House Standing Committee on Agriculture & Food Systems

Good morning and welcome everybody. This is the Committee on Agriculture Food Systems. February 4th, at our 9 am agenda, we are in the State Capitol in Conference Room 325. I just want to go over some ground rules before we get started.

So, because warning hearings must adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. In that event, please know that your written testimony will be considered by the Committee. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two-minute time limit per testifier.

For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision-making.

In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images if you are using a Zoom background. And please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin.

Finally, we have a new microphone system if this is your first time in the House conference rooms. So just know that the microphones are on the ceiling. And please be aware that the mics are hot at all times, so any side conversations may be picked up.

With that, we can go into our agenda, and I'll turn it over to my Vice-Chair.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair. First up, we have HB 2425 relating to agriculture exempts any agricultural enterprise from practicing diversified agriculture on lands formerly used for commercial sugarcane production within the Conservation Use District. For many permitting and site plan approval requirements established for lands in the Conservation District. Sorry, I need stronger glasses. I'm starting to realize.

First up to testify is the Department of Agriculture in person.

Good morning, chairs. Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Cedric Gates. Here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. We stand on our written comments here for any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Hunter Hevelin from Hawaii Farmers Union. In person, not present. We also had testimony from Hawaii Food Policy Foundation, Brandon Kennard, Ted Kaflas, Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. And then on Zoom, we have Lane Chung Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. Nope, I'm sorry, he's here. I really need stronger glasses. Not present.

Brian Miyamoto from Hawaii Farm Bureau in person.

Good morning, Chair. Vice Chair. Representative Perruso, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. I feel you, Vice Chair, some new glasses also. So if I mess up, that's because I can't read. Hawaii Farm Bureau is offering comments on this measure.

We support the intent or what we believe the intent is, and we believe the intent is to allow diversified agriculture, agriculture other than sugar, on what was formerly sugar production, on it within these conservation districts. We do have concerns though. As written, we believe the Bill is referencing the wrong statute.

It does reference primarily Chapter 1652 our right to farm law when we think that it's more properly situated in the conservation district statute hrs 183C2. So our testimony does contain some proposed amendments.

Essentially what we're asking is what we kind of see in the Bill to amend the definition in 183C2, which would allow non conforming uses of diversified agriculture to be included in what's allowed on those lands. Sugar was a non conforming use and was allowed.

And I think that's the intent of this measure to allow other agriculture production since sugar was already allowed on it and we're not really going to anymore. So again, you have our written testimony.

We support the intent, we do provide comments and we do provide our proposed amendments that we think will better suit the intent of what's trying to be accomplished by this Bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We had Audrey Smith individual in support, Ron Terry individual in support, and Stephen Winter individual in support and on zoom. Mr. Winter, are you there?

I'm. I am here and so is my wife Cheryl. We wish really just to stand on our written testimony, but to respond to. Any questions that you might have of. Us at this time.

Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else here present who would be testifying on this measure? See nun Chair. Any questions from the Committee person? Not for you, sir. Okay, I don't have any questions, but thank you. For those who provided input on this bill, that was good insight. And actually Department of Act.

I do have a question for Department of Energy. Morning. Good morning, sir. Thank you. In your testimony you. Brought up some concerns about similar to the Farm Bureau, did you have any other, you know, that right to farm issue as your primary focus? Correct?

Yes.

And did you guys provide language on suggested language at all or just that strong concerns about tapping into 165 strong concerns. Okay.

And you guys heard? Yeah, we would. That the last sentence in our. Trying. To reach this, that kind of amendments to a long standing bill meant to protect bona fide agricultural activities from Lucent's complaints and to usurp that with something that really has no connection to the purpose and intent of Chapter 65. Read. Okay. Yeah.

Seek solution elsewhere. Understood. Okay, thank you. No questions.

Oh, actually now I have a question of you, sir. So you mentioned in your testimony that you folks recommend a different vehicle and what might you be thinking of?

I did not give that any thought.

Oh, okay.

Because you know, going to somebody else's chapter from a sister agency, going to another sister agency's hrs or even works har. Yeah. No, not without prior. Discussion. Thank you, sir.

Anything else? Okay, so moving on. We are now going to HB 2596, relating to plants. Requires persons who sell and offer plants for sale at retail to provide information on the risk of invasiveness of the plant species. Requires the Invasive Species Council to develop a labeling system for plants and displays of plants' weed risk assessments. Establishes fine for violations, and is effective January 1, 2027. So we had ten in support, two in opposition, and three comments. First up is Patrick Chee from DLNR in person.

Good morning, Chair Chun, Vice Chair Kusch, and Representative Perruso. The Department of Land, representing the Department of Land and Natural Resources and to some extent Hawaii Invasive Species Council. My name is Patrick Chee. The department is in strong support of this bill.

It would, as you folks may have seen at our presentation a week and a half ago, that the Hawaii Invasive Species Council maintains a plant pono and a weed risk assessments. And these assessments are available for consumers to potentially look at and see whether or not plants are of low risk or high risk, but it is not currently available at the point of sale.

And so this would make it much more likely that, at the point of sale, consumer would potentially like, you know, when people go to the store and buy food and the label says, you know, it has X amount of calories, this can also tell you potentially right at the point of sale whether or not this is high risk or low risk. And then the consumers can make their own decisions regarding that plant. So again, the department stands in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Hunter Heaivilin from Hawaii Farmers Union in person. Still not present. We have Brandon Kinard in opposition from Hawaii Food Policy Foundation. Ted Kefalas from Grassroots Institutes Hawaii in support. Wayne Chung Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii, on Zoom. No. Okay. Brian Miyamoto in person, Hawaii Farm Bureau, with comments.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Perruso. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony providing comments. We do have concerns with this measure, as probably seen from testimony from some of the others in the nursery industry.

We are particularly concerned that the use of a universal color coded basis label and civil penalties may unintentionally stigmatize certain plants or agricultural products without adequate context regarding responsible cultivation and management. I think also I saw some of the tests where we included in ours. I don't know if there is a definition.

I was trying to look it up in the bill to define. So it's capturing all plants, so it's a little bit broad. Many plants that may pose risk in unmanaged can be grown safely and responsibly under proper agricultural practices.

Plants solely through a risk label may confuse consumers and unfortunately portray agricultural producers as contributors to invasive species problems. And we did note in our testimony that existing programs such as a plant pono, which DLNR mentioned, that's demonstrate the value of voluntary education focused approaches that engage growers, retailers, and consumers collaborators.

Again, we do have concerns. We understand. Again, we're trying to protect consumers, trying to protect our environment. But we do have some concerns with this measure. Thank you for providing us an opportunity to provide some comments to the committee.

Thank you. Audrey Smith, individual in support. Ron Terry, individual in support. Oh, I'm sorry, I just jumped. My bad. I can see above the glasses. Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association, on Zoom. Not here. Okay. Alison Riggs in opposition. Wayne Chung Tanaka in support of Sierra Club. And 5 individuals, all in support. Is there anybody here in person who'd like to testify on this measure? Oh, yes.

Hi. Did you... My name is Stephanie Easley. I'm with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. We submitted testimony in support of this measure. I'm not... It was in the testimony online, but if you didn't receive it, I have a copy of it here.

Yes, we got it. And again, I jumped lines and I apologize for that.

Oh, no problem. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Representative. We are really delighted by this agenda in today's that it has two bills that deal with harmful invasive plant species. This is a category of invasive species management that at the state level just has become dormant.

You know, as we mentioned in our testimony, the noxious weed list was last updated in 1992. There is a requirement to have a restricted plant list of plants that can't be imported. There is no restricted plant list.

The result is that, I mean, the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity has a lot of things to work on, a lot of priorities. And this has just fallen by the wayside for a number of reasons, I think. And the result is harmful invasive species are imported and sold at nurseries.

Consumers are often very surprised to learn that the plants that they're purchasing are harmful invasive species. There's this sort of concept that if it's for sale, it's not going to harm my yard, my neighborhood, my watershed, greater environment. But that is not the case. This would provide consumers that information at the point of sale.

So hopefully pointing them towards a noninvasive or even native option, you know, with a green sticker, and bring awareness to this issue. And you know, that would be on the prevention side. People would not bring these plants home and plant them. It's a really, it's a way of thinking outside the box to address the situation that we're currently in. And we really support the bill, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you. Department of Agriculture in person.

Good morning, Chair Chun, Vice Chair Kusch, and Rep Perruso. We also submitted written testimony, so if you don't have it, we can submit it. But yeah, we just stand in our written testimony offering some comments about it because it's going to be regulatory and about, you know, the fact that the risk assessment and plant pono website are not managed by the department. So if it's going to become a regulatory function, again, obviously that should be transferred to the department. Thank you. I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you. I think, and again, I apologize, I jumped lines earlier. So that was the last person. Is there anybody else who wanted to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none. Chair, Member, any questions? Okay.

Okay. This question is either for HISC, Hawaii Invasive Species Council, or DAB. My question is, so you know, there was a concern about moving the functions over to Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. Eventually HISC is going to be a part of DAB in a few years. So even if it were to go as is, wouldn't that transition over as well with the transition from HISC to DAB?

We anticipate that when HISC moves to the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, that Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity as administrator of the HISC will decide on what they want to do with both of these tools of both the plant pono and the weed risk assessment.

We hope that the websites and information continues to be viable and continue to be updated, but we don't have any idea or control over what that might be at this point. So we hope to hear from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity on how they will manage that transition into the future.

So Jonathan Ho, Plant Quarantine Branch Manager. So yeah, so I guess as it relates to the transition, again, the requirement is now as it relates to the measure and I think moving forward, the statutory requirement, should it be created, obviously we'd have to maintain it because there's no... The industry and the public need to be able to comply. And if you don't have it, there's no way to comply. So I think from that standpoint... But again, whether it gets transferred or not, obviously that remains to be seen.

Wait, can you, are you done? Can you clarify on that? So the authority to, I mean, I think what you're saying here is the authority, if there is a violator, someone selling plants that HISC... And there's some good amendments that have come out of this testimony on this subject.

If HISC provides the stickers for wholesalers or retailers to provide, you know, to set when they sell these plants to the public, are you saying that the Department of Agriculture has no ability to enforce those stickers or the fine portion of it, is that what you're saying? Until the two are combined?

No, no, no, no. So I think... So should this move forward written as is the requirement would be there and obviously anyone who sells a plant, whatever plants are defined as, whether it's propagative or intended to be propagated or whatever, would be subject to the labeling requirements. How the labels are affixed...

You know, like for example, a lot of retailers, they make standardized labels that are already pre-packaged and if now you have to double that work, you have some business issues. So I think to the extent of how they can implement it, we have to figure that out. But I think from a regulatory standpoint, if it goes into effect, we'd have to enforce it. And we can. There's nothing that would preclude it. And I think it's more to the extent of...

To respond to, I guess Mr. Chee's thing about the transfer. Once, should this go into effect, once HISC is absorbed into the department, this particular function of having a risk assessment prior to sale and the website, whatever it may be, is going to have to be maintained regardless because that's a statutory mandate.

Yeah, it would be an information source. Okay. Committee Member, have any question? I have one more question for Invasive Species Council, if I may, Chair. Sorry. I don't know if... Did you read some of the testimony in here?

I did not have a chance to...

Okay, so there's some great suggestions. One of which was like providing a PDF or a jpeg, you know, on the website, to have retailers be able just to use that information. And to Department of Agriculture's testimony, you know, just incorporate that into their labeling process. So there isn't like someone putting a sticker.

Right. Yeah. I mean, there are ways to design it so that we can potentially, you know, make a design and say, please include this on your labeling. So since there are already many plant labels that are printed out already, they could just incorporate that in and that would be reasonable to add so that everyone knows what that plant is, whether it's low risk, evaluate, or high risk.

Okay. Another strong amendment possibility that was written in the testimony was around clearly defining, like, retail plants that are sold at big box stores, not farmer's market, not on Facebook Marketplace. You know, just, it's primarily intended for larger retailers.

So would your department be against tightening up that language and not include like floriculture and cut plants and tissue propagation and getting down into more granular methods of plant propagation?

Well, you know, this would be a means to label plants that are at commercial retailers. And I think that would be a significant move forward whether or not it covers other smaller, less retail type situations. I think that, should it be a commercial sale to a consumer, I think that's where this interface is most likely to be effective. So...

Great. Thank you. That's all, Chair. Okay.

Next up, we have 2573 relating to workforce development. Establishes a five-year agriculture and biosecurity workforce development pilot program within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity in collaboration with University of Hawaii, Leeward Community College, and Department of Human Resources Development. Requires report to the Legislature. Sunsets in June 30, 2031.

First up, we have Brenna Hashimoto from the Department of Human Resource Development, in person.

Good morning, Chair Chun, Vice-Chair Kusch, Representative Perruso. Brian Furuto, Department of Human Resources Development. We're going to send our written testimony, but I did want to say that our testimony says we support the intent. We actually support it. The only reason we're not more full-throated for our support is because we're unclear as to what our responsibilities will be. But we plan to help both departments or the Department of Agriculture, as well as Leeward, in making sure this happens. Thank you.

Excellent. Carlos Panalozo. Did I say that right?

Yes.

Okay, sorry. University of Hawaii.

All right. Chair Chun, Vice-Chair Kusch, and Representative Perruso. Carlos Penaloza, Leeward Community College Chancellor. We submitted testimony in support of House Bill 2573 in establishment of this pilot. Here we stand on our written testimony. And here to answer any questions.

Thank you. We had Mike Lambert from Department of Law Enforcement in support and Brian Miyamoto from Hawaiian Farm Bureau, in person.

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

Sydney Haas from Hawaii Food Policy, in support. Hunter Heaivilin from Hawaii Farmers Union, in support. In person? Still not present. And then individual in support. Is there anybody else here that I missed or would like to testify on this? Did I miss you guys again? I just ordered these glasses.

People we import stuff from are messing with us.

I think you forgot your Kona coffee today. No worries. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of DAB. We are in strong support of this measure and we appreciate the introducers and the supporters of this bill. Thank you.

Okay, now I think that covers everybody. Is there anybody else who would like to testify that I didn't call upon any questions.

Chair, for the Department of AG and Biosecurity. So really my question is just to clarify what DHRD's testimony is. So just going over the bill, I assume that DHRD's portion will be, you know, on page two, lines three to five. It's a portion about offering increased compensation.

And so my assumption is that anytime we're talking about compensation that would be a DHRD question, but I just want to clarify if that's what DHRD's involvement would be.

Yeah. So Jonathan Ho, our plant quarantine branch manager. So, you know, we'd also like to, you know, recognize the support that DHRD and LCC has already provided to us for our bus security efforts.

And I think to the extent as it relates to DHRD , you know, DHRD has already worked with our Department, at least for the biosecurity inspector positions. We broadened the minimum requirements so that we can get more applicants.

And I think as the, the pilot comes to, should the pilot come to effect, there's a, I would say like a technician level set of positions that don't quite exist yet and working with them to, you know, obviously establish that create the minimum standards and obviously that's going to tie into the compensation portions.

Then existing, other existing positions that could qualify for use in the academy could again obviously be adjusted. And obviously T. Hortis was very instrumental in helping us with the biosecurity inspector positions and obviously other positions that the Department is looking to fill for biosecurity can be worked on with them and they've been very supportive.

Okay, just one follow up. So Department of Law Enforcement submitted late testimony that they wanted to be included as a. It's a convener, folks. Is that something that would be open to?

Oh, absolutely. So DLB has already provided us with support. Deputy Radula has provided, let's say three classes to the Department staff. You know, a lot of the staff are regulatory or enforcement.

So obviously having that law enforcement background helpful and to the extent of the curriculum that's going to be developed, including DOE for that particular portion is a no brainer.

Further questions. Okay, thank you. Moving on to HB2017 relating to agriculture for taxable years. January 1, 2027 amends the important agricultural land qualified agricultural tax credit to include Hawaiian homelands designated for substance, agriculture, supplemental agriculture or pastoral or the definition of important agricultural lands.

And two, expands the definition of qualified agricultural costs to include costs related to the planting of orchards or fruit bearing crops or expenditures relating to the clearing of former sugar and pineapple plantation lands. First up to testify, we have the Department of Taxation in person.

Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation will stand in our written comments available for questions. Thank you.

Next up we have the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Thank you, DAB stands on its written comment. Here for any questions.

Okay, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in person. Mr. Watson.

Good morning. Chair Chun and Vice Chair Kush as well as Member Caruso. My name is Kali Watson. I'm the Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. This particular proposed legislation really could be a game changer for the Department.

Similar to the low income housing tax credits for housing, which has really kind of addressed the needs of the people on our wait list and trying to provide home ownership for them. With respect to our trust, when you look at it, the majority of our lands are agriculture and pastoral, over 62%.

In fact, about 120,000 of that, approximately 200,000 is on the Big Island. So we are looking for ways to not only facilitate the development of our lands, but in exploring those opportunities with the private sector. One of the biggest challenges for both sides is the cost of infrastructure.

And so by accessing and using these tax credits, it will facilitate that type of development. And so, you know, with respect to these partnerships, for example, on the Big Island, we're working with the Parker Ranch, including Commitment School, trying to get the pastoral development in the cattle industry going again.

They're always telling me, colleague, the challenge is infrastructure up front that costs. How do we recover that, how do we facilitate the development with that huge hurdle that we have to get over. So tax credits with respect to growing crops, we explored the idea of developing orchards on the west side of Kauai. We have lands there.

We also, I would also mention that we're in the process of the transfer of significant lands into our program regarding other government lands. So the idea of developing and really activating this industry in a lot of different ways is there. And as you know, we're very active in that.

Not only in the housing, but we are definitely exploring opportunities more so with the private sector. Working with Alex Hsu of Balloon Farms, who has been, you know, he was the guy that suggested this and said one way to deal with this challenge is tax credits.

So having been in the housing industry for a while, I can appreciate that particular venue approach in dealing with this cost. So I read some of the comments regarding those that either comment or an opposition over proposing. I would say that this is the first step in facilitating this approach. We're open to suggestions.

One of the other things I would ask is that we spe expanded beyond just agriculture. We do have the ability to issue, we call it aquaculture. And that's an area that is culturally very appropriate.

Something that again addresses the needs of the community as well as the state regarding food independence by harvesting and growing and raising fish as well as shrimp. That really would help alleviate that challenge that we face moving forward. So I respectfully ask that you consider the objections. One was amending the section 205 regarding the definition.

I think that's a good suggestion. So it would be amenable to working with the folks come up with, you know, proposed legislation that makes more sense. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have Brian Miyamoto, Hawaiian Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Rami Ami. On behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau, you have our written testimony providing comments. Hawaii Farm Bureau agrees with nearly everything the Director said. We're very supportive of their activities about, as you said, activating and increasing agriculture.

We also appreciate DHH's acknowledgement that capital cost for farming is very difficult. Money and funding and resources for infrastructure is very important for going to truly grow agriculture and meet some of these agricultural goals that we have in front of us. That being said, our concern is that IAO is a probably, maybe not the right mechanism.

IO after 20 years was finally passed. After a few years after that, incentives are passed. Essentially it was designed for landowners to dedicate their land through a process, through a mapping process, an LEC process. Dedicate their lands in perpetuity to agriculture.

Creates, not a super designation, doesn't really create a whole bunch of permissible uses, doesn't really change that. But super designation, where essentially it's almost impossible to take it out of agriculture with intent that agriculture will be done on these lands takes a super majority to take it out.

So you've had a lot of private landowners who dedicated, who then almost as a trade off will get to take advantage of the incentives, one being this tax credit. So again, a lot of our private landowners have already gone through the process.

I think the counties were hopeful that they will continue the mapping process to identify those most valuable lands that we want to preserve in perpetuity for all generations for agriculture production. That being said, we agree with what DHGL is asking for. We would love for them to be able to access this particular incentive.

The farm will suggest looking at another mechanism creating a separate tax credit for them so that they can also access this test credit or the types of incentives that we see within ial if we allow any changes to IO that it's an equity of fairness.

What do the landowners who has committed in the past, does that change what they need to do now? Do we need to revisit IO again? IO is still a dynamic, fluid process that's still going through.

We like it to continue, but we also absolutely want to support what DGGL is doing and their activity and their Engagement in agriculture. We need all agriculture. So we're extremely thrilled that DHL is their activities around agriculture. We just don't know if this is the right mechanism through the IAL incentives. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Farmers Union, Hunter Hevlin present. And then we had Hawaii Food Policy Purple Maya foundation in support. Two individuals in support. Is there anybody else here I didn't call upon or would like to testify in this? Okay. Seeing none. Chair questions. Member question.

For the Director. Thank you for your testimony and I appreciate the direction in which you would like to travel and I do hope the Legislature can support you.

But I agree with the Farm Bureau with respect to IAL, but I'm wondering, just because you mentioned it in your testimony, your interest in also kind of expanding to include aquaculture. And I'm just wondering if you are working already with KUA and if so, what that looks like.

What does that look like?

Yeah. In what ways are you working with folks in the restorative aquaculture?

Well, Kamehameha schools on Bokai converted some of their fish ponds into a growing active fish pond. They use a process where they dug these wells that I guess fed off the water that's generated from below salt water.

I was informed that on, for example, Kauai and the Kekaha area during the WAHE Administration, they financed and actually did about four wells along the Kekaha coast. So I want to use a kind of like a similar approach, use expertise that Kamehameha schools gathered in developing the fish ponds on Molokai and similarly do that on Kauai.

Now, some of those lands are with the Agricultural Development Corps, which we're also trying to work with and develop a working relationship.

With that in mind, as well as the fact that DBED put in a resource center and processing plant in Kiha, I think we can kind of not only activate that activity more so as well as working with alum farms, he actually purchased a shrimp farm in that area. So he's taken advantage of that type of set up.

The potable water system that's in, I guess, repair mode has been challenged and is somewhat deactivated. We can treat that differently. So by going with that aquaculture versus trying to develop the 10,000 acres, actually similar, as I mentioned, very marginal lands. The majority is unusable and cliffsides.

And so I want to focus on things that are rational, doable, and something that especially working the private sector and looking at the assets we have, we can do. Part of the challenge, again, is the cost of doing this conversion.

Yeah. And so the reason I bring that up or ask that question is because, you know, there are others in this space who have been advocating for reconceptualization of cipher so as to be able to use in those kinds of projects. Right. And in what we might call like nature based solutions or sustainable infrastructure.

So I really see the fish ponds kind of fitting into that kind of conversation around re envisioning cip. So just encourage you to continue to think along those lines. Sure.

And let me also say regarding the previous testimony, I kind of agree with the challenges and the process and maybe I wouldn't call it a negative impact, but the way the system in issuing and identifying the important agricultural land, it's a process that is very convoluted, challenging and time consuming.

I'm saying we don't want to go through that process. We want to actually be designated such that we can access these tax credits. Why not? I mean give us the help similar to that's being given to us for residential construction that we need to make these initiatives and projects we're looking at a reality.

Thank you. Do you have any follow up or you look like you have another question.

It's an interim question.

Okay, Chair. I do and I'm not sure if it's for Department of Hawaiian Homelands or Department of Ag or White Farm Bureau, but I'll put it out there to come forward. Is there a solution or a workaround instead of designating the ial? Is there or maybe for Department of Taxation too?

Is there a workaround from those important IAL lands and going through that designation process that could achieve this, the means of this of creating a tax credit so that capital intensive agriculture upfront costs can be recovered through credits. Any anybody who's really smart out. It looks like you're getting ready.

Solutions. Thank you for the question, Vice Chair. The Department of Labor has a heli imboa program that maybe should be added to the previous Bill that I was unable to capture in that testimony. The workforce development. Can't we just create. The Legislature has powers to create a tax credit category.

I think when we're looking at this Bill as the Director reference, it does amend 205 and add Hawaiian Homeland. So I think that it goes a little bit further than just just saying, well we want to take advantage of those tax credits we'd love to designate.

Another solution is maybe the state should with all of their ag lands automatically designate. The state has not designated their lands as I o Now in theory they are the agriculture lands are il lands that should be in agriculture production for perpetuity. But that may be another solution. But I think the Legislature can't you create.

We've seen different tax credits, different subsidies, different bills with specific demographics that it's targeting to assist. So that might be a conversation that I believe the Legislature can create a tax credit, amend this bill to. To. To create a specific tax credit for this specific purpose. Okay, thank you.

Anything from the chair on that or does that. Do you have any input or suggestions or ideas for amendment?

I'm in agreement.

Okay. Department of Taxation. You're like, here you go.

It's basically a policy decision. So we were interested more in the administrative aspects of it. We try not to weigh in on the policy decisions.

Got it. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay, moving on. Next, we have 1931 relating to agriculture. Establishes a state noxious weed coordinator and updates the process for designating and managing noxious weeds. Allowed public proposals to add or remove noxish weed designations. Requires notice and public reporting. Clarifies the authority of the Department of Board of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Authorizes updates to the noxious weed list by order classification. Classifies noxious weeds into three categories. Strengthens enforcements and penalties and updates departmental duties for noxious weed control and eradication.

First up, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity in person. Lo Chair DAB stands under certain testimony offering comments on this measure. We have our subject matter expert here for any questions.

Thank you. Stephanie Easley from CGAPS in person.

Good morning, Chair Chen, Vice Chair Kusch, Representative Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. You have our written testimony. This bill would jumpstart the noxious weed and harmful invasive plant prevention and control program in the state. You know these. The statute itself is from the 50s.

The regulations are from the 50s. The regulations were amended multiple times in the 50s. Three times in 1958 alone because they are made for a different time in agriculture when it was large landowners and the state offered a lot of support to those large landowners because they were the economic driver. So.

But then, you know, the statute was amended. The regulations were amended in 78, then 92, then not again, because the statute doesn't reflect how agriculture is carried out in the state now.

And these changes propose to have a rolling list where people can submit proposals for species that would be reviewed by state, not just weed coordinator, the experts on the Advisory Committee on Plants and Animals and the board, with public input, would allow the process to Just slowly update itself, you know, to.

What I say about the harmful invasive plant statutes and program in Hawaii is if you have a garage that you haven't worked on since 1992 and you want to get that garage working again, it's not something you can just do in a day. It's going to take time and it's going to take multiple steps.

And this bill lays out a pathway to get that process started. We note it's very similar to what to the listing process used in Washington State where they, you know, accept public testimony, they put out a notice, get involved, you know, make your submissions, you fill out a form. And. It's also very similar to a working group.

It was led by then HDOA from 2000 to 2020 to 2021, which was experts trying to make administrative rules, to update the administrative rules. And they did come up with a proposal that is similar to this, but because they couldn't amend the statute, it really couldn't address all the issues of the statute addressing modern agriculture.

And this program does it. And we really hope you'll consider it as a way to jumpstart that. And I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Hunter Hevlin hasn't. Okay, not in person. Patrick Chee, in person.

Aloha, Chair. Vice Chair, Representative. This bill definitely the Department supports. We believe that the fact that the noxious weed list has not been updated since 1992 is somewhat remiss and the provisions listed throughout the bill are likely to help amend the list and keep it updated.

This is one of the few things that we have in place in Hawaii to prevent the importation of invasive plants to the state.

And if we can continue to update it and keep it as strong and as broad as it is needed in order to protect the state, this is a necessary step and we appreciate this, this bill for that. If you have any questions, I'll.

Thank you. That's all. The people I show in person or on Zoom is Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. Member of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Our apologies. Vice Chair. We did submit testimony. It is extremely late. We did submit it online. Simply put, the Hawaii Farm Bureau supports this measure. We agree with what the previous testifier said and we're.

We want this program again to be revitalized. So. So we did submit our testimony. We do support this. Thank you for the opportunity to provide late testimony.

Thank you. We had 10 people in support, one in, zero in opposition and one comment. Questions Member Chair, please, for questions for.

The Department of Ag and Biosecurity.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Member of the Committee on our Plant Pest Control branch Manager.

Thanks for being here. So my question. Well, I have two questions and one of them is really specific, but in the Bill, you know, there's a.

It creates a different or it just creates a designation for noxious weeds as a class A, class B and class C. And I know in the testimony it's kind of unclear how to define class A, class B and class C. So my question is, you know, we have the plant Pono program.

Could that be a way to classify noxious weeds for the, for the list under this bill?

The classification of ABC, I think is. Okay, it's the language used, the phrase used limited distribution. So how limited is that? I mean your definition of limited minus different. So I think more work needs to be done in that aspect so that it's clear throughout. Yeah.

Okay, follow up question. So the noxious read list is currently adopted by rule. Does that make it challenging to update if it was done annually versus another process instead of having it adopted by administrative rule?

If we have the resources, the personnel to look into the issues, do the research and then make recommendations, then absolutely, I think we could do it. But as it is right now, the branch that I'm overseeing, we are limited in personnel. So that is potentially a big issue.

And that's why in the testimony we request for funding to Fund a person to at least start the ball rolling. Otherwise I probably don't want to end up doing everything at this point.

I don't have any questions. Okay, if no further questions. Thank you. We'll be moving on to HB 1736, relating to animal control. Establishes a spay and neuter special fund to reduce pet overpopulation, including the free roaming cat population and authorizes an income tax designation to provide revenues into the special fund.

Requires cats over the age of 5 months to be surgically sterilized and prohibits cats that are not surgically sterilized from being brought into the state with certain exemptions. Appropriates funds. Okay. We had 43 people in support, eight in opposition, and one comment. First up, Department of Taxation in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. We'll be standing on our written comments. I do ask the indulgence of the committee. However, I'm testifying in two locations at the same time. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to take them now. Otherwise I'll report to the other committee and be back here. Hopefully won't have concluded everything.

Okay. Yeah, why don't you do that. We have a fair number of testifiers. Thank you. Next up, we have Patrick Chee in person.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, and Representative Perruso. We stand in support of this bill. We believe that this is one way that the state could potentially reduce the overpopulation of cats on the landscape. Reducing the numbers would potentially make it less impactful on native species, et cetera. So we stand in strong support of this.

Thank you. We have Grant Sizemore on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Representative Perruso. Grant Sizemore from American Bird Conservancy, speaking on behalf of our staff and members across Hawaii. We strongly support House Bill 1736. We think this is an obvious and critical first step to addressing the cat overpopulation crisis that is happening in the state.

Sterilization of pet cats is widely supported even among cat owners. It's also recognized as best practice by the American Veterinary Medical Association. We believe this requirement will prevent unintended cat reproduction before it has the chance to occur, before a cat gets loose or lost, and provides funds that can help cat owners meet the new standard.

So this bill will not only help cats and their owners, it will also protect Hawaiian communities and vulnerable native birds, including species like Alae 'ula, nene, ʻUʻau, and many others that are impacted by cats on the landscape. So by turning off the tap, so to speak, the bill will help reduce the cat overpopulation and reinforce responsible cat ownership practices. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Cathy Goeggel on Zoom, Animal Rights Hawaii. Nope, she was in support. Next we have Stephanie Kendrick on Zoom in support, Hawaiian Humane. Oh, in person.

Trying to throw you off. Chair Chun, Vice Chair Kusch, and Representative Perruso. Stephanie Kendrick for the Hawaiian Humane Society. Thank you so much for hearing this bill. We've supported versions of this. This is our third session now. I'm very grateful to Rep. Evslin for introducing this measure.

There is a desperate need for more spay neuter funding across the state and we'd be grateful to have this mechanism as the county provider on Oahu of much of the low fee spay neuter that's available in our community. I am sympathetic to the arguments of folks who testified that this would that the impact of those funds would be limited by the exclusion of being able to use them for TNR.

But there is so much demand for pet animals spay neuter that we can easily use any funds raised by this measure to address those populations and the populations of free roaming cats that folks are spaying and neutering to adopt into homes. So strong support. I do...

We do have objections to the carve out for cat breeders in this measure. And part of that is just simple practicality. We do not regulate pet breeders in the state of Hawaii. So animal law enforcement would have no way to distinguish a legitimate cat breeder from anyone else who wants to keep intact cats.

So we have submitted proposed amendments to the committee that would remove all mention of cat breeders from the bill and instead rely on what is actually Oahu ordinance now, which is a requirement for spay neuter for cats over 5 months old who are allowed outside. So that would be any cat, regardless of its breeding, would be required to be spayed or neutered if it's allowed outside.

And then we get... We don't put people in the position of deciding who's a legitimate cat breeder and who's not. So with that amendment, we would strongly recommend that the committee pass this measure and help the folks out there who are trying to reduce pet overpopulation. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next on Zoom, we have Angela Young from ROAR. No, okay. Lynn Muramaru, Pacific Pet Alliance, in person.

Good morning. I'm here actually representing our other board Member, Charlie Abrams. She's the cat person in our group, and unfortunately, she had some complications from eye surgery, so she's not here. But the way Charlie explained things to me is that as a pedigree cat breeder, we have what we call preservationist breeders.

And, you know, she breeds a very rare type of Siamese cat. She said less than a thousand of them are produced in the United States. And she goes to great lengths to import the cats from not only the mainland, but other parts of the world. And so to, you know, to be.

For everybody to be blanketly subjected to a mandatory spay neuter law would just be. I mean, it'd be really unfair. And, you know, the Pacific pedal lines, you know, we totally support the first part of the Bill.

You know, I was here last session when Rep. Tarnas was talking about what was going on in Waikoloa and what Big island did and so forth, and he had a really great idea to form a working Committee to bring everybody together. I mean, I'm not originally an Oahu person. I'm a Kauai person.

And so, you know, growing up on the neighbor islands, your perspective is a little different than just living here in Honolulu. And what goes on on each island, you know, is very unique. And.

And to have representation from each of the islands and to have a working group and to sort out what is county, you know, responsibilities, what is state responsibilities. Each county has a budget for animal control. They have contracts with different agencies. How. You know, county ordinances are all different.

And, you know, I really think to just push the whole second section based on what happens on Oahu, it's not really fair. I mean, like, the Big island, you know, they. They passed that. Their ordinance that it's illegal to feed any feral animal, you know, and I know Oahu is really big on trapping the release.

There was testimony questioning whether that's effective. And each island is special. So, you know, maybe it doesn't belong here. Maybe it belongs with the counties. I don't know. But I think. I think Rep. Tarnish this idea for a working Committee is a wonderful one, and we would totally support that.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up, Dwayne Ino on Zoom.

Hello.

Hello.

This is Dwayne Inoue. Thank you for allowing me to testify. I've submitted written comments, and I strongly oppose the sterilization portion of this Bill. I agree with the funding. We need a spay and neuter special Fund, but the sterilization of cats all Cats over the age of 5 months is unfair and it's going to be very difficult.

It means basically that if you own a cat that's over five months indoors, which will not affect the free roaming cat population, you'll be breaking a law and that seems unreasonable. In addition, I think we need to remove subsection A2 in regards to importation. Since there's already a Bill being proposed about importation.

There's going to be a conflict because the exceptions to the sterilization is different from Bill 1594 and 1763. This Bill basically criminalizes ownership status rather than conduct. A confined, responsibly managed cat does not contribute to free roaming population. Cat population.

I would like the Committee to really look at this and really consider whether this is fair to everybody. I believe that free roaming cat population is a problem and we need to work on that. But to prevent cat breeding or even dog breeding. And why not put dog breeding in this?

Because dogs cause do kill wildlife as well. But anyway, thank you very much for the opportunity to to provide testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have Vivian Tolner in person, but see her. Okay. Peggy Regentine in person. Did I get your name right? That's correct. Regentine. Regentine. Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, vice chair and Committee leader. My name is Peggy Regentein and I fully support a HV 1736. Some of you might think I'm a criminal. I'm not. Okay. I feed feral cats where there is a no trespassing sign.

I am a retired community college professor and I have trapped and neutered cats at the Humane shelter as well as at Cat Friends. The cats I neutered I called Smokey Jo, Mrs. Regal, Tabby One, Tabby Two, Popeye Senior, Poppy Junior. Then I was banned, as expected. Without trapping and neutering, I now see kittens reappearing.

Sterilization must be continually maintained. Trapping volunteers tell me they cannot continue to do this service. Many cannot afford to rent the traps or buy the traps or purchase the food needed to get the cats in the cage or have transportation to the free clinics. Funding is needed to maintain trapping and neutering.

The spay neuter requirement is needed to maintain this and the bills are needed to add to this service. The cat population will be reduced once you have this neutering. I fully support this Bill to allow financial resources for funds for sterilization. If you hate cats, this is still a solution.

If you care for cats, this is a humane solution. Let's support this Bill. I appreciate you letting me Testify.

Thank you, Peggy. Next up on Zoom, we have Renee Rabb.

Good morning. This is. My name is Renee Rabb and I live in KL Hawaii on Big Island. I'm testifying against House Bill 1736 by Representative Epsilon which concerns animal control. For years years I have strongly supported the creation of a spay and neuter Fund to help with the terrible overpopulation problem that Hawaii has with companion animals.

Lack of free or low cost spay and neuter services create an atmosphere in which companion animals are abandone to fend for themselves and create problems for the environment. Every companion animal that lives with me is a rescue and is spayed and neutered. So you think that I'd be supporting this Bill?

However, I find Representative Epsilon's Bill very problematic. In its correct form, this Bill needs work badly. First Bill criminalizes anyone with a cat over five months old who is not sterilized. The section does not apply only to outside cats, but rather it applies to all cats.

Will the counties need to use their funds to hire the equivalent of kitty Ayes agents to go door to door to check the reproductive status of any cat? Secondly, this Bill sets up a State Fund which will direct allocation to the counties. The distribution seems to be made based on the population of people in each county.

There is no regard for the actual amount of overpopulation of cats and dogs in each county. There is also no consideration of the environmental impact in each county. Why not look at the total picture of need instead of just a methodology that skews towards urban areas?

Thirdly, the spay and neuter Fund is designed to apply to both dogs and cats. There is also a problem with overpopulation of dogs. Abandoned dogs form packs, run loose in rural areas and sadly kill other animals and people. We've seen several instances of that here on Big Island.

Why then does this Bill not require that all own dogs to be spayed or neutered at an appropriate age? And finally, there is no real likelihood of funding spaying neuter funds in this fiscal climate.

In crisis, we all know that every state dollar will be required to provide basic human services, education and health care needs that are under attack from the federal Administration. So in totality, this Bill sets up a flawed framework for a Fund that will have no money to actually accomplish anything.

All this leaves in this Bill is a requirement that all cats over 5 months old be sterilized and their owners find if they don't comply. Since House Bill 1594 already addresses the animal importation provision more comprehensively, I think it'd be wiser to focus on that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. That concludes testimony for this measure. Is there anybody here in person who'd like to testify that has not done so? Questions, Members? Chair? No. Okay. None for me. Moving on.

HB 1594 relating to animal importation. Requires as a condition of entry into the state documentation verifying that any dog or cat imported into the state have been surgically sterilized subject to certain conditions—exemptions. Excuse me. Requires for the Department of Ag and Biosecurity to establish a breeder register—registry—and adopt rules.

So, first up, we have Patrick Chi, DLNR, in person.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Representatives Perruso and Matsumoto. The Department of Land and Natural Resources stands in strong support of this Bill. It is reasonable and it will prevent the importation of intact cats and dogs.

We believe that this is a means to prevent overpopulation of these animals and potential harms to wildlife, and we believe that this is a good means to do so. I am here for questions, if you have any.

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

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. The Department respectfully opposes this measure given that in the statute, HRS, animal control is listed under the counties, whether it's feral chickens, cats, dogs, etc.

And so, we wish that that function stays with the counties or if it is to come with DAB, that our funding is increased to be able to take on this responsibility. Thank you. Here for any questions.

Thank you. Next up, we have Kathy Gogle on zoom. Okay, not present. Grant Sizemore on zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Grant Sizemore speaking on behalf of American Bird Conservancy. We stand in support of House Bill 1594.

We believe this is a smart step to address, again, the significant cat overpopulation crisis in the state. The requirement that pet cats brought into the state be sterilized, with exceptions, of course, intervenes at a natural checkpoint when imported cats are already screened by the state and prevents unintended breeding before it occurs.

Once more, sterilization, as you have heard, is widely supported and this Bill only applies to new cats brought into the state. House Bill 1594 will help reduce burdens on animal control resources and help keep Hawaii's vulnerable native birds safe from unintended contributions to stray and feral cat populations. Thank you.

Thank you. Lynn Muromaro in person.

Good morning, again. And really, I think, you know, my testimony is quite comprehensive, so that part stands.

But as I listen to what's going on here, I really strongly think that Rep. Tarnus's idea for a working committee know it's needed because there's just not enough information like, like Mr. Gates said about, you know, whose responsibility is animal control. I think there was testimony from DNLR or, or somewhere.

Anyway, I remember the number, like 20,000 animals being imported into state, you know, but it doesn't say how many went to private individuals, how many went to military families, because there are a lot of military families that come in.

And so, as far as research on the history and things that go along with this Bill, I think the data that I've seen so far is insufficient, and then, and then the other thing was that I was really trying to get more input from veterinarians, okay? Because.

And I did talk informally to some veterinarians, and one of them told me that in her practice, she has a large volume of military samples, and she says what she sees a lot is that these military families inherit animals from other military families. And so, the documentation that the animals can sterilize sometimes is just not there.

And I said, well, how can you tell, you know, because if you're talking about a female animal, you know, there's no way except to do an ultrasound or some other type of expensive test if the family loses the original documentation. You know, another vet may not want to sign off and say that this animal has been sterilized if they haven't done it.

I mean, they're doctors, too, and they have their own professional liability and so forth. So, there's, you know, I really think that there needs to be more input from the veterinary community as far as how difficult it is, how much it costs.

I mean, I have dogs and I show dogs, and sometimes, you know, I'm the one that has brought dogs in from other countries or from the mainland. And it's not, it's not an easy process and it's a very expensive process. And the cat people I've talked to, it's the same thing.

You know, we're not the ones who are letting our animals go free roaming. We're not the ones that are producing animals that are going to go free roaming. So, you know, like I said, I think good working committee would be ideal.

Thank you. That's good. I appreciate your input. Stephanie Kendrick in person.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. We are in enthusiastic support of this measure, and we actually have an informal working group of animal welfare and conservation agencies and nonprofits from around the state that meets periodically and this measure is a result of some of those conversations and how can we take steps in ways that we can all agree are a good idea, and we'll make progress in both fighting pet overpopulation and helping to make sure we're not increasing the population of free roaming cats.

So, this is a collaborative measure which I think is demonstrated by the testimony between animal welfare and conservation.

And to Department of Ag's point, if their preference would be to send the evidence of intact animals to the counties and have the counties be the ones who are keeping that information, we would be fine with that, as Honolulu's county animal control enforcement. And I have really good relationships with the neighbor islands.

I could check with those guys, but I feel fairly confident in saying that they would be willing to take on the, that role as well, to ease the burden on the Department. But I think a spay neuter part requirement, it is the right point at which we have that ability.

We're already asking for health records, we're already asking for other information. This would be a natural fit and it would be a really good step toward accountability for folks who want to keep intact animals, given the issues that we're facing. So, I urge your strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Bob Riling Smith on Zoom.

Thanks. Yeah, you got it. It's Rilling-Smith. Thanks, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Bob Rilling-Smith with the American Kennel Club.

First of all, I like to thank Representative Garrett for his outreach with us, but our written testimony opposed stands as is. To add further, this Bill unfortunately will not achieve what it seeks to while saddling Hawaiians with burdensome costs.

We'd be happy to support a proposal working more formally with other stakeholders on a more comprehensive approach to the issues raised that would promote public education and awareness and seeking to encourage responsible pet ownership, which is at the core of this proposal. Thank you for your consideration.

And again, the American Kennel Club is unfortunately opposed to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Charles Sloan in person, in opposition. Not present. Karen O'Mahoney on Zoom. Not present. She was in opposition. Vincent Trippy, individual in opposition on Zoom. And that's all. Is there anybody else here in person who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, question? Chair. Oh. Oh. Come on up, ma'am.

I'm sorry, I didn't see you.

It's okay. Sitting in the back. Okay.

Committee Chair, Vice Chair, and Members, my name is Carol Agard, and I did submit testimony, but it was late and so, you probably haven't seen it.

But bottom line is I, along with many other dog fanciers, strongly oppose this Bill because we believe that the problems identified in the Bill will not be resolved with the implementation of the Bill, the way it's currently proposed.

And it's unreasonable to imply that intact animals coming to Hawaii are the major cause of animal overpopulation when the majority, and I'm speaking of dogs in this case, are entering Hawaii to participate in a sport for the dog fancy—what can I say? The dog fancy competitions.

In addition, people from Hawaii travel to the mainland sometime with their intact pets, too. And they're going, you know, they're going to be fearful when they come back home. And all of a sudden, it's, you know, I left, my dog was intact, I've been a responsible pet owner, and now this is happening.

So, I just thank you for your consideration of my opposition of this Bill as well as my family, family's opposition, and many of the dog fanciers.

Thank you. Is there anybody else? Okay, back to questions from Members on 1594. Chair. Okay, without any further questions, that's it for testimony.

All right, thank you, Vice Chair. We're going to recess. Thank you. Recess.

Okay, we're reconvening our 9 o'clock agenda for decision making. First up, we have House Bill 2425, related to agriculture. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass out a House draft one. So, taking to the concerns we want to preserve the right to farm statute, we're going to move the amendments to—from Chapter 165 to Chapter 180C.

We're also going to change the effective date to July 1, 3000, for further discussion. Questions, comments, or concerns, Members? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Thank you. Okay, Next Bill is House Bill 2596, relating to plants. After discussing this with the introducer, who also happens to be the Vice Chair, we're going to defer this measure to take in some of the testimony that we received and try to work out, you know, some language to make something that we can move forward.

But we're going to defer to our Friday agenda, February 6th, the 9:01 agenda decision. Okay, next measure is House Bill 2573, relating to workforce development. Recommendation from the Chair is to pass out a House draft one. So, we're going to clarify the DHRD involvement with the working pilot program.

And we're also going to add the Department of Law Enforcement and change the effective date to July 1st, 3000, to facilitate further discussion and technical amendments. Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Okay, next measure, House Bill 1931. Oh, no, excuse me. Next, the next measure on the agenda is House Bill 2017 relating to agriculture.

Members, we are going to defer this measure to our February 6th, 9:01 agenda to kind of work out some of the issues that were brought up and also, DHHL to see if we can find something to move forward. The next measure is House Bill 1931 relating to agriculture.

Members, we are also going to defer decision making on this till our Friday agenda, our 9:01 agenda. I've been working with the introducer on this measure to see if we can come up with something that is workable but also achieves the goal of getting the notches we list updated. So, we're going to continue working on that one.

Next Bill, House Bill 1736, relating to animal control. Okay, Members, there's a lot of discussion on this. One recommendation is to pass out a House draft one. So, I'm going to take the amendments from the recommended amendments from the Department of Taxation to move the contents of Section 3 to Section 235-102.5.

We're also going to remove the support and competition requirement on page three, lines 19 to 21 and on page four, lines one through three. Also going to change the effective date to 7-1-3000 for further discussion and technical notes. Any questions, comments, or concerns, Members? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

And the last Bill on our agenda, House Bill 1594. So, I appreciate everyone who submitted testimony on this measure, both in support and opposition. With the issues and concerns raised in on this measure and with the previous measure kind of creating a conflict, I'm going to defer this measure.

Do we want to do the DM on this guy?

No.

Okay.

Okay. We're reconvening the Agriculture and Food Systems Committee for, I apologize, I skipped a measure on our agenda. It's the House Bill 1828 from, it was previously heard from our January 30th agenda, and it's related to agricultural lands. Members, so, I'm just going to defer this.

You know, it just still needs a lot of work, and so, I wasn't able to come up with a compromise to move forward. So, it's going to deferred at this time.

Thank you.

Adjourned.

Thank you.