House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning everybody. We're convening our Committee on Water and Land. This is the Committee on Water and Land. My name is Mark Hashem. I'm the chair. To my left is the vice chair Dee Morikawa. And Today is Thursday, February 5th, 2026. It's 9:00am we're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol.

So we have a kind of long agenda today. So just want to remind the Members and the public that if we don't get through this whole agenda, everything on the agenda dies. So we need to be done before session. So please, if you can, don't read your testimony. I assure you to contrary belief.

We know how to read. Yeah, okay. But. Yeah. And there will be a two minute time limit. So if you're please come up and sum up your testimony. Please don't read it and just summarize if possible. Grant, there's a couple rules that I need to go over. There's a two minute time limit. Morning hearings.

We need to adjourn before session. So people on Zoom, please keep yourself muted until we call you. Then the Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. None of us here on the Committee can see the chat. If you're a disconnected unexpected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting the testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. The House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifiers 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 and appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademark copyrighted images if you're using a Zoom background or turn your Starbucks cups around so it's not facing the. And please refrain from using profanity or uncivil behavior. All the. Even if I don't mention it, all the bills will have technical amendments. Non substantive.

Even if I forget to mention that we're going to defer. Not defer, we're going to defect. Date the bills to 713000. And that's not because we intend the bills to take effect in the year 3000. We're just keeping it so that we ensure it goes to conference and it has to come back.

So with that, first up, we have HB 1527 relating to gambling. First person. We have prosecuting attorney in support.

Yes. Good morning, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, Members of the Committee, I'm Steve Alm, the prosecutor. We stand in strong support of this. The research is clear. A casino brings more sex trafficking, it brings more crime to the area. And you're never going to have one casino. Once you have one casino, there'll be others.

There'll be sports bookmaking, there'll be virtually everything possible is what our concern is. And the intersection of sports and gambling is causing huge problems across the country. There's scandals all the time and especially when individual athletes can control their own performances and control their own bets. It's a huge problem. Athletes are being harassed constantly.

Women, three times as many as the men by gamblers. How come you didn't get as many kills tonight as you did the last game? How come you didn't get as many rebounds? I want you to die. You and your own whole family. It's out of control that way.

And do we really want our fans at uh, football looking at their phones and betting on whether quarterback is going to hand off or is he going to pass? Is the kicker going to make it or not? It just, it's going to, has the potential to just destroy sports.

So thank you very much for letting me speak on this. Thank you for protecting our Hawaii residents with this Bill and protecting our, uh, athletes. Thank you.

Okay, next up we have an individual, Christine Ota. Is she here? No. Next we have Honolulu Police on zoom. President.

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members. I am Major Jerome Pacarro with the Honolulu Police Department. We stand in support of this Bill. We've submitted written testimony, we sent out a testimony and I'm open for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have national Director of Stop Predatory Gambling in support.

Hello everyone, Committee chair and Committee Members. My name is Les Bernal. I'm the national Director for Stop Predatory Gambling. We're a national nonprofit organization involved in all 50 states in this country. And I'm here testifying on behalf of our, our Members in Hawaii in strong support of this Bill. There's three quick points.

We've submitted written testimony to you, but the three quick points want to emphasize to the Committee and to your colleagues. One is there is no single act of state government in this country and Hawaii is an exception to this.

There's no single act of state government that inflicts more financial harm, more harm to the social well being and the mental well being of the American people than the institution of predatory gambling. And it's the public voice of American government today in almost every state in our country.

And Hawaii is a model for the rest of the country on this issue. The second piece is on the mainland, citizens of the citizens and many of those states are losing $300,000 every minute. The forms of commercialized gambling sanctioned by state governments, $300,000 every minute over the next five years.

That's more than $1 trillion of lost wealth that citizens on the mainland are losing to predatory gambling. So when we talk about affordability and how to make Hawaii more affordability, this is the complete opposite public policy of allowing casinos in. So this Bill would prevent that from happening.

And then thirdly, for taxpayers who never gamble like you pay, even if you don't play, the institution of predatory gambling as a revenue source is the ultimate budget gimmick.

And that's why all these states that are the biggest states in the country, from a revenue standpoint, that they collect from gambling, are also the same states that are in the worst fiscal crisis.

So thank you for the work you do and feel free to contact us offline with any questions or our testimony or in regards to this issue or any other issue as it relates to gambling.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody else. On Zoom. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up we have HB 1823 relating to coastal Zone Management Act. First up, we have CLNR in person. Comments.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Office of Planning. Yeah, good morning. It's a written testimony. Okay, thank you. Have anybody on Jordan Hart. Okay, On Zoom, we have K. Maui. Jordan Hart, are you there?

Aloha, chair and Members, thank you very much. Kanye Maui supports this measure. I would like to point out that. We also support the proposed amendment that OPSD submitted into the record. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. 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. We're moving on. Next up we have HB2490 relating to coastal resilience. First up we have DLNR comments.

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members. Michael Cain, on behalf of DLNR. We stand on our written testimony. I wanted to point out that we do recognize the emergency at Montecuji Bay and do work regularly with the mission in helping them secure their emergency permits while they work on the long-term plan. It is a complex issue.

Our concern with the Bill is that we're exempting them from permits and regulation before we actually see the long-term plan. So, I prefer to see the plan first and then bring it back to this Committee for consideration if needed.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, next up we have County of Maui, on zoom, in support.

Submitted written testimony in support of 2490 establishing the Coastal Resilience Pilot Program. Here to answer any questions. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have....Manto Cuchi Soto Mission, in person.

Good morning, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawaki, and Members of the Committee. My name is Eric Moto and I'm the President of the Manto Cuchi Sotozen Missions Administrative Board and I'm here today in strong support of House Bill 2490, which will establish a pilot program to restore and protect our Manto Cuchi Bay.

My family has been a member of the congregation for over four generations, spanning many decades. On site, we have a cemetery and a columbarium. So, it's not just the temple buildings. Right now, we're suffering from rising sea levels and stronger and more frequent wave events that are eating away at our beach and the land.

And we've seen gravestones fall into the sea. And this is not just a spiritual crisis, but an existential crisis for us. This crisis extends far beyond our temple. The entire bay shoreline is eroding, threatening our neighboring homeowners, the Hana Highway and the habitat where endangered sea turtles rest.

We've learned through our work that protecting just Manto Cuchi's property will not work. The ocean doesn't care about property lines, and the bay is a single natural ecosystem connecting all of us and it must be protected as a whole. We've tried for the last 10 years and spent close to a million dollars to address this crisis.

We followed regulatory processes, all while fulfilling every requirement, rule, and document request. But this process has not produced a long-term solution, only a temporary sandbag structure that is fighting a losing battle to hold back the sea. HB 2490 offers a pilot project that can serve as an example of how you can move forward as you are asked time and again to help save and protect Hawaii's eroding shorelines.

The project will take a comprehensive bay wide approach to coastal restoration, while maintaining processes for Native Hawaiian rights and the environment.

This is not about just saving our temple, but it is also about restoring the entire bay for the benefit of all who live on Maui, all who visit our island, and all those who depend upon this shoreline. So, I humbly urge you to pass HB 2490 and thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next up, we have no one. Is there anybody else wishing to testify in person? Okay, Office of...

Chair, Members, I apologize for our late testimony. You may not have received it yet. We support this Bill and if the...chooses to move it forward, we will assist DBEDT with coordinating with the stakeholders and with the planning elements of this project.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify? No? Okay. Anybody else on Zoom? Nobody else. So, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. This is for DLNR. So, while you're coming up, I read through your testimony and you labeled it as comments, although I felt like embedded, if you read it carefully, there's a lot of opposition, so it gets confusing for us.

Thanks.

Yeah. So, can you just highlight?

Let me parcel it out, because I feel I'm going to get a reputation for opposing everything. So, I thought I'd be nice for once. So, the idea of a pilot program, we support if OPSD wants to take the lead.

The Office of Planning is designed to be a coordinating agency and we'd stand behind them and work with them. Our objections to the Bill is waiving 343, environmental oversight, waiving 205A, special management area permits. And there's another. There's three.

So, it's waiving all regulatory authority which would allow them to do it, would give them carte blanche to do anything. And we don't know what they're proposing to do. That's our strong opposition, the waving opposition of regulatory authority across the board.

Yeah, that concerns.

The pilot program, we stand behind them. So, that's why you got comments.

And there's a lot of—and so, just to be clear, you guys, your Department does engage in a lot of pilot programs. Like many things are, sometimes are—or no, do you guys not normally?

So, I'm—I hate the word pilot program. Like you're going to build something, you're going to build it, like it's not a pilot It's they need a solution. It's not—a pilot program to me says we'll do it and then we'll remove it in five years. And that's—jst give me a regional solution.

Thank you.

But that's, that's semantics. It's not.

I see, so, pilot program is semantic because once you do it, you can't undo it. Is—got it. Thank you.

Doesn't need to be a pilot.

Thank you. Thank you.

Sorry. Thank you very much. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. For DLNR. I, I've read that before the pilot program can begin, all required reviews and consultations under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 must be completed. Is that a true statement?

So, I, I did have more extensive comments from our State Historic Preservation Division that we just summarized into. It's hard to promise to expedite a review without knowing what the program is. But our understanding is that 6E compliance would still be mandated under, like any shoreline activities.

So, they're not waiving—the Bill does not propose to wave...requirements. They would still need, if they build in the shoreline, federal permits, which would trigger—thank you—section four. So, federal review and would also probably trigger federal environmental review. So.

So, is that a safeguard right there?

Is it a safeguard? So, giving up state sovereignty for the feds? No.

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand this process. And you, you mentioned giving away or waiving exemptions without knowing what the plan is. And you mentioned they—who is they?

They—oh, interesting. Whoever is to build whatever is being proposed to be built. I guess I don't know who they is, because the mission I know doesn't have the money to do this. Sorry, I didn't mean to say.

We're giving they, whoever that is, this, this authority to solve the problem and we don't know who that is, we don't know what the plan is, but we're opening the door to allow them to solve the problem without knowing what they're going to do and we're giving them carte blanche authority to do this. Is that what's happening?

As the Bill is written, that's my understanding.

So, are there, like, amendment language that we should be introducing to have some checks and balances in this Bill to, you know, balance out this situation?

The sections that talk about waiving, 343, 205A, and another ,183C, if those were deleted, if those reviews were not waived, then I would defer to OPSD, who would be taking the lead in working with the mission developer program. And I didn't scan the bill, so I don't know what lines they are.

I believe it's one paragraph that talks about the different elements that would be waived.

Chair, could we get some language on that to improve?

Yeah, we can, I can—I have questions regarding that.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Seeing.

Well, I have a question, who didn't testify, but we're on a schedule, so.

All right, you can stay up there. Members, I have questions. So, instead of, because the Bill says the pilot program shall be exempt, if we made it a "may" and gives—that will give DLNR the discretion to exempt it, would that be okay with you?

We already have that discretion. So, being on the spot, I think it would be okay.

Well, I would say no, because there's triggers within the 343, right, that.

Well, if it's a trigger, yes or no, right? So, like is this a registered historic property?

That say whether a project's exempt or not.

I believe it is.

On a national registry. Is it on the national? Huh? A state, state historic. Okay.

So, you don't have to go through National Park Service?

No.

Okay. So, so, so, yeah, so, historic—since it's a historic property, it triggers 343. But if we put "may," it's up to you to—it will be up to DLNR if you feel it could be an exempt from an EIS or an EA for that exam, for that. And the discretion will be up on DLNR. Would you be comfortable with that?

I'm comfortable at this moment, understanding that maybe

I will take you on that.

That's good enough. So, it's a "may." So, you guys have—the DLNR will continue to have the discretion.

We'll have "may," and if I change my testimony in the next.

When the next committee, yeah. We'll just call you schizophrenic. OPSD. Are you okay with—so, instead of DBEDT, shall we write in OPSD, or should we leave it with DBEDT?

I'm comfortable with whatever the Committee wants to do.

No, that's—I'm asking you a question. It's a yes, or do you, is it okay if I write OPSD?

Yes, on, on my understanding that DBEDT wants this pilot project to move forward for further consideration by the Legislature, yes.

Okay. But if we leave it as DBEDT, they're going to give it to you anyway?

That's correct.

Okay, so we'll just leave that—we'll leave it as it is.

Okay. And we will work closely with DLNR.

Okay.

I promise. And the county and the other stakeholders.

DLNR, are you okay with that?

Yes, we are.

Okay, good. I got you, at least on this Committee. I got your—for the record, everybody watching. Okay. Any other questions? Did I clear up your questions?

I wanted to ask the...consultant if they would like to share some of the ideas for the solutions.

Oh, good question.

If you want to.

Yes. Ken Chung from Ocean It. We are the Matukuji Mission's consultant. So, we are embarking on a study right now that's actually funded by the state GIA to explore the different solutions. We have some preliminary ideas, but I think it would be premature.

But we are kind of leaning toward nature-based and hybrid solutions that are more environmentally responsive—responsible.

Good question. Members, any other question? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up we have HB2223 relating to historic Preservation Reviews. I need to catch up on myself. First up, we have DLNR or ... I don't see. Oh, there you are. Okay.

Sorry. Morning, Chair. Members of the Committee, I'm Jessica Puff The Administrator of State Historic Preservation Division. We stand on our comments as submitted. I did read DLNR's. I mean DLNR's, DHHL's testimony, however, and we. If I were to amend our testimony, I would amend it to support DHHL. DHHL's efforts to get some subject matter experts as staff to help them with their 6e compliance requirements.

Okay, thank you. Next up we have Office of Planning and 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 and support and I am available for any questions.

Next we have DHHL in support.

Bless you. Hola.

Thank you.

Hello, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Oriana Leao from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. DH stands on its written testimony in support of this measure that was approved by the Hine Homes Commission.

We believe that there are enough requirements and provisions outlined in the Bill that would allow for transparency, consultation with the appropriate island boreal councils and communication with the ONR ship vision to ensure just transparency, but also the updated data system.

We recognize that at the heart of the question of this Bill is whether or not DGGL can be trusted with this Kuleana and whether or not we can be trusted with IBI kupuna in the way in which our kupuna have always cared for them.

And we also believe that with the appropriation request for those positions, we have the potential to demonstrate that we can be trusted. Joining me today is our subject matter expert. If you have any specific questions and if not, mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you. That's all we have. Any. Nobody on zoom. 1 person on zoom. What's their name? Tara Roas. Tara Roas on Zoom.

Tara Roas. And I would say I would support this. And just as the previous testify just said, just to make sure, you know, that the trust is there and that public transparency and accountability safeguards are maintained and to uphold again, historic preservation law responsibility.

Okay, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Members, are there any. Is there anybody else wishing to testify, seeing them? Members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

Question for DHHA is. I'm having a hard time understanding why this is required. Obviously Just want to streamline the system and do something more efficient. But in my viewpoint it feels like we're creating redundancy and expanding government instead of maybe strengthening Shipti. And we do have a Bill 2325 which is giving them more staff.

I would think that we already have something in place and we work with the experts that are in place instead of creating a new wheel, so to speak, and going off the guardrails in some respect.

I mean, as a person from private industry, I understand trying to think outside the box and expedite your project, but just now as I sit in this seat, I just explained what my concerns are. Can you justify your position, please?

Mahalo for the question. We appreciate all of the work and collaboration that we continue to have with you and our Shipti division. However, I believe the current duration of time for reviews is about 145 days and for approximately 30,000 applicants on the waiting list who have been waiting, that is too long.

So we see this as an opportunity to relieve DLNR shifty division. We recognize that all state agencies are overwhelmed and understaffed. So we see this as an opportunity for collaboration and the ability to be able to cross check our data. Did you have any thoughts? No.

Right now, under 6e review, there is a 90 day review period for Shipti to opine on projects. We do have collaborative efforts in place with Shipti and it has been immensely helpful for our beneficiaries. However, DHHL is the only state agency that is explicitly called out under 6E.

So we are required to have all of our projects reviewed by Shipti. So as Ori said, if we can help to alleviate some of that burden on Shipti and possibly help our beneficiaries at the same time, we see this as, as a benefit for both.

I still don't, I'm still not convinced how you can do it faster than them when they're the experts. So you're going to be doing something parallel. Why don't we just give them more funds? And that's what we're trying to do is beef up their Department to do their job better.

You know, I think we could look at the situation in a different way. Where we could. Prioritize DHHL's projects so that the folks are moved up in the queue or something.

But I just have a hard time creating this new government entity, expanding government when we already have something that we need to strengthen and creating this exemption that is like somebody said with gambling, with one casino, you're not gonna have just one casino. It's just gonna proliferate. So we're setting a dangerous precedent. I believe that.

I don't think. Is. Is there a question in that? The question is.

Representative, may we move on? Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Members, any other questions? I got a question for Shipti. So in. In your dhh, well, in your testimony, it's. It states that you have an MOA already with dhhl.

Yeah, we're in the process of executing a memorandum of agreement with DHHL for the 6e review process. Okay.

I know that the National Park Service has grants for tribal entities. And please don't take this out of context. I'm not saying that the Hawaiian community is a tribal entity, but the National Park Service has, across the mainland for the Indian tribes, National Park Service has a.

They come down with grants because a lot of times they themselves do. The tribal entities across the United States do their own reviews. Is that correct?

Yes. So at the federal level, tribes, because they have recognized sovereignty, they have tribal Historic Preservation officers and tribal Historic preservation offices, similar to shipti, the state of Hawaii and Native Hawaiians do not have the same sovereign recognition for their Section 106 compliance.

And so any grants that you're talking about, which DHHL probably knows more about their grant program than others, but DHHL receives NAHASDA funding, which is an acronym for that grant program you're talking about, that helps to provide funding for certain indigenous recognized indigenous populations.

So, yes, in those instances on tribal land, the Tribal Historic Preservation officer and their staff have the ability to review projects that they also receive funding for to construct residential homes with that grant money. So they do the construction, and then they also do the Section 106 Historic Preservation Review for that funding.

Typically that's done by two different entities, though I believe within the tribes, the Thibault office is separate, typically from the housing office and the tribe.

So will this Bill, I'm assuming the MOA won't get us there. Will this Bill get us closer to that framework or structure where they. Where the HHL can pull down some of the funds?

Well, I think what we're saying in our testimony is that we already have an executed programmatic agreement for their Section 106 Nahasda funds, which essentially allows DHHL to internalize all of the section 106 reviews, provided they follow a certain path, which is survey their property, consult with us on their survey so that we get concurrence, and then any project that fits certain categories can go forward without coming to us on a project by project basis unless they're going to directly impact a historic property or EV kupuna.

Right. And then in that case they consult with us. All those projects that they internalize, they just submit to us in an annual report so that we can check at once, once a. Once a year to say yes, we agree with this, the 6E memorandum of agreement.

The intent of that is to do the exact same thing where DHHL will internalize the hrs6e review process for any project that won't directly impact historic properties or EV capuna and only consult with SHIP D on those projects that will have a direct and adverse effect to historic properties or ev capun.

And then again, they'd only submit an annual report to us. So the two agreements work hand in hand and we're really close to executing that moa and we are totally open to adding more into that memorandum of agreement so that it's not just NAHASDA funds, but anything that DHHL does.

Okay, Chair, last question please. Yeah, go ahead. Okay, first, ship the.

You know, instead of DHHL creating this new entity under them, which, which is parallel to you, couldn't we just create this new thing under your Department so that it's a special division under your Department that is targeted to DHHL's projects to streamline their concerns so that we have everything housed under the proper authorities instead of creating something that's out here but still has to come here to some degree.

And it just seems kind of convoluted to me anyway.

I mean, you could, I think that there's still value in providing DG Chow with the support through positions to help execute those agreements that we already have in place so that they don't have to consult or contract with a private consultant who is a subject matter expert in archaeology and architecture, architectural history, industry, to execute these agreements.

So in that vein, I. I'm in agreement with DHHL in terms of it being very useful for streamlining the reviews to have people in House who have an understanding of 106 and 6e and can execute these agreements within Shipti. Would it be useful to have dedicated positions just for NAHASDA or HUD funded projects?

Anything that falls under Part 58, for example, which are projects where HUD essentially delegates all responsibility to state agency to do all their historic preservation compliance. Absolutely. That would be great.

But I would preference with supporting DHHL on that first, because if DHHL has the subject matter experts, their submittals to us are more complete and easier to get through.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up, we have HB 2325, relating to civil service exemptions. First up we have Office of Planning in support.

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

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have SHPD DLNR, in support. Okay, next we have one person on Zoom. Tara Rojas.

Aloha. I support a HB 2325 and, again, just to be on the safe side, this important safeguards and I applaud and I support, you know, SHPD and the Commission on Water Resource Management and that they need specialized expertise and flexibility and always just because this whole system just want to always make sure that it depends on the people in the seats of these agencies.

So, I support and just again, that there's always clear transparency, ethical safeguards, and public accountability. So, for protection of culture and water resources. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you. For SHPD. So, once again, I think this flow came to some version of it and this is about getting exemptions so that you could possibly be more competitive your recruitment efforts, could be strengthened by offering greater compensation, greater—I don't know, greater compensation.

It gets into too the flexibility of being able to be more competitive in offering compensation. The difference between—I don't know if this is a question. I don't want to interrupt you. Sorry.

No, that's the correct. So, I wanted to understand it like the—so, why is it that we can't just negotiate stronger collective bargaining contracts so that—because this isn't a problem just with SHPD. This is happening all over—many agencies.

So, I think on our part, our experience with the difference between our civil service and non-civil service positions is that once, one, it's hard to fit SHPD's positions within existing categories and two, it's hard to define SHPD's categories separate because we also have to compare it to others.

And then, as you're going through that system of comparison in order to create a civil service classification, you're still being—judged isn't the right term but like compared to these other existing positions for equity. Right? And I completely understand that.

But then, once those categories are set after they've been filtered down and restricted to certain steps, it's hard for the agency then to advocate for an applicant to be assigned a higher step because it will—we've had an instance recently where we had an applicant who had a professional degree and experience in a related field.

But because this applicant didn't meet the explicit requirements of the state steps previously negotiated under the civil service positions, this candidate was required to start at step one instead of, I think we were advocating for like a step two, step three. So, their salary was set at a much lower rate.

When we have exempt positions, we have the flexibility to use the budgeted allotment that we have in our budget for that position.

And then, based on their experience, education, interview, all the different factors you take into consideration, and the competition that's going on there that they're getting with other offers, we can use our budgeted allotment to be more flexible with our offer and hopefully more aggressive to secure them.

Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 2104, relating to Island Burial Council. First up, we have DLNR in support. You should have just stayed up there. That's okay. I get—I don't pay attention many times. So, next up, we have OHA in support.

Mahalo, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, Members of the Committee for setting this Bill for hearing. I will mostly stand on my written testimony out of respect for the time restrictions, but I did want to note if there's any interest from the Committee about the urgency of addressing the forum requirements.

I do have some statistics about the cancellation rate for the different island burial councils and basically, a 25% cancellation rate is a good year across the Paiana.

But the best IBC, in terms of not having to cancel meetings, has been Maui, Lanai, and even they had to cancel 41% of their meetings last year and 33% of their meetings include 2024. So, cancellation due to quorum is a major, major issue with respect to all of the councils.

And part of the problem is they're staffed at about 66% rate of the existing seats. So, basically, you lose one person, you lose quorum, which is why we're recommending that the quorum be addressed so it's a majority of all appointed filled seats rather than a majority of all the seats because, again, with a 66% rate of appointment for filling of the seats, you can't—there's no wiggle room for someone to—one person to be absent and quorum collapses.

So, that is just to illustrate the urgency of the problem.

Molokai hasn't been able to meet for two years. Kauai had to cancel 83% of their meetings in 2024. So, where our intent is to ensure that they can meet and do their business. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have—is there anybody else wishing to testify in the room? First is Julian on Zoom.

Hi. Aloha, my kakou. Thank you very much for allowing me the, the opportunity to testify and also for having taken the time to read my submitted written testimony. I currently serve as a Member of the Oahu Island Burial Council.

I have been on the Council since March, and I have witnessed firsthand the impact of not being able to obtain quorum at our meetings. We are all civil servants. We do not receive any compensation for our time. Our Oahu Island Burial Council meetings, by the way, sometimes run from 10 in the morning until 4:30 in the afternoon, again, uncompensated.

We also frequently are called upon to visit sites where inadvertent iwi have been uncovered. I have found myself, since joining the Council, having to spend from 8:30 in the morning until 5:30 in the evening immersed in council work.

We do not have a full council and so, getting a quorum is really a big issue for us. I have already on one occasion gone to Kalanimoku for a meeting, only to have it canceled because we did not have quorum. Kind of a waste of my time.

I'm, you know, on the issue of stipends, I would favor approving stipends if it might incentivize people's service, but for me, it's not a deal breaker.

I consider myself doing this because I care about the iwi of our kupuna and I'm not looking for any kind of financial benefit, although financial benefit would help with some of the expenses that I'm currently incurring related to service. I stand prepared to answer any questions that any Committee Members may have. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up on Zoom, we have Kapiolani Spencer, in support.

Aloha, my kakou. Kapiolani Spencer Ko Inoa. I am a cultural and lineal descendant and I'm in strong support of House Bill 2104 in protection for our kupuna iwi. And thank you, Julian, for your dedication and your passion to protect our kupuna. We need more people to take these positions.

Well, anyway, I'm just going to get to my testimony. For us Kanaka Moali, Kupuna iwi are not just artifacts or something that we find and discard or put in a western niche somewhere just because development is occurring.

These are our ancestors and their protection is directly tied to our identity, our genealogy, and our relationship to ina for also our future generations to be able to identify who they are and where they come from. We have strong lineal ties to the land as far as where our kapuna are buried.

We have ancestral lands where our kapuna are buried. They keep getting dug up and replaced somewhere else. How are we supposed to tie our genealogy back to our Kuleana Aina, which is a real thing, the Great Mahale, 1848. But anyway, I'm not gonna get off track.

Under the Hawaiian Kingdom laws, burials were afforded as a high level of protection. Iwis were not to be disturbed, desecrated, or removed from their place of origin. Burial sites were understood to be sacred and inviolable and any unlawful disturbance was treated as the most serious offense.

This reflects a long standing legal and cultural principle that iwi belong where they were laid to rest. Why are they being dug up and placed somewhere else just because of development? Who are our monitors out there? Who's monitoring? What about our environmental impact studies? Yeah, they might have been done 20 years ago, but you know what?

We got to do them again. Okay? Because things were ran a little bit differently back 20 some years ago. So, I'm just bringing this up because now here I live in Kailua Kona. We just got water. Well, more development is going to start to occur. Yeah. So, my concern.

Can you sum up your testimony? Sorry.

Oh, yes. So, anyway, I just want to just say that it's necessary that we support House Bill 2104, ensure that the Island Burial councils can function effectively, consistently, and with seriousness with this Kana. Supporting the Council's participation and needs is, is important, and it's this way of safeguarding our future desecration of our kaponi. No more desecration.

Okay. Thank you.

Protection. Protection, please. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

Next up, we have Kilmailani Hanape.

Aloha, Aina Kakou. My name is Kilmailani Hanape Hirata. I'm a Kukaina of Molokai and I'm testifying in strong opposition of HB 2104, specifically for Molokai. I also need to make note that I am the currently the only Molokai Island Burial Council Member, but I am not testifying here today in that role.

This Bill misrepresents the very essence of the Island Burial Councils, at least from Molokai. For our people that choose to volunteer and serve our ancestors, the Island Burial Council is not a job; it is a deep spiritual Kuleana. It is the highest calling to Malama, the mana of our Kupuna.

To offer a financial stipend for this duty is to disrespect that sacred bond and covenant. Molokai does not malama our ancestors for money. We do it out of deep aloha to our genealogy that ties us to our aina kupuna. Monetarizing this role risks attracting people for financial reasons, not spiritual and cultural readiness, which corrupts the Council's purpose.

Changing quorum requirements means we could make monumental decisions about our kupuna with the missing voices of their descendants from every moment. A vacant seat is a silenced lineage, not a procedural hurdle. We must fill seats with the right people and not make it easier to proceed without them. Furthermore, this process exposes a deep failure in community engagement.

The narrative that we must support this Bill or betray our ancestors is emotional blackmail. OHA did not do community outreach and engagement here on Molokai, nor did they consult with the Molokai Island Burial Council in drafting this Bill. It is clear that the people drafting this Bill have never served on an Island Burial Council.

They have never been the boots on the ground making heart wrenching decisions in the field guided by the spiritual weight of our ancestors' cries while navigating government laws. We need solutions from the ground up, not from the top down. Ensure that Molokai's unique approach and perspectives are not inadvertently misrepresented or diluted in the broader discussion.

OHA needs to go back to our communities, engage with true respect and transparency, and work with us to create solutions that support port the sacred Kuleana Island Burial Council's malama. We are being rushed into a solution that serves the system, not the spirit of our aina kupuna. We live because our kupuna lived.

We carry our Kupuna name so they live on. Do not streamline us into compromise. Do not regulate our Hawaiian culture and native rights into silence. Mahalo for allowing us, for allowing me to speak on behalf of my aina kupuna molokai nui ahina. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Tara Rojas.

Aloha, Tara Rojas. Mahalo Nui for your testimony. That is one of the always—as I was reading this Bill, at first I thought, oh, you know, in support because I know how important the Burial Council is. After hearing that testimony, I stand with with, with the previous testifier as well about the monetization. That really hit my...too and I was thinking about them like well what to do, what to, to say.

So, I would say that yes, that the, the monitor, but I also heard the previous testifier too that saying, you know that the time, the time you spend, and I know previous Oahu Bureau Council Members, you know that the importance.

It's just so important that iwi kupuna protection, you know, occurs first and foremost because look at everything in Oahu. Look at everything Hawaii...that iwi kupuna is always disregarded. I'm seeing it right now like where I'm at in Honolulu.

And so, monetizing just the council of service undermines the cultural purpose of the...previous testifier just said, so service is, you know...not a job. While the council faces real challenges, you know, yes, the compensation risk may change the character, trust, and integrity. So, any reform, you know, that strengthen—strengthens—council without commodifying sacred responsibility, so.

I would just like to say too I really think to look at the why the there was no meetings held on Kauai because I know—just really watch Kauai as well. You know that what's happening there. And so, I stand with Molokai.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

For OHA. Thank you. Aloha. I understand that some of the issues is that the Governor is not appointing people to fill vacancies quick enough. Why aren't we actually—why is there not an amendment to say the Governor shall appoint within X amount of days of receiving the names?

Instead, it looks like you're going from 30 to 75 to like give them a list. So, it feels like you're drawing out the form.

I have our staff member here who works directly on recruitment. But just to be clear, that's the midterm vacancies. So, we have a separate annual recruitment process that we actually reran more times this year because of the vacancies on Molokai and Kauai to try and be recruiting members.

So, we do multiple recruitment cycles to try and get enough members. That specific provision is if like somebody has to drop off for personal reasons and then to have to us to conduct our publication, people apply, we interview them, and it goes before our board, which—that itself takes like—it's a five-day public notice period.

So, realistically, like we're not going to, and they only meet two weeks during most of the year. So, just practically speaking, having the 30-day limitation is not sufficient. So there's an expansion there but it's. And then it still needs to go to Senate confirmation. So there's also that additional step.

So, OHA is not the only step in the process, and we are definitely overall trying to support exactly what you're saying, which is making sure that nominations can get advanced as quickly as possible, go through the process as quickly as possible, but not all of it is within our control as the agency that does recruitment and nominating for these specific seats.

So, we heard the testifiers' concerns about having just three people constitute a quorum to be able to make decisions. That's three members shall constitute a quorum. That's part of the amendment to the, to the statute?

For Molokai?

No, it says—it looks like it's written so that no fewer than three members shall constitute a quorum to do business.

Yes. So, that's addressing specifically for Molokai. Yes.

Okay.

So, everyone else would be a little bit more because they're a smaller sized council.

And so, but her concern was that just three people can make the decision when it should be, there should be more input. But did you hear that testimony?

Okay, so that's just making clear that this wouldn't be changing what's already the requirement for Molokai. Yes.

Represent—Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. For OHA. Thank you, OHA, for being here. Thank you for all your good work. Just in hearing that last testimony or previous testimony from the Molokai member, I'm just curious, has OHA, in formulating this, these new improvements, was there communication, in a broader sense, of the different council members and so forth? I mean, just hearing her, that she wasn't consulted, was just a little concerning. So, I was just wondering.

Yeah, you know, we do have a consultation process, but we don't have capacity to consult at, like, the full range of beneficiaries. We did try to bring these bills before the IBCs in December, but after they were adopted by our board.

But ironically, because of quorum and maybe also because of vacation, couldn't get in front of the IBCs. And we also asked for January and weren't able to. So, we're actually going to the IBCs in February, but we had tried to get earlier.

But I do want to note, because I hear the different opinions on the financial compensation, and I respect those differences of opinion. This, this Bill would take out the prohibition on compensation, but OHA's board would still need to take action before setting up any kind of stipend program.

And this, again, would be a publicly noticed process where beneficiaries would, again, have the opportunity to provide input into OHA and to, you know, what does that mean? What does that look like? And again, our goal is as the entity running recruitment, we have had individuals who have dropped out because of financial reasons.

And our goal isn't to monetize the program, but to essentially provide a stipend or a scholarship or whatever you want to call it for someone for whatever reason. That's a barrier. We don't want that to be a barrier of service to anyone. Whether we have to pay everyone, that has yet to be determined, again, by the OHA board.

But we certainly do not want financial concerns to limit anyone.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, very good. Representative Poepoe.

I have—for OHA, another testifier after. I understand what OHA is trying to do, which is work around red tape and political barriers, rather than just kind of cut straight through it. For the compensation, I know you mentioned the process that would have to go through OHA.

Is there an idea of what that would look like in, like, an amount?

Honestly, we haven't gotten to that level of program planning about what would be appropriate, and there would be more consultation around that. The first step was just to remove the legal barrier to even having that as an option.

And for the current appointment process that we go through, is that one of the primary reasons holding back filling the seats, getting the aerial consoles filled more completely, is delayed and, you know, the red tape in the appointment process?

I, I think I'd have to defer to Kamakana Ferreira, who's here, and I think you might know him. He works on—he actually sits on our internal applicant review and forwards our nominations to the Governor. But, yeah, as I mentioned, I think there's a lot of steps in the process that can be problematic. I don't know if—I don't know if red tape is exactly. I don't know if you mean like structural delays or.

You know, with the Molokai Burial Council, we have one member, not for lack of people interested in trying to get appointed, but they come here and they are just told their names are pulled for no reason.

And so, kind of, I think weakening quorum to accommodate our inability to, you know, efficient in our job, and I'm not talking about this, but, you know, so I, and I've seen that happen before in other boards and commissions is kind of weakening quorum requirements to accommodate an issue that really shouldn't be an issue.

So, I was just wondering if, you know, if there were any thought to trying to streamline that process or.

Yeah, I mean, we don't—that's the Senate confirmation process. I'm not sure what OHA's role would be in streamlining that. Right now, the process is we submit the names to the Governor.

But has there been any thought in an alternate process? If OHA were given the Kuleana to make appointments, make the appointments directly, would that help alleviate the issues with getting them? That was my question. Okay. And then—no, I think that's all for OHA. Thank you. Thank you. For the testifier online, please. Kilmailani Hirata. Thank you.

I just wanted to ask you, I guess, about—well, I kind of answered it in my response. Never mind. I was going to ask about the issue for Molokai is not for lack of members, it's for lack of the appointments being made. But I answered it myself, so thank you.

You want to call yourself up to the stand? You can ask and answer.

She can confirm.

I got a quick question. Oh.

Yeah, if you could please confirm or clarify my question and confirm. Thank you.

Aloha for that question. I'll be quick about that. The process, as far as I am...I know, and I have confirmed with the boards and commissions, so you can apply through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or you can apply through the State of Hawaii Boards and Commissions to be on this state board and this council for the Island Burial Councils. And there are, I would say, almost five applicants that have applied from 2024 that are sitting there and waiting.

They have already been vetted. Some of them have already done their oath of office the way myself and another person had done last year. And then, after that, our nomination was revoked.

So, perhaps the Office of Hawaiian Affairs needs to go top story or create an MOU with that Governor's Office and the boards and commissions and look at the applications that they have, or DLNR, because DLNR also sees that SHPD, those applicants, and then, kind of go from there. But yes, our people are applying and qualified people.

And it's heartbreaking because we are not being allowed—they are not being allowed to have their day to come and represent our people. So, mahalo for that question.

Thank you. Thank you for clarifying.

Okay, thank you very much. I have one quick question for OHA. So, you already have the ability to pay people or—well, specifically it says reimburse for necessary expenses. Right? So, you have the ability to pay people. What is the difference between that and what you're proposing as stipend?

Like transportation. The stipend would be an additional like for their attendance. Like, as she pointed out, we've had applicants drop out because they can't afford it.

I see. So, similar to jury duty, in a sense.

Right.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 2593 relating to Maunakea. Okay, Jesus. I want to say something. I've read through the testimony of 2593, and I just wanted to say this gives the authority more time to go through their process. That's the whole intent.

And it's not to. To weaken or delay anything. So there. I think there's some misunderstanding on the bill. I just want to say that beforehand so people understand. With that, we're moving on to relating to Mauna Kea. First up, we have DLNR with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and the Committee Members of the Committee. We did submit comments on this bill. However, I just wanted to add that, you know, it's going to kind of depend on when the extensions come in as a request because as I was reading, the. The end of the transition period appears to be 2028.

And so at the end of the transition period, all duties and responsibilities under Chapter 171 would be transferred to the MKSOA. Master lease expires in 2033. So if the lease request would have come in prior to or by the 2028 expiration period, based on how it's written under 195H6F, it would appear that it would not be allowed.

However, afterwards, because 171 is now with MKSOA, I would stand with the Attorney General's testimony on this.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have the AG Attorney General with comments.

Good morning. Chair Hashem, Vice Chair, Morocco, and Members of the Committee, Lyndon Child, Deputy Attorney General. We do not object. We believe that as currently drafted, the bill may be deemed special legislation because it deals with particular lands that are state lands.

But we have suggested an alternative to way to achieve the same purpose by giving authority to the MKSOA, broad authority to just extend the leases for 10 years prior to transfer so that we don't run into any problems with there being a past transfer date or.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Mauna Kea Stewardship Oversight Authority with comments.

Morning, Chair, Members of the Committee, John Komeiji, Chair of Monica Stewardship and Oversight Authority. We stand on our testimony, but I wanted, as a part of the Chair's initial comments, just explain what we are already doing in terms of the leases, just so that people understand what you're saying about giving us more time.

So we are currently, as directed by Act 255, creating a management plan. The management plan is supposed to create a framework for astronomy, among other things, create a framework for astronomy about how many telescopes should be on the mountain, et cetera.

So we've engaged the consultant and are engaged in that plan, and that's a very lengthy process, as you know. The second thing that we're doing is we are exploring if you have one lease or you have nine leases, or if you have 11 leases, you'll need an environmental Impact statement.

Environmental Impact Statement, from a timing standpoint, takes maybe three years, if we're lucky. So what we're doing already is we are embarking upon trying to understand what it would take to create an Environmental impact Statement at this point, to at least start that process, do an rfp, hire a consultant so we can get that process started.

The last thing that we're trying to do is trying to identify how do we establish lease rents for the observatories going forward under the statute, we're supposed to come up with a fair market value for what those lease rents might be. As you might expect a very unique property such as Mauna Kea.

Trying to determine comparables or a process to establish those lease rents is a very complicated process. So we're investigating how that might occur. So to your point Chair, we are embarked on all of these processes. We have yet to discuss this idea of extending the lease. So we take no position.

But we appreciate your sentiments and here to answer any questions you might have.

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

Aloha. I want you guys to hear this and starting my testimony. Can you hear this? I'm going to be quiet for one Sec.

On the left side of that slide. Is an initial list of just. Can you hear that?

I'm going to turn the volume down. Wait one Sec.

With OGC's help can you state your position for or in opposition?

So Tara Rojas I am in strong opposition to HV 2593. So this would extend by operation of law the master lease of Monarchia lands and subleases to astronomical observation observatories for an additional 10 years.

So that really quickly aole without public process without environmental review that is true environmental review not just check the boxes and without demonstrating compliance with long standing obligations to protect Monarchia. I have to say this right now I'm listening to the UHBOR meeting about Mauna Kea. They have a decision making about the transition.

So if both uhbr I forgot to mention that they should defer this decision making because this is what's happening now that it's the injustice of this Bill. These two Bills25922593 moving forward at the exact on the exact same mission, the exact same day on the exact same time.

This coordinated timing forecloses meaningful public participation and compounds the harm by insulating decision makers from accountability across multiple forums at once. So trying to go back to 2593. I'm trying to also listen to hbor is that nobody I submitted my written testimony. I stand on that.

I just want to say that no there's no automatic lease extensions and trans ongoing harm bypass cultural protection and prioritization profit and convenience over people iron and water are unjust, unlawful in fact and fundamentally contrary to porno government. So I'm going to say this. It's like the the analogy the cookie jar.

Everybody has their hand in the cookie jar and then more and then okay, let's pass this cookie jar. Let's put more hands in the cookie jar. And nobody wants to just release the cookies. You know what I mean? And the fact that even nobody's hand should be in the cookie jar anyway. Just like leave the cookie alone.

And because cookies maybe shouldn't even be trying to be grabbed that and eaten. You know, because it's maybe find out the cookies, you know, was not to be touched in the first place. You see what I'm saying? And make the cookies. Yeah. Culture like correct like making one kalo and then non sugar whatever.

But then the thing is Mauna Kea needs to just be returned to the people because the MKN SOY group is is comprised of the majority.

Can you sum up your testimony?

So I'm going to summarize that. I don't know if you can somehow defer this because it's the same time uhbr and this is the trust that, that we the people have. How are you going to be into. I am into and I'm trying to do my best to say that no to to extension of leases basically.

And Mauna Kea is for the Kanaka, not for any astronomical person. Not for any business expense. Not for anything the mana needs to return to the people. Everybody get their hands on a cookie. Get their hands off Mauna Kea.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up we have HB2592 relating to Mauna Kea MK O S, MK S or I'm sorry, MKSOA Mauna Kea Stewardship Authority.

First up, just a minute here. DLNR with comments.

We stand by writing comments. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Mauna Kea Stewardship Oversight Authority in support.

John Kamiji and Members John Komiji. Chair of this monkia. We stand on our written testimony. But what I wanted to do, Chair, with your indulgence is to just looking at some of the testimony that's been submitted.

I just wanted to kind of provide an outline of what we're doing and why we're doing it to clear up some of the questions that have been raised in the testimony, if that's okay. Chair, yes, please do. Okay, so this is the Mauna Kea Stewardship Oversight Authority bill.

We have submitted this Bill to address some of the operational issues that we have. The first operational issue is that contrary we take respectfully take opposition to the DLNR position. We believe that the Bill already says that the Mauna Kea Authority will hold title to the property.

But what we're trying to do is make it clear, clear up what? It may be ambiguous by saying that on July 1, 2028, Mauna Kea Authority will take title to the property as opposed to taking a lease. Currently the way that the University gets the property is through a lease.

DLNR issues a lease to uh, who then issues leases to, to the observatories. So we're saying that rather than going through the lease process, the Monarchy Authority will take title by operational law on July 1st, 2028. Okay, that's the first thing that we advocated.

The second thing that we've advocated in this Bill is that because Mauna Kea is in a conservation district, to build anything in a conservation requires that people go before or organizations go before the Board of Land and Natural Resources and get what is called a conservation district use permit.

CDUP currently all of the CDUPs for all of the observatories are currently held by the University of Hawaii. The University of Hawaii applied for the CDUPs. CDUPs generally have obligations that the University currently has towards making sure that they comply with the permit.

What we're trying to say is that as the holder of the fee property holding title, we shouldn't be the ones obligated on behalf of the observatories to make sure that their CDUPs remain in. I guess they're complying with the obligations that the borderland and natural resources have. We as the Monarchy Authority shouldn't have that obligation. So our.

John, can you sum up your testimony? So our proposal is to have the University of Hawaii assign those to the end user which are the observatories, which we think is more appropriate. The last thing I would just say.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Johnson on Zoom.

Aloha Kaku Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa. Members of the Committee, Elijah Johnson on behalf of the W. M. Keck Observatory, appreciating this opportunity to share our support of House Bill 2592 to clarify the role and Kuleana of the Mauna Kea Authority.

I just want to say that it's an honor to conduct the research that we do on Mauna Kea. We recognize that it's a wahipana whose significance goes far beyond the scientific contributions from facilities like ours. We understand that the telescope site upon which we do our work is part of the Public Land Trust.

The history of that land tenure is complex, unresolved and we view the establishment of the Mauna Kea Authority as an. Important profound balancing of decision making authority. On Mauna Kea we embrace the foundational principle of community led mutual stewardship that the authority represents.

So we want to offer our support for the authority, our support for this measure and standby for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Tara Rojas in opposition on Zoom.

Yes, yes, aloha. So I'm in opposition and I'm gonna say this, that I gotta turn this down. They're talking about leases while you guys are talking about leases too. So. So again you gotta do for this and I'm gonna say MPA SOA appreciates voice of communities.

But again as I mentioned in the UHBR meeting it's a check the box. I really hear you when you say you want to rebuild trust. But then you also are aware of the January 2027 uh, master lease plan which they're talking about or not. And I've gotta go re watch these both of these meetings at afterwards.

But it's a new unattested entity. I'm going to say this. Only two people spoke up in the UHBR meeting.

The other person said something that I concur with that because it's a new untested entity and the fact that would, you know this, even this Bill would undermine our effectively Uniform Code contested case proceeding because it's not because provisions such as hrs9195h6f and hrs195h as 6d3 were enacted deliberate safeguards to ensure accountability during this transition.

However, once it's transitioned it doesn't apply because again they keep saying that MKSOA doesn't have the same. They're not, they need, don't need to hear through the same kind of interest as agr. So here's the thing that the other testifier brought up on record, I'm going to bring on record too.

The thing is that there are have been like other kind of meetings being held that the people the public are not aware of has been brought to her attention. Brought to my attention too. So that kind of stuff always happens with, with any of it, whoever, whatever the issue.

Thus the lack of trust and things get passed for even though the people keep saying just give the land back mauna care. And again I'm going to restate this MKSOA and I appreciate, you know, and I respect the previous testifiers position because of where, where he is and where he works and whatnot.

But the thing is you got to really think about really being fully PONO and knowing that. Let me just kind of finish this up was that, Wait, let me just.

Thank you very much.

That, the fact that the, you know, the UA itself, that the people's voice needs to be heard and I was gonna say the MK SOA again, the, the constitution of the people in that Committee, the Kanaka Kia and Aloha Aina are over numbered in that entity as well. So that's like a big issue.

So I really hope that you guys discuss it instead of like any discussion. There's no question, no discussion. Because this is a huge issue that you know, and trying to be in two things at once, it's a challenge. But I'm gonna do whatever I can. Just like.

Okay, thank you very much for your testimony.

Opposed.

Okay, thank you. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none or John?

Okay, Mr. Chair and Madam Vice Chair and Committee Members, I am John DeFries, the Executive. Director of the Mauna Kea Stewardship Oversight Authority. I have submitted written testimony in support. And stand by that testimony.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1927, relating to the Hawaii State Planning Act. First up, we have Office of Planning, with comments.

Good morning, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, members of the committee. Scott Allen from Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We stand by our comments, but I do want to just verbal that we are currently undergoing a comprehensive review and update of the State Planning Act, which would include themes such as what you're proposing in this bill.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have-- oh, that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of CARES, in strong favor of the legislation to assist with the State Planning Act. And so, the legislation, as proposed, already considers seeking federal funds, and so I'm proposing that the legislation also consider including an amendment to seek the county's Office of Climate Change and Sustainability and Resilience's assistance because this county receives a distribution of funding from the federal office responsible for managing green infrastructure needs.

And so, for example, one of the pots of funding that it receives from the federal level is Inflation Reduction Act, which is the single largest investment in climate change and energy in American history.

And so, the IRA provides critical funding from Congress for the state and county governments to fund energy efficiency, building upgrades in schools, and to help with green infrastructure, such as rooftop gardens, and to create clean energy infrastructure goals by reducing pollution and toxic emissions in buildings when energy is consumed it irresponsibly.

And so, yeah. So including the county in this legislation also is a good thing because it's already anticipating the build out of the HART development, right, in the legislation, so if the counties is responsible for planning the HART train, and you work with the offices that are responsible for navigating these procedures, then the planning will go very well. Yeah.

Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Members, are there any other questions or are there any questions? Seeing none.

Aloha. I had my hand raised.

Okay. Tara Rojas on Zoom. Go ahead.

Okay. Yeah. Mahalo nui, and so, I would like to say--oh man, this is a challenge--but I would say support, however, to increase, you know, tree canopy, reduce heat, protect water through green infrastructure.

My main thing I just want to put on the record is from a kanaka ally perspective, kai perspective; just make sure that green infrastructure never is used to greenwash development or substitute for real protection of aina vine cultural sites. So any implementation must include meaningful consultation, transparency, and clear limits. So these policies strengthen rather than undermine public trust and aloha aina. Why?

Because I've been in also Department of Agriculture biosecurity meetings, and I just heard how over-- like, 111 or so acre property, over 100 acres was taken, you know, by Dylan Ard in a transfer to DAT and then to convert it into a-- oh, no. Sorry. The DLNR took the 100 acres to do a solar farm, to do a solar farm. And they left that the person who was leasing it with only nine acres, and then that person was doing it to raise food. To raise food. It was specifically beef in this case.

And so we hear these type of issues, and just to let you know, yes, solar is a form of green energy, but we know that solar, as well, is toxic to the land as well because of the leaching of the chemicals, and the fact that green infrastructure that you're going for, we know that the whole push is geothermal.

We know the geothermal toxicity. So even though these things look good on paper and the office, the sustainability and everything and clean air, Department of Health, we know that there is lack and non-adherence to <inaudible> of these agencies.

And so, always, as you're going through this legislative session, keep that in mind and really step out of your, just doing business as usual, just 'kay anyone. Next, next, next. Pass, pass, pass. Really listen and really use your manao because you are here too and we are all affected by the decisions that you all made. So, mahalo.

Thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Any questions? See none. I have one question for Office of Planning. Mary Alice or anybody? So I read-- I'm sorry, I'm-- how do I say this? I'm not very smart, and as I read your comments, it sure sounds like you don't need this because you're already doing it.

That is correct.

Okay. So that's all I wanted to ask.

One clarification. We believe that we should be submitting to the Legislature a full update rather than doing it piecemeal while we're still in the process of collecting the manao of all of the stakeholders we can reach out to, and we're reaching out to many. Therefore, you will be able as legislators to see full range of updates rather than seeing them one at a time piecemeal.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay, Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We are moving on. Next up we have HB 1553 relating to habitat conservation plans. First up, we have DLNR with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee. Catherine Stanaway deal in our division of Forestry and Wildlife. We stand on our written testimony. I also want to add that we support the retroactive rehabilitation and long term care agreement provision in the bill. The rehab and long term care agreement became a requirement in 2022.

And so for some context, like our first HCP was approved in 2002. So this program's been around for a little over 20 years. And so it takes a long time to develop HCPs and have them approved. And so four out of the 16. ITL holders with HCPs currently have these.

Either these type of contracts or provide funding to rehab centers.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have Hawaii Waiwa. No, wait, hold on. NA Research, Conservation and opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jordan Lerma. I'm the Executive Director of Nana.org, we are a nonprofit that does NENE research statewide. To the best of my knowledge, we're the only nonprofit that does remote monitoring population, real time population abundance. We survey every single golf course where there is nene.

To the best of my knowledge, we have all of the NENE data that all the agencies don't share with each other. That includes mortality, injury, all the birds that get sent to the wildlife centers. We have the most comprehensive sighting data set from golf courses. We are opposed to this Bill.

We have great relationships with golf courses already putting additional financial burden on these golf courses. Some of them are not even financially solvent as it is. So if we remove those golf courses Altogether, what we said, what we saw during COVID is when golf courses don't mow the grass and then move on.

These golf courses are providing significant carrying capacity to the populations on Kauai and Hawaii Island. Maui is still struggling. Are we going to punish golf courses who provide cut grass every single day for a blanket rule that requires all golf courses to enter into an acp?

Don't want to speak on dlr, but to the best of my knowledge, Dolphin doesn't have the capacity at the moment to handle onboarding all of these ACPs at once. Even the consulting for these ACPs. The golf courses trust us.

When there's injuries on these golf courses, they call us or dlnr, we can address these injuries and get them to help with the need.

If there's a take license and they have allocated take, you know, 100 per year, for example, if there's an injured bird, are they going to call and have to pay money to the wildlife center for rehab or are they going to let that bird die and just take it out of their take?

So there's a lot of things that I think can be dealt with if this Bill is deferred and more communication is done with DLNR, DofA, US and golf courses to address some of these things. Significantly more nene are born on golf courses than are taken. 400 hatched at Waikoloa Village golf course alone.

That's more than the entire island of Maui. That's more than Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. That's more than Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. So these golf courses do provide a lot of good habitat. They already are doing all they can to support the species. They work with us, they work with DLNR and that communication is there.

Implementing a financial or regulatory burden would destroy that communication. We've already had discussions with golf courses, said they don't want to work with us. They don't want to know. We don't want.

They don't want us to know if there's injured birds or there's dead birds, that's going to go away and it would be to the detriment of the species.

Well, okay, thank you for your testimony. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? See none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 1964. First we have Office of Planning in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Diana Setness from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. OPSD stands on Its written on its written testimony and support with comments on this measure. And we are available for any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. We have two more testimonies in support, but that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody in the room or on Zoom wishing to testify? See none. Members of any questions? See none. We're moving on. Next up we have HB 1918 relating to taxation.

First up, we have Department of Tax with comments.

Good morning. Chair, vice chair, Committee Members Garrison Kurth, Department of Taxation Department will stand on its written testimony. And I'm here for questions. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Hawaii Realtors with support comments. Okay, thank you. Anybody on zoom? Okay, that is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify on this? See none. Members, are there any questions? See none. Wow. Okay, next up, we're moving on HB 1990.

First up, we have Hawaii Realtors with comments. And we have two more testimony in opposition. That's all the people that we have registered. Anybody on Zoom? Tara Rojas on Zoom.

Yes. Aloha. I strongly oppose HB1 1990. And so while this bill turns zoning enforcement into a fast track foreclosure system that will disproportionately harm local residents, and it sounds familiar to another one that has been brought up in previous legislative sessions.

And so I'm coming from the perspective and viewpoint of that Kanaka Maoli families, Kamaina working people are already struggling with Hawaii's cost of living. So a minimum thousand dollar per defined followed by mandatory liens and foreclosure does not promote compliance. It just accelerates displacement and land loss.

So allowing private entities to initiate foreclosure creates a dangerous profit incentive and repeats mistakes this Legislature has been warned about before. So zoning enforcement should help people come into compliance, not strip them of their homes. So I urge you to hold this bill.

And mind you, the fact that electricity has, you know, that's going up, the sewer fee rate increase has gone up, the homeowner's insurance fees gone up. And so now we're just, we're getting by if that. And then you know that the Kanaka displacement in their own homeland is happening. So really look at this. Yeah.

And it's just, it creates a dangerous profit incentive and just repeating mistakes. So how people come into compliance, not strip them of their home. So I oppose this. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody in the room? Say none Members. Are there any questions saying none. We are going through recess.

Okay, we are reconvening our hearing on water and land. First up, we have HB 1527. This is relating to gambling. Well, gambling is already illegal in the state, so we're going to defer this. Next up we have HB 1823 relating to coastal Zone Management Act. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD one.

Take Office of Planning's amendment and DLNR's amendment. And we also have. We're going to defect this to 713000 and make technical amendments. So like on page three, lines 18 to 12, use the phrase within the shoreline. Shoreline is already defined in Section eight. Never mind. We're going to date technical amendments with that. Is there any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, we're voting on HBA 1823. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye.[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Members. Next up we have HB2490 relating to postal resilience. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD one. We're going to keep it with DBED because it's going to go to Office of Planning Anyway via DBED. And we're going to change the shall to may based upon DLNR's testimony.

So the LNR, you may exempt them from these requirements. Okay, thank you. Members, are there any questions or concerns seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB2490. Recommendation is pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Rep. Bellotti and Iwamoto. Are there any reservations? Any no's? See none.

Okay, next up we have HB 2223 relating to historic preservation reviews. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD one. Just defecting the date to 7-1-3000 to continue the conversation. Going. Is there any comments or concerns? See none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on HB2223 recommendation to pass with amendments noting excused absence of Rep. Balatti and Iwamoto. Are there any reservations? Any nos? Rep. Shimizu is no Chair. Your recommendations adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much, Members. Next up we have HB 2325, relating to civil service exemptions. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1, defecting the date to 7-1-3000. And I want to put in the committee report HGEA's comments on the next committee because it's going to Labor.

So this would be more appropriate for them. How do we make the civil service process more efficient and competitive? That's kind of outside of the scope of Water Land. So it'd be more appropriate for Labor to look at that. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none. Thank you very much.

We're voting on HB 2325. Recommendation pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Rep Iwamoto and the presence of Rep Belatti. Are there any reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up we have HB 2104, relating to the Island Burial Council. The Chair's recommendation is to move this on with an HD 1. We're going to defect the date to 7-1-3000, and that's it. This goes on to Judiciary, so they can continue the conversation. Any comments or concerns?

Just based on my constituent who testified with the concerns from Molokai, I just want to acknowledge those. And I'll be voting with reservations.

Same, Chair.

Okay. Your constituent from Molokai you mean? Representative Shimizu, I was just joking. Never mind. Clarify that. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on HB 2104. Recommendation pass with amendments. Noting excused absence of Rep Iwamoto. Reservations by Rep Poepoe and Shimizu. Are there any other reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Next up we have HB 2593, relating to Mauna Kea. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this with an HD 1, defecting the date to 7-1-3000. And we're going to take the AG's amendment, and that's it and pass it on. Any comments or concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, we're voting on HB 2593. Recommendation to pass with amendments. Excuse absent. Noting excused absence of Rep Iwamoto. Are there any reservations? I'm sorry. Shimizu and Belatti. Okay. Any noes?

Thank you very much, Members. So moving on to HB 2592, relating to Mauna Kea. So the Chair's recommendation is to defect this date to 7-1-3000. And we're going to make amendments on page five, pages five through six. Amend this section to clarify that the parcels to be conveyed to DLNR to MKSOA.

We're going to specify that the Science Reserve Parcel and Hale Pohaku Parcel and the road easement will be conveyed to MKSOA specifically. So this keeps out the natural area reserve and it keeps out the pond. So any questions or concerns? Yeah. So this ensures the lands being transferred is the intent of the original act. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on HB 2592. Recommendation pass with amendments. Noting excused absence of Rep Iwamoto. Any reservations? Poepoe, Shimizu. Any other reservations? Any noes? Souza, no. Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much, Members. Next up, we have 1927. The Chair's recommendation is to defer this. Basically, we don't need it. Next up, we have HB 1553, relating to habitat conservation plans. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1.

I'm going to put in DLNR's amendments and defect date from 7-1-3000. This is to keep the conversation going. It was very interesting to hear, but I think the conversation should continue to go on. With that, Members, any comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1553. Recommendation pass with amendments. Noting excused absence of Rep Iwamoto. Are there any reservations? Any noes? Shimizu, no. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much, members. Next up, we have HB 1964, relating to the State Building Code Counsel. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1. I'm going to zero-out the appropriation and put $25,000 into the committee report and defect date to 07/01/3000, and technical amendments. Are there any comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1964: recommendation to pass with amendments, noting excused absence of Rep. Iwamoto. Any reservations?

Reservations.

Rep. Shimizu. Any noes? Okay. Your recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have HB 1918, relating to taxation. The chair's recommendation is to pass this with DOTAX's amendments, and technical amendments, and defect the date to 07/01/3000. And I just want to clarify, this is mainly for large transfers.

This is-- when the land of Lanai was transferred to Ellison, there was no tax paid on that transfer. So this is to capture that; not so much for residential properties, but for large land transactions. And this is what this bill is trying to capture. With that, any comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. We're voting on HB 1918: recommendation to pass with amendments, noting the excused absence of Rep. Iwamoto. Are there any reservations? Any noes? Rep. Shimizu noted. Recommendation is adopted.

Next up, we have HB 1990. Chair's recommending... Oh yeah, this is a difficult one. Anyways, Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD 1. I'm going to defect date to 7-1-3000. And I'm going to take out the section where private attorneys can sue. So it's only the city and the Attorney General.

I think the conversation needs to continue on because this actually happened in my district in Kahala where Kawamoto racked up a whole bunch of fines and the city didn't move too much on it. So I don't think this will pass, but I think the conversation still should continue on. And the Attorney General, it's going to JHA after this, so the AG can chime in. Members, any questions or concerns?

Chair, I was gonna vote no, but with your explanation and with my being on JHA, I think the conversation is warranted. So I will be voting reservations.

Thank you very much. I moved you from a no to a maybe. Any question? Any other comments?

You moved me from a yes to with reservations.

Why is that? Are you in favor of private attorney suing everybody?

I don't know if there should be a limitation on that.

Okay. Spoken by the attorney?

Yes. Full disclosure.

Oh, okay. Conflict of interest. Maybe we should strike your vote. All right. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 1990. Recommendation pass with amendments. Noting excused absence of Rep Iwamoto. Reservations of Rep Shimizu and Souza. Are there any other reservations? Poepoe. Any noes? Okay. Your recommendation's adopted, Chair.

Thank you very much, Members, for your support. We are adjourned.