

The industry has had ample time to police itself, but so far their efforts have been focused on exempting themselves from safety requirements. American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii notes an exemption for golf port ponds and Sharkey's Law that they come with a security requirement.

Agricultural experts across the nation warn that unfenced ponds, even livestock ones, endanger both children and animals. Fencing is a best practice even for livestock ponds. Statistics show that drowning make up 11% of all injury related deaths on farms. The principle is simple. Open water without barriers invites tragedy.

We cannot allow business driven exemptions to override basic water safety. The water safety community here in Hawaii and across the nation support fencing signage and ring buoys across all manner of ponds that have water because they save lives. Sharkey's law is on its way to becoming a national water safety model.

And I have been asked to speak at the National Drowning Prevention alliance later this month about this very law. I urge you to keep the protections in place across the full gamut of risk. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Nobody on Zoom. Anybody else in person, go ahead.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Shelley Oates-Wilding and I run Water Safety nonprofit for kids called Ikaika Hawaii.

I just wanted to add to the testimony I'm opposing the new Bill and just because I know that with drowning, obviously number one, when you water down the law that's been approved, you really open it up for what happens which we see so often is the lack of maintenance.

And so then upon that they say the depth is the issue. The depth might be under 15 inches or whatever it is. But then as soon as in Hawaii, as soon as there's a storm or as soon as there's any lack of maintenance, then we are then not, we're not approving something that was really there.

And so the depth can be as what happened with Sharkey's law can be six feet high. So I think that by making our rules on something on depth or anything like that, where it waters down the law that was passed, we then open ourselves up to a maintenance issue unless we keep the law as it was.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the. Anybody else wishing to testify? That is all the written. Not written. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably 30 to 40 people in opposition or in support Members. Are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Perhaps for the engineers. So, I mean, you can understand that there's this balance between safety and then obviously you represent an industry. But what about would there be any concessions regarding areas where it's reasonably, it's reasonable to foresee children being in the area, like in residential areas, in the case of the pond or the water catchment area or even.

I don't even know about golf courses, how many kids are running around golf courses. But I do imagine livestock cattle thing, maybe less kids are there. So I don't know. Is that part of the. For you?

Yeah, I mean, I'm not an expert on agriculture or livestock ponds, but I think, you know, we supported that revision because it seemed in keeping with the exemption for golf course ponds. I mean, I think no.

Hakawa, Maui, and I think of, I think of the, you know, the golf course that I was just working near was Kaanapali, and their ponds are right next to the road and there are kids everywhere, you know. But regarding the depth question, green stormwater infrastructure is considerably different than detention and retention basins.

So they're specifically designed to be shallow and to dissipate the water within 48 hours. So it's within the period of time that's in active 281. And there's just, there's not the same possibility of them filling to six feet deep and being a drowning hazard, for example, they're really designed to be shallow.

And so our proposal was that for systems designed to be shallow, and it's not even whether they're maintained or not maintained, they have an overflow and if they're not infiltrating water, water just sheet flows off of them. So they're designed to be shallow. So there's not a maintenance issue related to green.

Those types of features, if they're designed to be less than 18 inches deep or less than a foot deep, then that's the water that will accumulate and that's it.

Thank you, Chair. My question would be, in your opinion, will this new law still, if the new law passes, will it still ensure protection for what happened to Schaefer's?

Yes, I believe so. Because, you know, tragically, as discussed, the situation was that that pond wasn't maintained, the wall side walls were slippery and Ms. Schaefer's daughter couldn't extricate herself from the pond. And it is a lot different situation than the green stormwater infrastructure. And it's not, it's not about money.

Actually, green stormwater infrastructure is more expensive than just putting a big detention basin at the bottom of a development. But ecologically and in response to Hawaii's climate issues, recharging the water much higher in the, in the development, higher in the, in the watershed is more beneficial ecologically.

So, you know, I've had discussions with environmental groups who are very concerned about the Bill and trying, you know, they've been working hard to try to get developers and it's hard to get developers to adopt green stormwater because it is more expensive.

But you know, the likelihood that they're going to do that if every one of these very shallow features has to be fenced. So our, you know, so that's why we're supporting it. Supporting the Bill is we feel it's still protective of child safety with the limitations on depth and so clarification. Did that answer your question?

Yeah, I know it's a hard situation. It's hard to speak against something that's so personal and of course.

Thank you, Members. Any other questions? I want to ask Farm Bureau. I'll ask real quick. So, Brian, I can understand, I can understand the concerns for the people, but I don't. Majority of your water infrastructure is nowhere near people. Right. It's usually way up in the mountains where you have the detention. I don't even care.

Thank you Chair.

Wilson, for example, is a good example. That's a massive detention problem.

Thank you, Chair. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. You're correct, majority. And that's why I say generally a lot of these agricultural ponds or the water infrastructure is away from the general public. We don't have a lot of folks running around, although we say low risk, nothing is no risk.

And so again, our testimony focuses on these agricultural water infrastructures that are not stormwater detention facilities that are serving the purpose of agriculture. Again, primary infrastructure, irrigation, sorry, and also livestock and other. You even say wildlife, critical wildlife habitats. A lot of the larger structures, reservoirs and stuff do already have fencing.

And farmers and ranchers will put up fencing for whatever reason, maybe for erosion control or to keep out wildlife for other reasons. But again, as we stated, Chair, generally these agriculture ponds that I think the Bill is referencing are in areas that are normally not accessible to the General public.

They may even have berms around them again to keep farmers and ranchers, unless they're doing farm tours, aren't normally places that we will find people coming through unless it's illegal trespassing or other illegal agricultural crimes.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, no more questions. Moving on. Next up we have...HB 1926 relating to Red Hill. First up, we have University of Hawaii, in support. Next, we have DLNR, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Keala Richardson, DLNR. I'm the Policy Coordinator for the Red Hill Water Alliance Initiative or VI. DLNR submitted written testimony in support.

I just want to note that while the defueling of Red Hill marked an important step there, you know, we recognize that decades of research, remediation, and monitoring remain necessary in order to restore aina and rebuild public trust. I just want to note that the work here advances the VIA initiatives in collaboration with various UH teams.

Those include teams from the School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and Technology, its research institutes and centers, the Departments of Civil Environmental and Construction Engineering, Geography and Natural Resource Environment and Resource Environment—Natural Resource and Environment Management. It includes the UH Water Resources and Research Center and also UH Community Colleges, Leeward and Honolulu. So, I'm here today.

We have UH representatives from those teams that are available to answer questions specifically to any of the, you know, technical questions, and just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to comment in support of this measure.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Board of Water Supply.

Chair, we stand in strong support.

Thank you. We have Sean Swift, in support.

Thank you. My name is Sean Swift. I'm a PhD candidate in SOAS at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and I'd like to offer my support as an individual.

So, I was part of a group of UH researchers that responded to community members who were asking us to analyze samples of their tap water, which they suspected were contaminated with jet fuel. So, in our lab, we adapted our methods to detect fuel components in water samples, and we created an online dashboard to share those results publicly.

We also ran an experiment looking at how jet fuel is consumed and transformed by naturally occurring bacteria in Oahu's groundwater aquifers. So, this experience and these years of effort drastically altered the trajectory of my graduate career.

So, I just want to say, you know, I've been, I've become painfully aware of how few chemists there are in the state who can assist when there's a contaminant-related crisis. And I believe we really need this type of hands-on training, especially low key.

And basically, I think it's really important to have this kind of multifaceted working group that is being proposed at this Bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Sean, I hope you stay in the state. Yeah, we need more chemists, like you said. Okay. Anybody else on Zoom?

Two people.

Okay, first up, we have Sierra Club, Wayne. Oh, you're here.

My zoom wasn't working. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club Hawaii. Just real quick, just want to emphasize that this is now is the time to make this kind of investment.

And our testimony kind of outlines why it's so important, but otherwise, just thank you for getting this bill, and we'll stand on our written testimony in support.

So, should we shut off your zoom link all the time so you're always here?

Is that what—I was trying, I was trying to log in.

Okay, good job, guys. Next up, we have Donald Thomas, UH, as an individual. On zoom?

Okay. My intent was to just submit. This is Don Thomas. My intent was to just submit written testimony and be available to answer any technical questions regarding the hydrologic research that this funding would support.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else?

Hi, I would like to testimony.

...On zoom?

Yes, hi.

Go ahead.

Okay. Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm Ying Fan Zhen, a Hydrologist in the UH Manoa. I'm testifying in my individual capacity in strong support of this Bill. In our effort to remediate the Red Hill leaking bill, we are disregarding treated water into Halawa streams.

While we use carbon filter, we must monitor the long-term effect of the stream biodiversity and also, the watershed health. So, as hydrologist, I know that hydrology is complex and an impact on fish and algae are often taking years to surface and we cannot manage what we don't measure.

So, this Bill provide the funding for the continuous independent monitoring required to ensure that we aren't trading one environmental crisis to another. So, together, with the state, DLNR, and also the university has the expertise to provide this independent oversight to build the public trust through transparent data monitoring. So, please pass this Bill and protect our water resources.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have—Tara Rojas, are you on?

Aloha. Tara Rojas. I wasn't planning on this one. I just saw it right now and I fully support this. However, as I'm reading it, I'm always—I've been following along with the Red Hill since it, since it happened, and we've been to you know, every meeting, every open house and yes, the DLNR needs to request that the Department of Defense pays for, for the Bill. One thing though, I have some concern and mind you, I need to read it more carefully.

But just, I'm going to say really quick where it says research on ground modeling and sampling and I saw as the previous testifier came on, I want—can you please read this carefully to make sure that this does not include—I know it says Red Hill, but the fact that testing and for groundwater because that's what they want to do in drill Mauna Kea and groundwater sampling and water sampling and Mauna Kea is related also to geothermal.

So, I'm kind of hesitant on just that part. Not for Red Hill, but to do any drilling of the water researching on Mauna Kea and its connection, possible connection to possible contamination of the aquifer for doing so and having it also related to geothermal. But yes, definitely support HB 1926. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none.

I have a question, Chair. Short question. Ernie. This is probably a rhetorical question, but if this bill doesn't pass, then I would assume that the existing situation would fall way short of what we're trying to accomplish with this bill.

That is correct. Thank you to legislator—Legislature...having created...as part of...implement work. At the same time.

Yeah, Ernie, can you go up to the up there? I don't know if they can hear you from there. The mic is sensitive to there.

Sorry, Ernie.

Apologies. My apologies. Ernie Lau, Board of Water Supply. This Bill is very important to provide necessary resources. So, the Red Hill VIA effort, which thank you to the legislators for your leadership in creating the Red Hill VIA in state statute. The financial resources are needed to pursue the recommendations of the Red Hill VIA Report.

This will help, I think, build the case for greater accountability to hold the Navy accountable. And also, thank you for creating the special fund to receive federal funds. I think this will help build the case for the Federal Government to stand up and actually pay the bill for all of us.

All right, thank you Ernie. Just wanted to establish that point. Thank you.

Very good. Members seeing no questions. We are moving on. Next up, we have HB1703 relating to land use. First up, we have ADC, Agriculture Development Corporation. Wendy in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Wendy Gaty with the Agribusiness Development Corp. We stand in support. I'm here for any questions.

Okay, next up, we have Department of Ag. And I'll continue to call it the Department of Ag. You changed your name.

Biosecurity as well.

Okay, Department of Ag.

Thank you. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. The department offers comments on this measure, and we are here to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Okay, next up, we have Brian. Hawaii Farm Bureau. Brian Miyamoto.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony in support. Hawaii Farm Bureau supports this. We liken this to something like the Hawaii State Farm Fair, which the Farm Bureau does operate.

It's another activity that can elevate agriculture, can showcase. Not just for our local residents, for our visitors also, the importance of agriculture in this specific instance of our ranching industry. So we do support rodeos as well as state fairs and county fairs that help showcase outreach and educate about agriculture.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, next up, we have. Not present. Okay, Nicole Galase.

Thank you, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair. My name is Nicole Galase. I'm testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Cattleman's Council. We are in support of this bill because rodeos and events, activities like this, are directly related to agriculture. These are skills that develop in the arena. They're critical to responsible animal handling practices.

On top of that, it's an opportunity to give the community a chance to connect with where their food comes from, how it makes it from pasture to plate. I also want to mention that Paniolo have a rich history of stewarding the land in Hawaii.

And those poor tenants of love of the land, hard work, family values, they're still alive and thriving today. Our ranchers are providing between 20 to 25% of the beef demand for the state today.

And as market drivers shift, they can continue to provide that and more as long as they have the business environment to operate their ranches, which includes support of the state. And I think that will transpire if we're allowed to have rodeos on agricultural land. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Racquel on Zoom.

Aloha. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. Mahalo. Racquel Achiu, North Shore. I am the Vice Chair of the North Shore Neighborhood Board and Chair of our Agricultural Water and Land Committee. I am testifying as an individual and a fellow rancher. I am in support of this bill.

However, I do want to make note that I do believe that on the county side it is a permittable use through the appropriate discretionary permitting, such as a special use permit, which I think would be appropriate for this activity.

I believe Kualoa Ranch operates under a special use permit, and that allows for the community to be advised every time a event occurs. The rodeos have a strong nexus to our agricultural industry, more so than most events other than farm fairs and such.

But we want to ensure that the community is made aware of different events and organizers and how that impacts their communities as well. So I'm very, very supportive of the bill, but want to ensure that the appropriate permitting can occur as well on the county side. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have probably about 20 individuals, mainly in support, some in the comments or opposition. Is there anybody else wishing to testify in person? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative.

Thank you, Chair. For Agriculture and Biosecurity. Okay, thank you. I appreciated your testimony, and it was just comments, not support or post. But you did reference what Ms. Achiu just referenced, which is the fact that currently, I guess, some rodeos can, as she mentioned, can use the Special Permit Process. Can you speak more?

I mean, have there been rodeo events that have been denied under the Special Permit Process, or is it really costly? I'm not sure the need. I don't understand how many rodeos have been denied that we need to change the law?

Earl Yamamoto, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. I don't have that information. I am not aware, that doesn't mean it hasn't occurred, that there have been denials of any of the rodeo and equestrian activities that we were able to identify during our research on this bill. So I do not have an answer.

Okay, maybe for the Farm Bureau then, once someone who's in support of this bill. Sorry. Thank you. Do you mind sharing with me just like why do we need this law change? Why is the Special Permit Process not sufficient?

Thank you, Representative Iwamoto. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. I think what this bill does it explicitly allows it in Chapter 205 as a permissible use. So there's no questions.

Now again, oversight and understanding where they're cited, where they're happening, a hundred percent. Even with farm fares, where we want to make sure, depending on the activities that we are mindful to the neighbors and mindful to the neighborhoods and the communities that they're at.

So again, if you look at basically the bill is making explicit allowing rodeos or roto activities as divine in Subsection G in Chapter 205, which is the law for permissible uses in the Agriculture District. And I think that is providing some clarity that rodeos are now allowed explicitly.

Again, just to clarify in your understanding, is that they've not been denied, and also if there is are permanent structures kind of constructed for rodeos. It's still going to have to go through community hearings and everything else to kind of vet that this is the right fit for that community?

Absolutely. Sure. As with the Hawaii State Farm Fair, we go to neighborhood boards, make sure we have our Permian involved. Again, we have heard, and maybe the cattleman can answer. I think there was one in Waimanalo that was up for some, some debate or discussion. Again, we just want it to be clear so that it is allowed.

And if the county, from their zoning and from their planning departments to allow it, then it is clear in state law that these rodeos or rodeo activities are permitted uses in the Agriculture District.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1673, relating to landfill units. To catch up to myself, first up, we have Department of Health, with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, accompanied members. Glenn Hai of the Solid Hazardous Waste Brunch on behalf of Department of Health. Department stands on its written testimony and we're available to answer any questions.

Okay. Next, we have Board of water Supply, in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Ernie Lau from the Board of Water Supply. We stand in support of this measure. I do want to point out that our pass/no pass line, we do allow applicants for waste disposal systems to provide additional hydrologic or geologic information that might substantiate maybe some flexibility in that line.

I do want to point out that the Department of Health's comments under option 3, we don't quite agree with that and what they're suggesting there because it could have a very negative effect on our state's ability to do seawater desalination in the future.

I would say that maybe, if you're going to consider including that, allow the applicant to provide additional hydrogeologic information to demonstrate a separation. Injection control wells are in the shallow caprock aquifer, but for a seawater desalination plant, we're drilling like over 1,000 FT deep into the basalt aquifer. We're actually basically pumping from the ocean or pumping salt water.

And if we can show the separation between the shallow caprock, where the injection wells are located, with the deep basal aquifer, which is salt water, then we—I think it is safe to actually do a desalination plant by nature. Seawater desalination plants have to be located near the coastline to be able to access the supply of water.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have ENV, with comments.

I think that's all the people that we have. Anybody on zoom?

One person.

Mike Ewal, on zoom.

Aloha, members. My name is Mike Ewal and I serve as Executive Director of Energy Justice Network and speaking for our members and member groups in Hawaii. I'm also the Elected Co-Chair of the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii and my testimonies affirmed by a resolution of the party to the same effect.

I urge you to support this Bill for all the right reasons, but please amend it to close a glaring loophole. A majority of what is going into the landfill is incinerator ash. Any bill about a landfill on Oahu is a bill that is about H Powers Incinerator Ash Management.

The City and County of Honolulu has been trying for nearly 30 years now to get permission from the Department of Health to take the toxic ash from the incinerator and use it to make roads or for other construction materials.

It could even be used to shape into artificial reefs and be dumped at sea, as has been done elsewhere. Schemes to recycle ash into roads have failed repeatedly across the nation, but the county is still actively pursuing it.

This Bill is protecting aquifers from placing the ash on a double line landfill over the aquifer but leaves open the spreading of ash all over the aquifer in the form of roads with no liners to protect the groundwater.

We need to incorporate the language to close this loophole, as this Committee wisely did last year, and that language is currently in Senate Bill 3259. That language would ensure that ash is placed only in a double line landfill and not used in roads or other uses that can expose people more.

It also protects any landfill community by ensuring that ash is not used as daily cover material at the landfill as if it's covering itself, where it can blow into the community. That's why usually we don't have waste covering itself. You have soil or tarp covering the waste so it can't harm the community.

Some years ago, there was a Department of Health toxicologist who was reviewing earlier proposals for reusing this ash and found that using it just as daily cover material at the landfill could increase the risk of cancer to workers at the landfill and cautioned against the practice and stated that the ash unquestionably contains toxic substances that are hazardous to human health.

Just last year in this Committee, some of your members questioned the Department of Health about the toxicity of this ash and they answered that they weren't convinced it's safe.

And similarly, Ernie Lau at the Board of Water Supply pointed out that Dr. Roger Brewer had tested this ash in the landfill and found significant levels of PFAS, the toxic forever chemicals.

In the final days of Biden's EPA, they updated the website with a statement that is still there, acknowledging that their test that results in ash being considered nonhazardous only test what leaches out under specific lab conditions that are meant to replicate leaching at a landfill, not what's actually in the ashes.

And that this test does not consider if the ash is safe if inhaled, ingested, or even touched. And that statement's still on their website, I'm almost done. I can finish the last couple parts here. At last, EPA's test.

Can you wrap it up?

Okay, I'll get to the next, next paragraph here.

Go ahead.

Okay. EPA's test does not represent real life conditions.

And there's research showing that toxic metals like arsenic, cadmium, and lead do leach out under real life conditions. So, when they say it's nonhazardous and turn those words into as if it means nontoxic or inert, that is not what it means, and there's research showing that it's not safe to be contacted.

So, please close this loophole. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. Is there nobody else on Zoom? Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

For Mr. Lau, please. So, this Bill is to basically to protect our aquifers. So, you know, there were a couple testimonies submitted in writing, and now we hear from Mr. Ewall about ash that normally ends up in landfills. That is obviously has a lot of toxic substances, including PFAS, according to your own testimony last year.

If we, if we protect our aquifer from formal landfills, but take that same ash and put in the shallow land like kind of roadways, is that—how does that protect our aquifer, or does it?

You know, I would say that I have concerns about recycling the ash. And the ash, I think comes from incineration. The residuals left after they burned the trash. That ash can contain toxins, like Mike pointed out.

So, now, using it, say, as a material to use in paving roads, then you know that roads go all over the place. So, where could it end?

Could it end up in an area where as the road starts to break down, will some of this material that's been embedded in the roadway start to actually leach out with rainfall and then start to seep down into the aquifer below? Or there's also runoff from the roads. Where will that runoff go? So, are we inadvertently creating a bigger problem for us in the future?

So, do you think you would support an amendment to this Bill that kind of adds that one kind of includes some of the testimonial with Mr. Ewall?

Representative, you put me in a hard spot because I do respect our city Department of Environmental Services. And I think what they're trying to do, they're trying to deal with their problems and they have difficult problems to deal with, but I would say from the protect—idea that you don't want to spread contaminants around the environment.

We're already dealing with PFAS forever chemicals. I would say that that probably is a real justifiable amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

For Mr. Lau. I noticed in your testimony that you don't have amended language to address the concern you had about the desalinization plant. Is there language that we need to put in to do that?

That's if you take into, if you want to incorporate the recommendations in the Department of Health's testimony, then I'd say, you know, just be very careful with option number three because our ability, our state's ability, not only on Oahu, but I think Maui is also looking at desalination also.

And then, what is it that we have to be cautious about, the DoH amendment?

I would say if you could just leave the amendment option number three out of the Bill for now and we can have further discussion with the Department of Health maybe in a future measure.

I really appreciate that because I know that the Department is doing, or you, the Board of Water Supply, is doing some really important work with desalinization and I hate that we even have to have that option on the table for us.

But that is a long-term infrastructure project that we need to follow through on and any other kind of language that could impede that later on in the future is not good. So, I really would appreciate if you can work with the Department of Health to clarify that option three.

Yes. And for now, if you could leave it out completely, I'd appreciate that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

I got a question. So, Ernie, since we're talking about Department of Health's options, which one do you prefer? You have one, two—you said three is out. So, okay. It said pick one, two, or three. So, let me—if not, I was thinking about.

This is your chance.

I'm glad you read their testimony.

I just happen to look at it right now.

You can answer that later on.

Can I get back to you, Chair, with?

Before we make, before, yeah. Because now, we incorporate what you want into the next version of the bill. In fact, I'll give you their testimony.

Any other questions? See None. Going to move on. Okay, next up we have HB 1639 relating to notary publics. First up we have person ELNR Bureau of Conveyances with comments. Mike.

Morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. Mikey Manaka, Registrar, Bureau of Conveyances. Thank you for the opportunity to find comments. You have your testimony and a quick summary. What this bill does, it requires us to void docs documents that are recorded at the bureau based upon a notary attestation.

And it also requires the bureau to suspend recordings based upon a request of a title holder. So these are pretty significant acts that the bureau doesn't normally do. We're administrative, ministerial, Department or division that reports documents versus doing any type of adjudicatory or judicial reviews of documents. So we just ask for further discussion on this.

And if this bill does go forward, would ask for appropriation to make sure that we can make sure we have the changes within our system and staffing if necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have. Realtors. Is the attorney General here? zero, okay. Ag because it says on zoom. I was gonna wait.

I'm sorry. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Tinu Tsushiyama. On behalf of the Department of the Attorney General, we've submitted some testimony with some concerns and suggestions for your consideration. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Next, we have an individual, Renee Ng. Anybody on zoom?

Jerome.

Okay, one person on Jerome. Hawaii Land Title association onZzoom.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for accepting our written testimony and having me on Zoom. Sorry I couldn't be there in person. My name is Jerome Vandalian, President of the Hawaii Land Title Association. We support fighting real estate fraud, but we respectfully oppose House Bill 1639.

We feel that fraud should be handled by law enforcement and the courts, not by altering public records. Hawaii's recording system is designed to accept valid documents quickly and forged documents already legally void. Giving officials authority to remove or daily recordings will undermine the trust in the system and disrupt legitimate transactions.

We are committed to detecting and preventing fraud and stand ready to work with Legislature on effective solutions. Thank you for testifying.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Please state your name.

Emma Olson for the Office of Consumer Protection. We submitted written testimony which we'll stand on and support. We would just like to highlight that there might be some drawbacks to relying on notaries to report fraud to the Bureau.

We strongly Support House Bill 2615, which authorizes government agencies to record a notice of pendency of investigation when we suspect a document to be fraudulent. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else wishing to testify saying. None. Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Can I ask a question of the first testifier. I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Please forgive me. Good morning. Mike Imanaka, Bureau of Finances. Thank you. Mike. Hi. So I guess I'm, I'm trying to wrap my brain around this. You're saying that as it is now, there is no acceptable recourse for incidences.

Where there is recourse, there's recourse within a judiciary and a court system.

So this, you're saying that this is going to be, this would actually pivot, it would put the responsibility on the Bureau to make these determinations. You know, that's pretty significant considering within each day we record anywhere from 1,000 and 1,300 documents.

And in order to review these documents a little more for these instances, it might take a little bit longer. And certainly, you know, we'll work in partnership with the ag, the Consumer Protection Office to provide these safeguards.

But as it's written in the law right now, if it meets recording requirements, as the HLT gentleman mentioned, we will record the document.

Are we, can I have a follow up question? Sure. Are, are we opening up more litigation and dispute?

That's the question I'm going to have to defer to legal. I'm, I'm not an attorney, so I can't answer that question.

Representative. Thank you. Right now, so does right now, do you have a registry of all the notaries in the state and you match up, like to make sure that the seal is an actual legitimate notary? That's a really good question.

We do not have that. That's the responsibility of Attorney General's office. You know, our role and responsibility is within Chapter 501 and 502. So it's pretty much strictly related to document recordation. So the other questions that you're asking perhaps would be best answered by the Attorney General's Office under this bill.

Do you have the, does it seem like that's what you would be expected to do?

It would be an additional responsibility and, you know, we would definitely need more discussion, more training on it to be, you know, what, what would constitute something that we perceive as fraud. So there's, there's a lot of information. We do want to protect the public.

Absolutely everyone agrees with that, but it's just the mechanism, how we do it. You know, perhaps there could be more discussion and working hand in hand with the Office of Consumer Protection, the AG's office, the prosecuting division within AG's, as well as the police. Right.

So we all want to stop this. The way this bill is written, it would give you your Department almost more adjudicatory roles.

It would broaden our authority pretty significantly.

Yeah.

Okay, thanks.

Good question. Any other questions? Seeing none. Okay, we're going to move on. Next up, we have HB 1710 relating to historic preservation. First up, we have Office of Planning, in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Diana Settnes with the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. OPSD stands on its written testimony in support, and we are available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have DLNR Shifty, Jessica Puff.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Jessica Puff, the Administrator of SHPD. We stand on our testimony in support and are here for any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Office OHA with comments.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Kamakana Ferreira, the compliance archaeologist with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We stand on our written testimony, which provide comments and I'll just highlight some things here. Because of the technical nature of the testimony, we are appreciative of the language regarding complete submittals.

That is something that OHA has advocated for over the years. You know, there's quick blame to say that a lot of the delays are from SHPD. But you know, in our experience, when we're asked to review packets, a lot of the submittals are missing.

In a lot of our emails that go out are RFIs, requests for information maps, ground disturbing work depth. And so we appreciate that language in this Bill and we think it's very important. Moving on to phased review, we've noticed that there's some opposition to including this, and rightly so, because phased review should be looked at very carefully.

But OHA questions the efficacy of including that in this particular Bill because HR6042 already allows for phased review. It's as it's actually the exact same language and we can't really think of any 6C10 project that would need phasing that also wouldn't be subject to a permit under 6042. So you still have that ability to do it.

So it's not needed to include it here in this particular Bill. And then in regards to automatic concurrence, the 30 day automatic concurrence is offered if there's no historic property, property is affected. But we're questioning whether, like who's making that determination.

Many times we, we get submittals from the county that say no adverse effect to historic properties, but there's really no evidence or they're taking the word of the developer or the applicant that's providing that information. So we have issues with that.

And then in terms of the 90 day concurrence, we note that there's already a timeline that's in the administrative rules. The administrative rules would likely need to be changed. And at the same time, it's our understanding this particular language came out of Act 160 that was passed last year that was specific to affordable housing for the state.

And it hasn't even been a year since that's been implemented. So we don't know if it's effective or not and whether or not we should be applying it to all private projects. So those are our comments. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have Hawaii Realtors in support. Next we have James J. In opposition.

Aloha. I am James Maioho. I represent Kia'i Iwi Alaka'i. Some interest of coalitions I represent. I stand on my written testimony, but I have an additional statement I want to put on top of that. And I want to begin by acknowledging the truth. We all recognize the backlog at the State Historic Preservation District is real.

SHPD is underfunded and understaffed and that is a failure of the state. But the solution proposed in this Bill is dangerous. It resolves a state failure by shifting the risk of onto our ancestors. House Bill 1710 allows projects to move forward through what is called assumed concurrence.

If shifty does not respond in time, in other words, silence becomes approval. From a Kanaka perspective, silence is not consent, especially when the silence is caused by chronic underfunding and institutional neglect. The Bill also allows large areas of land to be programmatically cleared for development based based on existing or old records.

That approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of Iwi Capuna. Many burial sites remain undocumented. They are often shallow, unmarked and known only through family memory. Absence of data is not absence of ancestors. HB1710 relies heavily on inadvertent discovery protocols. But by the time EBR discovered under those protocols, disturbances have already occurred.

That is not protection, that is damage control. After harm has been done. Housing and infrastructure are important, and no one disputes that. But housing justice cannot be built on the displacement of ancestors. Development can wait. Our kupuna cannot be replaced if the state cannot meet its trust and constitutional obligations to protect burial sites and cultural resources.

The answer is not to weaken protections. The answer is to strengthen them by fully funding shifty, improving review timelines without waiving consent and honoring the living cultural knowledge of Kanaka families. So I respectfully urge you to vote against this. I would also just opine that really addressing this problem should be addressed at the burial council level.

That needs to be properly empowered, properly laid out. So these loopholes, this inadvertent loophole is closed and that body of people can actually do what it was told it should be doing. So mahalo for your time.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Nayop in support. Next we have. That's all the people in person testimony. Do we have anybody answering? Nobody on zoom. Is there anybody else wishing to testify.

First? I want to clarify all the zoom issues on my end. I just I need to go. No, we turned it off. Oh, okay. Force you to come here. Yeah. We do respectfully oppose this measure. We have concerns with the phase review part of it. I mean, kind of like the first billion folks started doing it. Right.

It makes much more sense all around to have a clear picture of where you're going to go before you start going otherwise. Once you're on that path and there's EV 20 yards away, then it's going to be very, very hard to accommodate that. It's going to be costly. It's going to create conflict and unnecessary pain and trauma.

So we just want to raise those concerns. Have to answer any questions you have. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? See, none. Members, are there any questions? Okay, we'll go with Representative Poepoe. Go ahead.

I'll ask my first question for SHPD. Part of this says the Department shall process a complete submittal within five days of its filing. We know what happens with the other triggers of timeline lapsing. What happens if you don't process it within five days?

I don't think the language specifies what happens if we don't process it within five days. I don't. So we're interpreting it as. There's not like a prescriptive trigger for something to happen, like an assumed concurrence to happen.

More as SHPD needs to be responding to these submittals within five days to notify the project proponent that it's complete or not. So that they're not waiting 30 days for us to give them that notification before they're able to act on producing the additional information that's required. That is my interpretation of that.

I have other questions, but do you want me to wait Chair?

You can proceed. One more question.

Sorry, I have so many questions and then it's like I have to ask all my questions. Go ahead. So regarding the phased process phase review process, it kind of seems like it's a piecemeal process where you analyze chunks of a project rather than the whole project. Is that, Is that accurate?

It can be. It can be chunks of a project. So if you're having like a phase development, like Mirror. Right. Housing, and you know that the project is going to be developed in certain phases, it allows us to review the project one phase at a time or to develop.

I think some of the language we're asking is clarification that we can develop something like a programmatic agreement for 6e, like we're allowed to do under the National Historic Preservation act that would allow us to review the. Start the review of the entire project at the initial consultation with the project proponent.

So that SHPD has a good understanding of like what the whole development of the project will be and then the order of operations, like which phase will be first, which will be second.

So at that initial stage we have an understanding of how this property will be impacted and what historic or cultural resources or burials might be also impacted by the project.

So it wouldn't be like there's this big project and then we did the pool, we did the parking lot, we did this part of it, but then we get to like the main building and oh no, there's burials. What are we going to do?

Yeah, I think our interpretation of it thus far from the conversations we've been having is not to like trigger like a segmentation where you're intentionally segmenting the project in order to create an appearance of minimized impact, instead by doing it by phases that follow, development based phases where instead of requiring the entire scope of work be developed and submitted to Ship D at once, that will acknowledge that these projects do develop in phases and that we'll review it that way with the understanding that future phases will be occurring.

So I do interpret that as being higher risk for traditional cultural properties that may not be visible or may not be immediately apparent or recorded.

I think that. I think that it depends on how it's executed and perhaps maybe clarifying language could be included that that's the Intent of the Phase review is to acknowledge the full scope of work while only reviewing one phase at a time so that we do have those considerations up front for the entire project and its completion.

That may be a way to kind of clarify that. One more really quick question.

Just professionally, are you comfortable with assumed concurrence rather than saying something like failed to respond. Therefore, the application may review without concurrence professionally. Like I don't know if I would be comfortable with somebody assuming my concurrence because it's, you know, one day late or something.

I think that it's in. Well, I think that the reason why we settled on the language, or I shouldn't say we, but we shifty reviewed this previously before it was submitted. And we have been comfortable with that language because that's the language that follows the Section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation act.

And it helps everyone to streamline both 60 and 106 so that there's an abundance of understanding of what's going on. So in that respect, yes, we're comfortable with that language because we already live with it under the federal review process, but we'd be open to other forms of saying that they may move forward without concurrence.

Right now the language across 68 specifically and 6010 requirements requires our concurrence before a project can be move on to the next stage. So it might require alteration of that language within 68 or 10.

I'd have to look at it again to see if that's a requirement, but I think that's part of the reason why we said all that.

Okay. Representative Shimizu.

I have a simple minded question. Can you help me understand why this Bill is just applying to certain private projects and not just General, General to all projects.

Because 6010, that's the language specified for 6010. 6010 is specific to privately owned properties that are listed in the Hawaii Register of historic places. So 6010 does not apply to all privately owned historic properties. I mean privately owned properties. Sorry.

6042 is the 60 mechanism for just all privately owned historic or privately owned properties that have to go through historic preservation review. Sorry. Got it. Thank you so much.

Okay, Members, any other questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So 6e. I think dash 43 is mentioned six times and it has to do with the inadvertent discovery of burial sites. When you speed up this review process, are there does it lessen the chance of inadvertently discovering burial sites?

I don't think that it lessens the chance. I think is the answer that you're probably expecting.

I think that my understanding of the addition of 6,043 is to ensure that project proponents can't assume that even though the review period has expired and they can assume concurrence and move on that that doesn't mean that they're exempt from their responsibilities under 6e43, that they still need to follow the provisions of 6e43 if, if historic properties are found or if EV Capuna more important is found during the implementation of the project.

Okay. I mean, Chair, may I. So the purpose of. I think the purpose of this Bill is to speed up the process for private landholders. If we fully funded SHPD, could we also achieve that quickening? Because I guess what I want to make sure we're not doing is we're not starving shipte from the resources it needs.

And then the byproduct, the collateral benefit of that for developers, for instance, would be getting something, you know what I mean? Like then it just pushes us through because we forced the.

Yeah, I agree with you. I would not want this Bill to be a justification for starving SHPD because we've all agreed to. Well, I'll preface this too. We've all agreed to this language or that this languages have been implemented.

One footnote that I don't know, that we stated in our testimony clearly was that this language, and I think Kamakana referred to it, is in our administrative rules in terms of review periods. The language that's added in this Bill and that's missing from our rules is what happens when the specified review period is up. Right.

And this is the land of ambiguity that I think probably project proponents have lived in where they're trying to find a remedy. That's my understanding of this Bill and the assumed concurrence is the remedy. It's sort of the stick for SHPD to be held accountable to reviewing projects in a timely manner.

That being said, you're completely right about. In order for us to do that across the board, we do need to be funded and staffed so that we can actually process what's coming in. So I think this is our, our understanding of this Bill and its implementation.

I think can work with a fully funded staff to review projects in a timely manner and take into account historic properties and avoid EV Capuna. Like I think that it can be a tool for all. But I think that I'm open to additional language additions.

I think we can totally refine it to take into some of your concerns. Yeah.

Representative Shimizu, is this your second time?

Second time, last question. So I just want to establish. Are you saying that your Department doesn't have proper funding for full staffing?

We have. I will say this. There was funding passed. I think it was in 2022 to. To increase the number of positions within SHPD. And we are still actively working on filling all those positions. Year we filled 12 of them. We have another 12 to go.

And so when we get all those positions filled, will we be able to process all of the projects that we receive for review and not just be reactive to them, but be more proactive? I don't know. I'm kind of skeptical.

I do believe that there are some positions that would be beneficial that we've proposed in our proposal for the budget that would help assist with that. Like including an archaeologist and a burial site specialist on Molokai. Because we don't have anybody there to respond to inadvertent discoveries.

And there's a lot of issues with Molokai and finding inadvertent discoveries that we can't respond to timely and then, you know, just other things like that. So I think that is something that is a conversation that we still need to have.

So what I heard you say is you have 12 vacancies, but you are fully funded and you are asking for additional special positions that would you feel better, assist you in your mission?

Yes. There's the two positions on Molokai that we were asking for, and then there's three federally funded positions that we have assigned to our federal grant, but we've never received enough and our federal grant to cover them. And we had asked to have those three positions.

So even though we have 12 positions that we're hiring for, we actually have 15 vacant positions that we could fill. But three of them we just can't fill with anyone because we don't have funding for.

So we were requesting to have those positions transferred to state funding, but I don't believe any of those requests ended up in the final budget. So I don't know if that's useful for this conversation.

It is. Thank you.

Yeah, that's more finance. Yeah, that's a big question. Sure.

Because you brought up multi.

We're going to have a question jar. And you got to put $10 at the time. No, I'm just joking.

And it all goes into SHPD special guide.

Not a bad idea. You mentioned Molokai. Thank you for requesting the two positions which are needed, but we still need a burial council to process through that. And so we still need a burial council in order for those two positions. To be effective in doing their work.

Exactly. I think that currently we have technically right now one holdover position on our burial Council. That position, I believe, will expire at the end of the session. Session.

So by the end of the session, we are looking to hopefully find three individuals to be seated on the Molokai Burial Council so that they can hold regular meetings and make movement on that. So we've been working this whole past year just.

And I can talk offline with you about this with the governor's office to try to end oha, to try to find individuals who are interested in, you know, serving on that council. But we haven't been successful with it between last session and this session in finding enough people.

I would say that it's not for lack of individuals being interested rather than for a lack of the political will to appoint people into those positions. But thank you.

Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1579, relating to light pollution. First up, we have DLNR.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. With DLNR...wildlife biologist, and we provide testimony in support. And I'm here for any questions.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Hawaii DOE, Department of Education, in support. Do we have anybody on zoom? One person on zoom.

Leo. Leo on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ilihia Gionsin, on behalf of the Mona Observatories, you have our written testimony in strong support. Want to underscore that and also mahalo all of our friends in the conservation community who wrote in with their support on behalf of the birds and ponu and all the wildlife. Mahalo nui.

I'll be available for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. That, no more zoom. Okay, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. We have about 20—20 testimonies either in support, comments, or a couple in opposition. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? We're moving on.

Next up, we have HB 1866, relating to county labor standards. First up, we have Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Okay, thank you. Next, we have Operating Engineers. Thank you. Next, do we have anybody on zoom? Nobody on zoom. That's all the people that we have registered. We have about five testimony in support and comments.

Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Yeah, I got a question. I got a statement actually. Okay, so I can see this as very problematic. The section—what the GCA came out and said, holding the landowner or the building owner accountable for the mistake of a contractor, yeah, I can see that here.

Let me put it this way. It puts all the affordable housing projects in jeopardy. So, well, let me explain. So, let's just take a project. The project has specific timelines, especially 9%. And if you're going down the line, the contractor, for whatever reason, gets stopped, the permit gets pulled.

You can't get your certificate of occupancy, you can't get your placed in-service date within the specified period because the LIHTC has specific deadlines-based set by the IRS. And if you don't make those deadlines, your tax credits just poof, disappears.

So, you could be in a project on $50 million and your permit gets pulled, your tax credits get pulled, and now, the developer, the whole project, is on the hook. So, yeah, I can see a problem.

I appreciate that question. For the record...Local 3 Deputy Director, so the Deputy Political Director. So, great question. So, we, we talked about this at length within our team. Yeah.

So, this allows the county to obviously pull the permits, but it allows the colony the discretion to pull it or not pull it. So, you have to have a violation at the state level, right, to await violation. The county is not over there trying to decide. It's following what the state does.

So, let's say you have a contractor that's, yeah, they work. I mean, they're working on an affordable housing project, let's say, but they have a violation at the state level from a public works project, they're found in violation.

And if this contractor is, let's say, working on it, on an affordable housing job, and the, the owner, the affordable housing developer, has this person there working, right? Kind of is going to say, hey, let's just look up, let's look at the permit. Who's this person working on a job? Oh, they have a violation.

Let's flag the owner to let them know what's going on. Hey, this guy has violations at the state level, doesn't say they—it gives them discretion to say yes or no. I would think that at the county level, they would flag this for the owner. So, I mean, if you, if you break it down to—and I think GCA was alluding more towards an individual homeowner.

So, if an individual homeowner hires a contractor that's in violation of wage rate, or if they're in violation of, let's say after an inspection, right? The contractor come in, they build the house, they go to the inspection off. It doesn't pass inspection.

Who's on the hook for that? Contractor? The homeowner? Homeowner ends up paying for it because the contractors go back and fix it. They're going to blame the contractor. So, there is some minors. Usually, it goes back to the architect, the homeowner. And that's been done by the permit. Right? That's all been vetted. That's all good.

But if the contractor doesn't do that job correctly and it gets inspected, who's on the hook for that? Contractor? The homeowner? So, this is a way, kind of as we view it, this is a way for us to say, hey, these guys have done something wrong.

Counties, you should take a look at that and make that a part of your criteria when reevaluating the permit. We would hope that it happens at the beginning. That's where we see it. Right? Just that. And now, this Bill also gives the counties the right to pull the payroll. Right?

A lot of wage standard issues we find at the state level are usually payroll violations. You have, you know, let's say we have an operator, but the laborer is doing the work and they're getting paid, the laborers. Right? That's a wage violation. Right? So, we have some—we have a contractor who has violated the law and they're being punished.

They have to pay fines, back pay. Our departments in compliance they have 10, maybe 10 cases pending right now, this year. They have a bunch from last year that's backlogged.

There is a statute of limitations, but we try to get those out and get those fixed because those guys need to be paid. Let's kind of circle back to your question, right?

We would hope that the condos, like, hey, just flag this for the owner, flag this for the developer, hey, these guys have had some violations when the permits are coming in, just to flag them. We would hope that, you know, that's been worked out at the very beginning of the project when the permits comes through.

Because I think your scenario that you're saying is that they're starting to build, they're starting to work, and all of a sudden, they're going back and looking up this is after the fact and they're going to pull it, right? And then it stops the whole project. That's not our intent.

Our intent is to catch this at the beginning. It allows the counties to be able to follow through what the state does, say, hey, these guys are bad apples, they're not doing the right thing, maybe you should reconsider who you're going to use as your contractor. That's what I would think, and I would hope that happens.

So, hope that answers your question. I mean, there is scenarios I can see where like you're mentioning that it could happen that way, but the law basically just allows the counties to be able to do this, which they can't do it right now. It's very ministerial. It's like, bam, bam, bam. Here you go, here's your permit.

All the I's are dotted, all the t's are crossed. It's a ministerial permit. Here you go.

So, yeah, that's because the building permit is not labor related. Right? Tractor.

Yeah, safety, zoning. Right? Building code.

Actually, we had this conversation. I think I remember. It's your—Kim, Representative Iwamoto, brought this up, which are—yeah, we talked about this. Is there a different way other than pulling permits?

I think right now what we're seeing on the state level, and this is probably the reason for it, is because you have one contractor, he gets a violation, they get a fine, they pay back pay. If they get back pay, maybe they're working on another product that's a separate project. It's only one strike.

To be debarred for a state project, you have to have three strikes, and I believe it's only for three years. So, let's say you get one strike. But hey, I've got five other projects with the State, that's fine, we're going to go do that.

So, our compliance guys would look at that project, they would look at the other project to see if these are all happening, and it's a very high level to get debarred. And I will say that my Compliance Department does a very good job of monitoring all of these wage violations.

And the quickest way that we found to remedy this situation is to actually not go with Department of Labor because they're backlogged. The quickest way we found was to go to the agency that's in charge of the project and say, hey, you know what? We found these discrepancies.

We asked you for the certified payroll, let's say DOT, and oh, yeah, look, we were there at the job site on this day. We took pictures. You had one guy on a bulldozer; you had two laborers. And then, we looked at the payroll for that day, the guy on the bulldozer is actually getting paid the laborer pay.

So, instead of going to the Department of Labor and filing a complaint, we'll just go to DOT and say, hey, this guy needs back pay. He's supposed to be paid this rate, but he's getting paid this lower rate. And they'll fix it. But what happens is that that doesn't become a violation. That's not a complaint.

Technically in the law, they're supposed to report that to DLIR, but it's like it never happened. So, we kind of look at the county level permits being able to help us enforce that.

And so, okay, here, what about instead of pulling, pulling in your permit, what about pulling your contract?

If you have a state contract, right, if you're in violation, the county can yank their contract for being in violation for another. Some other offense.

I mean, I would love to prove it if they could pull the license, but that's technically at the state level as well, contractor license. But sorry, like a con—so, if it's a public workshop, they could probably do it. Private job would be a little bit difficult to do, I think, but.

But if they're—so, if the county has a public works job, they have a contract with them or they're negotiating contract, they're the lowest bidder and an issue comes out, what if you put something where they can yank the contract or even if it's been, or they could install the contract.

That would be running into a lot of procurement stuff on that end. I have to look into that. We've kind of vetted the permit because it would be a discretionary issue and if the county can work with the developer, the contractor, to come up to something that's amenable, I think that works a little bit better.

It's a little bit easier, kind of how we did.

Yeah. But that, that could cause a lot of these projects to fall apart because a lot of times, by the time you're going into your permits, everything's dialed in and it's very difficult to change at that point.

I would disagree in that sense, in regards to...

Subcontractors, maybe not so much, but if you're a GC.

I would say in regards to the GC, that's still—I will give you an example.

We had one project where the developer came in and, you know, said, hey, they were going to use one GC and that switched in less than a year to another GC and permits were done. So, it's possible.

Oh, no, you can switch GC. It depends on how far you're along.

Right, I mean, this isn't—this was actually an affordable housing project, too, at the county, but, and it's still not developed, but they switched the GC on city. And it was interesting because we're like, okay, well, you said you're going to go GC, and all of a sudden, you switched it like that.

And then, the unions had to get involved, but.

All right, I appreciate it. Thank you.

I opened up the floodgates. How can we get plenty time?

I actually want a question for the Department of Labor. Thank you.

Okay, we'll go with Representative Belatti because she has the least amount of questions so far.

Thank you. Thank you for acknowledging that. I'm just curious, was the Department of Labor part of the Speed Task Force and was this kind of issue raised?

Because it seems to me that this actually runs counter, if Representative Hashem's comment is correct, that it could actually slow down things, that this is not a good thing that we should be doing.

Good morning. Bill Kunstun, Deputy Director. We are not a part of the Speed Task Force.

So, maybe this isn't for you, then. Maybe...were you part of that and was this raised? Okay. Because this, I mean, given Chair Hashem's concerns, right, it now seems to be counter to some of the efforts that we've been trying to push for making sure that affordable housing can be done expeditiously. So, thank you. Thank you.

Representative Iwamoto, your question.

Thank you. For the...it's a follow up to a point you raised, which was the license, the professional license of, I guess the contractor, if there are violations of law, doesn't DCCA have RICO complaint and adjudicatory processes already in place?

What I understand they do, but a formal complaint has to be filed. From what I understand, for us, our position in regards to the, on the permit, and allowing the counties to be able to have more of a discretionary opportunity for the permitting is that it allows the counties to really work with the developer.

So, we found that was the path of least resistance because it does take a while for a license to be revoked at the contractors' level.

So, for us, because you could be in violation, you could get three strikes and you could be debarred from working on any public works project, but your license will never be pulled, and you can work on private projects until—or find whatever work you can—until your 3 years are up and then you can start going again.

Okay, interesting.

Representative Shimizu.

Question. So, my understanding would be if this is a county project, you have to comply with Davis Bacon, and you have payroll affidavits. So, as Rep. Iwamoto alluded to, there is a current process of adjudicating violations.

So, it seems to me, and I think Chair Hashem touched on it, that the enforcement penalties that you are proposing via pulling permits may not be a proper method of enforcing the problem that you are getting at, which is basically bad contractors trying to not pay their employees properly.

It would seem to me that there is a cleaner and better method that we need to address the root of the problem versus kind of introducing this pulling the permit.

I think it goes back to the, like you said, their license or a better rating system that disqualifies them from current projects and future projects for whatever time period. I'm sorry, there's no question, I guess.

I mean, no. Thank you for the comments. I think what you said is you're assuming that they're going to pull the permit. That's not what this law does. It just allows the county discretion. So, the county can work that whatever they want.

If it's—let's say they're on the second strike and it's getting really bad, then they could probably put something in there. But this doesn't allow the county to pull the permit. It just gives them discretions if they want to. That's the difference. That's what I see.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing none, we will recess.

Okay. Good morning, everybody. We are reconvening our Committee on Water and Land. First up—for decision making. First up, we have HB 1848, relating to land use. It is the Chair's recommendation to defer this bill.

I do not want to override what the LUC board has decided apparently twice or three times on this. And it looks like they're going to be taking up this issue once again. So HB 1848 will be deferred. Next up, we have HB 1728.

The chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1, defecting the date to 713000. And that's about it. Any comments or concerns? Yes.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to voice my concern that, as a supporter of home rule, and as the support of counties, and being accountable to the. To their. To the residents of their. Of their counties. Yeah. I just don't understand.

And we didn't hear any evidence suggesting that the counties weren't able to handle this on their own, and are not making the right decision for their communities. So, I'm going to be voting with reservations on this. Thank you very much, Chair.

I have some concerns also, so I will be voting with reservations.

Okay. Thank you very much. That's it. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 1728. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair votes I. Vice Chair votes I Repalati. I Reppichiyama. Iodo is a reservation. Rep. Woodson. Aye. Rep. Shimizu, reservations. Thank you. And Rep. Souza. Aye. Your recommendation is adopted. Okay.

Thank you, Members. Next up, we have HB 1652 relating to stormwater management. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1. Make technical amendments such as on page 5, line 1 and 4. It should be planted, not plated. And agriculture ponds will be agriculture infrastructure. And defect date to 713000. That's about it.

I understand the concerns for the people with opposition on this, but most of the agricultural infrastructure is outside where most people are. So I think. Yeah. Any comments or concerns.

I'll be voting with reservations.

Okay. Thank you. Right. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Thank you for voting on HB 1652. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Voting. All Members present reservations from Rep. Iwamoto. Reservations for Shimizu. Are there any other reservations? Any opposition? Seeing none. Your measures adopted.

Okay, thank you, Members. Next up, we have HB 1926 relating to Red Hill. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this with an HD1. I'm going to blank out the appropriation amounts in the Bill and put them in the Committee report and to make the effective date 7-1-3000. Any comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. We're voting on HB 1926 recommendations to pass with amendments. Are there all Members at present. Are there any reservations? Any Noes? Seeing none, measure passes.

Okay, thank you, Members. Next up we have HB 1703 relating to land use. The Chair's recommendation is to make technical amendments for clarity and consistency and style and to defect date to 7-1-3000. So pass it out with an HD1 10 commendments and defect date. That's it. Comments, concerns

I'd like reservations.

Thank you. Okay, we're voting on HB 1703 recommendations to pass with amendments noting all Members present reservations from Rep Iwamoto. Any more reservations? Any of the Noes? Recommendation is adopted.

You're against rodeos? You have reservations on rodeos. Okay. Next up we have HB 1673 related to landfill. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1. We're going to take border water supplies statement to make it 7-1-2027 the effective date.

And we're going to take Department of Health's option number one and defect this defect date to 7-1-3000. Any comments or concerns? Oh, yes go ahead.

Oh, thank you. Chair. I just wanted to state recognize the testimony that we received regarding one of the components of landfills to me is ash. That comes from H power and the fact that we're turning potentially there's this kind of movement towards making roadways into almost like horizontal landfills throughout our community.

And that I would love the for the Committee report to recognize that what I heard Mr. Lau contribute and by saying that he thought by addressing ash could be a justifiable amendment perhaps for the next Committee to look at.

Okay, we'll put that in the Committee report. Thank you. You're voting yes right?

With reservations. For that reason it's a support reservations.

You went from a no to a yes. I mean, I know. Okay. At least I pushed you up. Okay, good. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, we're voting on HB 1673 recommendations passed with amendments voting all Members present. Are there any more reservations? Any Noes? Seeing one. Your recommendations adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up we have HB 1639. Chair's recommendation is to defer this because of all the testimony and the problems. I'll go talk to the introducer and try to see if we can work something out. Next up is HB 1710 relating to historic preservation. The chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1.

We're going to take DLNR's amendments and we're going to take OHA's amendment to. What is this? As stated above at minimum or within a 30 day calendar. If no historic properties are impacted by the projected proposed projected, we're going to take that amendment from their testimony. Is that correct?

Yep, that's correct. Removing that language, the 30 calendar day language.