Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Hello Mai Kakou and good afternoon. Mahalo for joining today's AEM EDT hearing joint hearing. It's Friday, February 6, 2026 and we were convened in room 224 and video conferencing, which includes the audio and video of remote participants that's being streamed live on YouTube.

Okay.

In the unlikely event that this hearing is cut short, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding Business on Monday, February 9th at 3:01pm during AEN's time slot. And a public notice will be posted on the Legislature's website.

And because of our 90 minute time limit for hearings, there will be a 2 minute time limit for all testifiers and we'll have a virtual countdown timer on the Zoom screen.

So starting off is the first measure is SB2350 transfers oversight of the Aquaculture and Livestock Support Services Branch of the Department of AG and Biosecurity to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. Transfers the Agricultural Development Division of DAP to the ADC. Okay, so first up is DAP.

I saw you on TV though.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture Chairperson. Good afternoon again. DAB. Regarding Senate Bill 2350, DAB agrees with the goal of strengthening support for Hawaii's farmers, ranchers and aquaculture industry. We share the Legislature's commitment to improving coordination and accelerating agricultural development. We respectfully oppose Senate Bill 2350.

What we do propose is that we. What the bill proposes is that you transfer the Agricultural Development Division, both marketing and statistics, one division, one branch, and the Aquaculture and Livestock Support Services Branch from DAB to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. We respectfully oppose the bill as it's written.

DAB does not believe transferring these divisions is necessary to achieve the bill's goals. Moving these programs creates federal operational and coordination risks without solving the core challenges facing the industry.

Add the Agricultural Development Division manages federally supported programs and agreements within USDA partners such as Agricultural Marketing Service, AMS, Foreign AG Service, FAS and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, frequently referred to as NASS. These partnerships support export market development, specialty crop markets, micro grants and critical agricultural data relied upon by farmers, ranchers and policymakers.

I'd like to add at this point that every time I look at a graph or a bar chart, line, line, graph, every point on that graph represents a farmer or rancher. Every point represents an aquaculture operation that has contributed to the National Agriculture Statistics Service that belongs within Agriculture.

Transferring the division may require federal approval and risk disruption to federal Funding and program continuity. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Sharon. Next up is Wendy Gady from ADC.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs. I'm Wendy Gady, the Executive Director for the Agribusiness Development Corp. And we submit our testimony with comments. We do believe that the regulatory portions should remain within the auspices of DAB. We are not regulatory, but we are in fact a business development development corporation. I'm here for any questions or comments. Thanks.

Thank you, Wendy. Next is Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Thank you, Brian. Hunter Heavilin from the Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair.

Hunter Heavilin, on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union, Chairs, Vice Chairs, we provided some comments and I guess would just like to maybe clarify some of the points.

We view it as critical to support the aquaculture industry, but are concerned by the notion of hollowing out the Department of Agriculture and its capacity to receive federal resources to administer a variety of programs for that reason.

I think while everyone would like to see a robust agricultural or aquacultural sector, the potential damage of losing access to those federal resources shouldn't be understated. Thank you.

Thank you, Hunter. And by Zoom, we have Kathy Gogel from Animal Rights Hawaii.

Unavailable on Zoom. Chair.

Thank you. And for the county of Hawaii Department of Research and Development. They have comments. Hawaii Aquaculture and Aquaponics Association. Are they here? They're in support. And. For high plan is in support. Hawaii Cattlemen's Council is opposed. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, please come.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the. Committee. My name is Dean Okimoto. I'm part owner of Nalo Farms. We are one of the largest, if not the largest, aquaponic operations in the state of Hawaii. Land operation. Right now we are providing the DOE with about 2 to 3,000 pounds of lettuce per week that we produce.

We also have are in the midst of developing tilapia for the schools to do fish sticks. So we've tested it. We've had 89% acceptance from elementary and high school level students. So it's higher than beef? Sorry, Senator, but sorry. It's like 1% more. You know, we argue, but you know, we've done this on our own.

No help from government or anything like that. So we've expended our own money. ADC has been helping with developing fish. Food. With the help of Mike Irish's company.

And it looks promising that we can actually almost have a closed system aquaponics from fish, from food to the waste and everything in between so we can produce the lettuce and fish simultaneously. Right. By the end of the year we will be producing about 50,000 pounds of lettuce per week of which we have targeted the schools first.

Dean, I'm sorry, your time's up now if you can stick around, there might be an opportunity for during Q and A. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Dean. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, any questions, start off here.

Thank you, Chair. Sir Aloha. Chair for our aquaculture, what is the current. Ask the question. What is the current production gross revenues and what could it possibly be?

The current production gross revenues I do not have. But I can tell you that we are managing a lease at Keahule Point and that company reported 2 million pounds of fish produced and I don't know what the dollar amount for that is. I can come back to you with that. Is Todd available?

Yeah, please. Yes. I actually have to call you right back.

Wasn't me. Can you turn off your mic please?

Thank you. Thank you Chairs. Todd Low Aquaculture Development program our total gross from last year was about $66 million. It went down from a high of 82 from the year before. We expected to rebound a little bit this year coming year.

Why?

As far as I can tell, the first the main two topics. There was a decrease in the number of SPF shrimp broodstock. We're getting a little bit of the weeds but that's. We have SPF shrimp specific pathogen free shrimp that goes out to Asia that really relies on what the Asian markets are doing.

There was a dip in that export and also there was. NELHA is actually going through some water quality issues in their system and that has impacted our major producers there. Big Island abalone is there blotch and mariculture. So I think they've been working through some solutions so we expect to see some rebounding there. Also.

What was aquaculture five years ago. And. Maybe 10 years ago? Have we seen growth or has it been flat?

No, we've seen a steady increase up to two years ago and then it has dipped a little bit. We saw another DIP during Covid because of the markets changed but that self corrected itself. We do see aquaculture still remains one of the segments in AG that has the biggest potential. I believe biased. We think that if.

If we were able to implement other programs that we're planning we look at within 10 years possibly about 500 million on the commercial side. And then there's a whole other level or another side of restorative aquaculture that is untapped and that's what leading using seaweed and bivalves to help clean the water and to remove bad nutrients.

But underlying that is the value added use of the seaweed. And that has A. Seaweed has many different uses. So we see that as a great area.

Okay, so the number that you just quoted, 500 million is a number that I have been, I have seen before. So that's tenfold, approximately from where we are right now. What is holding back and the reason I'm asking these questions is do we have a obstruction through our regulatory side or our governmental side or where's the obstruction?

Why haven't we grown this?

Well, if you would look at, we take a look at this about annually as say the top five reasons why aquaculture kind of struggles. And the top two usually come in with permitting and feed costs.

So you heard Mr. Okimoto was talking about ABC's program to start up a feed mill that is feed cost as usual with livestock has always been the bane of the industry. Right. Because we have to bring it in. Mike Irish's project that uses their fish waste as a source of protein is actually a great idea.

Jimmy Nakatani back in the day we started that up. We hope that's going to move along. I don't really have a lot of details on that. In terms of permitting, one of the factors that, that we struggle with is the import permits. And that process is actually in another bill that's moving through the ledge this year.

We hope that will help streamline that process.

Yeah, I do. I will make available to you a interactive permitting chart that if you hover over a particular permit that you're desiring and it goes offshore, shore, interior, it's quite complicated on the state, local and county levels.

It's not only the, it's not only the permitting on the state level, at the DAB level, but it's county, state, federal requirements. I just came back from the NASDAQ meeting, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. It came up. That did come up.

One of the things we're trying to do on a national level is, and we have been trying for quite some time is to do a coastal coalition of coastal states. And my partner is Alaska Secretary Bryan Scoresby because Alaska is more shoreline than the rest of the United States put together.

And so we're trying to do a seaweed project for food, fiber, fuel, you know, the whole thing. And we're getting some, you know, interest from the coastal states. And now you find states like Idaho that's claiming they're a coast because they have a port.

So, long story short, we're working towards funding to improve the research we're doing on restorative agriculture on a national level with the coastal states that seeming to be. That's seeming to get some traction. The bottleneck on that is that the interior states don't have a coast and they don't want to be left out.

So we're trying to find a way for. To take part in some way, but we are working on a national level. One of the other thing on the national level is that we import 90% of our seafood that we consume in the nation. 70% of that number is imported. And I mean, sorry, 90% is imported.

70% of that is farm. And yet the parity of restrictions and permitting for incoming food from farm locations is very weak. The local domestically farmed fish, whether you're in Idaho or anywhere, very, very strict, because we have strict food safety standards for water quality.

So we're asking on a national level for some parity on the permitting of all the food you're letting in that's farmed should match the scientific standards of the food that we produce locally. So there's much discussion going on on the national level. Funding's on the way.

It's just the permitting has been a problem nationwide and I will make that available to.

Yeah, please do. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Chair, if the bill passes, can you explain further why you feel that ADC should also take on the regulatory authority related to aquaculture?

Well, I think you're setting up a trend, kind of like a domino effect if another agency can come and go. I'm calling it shopping through the government halls and saying, well, I could use this and I could use that, but I don't want the regulatory. I don't want the enforcement. Well, that's the hard part.

That's the part of the permitting is the hard part. For instance, I can sit here and tell you that I think I've talked to Administrator Riley Sato and the mayor's representative about doubling food production through nelha. I don't want all of nelha. I'm not going to work that way.

I'm not going to go in and say, give me that and this and the other. I'm not shopping. I'm working internally through nelha, working with them, saying, do you share our goal to double food production? Yeah, sure, let's talk about it. I would not take any part in nelha. The regulatory, enforcement, everything stays with them.

We would collaborate on projects to double Food production. Teach our guys how to grow muscles. Teach our guys how to resurrect those native Hawaiian oysters and clams. Apparently, there's 25, 25 native endemic varieties. They have the knowledge they can do it. They just have to have the commitment and maybe the hammer to do so.

We have ideas for HTA. It's been touted. People have said Hawaii is the perfect place for a pet to come and end its life. So some sort of holistic journey for the animal.

There's a market for it, and they would bring their family and friends and neighbors and vets, and they would all come and see that pet off to its next step. And I've said that'd be great for tourism. I would not go to HTA and take something from HTA.

I would work with them and say, let's work together on this. So that's why I think you can't separate one piece from the other. Build from within, collaborate, negotiate.

Anyone else for the chair? Yes.

I find it ironic, Director, that you talk about shopping around. This bill wouldn't be necessary if you actually were focused a little bit on aquaculture. But you've been on the job for three years. You've introduced absolutely no bills to help enhance aquaculture. I look at the budget you submit every year. You ask no new resources.

You and I have been at this for three years, and I'm waiting for the day. But we don't have to shop around that. You will show us some leadership in trying to grow this sector. The fact that today you came in here not even knowing what the economic impact of aquaculture was, is. Is concerning.

How can you not know that?

I do rely on my SMEs. In fact. May I respond? Sure. Okay. So we rely on our divisions and our administrators to come up with the bills. We don't. We go to them and we say, what kind of bills would you like to introduce this year?

So if there's nothing that comes forward, or we know of nothing that comes forward, then we might introduce something on our own or go on the national level and seek help there. As far as the revenue, I don't have my NAS book with me that would have been reported. We pay for Aquaculture survey every year.

What is it taught? About $5,000. Yeah, we pay for that every year. So I do have the information. I just didn't bring it with me. So I'm sorry.

Two bills in front of us today are on aquaculture. I don't know how you could not be prepared to talk about aquaculture. But I use that as an example of how I really don't think as a Director, you paid attention to the growth opportunities in this area.

Out of all of the sectors in agriculture probably has the greatest opportunity for growth. And in three years, you've introduced absolutely no bills to enhance this area. You've asked for no new resources. Tom, how many people work for you in your division? I have one, and we're recruiting for four. Okay, so what?

Okay, so we have five potential people that would work in Aquaculture division. Correct me if I'm wrong, you have 320 employees at the Department of Agriculture. So just over 1% of your entire team is devoted to the ocean. How is that an indication that you really care about the growth of aquaculture?

Well, I will respond to that. I've been working. I had a brief meeting with Administrator Riley Sato Nu over Nelha, talked to the mayor's representative, and we've talked about how many of the projects that are introduced involve local kids, local needs, local food production. And I was told by Hatch that introduced them that they're.

Out of the 10 projects I believe that they're funding, four were for local. So I went to the meeting. There's zero. There were zero. So I talked to Nelha, I talked to the mayor's representative. I said, do I have your support for starting projects? So it's not that we're not doing anything. Representative. I'll take that.

I'll take that. I'll take that. It makes sense to me. But we are working with our partners and their. And, you know, they agree.

So when I found out that no, nobody in the new recruit of research and development is working on local seaweed or teaching our local guys to local students to start growing local, restoring the Nelha oyster scads, local clams, mussels. I went to Riley Sato, administrator, and I said, hey, let's work together.

Let's get a separate program to teach our guys. And he was all for it. He was all for it. And mayor's representative said, you know, Sharon, we've been on the same wavelength. We need Nella to start helping our local community rather than providing revenue to the mainland, you know, and supporting them.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Taxes are taxes. It's good stuff. But let's build our local. So that's what I'm doing. And I'm sorry that I didn't submit any bills for that I can do. I can certainly try for next year. We will next year.

But as I Said we rely on our, our subject matter experts to come up with the bills that you see in front of you and hearing, seeing none, as they say. We move on to other areas. And besides, Senator, you're aware that there's a survey that's coming out, Aquaculture, that was funded in June.

I think they're coming out and it's the industry. The industry is telling us what they want. We'll hear from them and we're crafting bills off of their feedback.

Sharon, I appreciate the fact that you talk to other people, but we need action. We don't need talking about things. And you and I have talked about this for three years. And in three years, zero bills to enhance aquaculture, zero request to enhance and give Todd more bodies in his area, in his division at a certain point.

That's why we're shopping, as you say, because you seem almost incapable of doing anything to help grow this high growth sector. Todd mentioned about permitting and feed are the two biggest areas of need. His permitting bill is a legislative bill, it's not an admin bill.

You didn't even help him introduce a bill to get through the permitting process. The feed issue that Mr. Okimoto talked about is an ADC initiative. You've done absolutely nothing legislatively, sir. Nothing legislatively or even asking for resources, money, bodies, nothing. So ultimately you've done absolutely nothing to get to the potential that Senator Richards talked about.

This could go from a $66 million industry to a $500 million industry. He can't get there by himself. He's getting absolutely no help from you. So wouldn't it be smart for us to shop him around, as you mentioned, and give him to ADC, which has a proven track record of actually getting things done?

No comment on that. He's welcome to do what he wants to do. If he wants to shop himself to ADC, he's welcome to do that. The funding remains with the Department. Any funding that we get comes to the State Department of Agriculture.

So I think you missed Director. You're missing the whole point. I am. Okay, you're completely missing the point. It's not as if now you're pimping him out and I find it very offensive. I'm sorry, because it's absolutely true.

I mean, you're doing a lot of talking about what you've learned and so forth, but what have you really done with the aquaculture part of it? My bigger question is what is the impact to the livestock area within your division and its functions? How does that impact going forward?

If you was to break away just a part of the aquaculture.

The aquaculture funding. Yeah.

In other words, no, you cut aquaculture loose to these.

I just had a meeting this morning with Ed Case's agriculture person, and we talked about introducing earmarks which hurt. Deadline is not till March 1st. Shots. Deadline is February 17th. We're introducing bills to both of them. Not bills, excuse me, Congressionally directed spending and CFP CPFs earmarks to support aquaculture for Hawaii.

We're thinking of additional lands for aquaculture parks. We're thinking of research for reducing the incidence of parity for export and import of seafood that is very important to the boot shrimp industry that Todd has mentioned. There's things we're working on on the earmarked basis. That's.

I guess that's not what you want to hear, but it's definitely important to us. We wait for bills to come through from the divisions.

And so I think that's our problem. I don't think you should wait for the bills come through from the division. You're the leader. You should be disseminating down the priorities of the Agriculture Division under DAB to say, this is a priority, this is where we should move.

Because if this industry is such a big industry and the return is that great, that's for you to set the priority, Director, not for the division. It's for you to then delegate where you guys should go.

So my next question would be, if the transfer of the Agricultural Development Division is transferred to ADC, would DAB also do any development work for them?

For ADC, we would work with them, but just for this panel. We recently received a bill from ADC for work done previously. So it's getting to be where, I don't know that we need an MOU for everything we do for other government agencies because we do want to help them.

But if we're going to receive a bill for services, then we should bill for services as well. So, yes, we will help DAB, but we cannot help with the funding. The funding stays within the Department. But let me respond to your previous question. We were not hearing.

We were hearing from the industry that we were not responsible, responding to their priorities. I attend these meetings, I listen to them. And so I asked for some. I asked Ulupona if they would help us with a survey of the aquaculture industry.

And they were very, very accommodating because just like we did go big on AG, now I'm asking them to go big on aquaculture. So they funded a survey. The industry took it upon Themselves to do an industry survey.

Okay, so if you guys did that and you said go big on AG, how big are we in AG right now?

Well, we did get.

We've diminished. Okay. And I'm just going to leave it at that. Okay. Because I know you guys have other questions.

So you're saying the federal funding and funding we're going to be losing if this take place. What is the number, what is the actual number saying that we're not going to get federal funding if we transfer the Department?

Okay, it's about 8 million, I'm going to say. However, I just came back from that meeting and the advice that we got was the money's coming, it's just coming under a different name. They're restoring a lot of the grants that were canceled. They're renaming them and they're restoring them.

So right Now I'm saying 8 million and that's in the form of Specie Crop Micro grants. Some of the funding we're getting from FSIS, Foreign AG Service, Foreign Ag Services, Export Market. From that we're getting about 14 plus 9, maybe about 20 million. So there's funding that goes directly to the Department.

Okay, so my follow up question is this Koku Shrimp Shrimp Farm. Yeah. There's in the process of losing that area. What initiative that you guys did for save Aquaculture in the Kuku community to save that area.

Like Senator Dela Cruz said, we talked about this in Wham that you guys did to say, hey, we got to purchase this land because aquaculture is our big commodity that we need to do so again, we lost a lot of shrimp farmers out there.

I just wanted to know what was the initiative that you guys took, took place in the conversation in providing them to keep those foreigns open.

Koku Shrimp is a private entity and we can reach out to them. It is understandable. But the land could have been purchased by the state.

My last testimony when I appeared before the house, I did say that, and I think it was Executive Director Gaty that said they have a superpower at ADC and their superpowers that they can purchase land.

And it is, I'm thinking maybe we should share on that superpower and give the Department of Agriculture the same authority so we can go out and work in the same manner that ADC can when we recognize an opportunity.

There's another bill in front of you for extending leases and it's mixed because of course that kind of like keeps land in perpetuity to lessees. Rather than do that, why don't we just make purchase more land and make more ag parks.

You know, that would be a solution to the extending of leases and allowing people to continue to work the land that they've invested so much in. But I don't have that superpower.

So you don't have the. You don't have the authority to purchase or even make requests to the body here or. That's correct.

Anybody to. That is correct.

So you cannot make a request.

I have no authority to make a request. Request to purchase land because I have no power to purchase land. The only person with that power is ADC. You don't have a.

Could come up with a bill and recommend that we.

I will now.

Thank you. Thank you, Director. I'd like to call up ADC. Ms. Gady, so in all fairness, in your testimony, you stated that you are not interested in taking on the regulatory duties related to aquaculture. Would you like to further expand. Elaborate on that.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Wendy Gady, the Executive Director for ADC. And currently in our statute, we are not regulatory. So it would require a change in the statute. And that just hasn't been the case in the past.

But however the ledge wants to go is the way that we're going to head.

And you have a. What's your tendency? Would that be okay with you?

It's okay, but I think that there's really neat collaboration with the vets. The vets that work in aquaculture, the vets that work in livestock, they all interact, they share lab space. And I would really hate to disrupt the relationships that they have and the sharing of ideas because I do think it is very beneficial to the industry.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Yes. A follow up. One of the points that Director puts into her testimony that is actually a legitimate concern is about federal funding that may disappear with the transfer under a scenario of moving, you know, the aquaculture parts and the marketing parts to ADC.

Do you concur that federal funding is in jeopardy, or is there some way to work around that so that you get the funding that is currently going to deb?

Well, I think part of the reason ADC was developed was to be scrappy and think a little bit outside of the box. And so I think we would like to look at if that truly is an option.

I think maybe a middle ground is looking at what funds, fund positions or groups within DAB and what might be state funded. And maybe there's an opportunity that we work on the state funding and then kind of work simultaneously on trying to. Preserve the federal funding.

Okay, so the claim that the federal funding would disappear is speculation.

I can neither confirm nor deny because there's.

There's nothing in writing that says, in fact, that money's going to dry up and go back to wherever it came from. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to the next measure. SB2349. Requiring the Department of Ag and Biosecurity to establish a four year restorative aquaculture development program to reduce aquaculture, permit processing time, support aquaculture infrastructure expansion, increase the aquaculture workforce and pursue federal aquaculture grants. Also establishes a three pilot demonstration sites for restorative aquaculture.

And let's see, we'll start off. First up is DAB.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs and Committee Members. Sharon Heard, Department of Agriculture Chairperson. DAB supports 2349. This bill strengthens Hawaii's food security, blue economy and environmental restoration through a coordinated restorative aquaculture program. This bill is needed because Hawaii currently imports that the Nation currently imports 90% of its seafood, creating major supply chain vulnerability.

Restorative aquaculture provides a pathway to increase local seafood production while improving environmental conditions. This bill establishes a four year restorative aquaculture development program. It creates pilot demonstration sites and an advisory council. And it supports workforce development, infrastructure and federal grant pursuit. It does.

What is measurable is that it would restore 200 acres of coastal coastal habitat, water quality improvement demonstrations at three sites, 2,500 tons of annual carbon dioxide sequestration by 2030, increased production of native fish and seafood for local food supply, economic and workforce benefits. It would create approximately 250 direct jobs in Hawaii's blue economy.

It builds workforce training and apprenticeship pathways in rural communities. And it prioritizes Native Hawaiian practitioners and small scale producers. With dedicated funding, it reduces barriers to aquaculture growth and it goes on. I have 34 seconds. It includes a strategy to secure 10 million in federal grant funding. It aligns Hawaii with national aquaculture development priorities and federal partners.

It requires independent third party evaluation by 2027. Establishes a multi stakeholder advisory council to improve coordination and prevent conflicts. And prevent permitting conflicts which exist today. DAB strongly supports this measure.

Thank you, Director. Thank you. Next up is Kelsey Nagato or Chris Leong from the HES.

Afternoon Deputy Attorney General providing comments on SB 2349. Relatively simple. Just as a technical matter, the bill doesn't specify whether the Members of the Committee are to be paid or unpaid. We provided some written revisions in our testimony and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto. Who? I found your.

Thank you, Chair.

The Hawaii Farm Bill is done on this. Recent testimonies, provide the comments.

Hunter Hevlin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. Farmers Union stands on a TR test.

Okay, anyone else else wishing to testify on this measure? We have six in support, zero opposed and three with comments. Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. I will now turn this over to Chair DeCoite.

Next up, Senate Bill 2407 relating to agricultural land. Authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds to the Agribusiness Development Corporation for the purchase of an agricultural parcel for agricultural development. Establish one full time equivalent oi island property manager position within the ADC and appropriate funds.

We have one person up for testifying, Brandon Cunard on behalf of Food and Policy Purple. With comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Sorry, I felt that my office had submitted testimony on this measure 2407. The Attorney General's office had submitted comments suggesting a couple of minor amendments that would be including an explicit statement of public purpose and also changing the the delayed lapse date from 2029 to 2028. And those would both be to avoid constitutional issues. Okay.

Was our testimony not received?

No, I did not receive it. Can I get a copy of it if you have it?

All I have is the one that I marked up. Okay. And I'll make sure that we copy to your Committee. Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was looking at the wrong one. Wait here. No, no. Okay sorry Ian, we had you here. Yeah, yeah. Hawaii Farm Bureau, Brian Miyamoto. Sorry, go ahead.

Thank you. Chairs, Vice chairs, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau will sit on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next up, Wendy Gady from ADC.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee, we are in enthusiastic support of purchasing this land. It is a soil classification of seed. It can grow melons, carrots, celery, onions as well as tomatoes. So it's right in line with the food mandate. So it will help the state in reaching those goals. I'm here for any questions.

Thank you. Next up, Hunter Hevlin from HFU.

Thank you, Chair. Farmers Union stands on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next up, Beth Robinson testifying for Kohala Community Land Trust on zoom.

Not sure they'll let me turn on my video, but aloha, Chairs. Now that it's going to let me start my video so you can see my beautiful face. Taking up two minutes. Aloha chairs, vice chairs, Committee Members.

I wanted to make sure you heard directly from someone involved in agriculture in the Kohala community to let you know that it would be nearly impossible to overstate the support in the Kohala community from our largest agricultural producers down to small kalo farmers for acquiring these properties.

The Kohala Food Hub aggregates from over 150 producers and serves 2,000 local customers. They are strongly in support of this acquisition. And I also want to emphasize that we have a sense of urgency.

The current owner, Shiridee Kohala, has, as Senator Richards has heard, they are in the business of getting out of their land holdings in Kohala and they will sell to the first fire that comes along. They're very sympathetic to this cause, but there is a sense of urgency about it. Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, see non Members. Any questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to Senate Bill 3320. Requires the food and Product Innovation Network to integrate a coordinated food safety and regulatory framework. Requires ADC to establish performance indicators for the Food and Product Innovation Network. D Development. Develop a market access strategy.

Align and harmonize state branding initiatives and report certain data to the legislation. Requires the Department of Business, Economic Development Tourism to evaluate or adopt enterprise zone initiatives to all counties. First up, Agri Development Corporation, RAD 80.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committees, I am very thankful that you gave us a position last year. And this is our climate resilient Food and Product Innovation Network manager. And this is the eyeballs in the face of the person that's going to pull this off. So thank you very much. We also were given.

Thank you. A commodity coordinator position which we have also filled. And they're in the process of mapping the entire state to look at what. What crops can be grown, where to meet our food mandates. So we are enthusiastic support of this. We're here for any questions. Thank you.

Next up, Dane Booker in support. Then Environmental Health Administration testifying on behalf of the Department of Health. Sorry, guys. Just try this.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Matt Carano, Department of Health, Environment, Health Services Division. We stand on our written support. Just want to express that we're going. To do everything we can to help. Support food security and De Bet in this effort. Here for questions.

Thank you. Next up, Parwindo Griro from University of Hawaii.

Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. We stand on written comments and we in support.

Thank you. Next up, hcda we come. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to test. Wait. Anyone else wishing to testify? Yeah. Did I skip you again? Gee, how can I miss you?

Thank you. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. I apologize if you didn't receive our testimony. You have it? Or maybe it's just people think I need the exercise. You have a written testimony? As all the other Tesla fires.

We are supportive at PINS and we appreciate the legislature's continued support for this program. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Next up, Brandon Kinnard. Okay. Hunter Heaivilin. Sorry.

Thank you, Chair. We'll send our written testimony and support. We did offer one.

Thank you. Except Jacob Wayne. Wayne in support. And then Glenn Kagamira also in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none. Short recess.

Okay.

Reconvening the joint AEN EDT 3 o' clock agenda with some decisions that were made after consult consultation on the first one. SB 2350 relating to AG transferring oversight of the Aquaculture and Livestock Support Services Branch from DAB to adc.

The recommendation will be to pass with amendments to keep the regulatory authority related to animal health biosecurity enforcement inspections and and permitting compliance within DAB, as well as defecting the date to July 12050 to continue the conversation. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair.

Thank you. Chair on Senate Bill 2350, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Senior Chair, you have five in favor. Motion adopted.

Thank you, Members. And then SB 2349. I'm sorry.

Committee on Economic Development and Tourism, same request. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call]. Chair, your recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Okay. Moving on to SB2349, requiring DAB to establish a four year restorative aquaculture development program, etc. The chair's recommendation will be to pass with the Attorney General's office's suggested amendments to clarify reimbursement provisions. Also to correct the inaccurate aquaculture production data in the findings section to reflect updated state statistics.

And also make technical amendments including deferring the effective date to July 1, 2015 and will also blank the appropriation amount and insert it in the Committee report for consideration. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair.

On Senate Bill 2349, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, you have five in favor.

Thank you, Members. Committee on Economic Development and Tourism, same request. Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair for the vote.

Vice Chair votes yes. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. And then Senate Bill 2407 relating to agricultural land, passing with an SD1 by blanking out the the Geobond appropriation amount, making any technical non substantive amendments as necessary and defecting the effective date to July 1, 2050. Members, any discussion seeing non Vice Chair photo vote?

[Roll Call] Chair, your recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Same recommendation for AEN. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair.

On Senate Bill 2407, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Five in favor. Adopted.

Thank you, Members.

Next up, Senate Bill 3320 relating to food and Product Innovation Network passing with an SD1 making any technical non substantive amendments as necessary and defecting the effective date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Seeing none. Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair, please.

[Roll Call] Chair, your recommendations adopted. Thank you. Same recommendation for AEN.

Any discussion? Chair, Boots side.

Vice Chair on Senate Bill 3320. Trespassing with amendments.

Yes.

Passing with amendments. Of the five Members, anybody voting with reservations? Anybody voting negatively? Chair five in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you Members and thank you everyone. We will now adjourn the joint. Okay, we're gabbling into our AEN only agenda 301. See. And first up we have SB 2100 requiring quarterly rather than annual reporting of all use of restricted use pesticides.

Amends the contents of reports to include specific geospatial data and information and increase detail on the amount of restricted use pesticides used. Exempts Wood preservative pesticides from reporting requirements. Requires Department of Ag and Biosecurity to develop an online reporting tool for restricted use pesticides. First up is Environmental Health Administration.

Good afternoon, Senator and Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Matt Carano, Department of Health, Environment Health Services Division. We provided comments and stand on our comments. Just want to point out that for us when we have to use pesticides, period, any kind of pesticides in the vector control space, it's really to do response at somebody's house.

So any kind of automatic reporting requirement means that whatever we have to report on we really can't use in order to protect patient privacy.

So we're asking to be exempted from any kind of reporting requirement just really on the grounds that we hardly use any pesticides and when we do, we want to be able to protect patient privacy. Thank you. We're here for questions.

Thank you. We have DAB is next.

Thank you Chair. DAB stands on his testimony offering comments on this measure. Our SME is here.

Thank you. Senator Patrick Chee for DLNR.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, we stand on our testimony as comments. Our main comment being that if there is a requirement for there to be more reporting that the development of an online smartphone based reporting tool be involved so that it might be an easier. Way to do the reporting.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next is Emmanuel Zibakalam from Hawaii Pest Control Association. Thank you, Emmanuel. Ryan Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was going on this. Thank you.

Hunter Hein, Hawaii Farmers Union. Thank you, Chair. Farmers Union testimony thank you.

Anne Frederick from the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee HAPA is in strong support of this measure. For the past few years we've actually been doing kind of a deep analysis of the RUPU reporting data across the state and have just finished GIS mapping the 2020-21 data.

In our time with the data we have found one of the challenges is that because it is reported out by TMK, TMK sizes vary widely across the state and because we don't have enough geographic specificity within the larger TMKs, public credible public health studies cannot be conducted.

So the provision especially to require reporting within a square mile is consistent with what California currently requires. In looking at all of the TMKs where our ups are used across the state, very few would fall under that category of over a square mile. So I imagine that wouldn't require add much burden in terms of the extra reporting.

We're very supportive of the online reporting tool provision as well, having spent countless hours cleaning the data and trying to make sense of it.

I think in the long run it would be maybe an initial investment, but in the long run it would actually probably save the Department money and would be much more user friendly for applicators as well.

And then perhaps as part of the creation of that online reporting tool, there could be a way to sort of specify these sub regions within the parcels for these bigger parcels that are, you know, over a square mile. So thank you for consideration.

Thank you, Ann. Then on Zoom, we have Mariana Monasi.

Unavailable on Zoom chair.

Thank you. And Clayton Kubo on Zoom.

I'm in support of this measure. Mahalo. Thank you. Layton, anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? We had 32 in support, nine opposed and three with comments. Members, any questions? Senator [unintelligible].

Farm Bureau. Brian, you're in opposition. Can you just highlight your biggest concerns, please?

Thank you Senator. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Also have Janet Ashman, who is our subject matter expert online. In summary, we believe that this bill is duplicating pesticide reporting requirements that again, we said it over and over again, we believe it unfairly targets farmers and ranchers.

In fact, there's an amendment that would exempt wood preservative pesticides. So again, there's already a reporting requirement at 45. I think we're not sure what the need to increase those reporting requirements.

And our concern is addition reporting, especially the detailed location geospatial data diverts time and resources away from education inspection and compliance investigations, which we believe are the most effective tools for mistreating or preventing misuse. We've said it over and over again, we do support the use of pesticides.

Of these tools, the proper and legal use misuse violators we do not support and we believe that there should be enforcement, but we also believe that education is a good way to spend some of our resources. Again, there are tools.

We had hearings this morning talking about pesticide subsidy for coffee berry borer, coffee leaf rust, the new Queensland longhorn beetle. You hear invasive species folks behind us. So we do support the legal use, proper uses of pesticide.

But again, we keep sharing our concerns that it seems that farming and ranching or the agriculture sector is always being targeted. And we believe there already is a reporting process and law in place. And we, we again support the legal and proper uses of pesticides. Thank you for the question. Senator.

Before, before you run off, you said Janet Ashman is online? She is, yes. Janet, are you all for. For all four bills?

She should be, yeah, I'm here.

Hi. Yeah, hi. Can you comment as well, please?

Yes. Thank you. It seems like everyone supports local agriculture and more food security, but at least in theory.

But when it comes to details like this and new laws and regulations being put on, even though EPA and the Local Department, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity have luminous laws and regulations on the books and enforcement and they do what they're supposed to do, we have an issue with this because measures like this and the others that are on this agenda, they really destroy any hope of successful farming in Hawaii.

What you're basically saying in these bills is that the use of pesticides is fine in people's homes, it's fine in their yards and schools, it's fine in streams and natural areas, parks, it's fine everywhere. You can manage invasive species everywhere else, but not on farms. And that just does not seem to be fair.

We are really concerned about the geospatial data because once these. There are some that would like to target certain farmers especially. And our farmers know that people have a lot of misunderstandings about pesticides, and so they're reticent about having to report exactly where they're located. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity knows all this information.

They collect this data. They know and they enforce based on the data. And they can also issue studies to work on public health matters, if there are any.

But to give geospatial data that groups could use to target for vandalism, for boycotts of particular firms that go on social media, and they really make the public think that there's something illegal going on, nefarious. And that's just not fair. So that those are my thoughts about.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jane. Thank you, Chair.

I had a question too, Senator [unintelligible]. I'm sorry, Brian, to give you more exercise than you were really counting on. Come on back. So I guess, I mean, I grew up in Indiana and I worked on a farm in Indiana and in Michigan, and we died.

Definitely used pesticides and herbicides and we wouldn't have been able to grow near the crops or raise as many cows as we hadn't. But I don't. I mean, what, what's the harm in knowing? I mean, the first bill changes the reporting period from one year to quarterly.

I, I don't doubt that the vast majority of farmers use all the different herbicides and pesticides the way they're supposed to. But how do you really know unless you have some kind of reasonable reporting requirements?

Thank you, Senator. Brian Miyamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. And I think Janet had an answer also. The Department has that information. The information is there.

So are they not. So I guess I can ask them, but go ahead.

I'm sorry again that we believe that they have the information and we're not sure why additional information is necessary.

We do feel, as Janet said, Ms. Ashley Mill, our testimony says over and over again that we feel unfairly targeted and there may be incidences of those who may target with some of the additional information that's required by the, the proposals within this bill.

But if, but if we're. But if everybody's using it correctly, then what. I mean how does that. It just proves you're right.

We believe majority of our producers are using it correctly. Yet there are still pieces of legislation that's coming in and asking for more restrictions or bans. And so again that's kind of our concern. We believe that they are. And in fact I the latest, I mean it's a.

It's a pretty old, I think study report from Department of Health demonstrated that. I think it was homeowners or the larger violators.

I think in consulting with DOH trying to find that document, I thought I had it, but it was reflecting that a lot of the violations were the homeowners and the complaints were coming from neighbors because of home use of pesticides. So again, we always feel like.

I don't approve of that either. But can I ask another question? I want to call you doa, but that's not what you are anymore. What information you said? Brian says the information is available already. Do you guys. What information is available and how do you share it?

So. Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Esther Reichert. I am the manager for pesticides branch. So the reporting that comes in is only from certified applicators. Currently our branch certifies the applicators who are going to use restricted use pesticides. So we already have that information. We have internally, right.

We have the information on how much product is being sold to them or distributed throughout the state. And now we also have the information required of these reporting requirements every year, once a year.

But. So who do you share it with and how often do you share it?

So right now it is only internally there is a public report that is created based on those yearly reports that we obtain and those are shared online at our website. We're current as of 2024. We are now compiling the reports from year 2025.

Okay, well that makes. Gives me one. Can I ask one more question? Go ahead. For Hoppa, if you don't mind explaining. Why that. I mean why is that not enough?

Yeah. So as I mentioned the. You know, in order to assess risk from potential drift if you have a particularly large parcel, like for example the ADC has a 13,000 acre parcel on the west side of Kauai. And you have no sense of where the applications are occurring.

You have no sense of whether what the potential for drift is or adjacencies to sensitive areas like school pools and waterways. So California has long required reporting within a square mile. I don't believe they've Seen an uptick in farms being targeted as a result of that.

It's really all of the good public health studies come out of California and they're able to come to that level of scientific inquiry because you have to have a certain level of geographic specificity to be able to assess.

And that's not in doa. Department of Ag and Biosecurity, they don't supply that.

So right now the reporting is required by tax map key or parcel. And those sizes vary widely across the state. So you have the majority of parcels are actually under a square mile. So really, I don't think this would apply to a vast majority.

In fact, we see in our analysis looking specifically at parcel rather than county summaries, we see the majority of use by perhaps 10 users across the state. So again, I don't know how many parcels exactly the more granular reporting would impact, but there are very few that are that large.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Okay, question for DEBS. So, so, so I get it because, you know, you know, everything becomes a health safety issue. But I noticed that even in the Bill, you know, this bill is targeted to restricted use pesticide.

You know, and my understanding of pesticide is whether it's restricted use, whether it's household use, what's the target of a pesticide?

So it's to either control, repel, mitigate a pest. And there are different kinds of pests. So you've got your insects, you got your fungus, you got your bacteria, viruses, anything that is considered a pest.

So help me understand, because I have my grandchildren that live with me, and I have my daughter that decides to shade cockroaches. How much is enough of killing a cockroach? Does she need of a roach killer to kill the cockroach?

So that would be based on the label. So each pesticide that is labeled for use has to undergo a review by the Environmental Protection Agency. They conduct a lot of risk assessments for both health and the environment to ensure that whatever risk there might be, they will have to require mitigations and labels for use on the product.

So. In like picture form, you would spray at a cockroach one time, right? But in real form, she's like, so half the can is gone.

So if I'm living in a one acre parcel in Ho'Olihua in Kuala Pu, and which is an old plantation area, and every household wife that hates a cockroach starts doing stuff like that, at what point do you step in and we're gonna get ready for a nice windy weekend this weekend, right before super bowl into rain because the same situation happened in Kauai where I believe the school was then evacuated because of a homeowner.

So I'm trying to figure out because basically what is organic, conventional or restricted use. I believe the target is to kill. Am I right or am I wrong?

You are correct. So our agency would be the one to respond. If it is a complaint, we need to respond as soon as possible because of our resources. And like you said, there are many users of pesticides. It impacts not just agriculture, but structural homeowners.

Our priority is to ensure that those who have access to the most hazardous products, which is the restricted use products, are using them correctly. So that way we don't we decrease the risk of off labeled on unlawful use of it. Right.

So I noticed that this. So this bill also includes fumigation.

It can. Because a lot of the fumigants are.

It's iup. Correct. So how do you guys go about all these guys and the schools were one of them, right? They tended the schools. How you guys go about also doing the enforcement? And then if the reporting becomes quarterly. So.

If the requirements are quarterly, right now we only have two staff that are working on consolidating, updating users on the reports that come in every year. And then we have currently one case prep who reviews all of those reports to ensure that it's accurate and correct. And if not, then we have to enforce that as well.

If it's quarterly, it would at least triple the workload. And so we would need more resources to accommodate that for enforcement purposes. As far as inspecting those who use fume against. We can do that. We currently are doing that.

So I guess I. So is the increased reporting necessary? Is my question from when the first Bill passed, did you guys have any, you know, any complaints come in within that time on an annual reporting versus now what we look at going forward? Because I can understand the commercial of having to do that.

But would you guys be ready for that transition if the Bill passes?

Let me get back to you on if our complaints have increased since the initial pass. Okay.

If you can turn it into Chair, that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, Chair, just one quick question. Come back up. You mentioned a. Yeah, and this is real quick. You mentioned about a phone app, right.

If there is an increase in reporting, we would. And geospatial data needing to be required. If we could have an online phone app or something related to that, we don't know. That would be something that needed to be developed probably by the Department of Agriculture.

I think it's a good idea, but I'll bet you it exists. So thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next UP on is SB 2103, requiring DAB to use consistent units of measurement in its summary to the public on the amounts of restricted use pesticide supply beginning January 12027 establishes a 1/2 mile buffer zone for pesticides around schools during normal school hours and state and county public parks.

First up is Environmental Health Administration.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Matt Carano, Department of Health, Environmental Health Services Division. Kind of like we said prior, our testimony really revolves around vector control responses when there's an outbreak. We are concerned that if there's a.

If there is an outbreak, we really do want to target these areas where people congregate, particularly schools. We want a full complement of tools, though we rarely use them.

That's just kind of our posture that in case we had to respond, we want to make sure that our hands aren't tied when there's an appropriate chemical or pesticide to use. Thank you. We stand on our comments and we're here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. DABs.

Thank you, Chair. Cedric Gates, on behalf of DAB, please. Stand on our written comments and here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Patrick Chee from dlnr.

Okay, so. The Department supports the, the use of toxics in toxicants in a safe way. And we do request that an exemption be added to this Bill for invasive species control by the state and its agents. It is not included as written. In addition, we believe that this restriction on restricted use pesticide use is largely based.

I mean, it's this half mile. I mean, going from 100ft to a half mile is quite a distance. And we believe that's somewhat dependent upon people believing that the drift is going to be large. But there's a significant difference for a variety of different applications, be it a liquid in spray form, this is just water, don't worry.

Or being at a solid. Right. A solid like a pellet. This is actually dog's food, but a pellet is about that size and it's often made out of cereal products and it can be in pellet form or in blocks and oftentimes in bait boxes.

And if there are those kinds of applications, the drift from something like this is going to be relatively small. So we would like to make sure that this Bill is reasonable in that it makes, you know, a difference that it, you know, dependent upon the way that it's applied, be it a liquid or solid.

Yeah, that's our comment. So thanks.

Thank you, Petra. Hunter Heaivilin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members Hunter Heaivilin. On behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We submitted testimony in support of this measure. I think the current hundred feet or so seems much more like a notional. Suggestion of a buffer zone from restricted. Use, pesticide and pesticide application around school zones. So expanding that half mile may not be what's necessary.

You know, that could be an overkill. But I assume no one is out there with a tape measure measuring exactly their distance.

So I think it might just afford a better understanding for those who are using these chemicals to make sure that they're within the bounds as opposed to teetering on the edge of potential infraction and the ramifications thereof.

As somebody who spends far too much time working in spreadsheets, you, unified data organization is critical to being able to establish a sense of what's actually going on, Particularly in food systems. This emerges when you're trying to measure bushels and bundles and pounds and quartz and et cetera.

And it seems reasonable to expect the Department of Agriculture to ask those who are submitted to the regulatory processes of using certain pesticides to just put it in a single unit. And I think the labels should probably afford an easy mechanism to determine what that unit should be. So with that, happy to answer any questions.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Hunter. Emmanuel Zibakalam from Hawaii Pest Control Association.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chairman of the Committee.

Emmanuel Zibakalam here on behalf of the Hawaii Pest Control Association. Testimony in opposition and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Ryan Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. The Hawaii farm bureau respectfully opposes this measure. I do want to correct something I said in previous testimony, and our testimony is pretty standard for all four bills.

Chair, When I talked about recent reports of pesticide issues, the report was about schools. And then so that's kind of our question about this. Also where the issues around schools that were asking what justifies the increase and the expansion.

The data shows that of all documented pesticide related incidents at schools in Hawaii, none were caused by farming operations targeting this Bill. All little poisoning incidents involved children in Hawaii. The vast majority happened inside a home, not because of nearby farming operations. Our concern with this Bill is the expansion of the buffer zones.

Again, it exempts structural pest control and it's adding in an exemption for Wood treatment pesticides, but it's also adding in state parks and public parks.

We had a hearing last week where one of the topics of buffer zones did come up and the loss to the farmer and the rancher or the farmer that has this buffer zone on their property and so increasing it from 100ft to half a mile.

I believe previously there were some maps that showed what that impact was and what that loss was. Because you're not, you know, if you need to utilize pesticides rups for your production in that era, you're going to lose that production. And now you're adding state parks and public parks also.

And some may have proximity to some of our agriculture parcels. So again, this could result and a decrease in farmable land for some of the farmers that are farming different commodities. So again, we do respectfully oppose this measure and we thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you, Brian. Next on Zoom is Clayton Kubo.

Klayton Kubo, Waimea, Kauai. You know, I get it. I know you guys gonna be all against this kind stuff, but you know What? Last year, February 5th of 2025, I was minding my own business, driving home on Kaumoli Highway. Coming to Kalmakane, we call that Kamakani Stretch Alum farms was spraying with a nitro sprayer.

I made a report one hit was non target. So I asked the Department of Agriculture, so what is the meaning of non target? You know what it's like. I never get the answer that I thought I was going to get. So when people say 100 foot is adequate is more than enough, I say no.

I don't know how many testimonies I did already. Yeah, I was kind of cool on the first measure, but just listening to others in opposition to something that is health and well being, it's like it kind of just blows me away already. And I probably going to leave after this measure.

So I won't say I go and say this testimony for the rest already. Mahalo, Nuri. Aloha.

Thank you, Clayton. Next is Mariana Manasseh on Zoom.

Unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Janet Ashman on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair. I hope you can hear me. Thank you. Yes. I would just want to add that existing laws do already address drift regardless of distance. So matter if there's a buffer zone or not, if there is a suspected drift.

And I heard Klayton and I've heard him before and there should be enforcement and there usually is enforcement. And I'm surprised about Kauai because their inspector is very good.

So what happens is a person like Klayton can and does make a complaint and the pesticide branch, and I'm sorry to be speaking for them, but they go out and they investigate. And since Klayton, for example, knew exactly where it was coming from and who was using the application, that is all.

If it's an RUP, it's all documented. And that was something that maybe got missed during the last bill. RUP data record keeping requirements are very, very strict. So just because that exact data doesn't go out in the annual report to the public doesn't mean that the Department doesn't have it.

So that's for the last bill and for reporting issues. But in this case, okay, the drift should be inspected. And there are really strong enforcement capabilities at the Department.

And I don't know what happened in his particular case, but in many, many other cases that I know about, there is strict enforcement and if sometimes the EPA even takes over from the Department to do enforcement on their side.

But I want to reiterate too that the large majority of our UP users are public agencies and non agricultural businesses. And it just seems really strange that we're targeting agriculture again. So suppose a farmer, for example, has.

Janet, your time's up. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, please.

I believe we did submit a written testimony, pretty extensive with several type citations, but Annie Frederick from the Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action and Support. So as I mentioned, we've been taking a close look at the data that's provided since Act 45. Again, I think it's important to note that we're only talking about restricted use pesticides here.

Hi.

And again, when we looked at the data over three years now, what we found consistently is really there's a handful to 2 handful of users that comprise the vast majority of RUP use across the state. What we've seen is hundreds of thousands of pounds of rups applied across the state.

The vast majority of those hundreds of thousands of pounds are fumigants. And particularly there are certain hotspot communities that are more heavily impacted. North central Oahu from Waialua to Wahiawa is one major hotspot where the vast majority of RUP use and specifically fumigant use is located West Kauai and upcountry Maui.

The thing about fumigants is they are highly volatile and prone to drift. There are many documented incidents in California where there's vast fumigant use of off target drift way over a half mile.

The largest, the most heavily used fumigant, T Lone or 1 3D is a known carcinogenic, a probable carcinogen classified by the EPA and a Carcinogen classified by the California epa. So you know, another dimension of this is, you know, we're often talking about these acute exposure incidents when people file violations.

But if a community is chronically exposed even at low levels over time, that's where we can those sorts of exposures lead to more serious lifelong, you know, impacts such as cancers and these more severe impacts. And often people do not know they're exposed. They might not even detect it or experience it. Experience it.

So the science supports a half mile and even greater than that. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this matter? There were 39 in support, 6 opposed with 4 comments. Members, any questions?

Question for DAB.

Senator DeCoite.

So just so if the buffer zones are increased from 100ft to half a mile from schools, elderly homes, health care facilities, how many farms you guys estimate will be affected and how would it impact farming operations?

So in our testimony we wrote how many current tax agricultural tax map keys are currently using restricted use pesticides. We haven't yet determined how many would be affected by schools, other elderly facilities, wells or any other issues regarding that.

Okay, so within some of you guys AG park, State AG parts, if the buffer zone was enforced, is the Department willing to make a change in the rent of lands that cannot be farmed?

So if there's a what was a 1 mile setback which probably just kicked them right off of the ag park because I think it's about a 1 mile perimeter circumference, that means you wouldn't have anybody in your AG park?

Senator, is a fair question. Farmers are very versatile, flexible. If that came into play, they might consider crops that would not be using RUPs. They'd be flexible, but we would certainly work with them. I'm not sure anyone from Armis here is this a pesticides issue.

So I can tell you this. I know Larry Jeff's farm. He would be wiped completely out of the egg park. And he grows cucumbers and tomatoes and bell peppers and everything else which is actually food production. So with and I believe he has a long term lease and he employs many people.

So my, you know my thought behind it was now you have which Molope has one of the highest unemployments. How do you now address that? And would the Department of Agriculture be willing to compensate that individual as if he had 10 years to help compensate these guys who have committed working for him.

I would have to get back to you on what our options would be and whether or not we have funding for compensation. We'd probably have to come to this esteemed body seeking funding for that.

I think Kumu Farms would be included in that. Who also has. I understand.

But let's hope for the flexibility that would allow them to maneuver Just just. My curiosity because a good question.

There's a lot of them that have. Been there for like 20 plus years. Good question. Anything to add? Esther?

Nothing to add at this time, no.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair thank you. I've just been notified that we have been granted an extra 30 minutes to our hearing which will end at 5. So let's move on to the next measure.

SB2713 beginning January 1, 2027 prohibits the application of RUPs within a half mile radius of elderly health care facilities with exemptions for whole structure fumigation and invasive species control. First up is Environmental Health Administration.

Good afternoon again. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Matt Carano, Department of Health, Environment Health Services Division I think like we've said in the previous testimonies, we're just concerned with the ability to actually treat and. Contain vector borne diseases in the event. Particularly in vulnerable communities like elderly care.

For facilities and are asking to be included in any kind of exemption from that. Thank you. Available for questions. We have our comments and stand on them.

Thank you. Patrick Chi eerom DLNR.

Aloha. Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, similar to my last testimony, we do appreciate that there is an exception for invasive species work, but specific to Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and the Invasive Species Committees of the Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit. We believe that this restriction may be and we made a mistake in our testimony.

It said too broad but actually means too narrow. And the Department recommends that this be extended to our Department, Department of Land and Natural Resources, as well as other invasive species control done by the Department and its agents as well as other Members of the hiss that are potentially doing invasive species work like the Department of Health.

But yes, as I said before, if there can be consideration dependent because restricted use pesticides do come in liquids and solids and whatnot. So there can be a difference as far as the buffer being smaller for things that are solids and are unlikely to to drift, that would be ideal. So thank you.

Thank you, Patrick. Next is DAB.

Thank you, Chair. DAB stands on the trip in testimony. Offering comments on this measure here for any questions.

Thank you. Next is Emmanuel Zakalam from Hawaii Pest Control Association. Thank you. Groto wife. Thank you. Annie frederick from HOPA.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. On Zoom. Janet Ashman.

Thank you. Chair. I just would like to add that again, it seems like it's okay to have exemptions for all except farmers. So DLNR is asking for their work to be exempted when they're combating invasive species.

We're combating invasive species also on the farms and our farmers who use RUPs or are trained and certified to use these pesticides. So shouldn't they be exempted also?

And when you talk about the whole structure, fumigations, we're talking about tenting, we're talking about not every house does that, not every building, business, school, but many do, and they're exempted. Again, it's not a fair situation. And one more thing.

The broad definition of elderly health care facility is really worrisome because you probably can think of many grocery stores like Safeway and others and Foodland and CVS all over the place now who offer treatment, shots, vaccinations, all kinds of things. It seems to me that they would fall under elderly health care facilities.

So we would have to have a buffer around those facilities, too. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jen. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Chair? We have someone that would like to testify on Zoom.

Okay.

Aloha. Chair and council are Committee Members. My name is Travis Liggett, and this. bill was my idea that I shared with the Chair's office. And the rationale was this to come up with a bill that closes a gap in the code that extends protections to Keikis but also to Kupuna.

It was a bill that was intended to literally save or extend lives. And here's the idea that we would like to avoid, which is wonderful. Kupuna being in an elder care facility, maybe with some sort of disorder from something like Roundup and then being then further exposed to this.

It just seems like to me a universally popular idea to protect the kupuna. To the maximum extent possible. And I just really appreciate you hearing this bill. And I just want to send my. Greetings to my Senator Dacoite. Just want to say keep up the great work. Thank you.

Thank you, Travis. Anyone else? Members, are there any questions? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to the last measure for this agenda. SB 2333 relating to Neo Neonics beginning January 1, 2027 prohibits the sale, possession or use of a pesticide containing one or more neonics.

Pesticides under certain conditions requires dabs to evaluate the potential impacts of and adopt any necessary control measures for neonic pesticides use on pollinating insects, native, migratory and resident birds, aquatic organisms and human health. First up is dab.

Thank you, Chair. DAB Stands on a certain testimony offering comments on this measure here for any questions.

Thank you. Patrick Chee from DLNR.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. The Department of Land and Natural Resources has strong concerns about the with the, with this bill. Neonicotinoids in general, of course there are of course impacts that are listed in the bill itself.

But there are some situations where the Department needs to use these neonictotinoid pesticides for instances like coconut rhinoceros beetle, where that is imidclopid, which is one of the nicotinoids listed is actually one of the only things that is labeled in order to treat coconut trees for coconut rhinochler spittle and prevent them from killing them.

It's also used for instances where there are trees or plants that are too large and it is impractical for other treatment methods to be used such as for black twigwort or low bait lack scale on large trees, especially ones for us in the Department, the ones that are threatened and endangered species, these may be the only kinds of pesticides that might be available to us in order to protect are native species in that respect.

So in addition, neonicotinoids are also used in as an active ingredient for flea and tick treatments for cats and dogs. And we would hope that there might be an exception for that. So we believe that also the bill's risk assessment provisions are somewhat duplicative of what the the EPA already requires of the new nicotinoid labels.

So thank you.

Thank you. Next is Annie Frederick from HAPPA.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members Annie Frederick, on behalf of HAPPA and support. So neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that are systemic in nature. They have become the most commonly used insecticide both nationally and globally.

Folks may be more familiar with the impacts to pollinators but now a vast body of research actually shows a wide array of human health and other environmental impacts from these insecticides. We have no idea because they are general use the extent of their use in Hawaii. So some of the human impacts are primarily reproductive harms.

Pregnant women are specifically vulnerable. We also know that they tend to persist in the soil and the water. So most of the human exposures come through water consumption through contaminated water. Additionally, aquatic species are particularly vulnerable and they've now a large body of research around just impacts to fish populations and other aquatic species.

And then of course pollinators are probably the most well known impacts which we've seen in other areas where they're heavily used. Things like colony collapse and other pretty severe impact to our pollinators. So we support the Department of Land and Natural Resources recommendations to exempt out for invasive species. Thanks.

Thank you, Annie. Next is Emmanuel Zibakalam from Hawaii Pest Control Association. Thank you. Scott Enright from the American Seed Trade Association offers comments. Brian Miyamoto. Thank you, Brian. Serena Chenery and Hardy Kern on Zoom from the American Bird Conservancy.

Thank you very much. Chair, Vice Chair thank you very much. Committee Members. Hardy Kern, American Bird Conservancy we are in strong support of SB2333. American Bird Conservancy is a proud partner of the Division of Land and Natural Resources in Hawaii. We do a lot of work around Hawaii's native forest birds and their conservation.

But neonicotinoids, as they're currently used and as widely as they're used not for invasive species control, we would absolutely support exemption for invasive species control. This has been discussed.

But in their wider use they are extremely detrimental to invertebrates that are the basis for food webs for Hawaiian stilts, Hawaiian coots, and eventually getting all the way up into Hawaiian forest birds as well. They're extraordinarily water soluble.

In Australia, there's been work done to show that they are actually impacting coral reefs offshore when they have been used for agricultural and other purposes on the mainland. And that's something that we would love to avoid happening in Hawaii as well. We are in strong support of this Bill and the measures that are in it.

And we are particularly supportive of the way that it is examining the different impacts on different taxa in Hawaii and very much appreciate the comments made earlier.

But we feel very much that the EPA labeling and the EPA registration procedures around these chemicals are incomplete and very under protective and the only way that these are being meaningfully restricted is at the state level. So we are excited to see this introduced and very strongly in support. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Hardy. Next is Yvonne Yoro in person.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Yvonne Yoro testifying as an individual in support of this bill.

I sat on my written testimony in support, but I just really want to highlight that neonicotinoids are a class of neurotoxic systemic insecticides that are toxic to bees, other pollinators, aquatic organisms, native migratory resident birds and humans as mentioned.

But I'd like, if, if I may, Chair, I'd like to kindly propose an amendment to include in Section 2, subsection A to evaluate at minimum the potential impacts of neo nicotinoid pesticides on soil health, including the aspects such as its ability to sequester carbon, sustain plant and animal productivity and maintain or enhance water and air quality.

Happy to provide any answers if you folks need.

Thank you. Thank you for testifying. Next is Mariana Monasi on Zoom.

Unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Janet Ashman on Zoom.

Thank you. Chair I just want to make four points. One is that some neonicotinoids are RUP's. This bill would allow Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to designate anything that they deem to be in the neonicotinoid class as a restricted use.

The second point I want to make is that as far as bees go, farmers depend on bees and many farmers have beehives in their fields. So they are very watchful over how pesticides and other practices may affect their bees.

And so I want to say that across the world there have been no mass losses like colony collapse of honeybees linked to neonicotinoids anywhere. So that is a, that really should be looked at before being deemed credible.

The last point I want to make is that while we don't oppose more studies and evaluations of these active ingredients, we are concerned that the Department of AG and Biosecurity may not be the appropriate agency to take that on. It's very costly, it's very time consuming. You need specific expertise.

And states like California, who have a lot of agriculture and use a lot of pesticides, including neonics, are more able to do that as well as, of course, the EPA and under its direction. Thank you.

Thank you, Janet. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing None. Members, any questions?

Not a question for DABs, if you don't mind. Is that true that the neonicotinoids do not cause bee colony collapse anywhere in the world?

So that I cannot attest to. However, at a federal level with EPA, they are aware that there were concerns of neonicotinoids and pollinators, which is why they have enacted further labeling restrictions regarding those products.

So, I mean, the bottom line is they're not good for bees. But I mean, that's quite a statement that they. Is it? I'm sorry, I'm just being very inarticulate suddenly. But bees are one of the things that people are most concerned about when it comes to nicotinoids. Correct.

So a lot of the studies have been done around honeybees just because that is where most of the pollination occurs, like industrial and there are standards and guidelines to do to conduct studies on honeybees. There are other kinds of pollinators, like solitary bees.

You know, you've got your flies, fruit flies, things of that nature that don't have current standards. So right now most of the studies are going to be done on honeybees, but the assumption is that that study can be used for other types of pollinators.

Okay, but it's, it's negative. It's not help bees grow larger colonies or anything.

So you have to understand that the apiary industry on the mainland might be different than what the apiary standards are.

Better off than a lot of.

But there are going to be hazards for any pesticide product, which is why there are mitigations on the label itself to help reduce that. So in this case, federal agency was aware. Yes, neonicotinoids are hazardous to pollinators. And with that information they have put in further restrictions on the label. All right, thank you.

Okay, anyone else? Yeah.

Yes, before you go on, Patrick, but you guys probably answered how long, How long does neonics last? Specifically the one that you folks are. Using in the coconut trees?

So I'm aware that there are nicotinoids being used for coconut trees right now. There are different percentages of the active ingredient. Right. So it all depends on how much is being used because they are systemic. Most of the ones that I am aware of normally state do not let flowering or pollination or fruiting occur.

So pollination doesn't occur within one year of when. So there's a residual effect because it is a systemic product.

How one more time do we arrive at the one year.

So that would be based on EPA's risk assessments as far as the roots of exposure. So not just exposure from the tree itself, but other products that will contain that neonicotinoid, whether it's agricultural use, structural use, food consumption use.

They have to ensure that whatever routes of exposure are accounted for when they conduct these or make these label rates for these products.

Senator, I'd like to add that the particular product we're talking about is used on okra, strawberries, tomatoes, According to the label it has wide use including listed on the label is a tree, nuts and specifically named coconut tree. So it's not something that we are not following the label.

And most, there's many, many products that are also on the label. And the one year is also something that we, you know, we label the tree so we don't we make notice that this tree has been treated.

And before they treat, we take off all the nuts and flowers and make sure that there's no way that no attraction to the bees.

A follow up question. What if you, if this bill passed. What would would that affect the injection of the trees?

I don't think so, but I'll let the SME respond. So with the way the bill is currently written, you would have to be a certified applicator in order to use the product.

But you can only purchase the product from pest control operators, which are normally operators who are licensed to treat pesticides, whether it's in the structural environment or a commercial environment. So in our written testimony, I did notate that our Department currently allows permitting for dealers who distribute restricted use pesticides.

That might be a better option if you want to limit the distribution of neonates.

Yes, but the one year. So it really doesn't matter. Zero, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter about the one year. They would still have to use it according to the label.

Does this affect the Department of Agriculture and the city from injecting trees with.

Neonates if they currently do not have.

Can you stop it or you guys still can?

They still can if they are a certified applicator.

Are they all certified?

The ones that are.

So this won't stop. What impact will it have on that. Specifically in the future? Could it have impact? Could you guys see that if this passes?

Go ahead. Okay, so the only certified pesticide operators can. Operators can apply certain RUPs. So it doesn't affect who applies. Does affect who sells.

Does both. It does both. It does both. So if an agency currently does not have a certified applicator, they would need to become certified through our Department. Currently, our certification standards are based on the usage type.

So depending on how they're going to use the neonicotinoids, whether it's a veterinarian trying to use topical, if it's a homeowner trying to, you know, control insects within their home, whether it's for invasive species control, whether it's for use in a park, they would all have to be certified through us to ensure the competency of being able to understand, read the label, understand state regulations, federal regulations.

If they don't currently have a certified applicator, then they cannot use that product and then they cannot buy the product unless a pest control operator is willing to sell it. So just because you're a certified operator doesn't mean that you are forced to or mandated to sell these neonicotinoids. So that limits your distributor.

Will they still sell to the DOA or DAB? Will they still sell to you guys.

The state, if they decide to sell. But like I mentioned before, the pest control operators are mainly companies that treat and use pesticides. I don't know how often they Actually just give you. Sorry, I don't mean to cut you off. No, no, you're fine, you're fine.

We get our pesticides to the pesticide distributors such as Nutrien, basf. The ones that are currently certified to distribute.

Will they still sell to you folks?

Yes, I will.

Depends on. I'll leave it to you if they sell. I mean I don't see why not. But they would have to become. With the way the bill is currently written, they would have to become pest control operators which goes through a different agency. Not do us.

But your. Your concern was whether or not the trees would still get injected, right? Yeah. The people that's the companies that sell the equipment that do the injections, they have to train the CP. The certified pesticide operators in use, only those people that are trained can use the injectables.

Okay, thank you. I got a follow up based upon what you just said. Okay. Is very common use pesticide in the veterinary world. So what you're saying is if we're. Going to treat animals only the veterinarian could treat them because this is take home products now. So it would not be available to the.

The veterinarian would have to become a certified applicator through us. So in addition to all their licenses and permittings they have to be as veterinarians now they have to go through our Department become a certified applicator of restricted use pesticides. And then they would have to obtain their products from a pest control operator.

But it normally comes through a pharmaceutical company.

It might be.

So the pharmaceutical would then have to. Be a certified pesticide.

Correct. And all of the other distributors box and stores that might want to continue selling these products. And you also have to understand that the registrants who license these products for distribution in the state can also cancel their licenses as well.

And so at that point the distribute whomever the pest control operator is won't be able to obtain that from the registrar.

But the veterinarian would have to apply. They couldn't do dispense it to the client. Yes.

They would then have to be a pest control operator.

Okay. Yes.

Okay. We have a hard stop at 5 o'clock. 5 o'clock. So we don't have enough time to go into decision making. So the chair is going to make the call here and we're going to defer decision making on these four measures to Monday, February 9th at 3:01pm here in room 224. Have a great weekend. Aloha.