Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Aloha mai kākou and good afternoon. Mahalo for joining today's AEN WLA hearing. It's Wednesday, February 11th and we're convened here in room 224 and video conferencing which includes the audio and video of remote participants that's being streamed live on YouTube.

So, in the unlikely event that this hearing is cut short, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Friday, February 13th at 3:05pm. During AEN's time slot, 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 one minute time limit for all testifiers and we'll have a virtual countdown timer on the zoom screen.

So, getting started with the first measure is SB 2489, requiring the each lease that the Department of AG and Biosecurity enters into, renews or extends to include provisions stating that the Department may: 1 enter the lease premises, 2 order or otherwise require the lessee to maintain control of any invasive species on the lease premises and 3 terminate the lease for refusal or violation.

First up we have is DAB.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Esther Reichert, Pesticides Branch Manager for Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. On behalf of the Department, we stand on our written testimony. Thank you.

As with comments, next is Patrick Chi from DLNR.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committees. We support this bill, the Department and we support the various authorities that this bill would grant the Department of Land and Natural, the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

We also note that the DAB already has a lot of the authorities that are in this bill, but nonetheless having it explicitly listed in statute would be helpful. We also find that there's a new part in there requiring the lessees to maintain control over any invasive species on the lease premises, which we appreciate. Mahalo.

Next is Stephanie Easley from CGAPS.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Easley with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. So reading, we're in support, strong support of this measure. Reading DAB's testimony, they point out that since 2022 they've had a policy to include similar language that from their testimony appears to be even stronger than what is proposed here.

I'm wondering if that could be codified in a statute because the issue is that they have different policies at different times with different access provisions in their leases and then those can change because they're just policies.

And then when there is an infestation in an ag park, the Plant Industry division would have to go to the ARM, Agricultural Resource Management Division, and get a list of the lessees and the list of the different provisions.

And so having it in statute what's required to be in the leases would mean going forward, it would be clear that the access was was granted for all these. I'm here if you have any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Nathan Dube with OISC. Is it Dube or Dube?

Dube.

Dube.

But either works.

Okay.

Good afternoon Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. OISC is in strong support of this measure. As an organization that deals with a lot of private property access, we know how important getting permission to access in order to control invasive species is.

While we primarily work in private property, any tool that's going to expand DAB's authority to help control these invasive species and contain them, we're in very much strong support of that. Here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Nate. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the, Members of the committees. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. We provided comments. You've heard us. We support battling invasive species. We support any efforts to control and eradicate invasive species.

We do share some comments and want to make sure that, you know, this is a measured approach, that reasonable notice is given and that the Department works with the lessees. Our lessees, some of them in good faith, may be trying to do whatever they can to control invasive species, but maybe the neighbors aren't.

Maybe it's not an AG Park Lessee, maybe it's public lands or private lands. So again, considerations need to be taken from the Department when it comes to the lessees who are, in good faith, trying to address invasive species.

Again, we support any effort to tackle invasive species, but we do provide some comments of caution and make sure that we are working with our lessees to address this situation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Brian. Nicole Galase on Zoom Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.

Thank you Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. Nicole Galase on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.

We submitted our testimony with concerns about this bill, commenting, as it puts the responsibility and penalties onto the leaseholder, even if the invasive species were on the property prior to their management, which is often the case, and they are often making efforts to address the issues.

But we recommend amending language towards ensuring the leaf builder cooperates with the state regarding invasive species because it is definitely important for us to address on all lands because invasive species do not pay attention to parcel boundaries. Mahalo.

Thank you, Nicole. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Okay. We had six in support, one opposed and three with comments. We'll move on to the next measure. SB 2310 appropriates funds for the removal of overgrain vegetation from the Kāneʻohe Stream. And first up is DAB.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, once again, I'm Esther Reichert on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. And we stand by on our comments and in support of this bill.

Any others who want to testify on this measure? I got a question for DAB. You said in your testimony that you believe that the a segment of the stream in question is managed by DOT. And if that's the case, it would make sense to have the funds appropriated to DOT. Can you show us.

Can you clarify that and what you were talking about.

Good afternoon, Senator. Kevin Moore with the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. So, as our testimony explains, DAB in 2024 hired a contractor to clear all of the parcel under its jurisdiction. They stopped at the boundary of a DOT. I say DOT parcel. I did some research with DLNR on this.

The parcel is technically ceded lands under DLNR's inventory. A long time ago, it was leased to Lihue Plantation Company for a cane haul road. In 2007, the Department of Transportation built a bypass, Kapoho bypass road using that Cane Haul Road alignment. So that became a DOT highway.

That parcel where we think the vegetation clearing needs to occur is a section of that DOT highway.

You just send me. Yeah, okay.

All right, thank you very much. All right, anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Any other questions? Moving on to SB 2372, relating to trees. Establishes base selection criteria for exceptional trees. Establishes a significant tree designation selection criteria and related processes. Establishes the State Arborist Advisory Committee within the DLNR for administrative purposes.

Requires the County Arborist Advisory Committees to have at least six members. Adopt new exceptional tree selection criteria and designate significant trees. And directs the DLNR and UH to cooperate with the state and county Arborist Advisory Committees to carry out the Exceptional Trees Program. So on this one, let's see. First up is Department of Taxation.

The Department of Taxation stands on its written testimony.

Thank you, Heather MacMillan, from DLNR.

Aloha, Vice Chairs and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm our State Urban and Community Forester, and DLNR stands on its written testimony, which I won't reiterate here. I just want to add that exceptional trees may be beautiful, but trees are not beautification. They are critical infrastructure that we rely on for our survival.

And so this bill offers a pathway to enhance the protection for those and provide some rewards and encouragement for people to maintain and protect these exceptionally large trees that really do provide the majority of benefits that we enjoy in the places where we live, our urban areas. Thank you.

Thank you, Heather. Next is Winston Welch from Outdoor Circle.

Aloha, Chair and Committee Members. Yep, we stand on our written testimony, but just wanted to offer a couple micro-amendments to that. As pointed out to us, there's eight listed number of members on the State Arborist Advisory Committee. It it actually there's a counting error there, so it needs to be.

It's nine, but only four are required beyond the four county arborist advisory position. So we would just ask for a congruity there, just one more. As well as the small edit that was recommended by our colleagues at Trees for Honolulu's Future, which is that the arborist advisory committees recommend trees to the various county councils, who actually put those into ordinance based on the recommendations, and they go through a regular legislative process.

And we really appreciate this legislation to advance our exceptional tree acts, which really hasn't been modernized in over 50 years. So this is a significant and important improvement. So we thank you for your support.

Okay, thank you, Winston. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Any Members? Any questions?

Seeing none, we'll go on to the next measure, SB 2426, allowing DLNR to contract or form a partnership with private parties to assist with the maintenance and management of sunscreen dispensers at all state beaches, as well as publicize that the mineral-based sunscreen in these dispensers is more protective of the coral reefs at the state.

Okay, first up is DLNR. Are you Charlie Taylor?

Yes, sir. Aloha, Chairs.

Aloha

Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Charlie Taylor on behalf of DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand on our written testimony in support and are available for any questions.

Thank you, Charlie. Next up is Ted Bohlen with Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition.

Thank you, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Ted Bohlen, on behalf of the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Chair Lee. I think I recall 10 years ago working on a bill like this with you to ban certain chemical sunscreens. Then both Chairs. This is also a good bill.

Mineral sunscreens have been found to be graced by the Federal Government, and the chemical sunscreens have not. The mineral sunscreens have been used at beaches. And I think if we had availability through dispensers, that would be a great way to protect both the health of the beachgoers and of the reefs. We need to do both.

So I urge you to pass this bill. And the education portion is very important as well. And I urge you to pass the bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

I am available for questions.

Thank you. Lynn Miyahira from Public Access to Sunscreens.

Hi, I'm on Zoom here, on maternity.

Are you testifying as your baby?

Just me.

Okay.

It's nap time. My name is Lynn Miyahira. I'm representing the Public Access to Sunscreens. We support the intent of this measure in providing free sunscreens at all state beach parks. However, we do have some concerns about the promotion of mineral sunscreens as being more protective of coral reefs.

I understand that, you know, there's been some studies but there's still, the science is still evolving on how much of an impact sunscreen chemicals actually do have on coral reefs. And there's also some look at, it's in my written testimony, but mineral sunscreens, also, in certain quantities, also can be damaging to marine life.

So I would caution our legislators in providing, you know, materials that promote reef safe. And basically what I'm saying is that we could ban all the sunscreen in the world and it probably have very little effect on our coral reefs.

So we should really focus and concentrate on things like lowering our carbon emissions, and you know, focusing on things like cesspools and wastewater treatment that are really going to have a huge impact. And thank you for the opportunity.

Okay, thank you very much, Lynn. And anyone else wishing to testify on this measure. Members, any questions?

Question.

Senator Decoite.

Hawaii Coalition, please.

Thank you, Senator. Ted Bohlen for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition.

So I don't know if this question is actually for you, but you're not part of the Skin Cancer Coalition as well?

No, I'm not.

We didn't. Okay. Skin Cancer Coalition, sorry. Thank you.

Senator DeCoite. Actually, we work with the Hawaii Skin Cancer Coalition.

So, in Eager's testimony, you express opposition in part because the measure limits state-funded dispensers to non-mineral sunscreen options. From your perspective as an organization that prioritizes access to sunscreen, do you believe that maintaining the current status quo, no state-funded sunscreen dispensers, is preferable to the approach proposed in the bill?

Well, I'm not technically representing the Skin Cancer Coalition. We do work with them, though. But I can say that what we want to do is make sure that, you know, the best sunscreen is the sunscreen you use the most often.

So we want to make sure that access to all FDA-approved sunscreens is kept available, and that state funds should be made for all FDA-approved, you know, "legal sunscreens for Hawaii" should be made available for any state-funded sunscreen dispensers.

Those that follow you. So just for.

In Hawaii, that would be anything that doesn't contain oxybenzone.

Oxybenzone. And then under FDA approval.

Technically, those are FDA-approved, but in Hawaii, we've been, so we would prefer that anything that doesn't contain those two UV filters be available for the sunscreen dispensers.

So specifically, you believe these products pose less risk to Hawaii's coral reefs than mineral-based sunscreens?

There's the sunscreen. The science is really evolving on whether or not these chemicals actually do have a profound impact on our coral reefs or not. The studies that have been cited in the past have used concentrations that don't necessarily are found in nature. They've been cranked up in labs. Right. And so, like anything at high concentration. Yeah, it's gonna be bad for our coral reefs.

So I agree with you, Lynn, because I can tell you, and just for the record, Ted, I actually introduced the first sunscreen. Wasn't Chair Lee. Sorry, Chair. So they killed the bill in the House. But it was due to exactly what you're saying, Lynn.

It was all done in labs instead of open, where you get a better clear access. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you, Senator.

All right, moving on to the next measure. SB 2334, beginning January 1, 2027, requires the payment of an ag land conversion fee by the buyer or lessee in a transaction for any ag land that will be converted from ag production for certain purposes.

Establishes the Ag Land Conversion Fee Fund to, among other things, support the Health Soils Program. Requires all state lands used in the commercial production of ag commodities, including any lands under lease agreements with the Department of Ag and Biosecurity, to use them. Establish metrics to advance the adoption of conservation practices. First up is DAB.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Once again, I'm Esther Reichert with Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. We stand on our written testimony and offering comments on this bill.

Thank you. Next is Ted Bohlen from Climate Protectors Hawaii and Hawaii Reef Ocean Coalition.

Thank you, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Ted Bohlen, on behalf of the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and the Climate Protectors Hawaii. I think this is a good bill. It's very important to have land conservation and also healthy soil conservation.

The one comment I would have is that the distinction between the section of the bill that has, would strike solar and wind, I think, should be removed from the bill. There's such a thing as agrovoltaics, which is being pursued in many other places, which provides shade for livestock and can be very useful.

We need farmland as well as healthy soil to be preserved, and renewable energy. So I recommend the bill to strike those two provisions available for questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Ted. Next is Hunter Heaivilin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chair. Hunter Heaivilin on behalf of Hawai'i Farmers Union.

We're in support of the intent of this measure, and I unfortunately, I think some of the ideas behind it may have been muddled in the presentation in the current version of the bill, namely that it references funding programs that are yet to exist within the Department of Agriculture.

Our testimony reference, you know, doesn't clarify the situation all that well, as it's referencing, I think, prior drafts of this measure. We support ensuring that there is effective governance over the uses of our agricultural lands.

The idea for this emerged from work looking into our land study regulation systems and noting that other states have implemented conversion fees as a disincentive. Ideally could be paired with incentives to ensure certain forms of activity are retained on agricultural land.

We view this as an opportunity to route resources from, say, conversion fees into programs like the one currently being proposed under the Climate Commission, which would create a healthy soils or conservation agriculture incentive. Thank you.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Offers comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next measure, SB 2925, establishing a recognition of coconut trees as a source of food and water and as a cultural treasure.

Requires DAB to establish rules to allow the use of coconut tree seed banks in the the state requires owners or operators of property where any coconut tree is located to post and maintain a sign that clearly indicates that the coconut tree is a landscape palm when applicable.

Requires DAB to establish labeling standards for non consumable landscape ponds and establishes an income tax credit for consumable coconut trees maintained through natural management practices. First up is DAGs.

Good afternoon, Chair. Members of the Committee, the Department would like to change its testimony from opposition to comments and otherwise. I will be here available for any questions?

Thank you very much. Heather McMillan from DLNR. In support Department of Taxation. Comments? Okay, Mia Hunter on zoom from Mali. Can't hear you, Mia. There you go. Start again, please. You're gonna have to turn up your volume or something. Can't hear. Mia, see if you can adjust. We'll come back to you in a few minutes, okay?

Can you hear me okay? Okay, we'll come back in just a minute. Christy Martin from SE Gaps. Thank you. Stephanie Hunter Hellin, Hawaii Farmers Union. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Daniel Anthony, Thank you.

Good afternoon, guys. Pleasure to be before you today. I'm not going to make any assumptions that you folks are dealing with coconut rhinoceros beetle in your community. But here is the reality is for the last 13 years, the Department of Ag hasn't had a plan to save coconuts. They've had a plan to save landscape homes.

In this last 13 years, neither the cultural community, the subsistence community or the practitioners have been involved in any of the decision making. I feel that this can be dangerous in a place like Hawaii, which has such a unique and important culture that the Legislature is designed to protect and ensure that for future generations we're able to subsist. And so we're here pleading and asking for help.

We need your help to build a better, stronger relationship with the Department of Ag. You see, they are the key players in this invasive species battle. Yet their staff, they don't have any scientists, they don't have any practitioners, they rely on third parties.

What we're asking is for your help to help to recognize that Hawaii has a special culture that needs to be taken into consideration when decisions are made. This Bill is important because it will help the coconut trees be able to communicate with the community and tell us which trees are the safe ones to drink and which ones are not.

This Bill is important because as Department of Ag Chair Sharon Hurd had told me in past years, there's nothing I can do, Daniel, because the coconut is not listed as something special. Now, I don't want to assume that coconuts are special in your district, but they are on my home, and my farm and my children depend on them. My 91-year-old grandfather consumes 20 to 40 coconuts per week.

Some of the questions that the community has had in regards to the current strategy is really, how many coconuts do you need to drink from a tree that has been poisoned to be sick? And the reality is that there have been no studies made by the chemical manufacturers as to the safety of these poisons.

Daniel, your Time is up. Thank you very much.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Abai on Zoom.

Not available on Zoom chair.

Okay. Alohi on Zoom in person. Okay. Please.

Aloha. Nui. I grew up in Waiala Nui. I'm currently a resident of Kahalu. And I thank you for this opportunity to talk about this super important issue that we have facing our community. I walked outside, I haven't been here in about a year, and I was shocked to see the damage to our trees on our state capitol.

So I know it's an issue that is impacting all of you because you see it every day. What this bull is trying to do is to give us some leverage to be able to more effectively as a community, deal with the coconut rhinoceros beetle.

We traveled to Kauai recently and I did not realize how many trees there are that are community managed and full of nuts on that island. I'm thinking that it's like that on a lot of the other islands.

So we have to have a way to safely manage the trees across our Paina and to really get our community involved in a way that it has not been involved before. And this is, I think, a super important step to doing that. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Clayton Kubo on Zoom.

Not available on Zoom chair.

Okay, we'll go back to Amia Hunter on Maui.

It seems like Mia is having technical issues with her microphone, but she does state in the chat that she wanted to affirm that MDOA stands by their written testimony and support.

Okay, thank you.

All right, anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Questions?

Hi, thank you for coming. So I noticed that already in statue which I didn't realize 149A f b says the owner or operator of the property on which any coconut tree is located shall post and maintain a sign clearly indicating that the coconut tree is a landscape palm and not for human consumption.

That is currently not in our rules. However, with this Bill, if this Bill is passed, then it would be come along.

So. So if that happens, how do you guys plan to initiate that?

In other words, the enforcement of making sure that this lines are in place? Yeah, so right now we would just do it on an ad hoc basis on when inspections would occur. So if we inspect for pesticide use on product that may have been treated on a coconut, then we would check for the signs.

We currently do not have the resources to ensure that everyone who owns a coconut palm for landscape use has the sign.

Could it be that an actual homeowner also does landscape coconuts as well as consumption?

Correct. So it'd be anyone who has a coconut palm, if it's being used for landscape purposes, then they would need to adhere to the signage.

So would. So what happens at that point we would contact you guys, you guys would come out. I mean I. I trying to figure out cuz. I mean yes, so like I get coconuts, my neighbor get coconut trees.

And yes, that where it's written it would be under the jurisdiction of pesticides branch because those are our rules to enforce. So if there was a suspected violation, then it would come to our branch and we would investigate.

Okay. So do you have any recommendations on what percentage of qualified costs can be claimed in getting the tax credit?

I do not have an answer for you, but I can get back to you on that.

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

Chair? Yes. Is it Daniel? Yes, sir. Yeah. Could you come up and answer a few questions please? First of all, I appreciate you being here. So talk to me. Are you a farmer of coconuts? Do you sell them commercially?

I'm more focused on subsistence. Okay. This coconut rhinoceros beetle has. We took a DOA grant two years ago and since then have come under management of about 500 coconut trees on the east side of the island.

One of the things that we realized is that if we didn't figure out a way to save existing fully producing coconut trees, we weren't going to have the seeds to replant. One of the things, I think there's a misconception. I think the Department of AG sees a seed bank as a nursery that has baby coconut trees.

The seed bank, in order for the coconut to be viable as a seed, it needs to turn brown in the tree and generally fall. And so there's all kinds of liability issues around that. The idea is to flush out. Is it 60ft from a walkway? Right. What are the.

How do you have coconuts and have seeds and have them drop without liability? Is it the question. The other question that this, that this Bill really answers is the liability around. You don't have a tree that's labeled, it has been poisoned, someone consumes it. Right.

Article 12, section 7 talks about native gathering rights, which coconuts are one of the things that traditionally is gathered for food and water. And so having an inability to figure out which tree is a landscape tree versus which one is a part of our food system is something that's going to be necessary.

Now, I know people are worried about how we're going to afford to put signs on trees. I think the reality is people that are concerned about liability are going to be the first ones to do it. It's going to be way cheaper to put a sign than get sued by someone for drinking a poison coconut.

The other part, I think is really critical and important. And this just talks about, you know, I mean, I'm 47 years old. I had to buy professional climbing gear last year, and I started climbing coconut trees. Yeah, I'm hitting 60 footers at 47 because there's not enough people out there participating in proper management.

And what happens when you poison the tree? It's like taking chemotherapy. It makes the tree completely weak. And so as an indication to the climber and the person maintaining it, what type of additional safety gear is required? Because there are. As. As you guys have noticed, we had the big windstorm. Yeah.

I saw Instagram that Kanye all had eaten a hamburger and a coconut tree fell over. And it was. Because it was full of crb. Well, I think at this point, a falling coconut tree is more likely than falling coconuts. And how are we going to address this? By people being able to be educated about what is this in front of them.

So you are raising coconuts?

I am, yes.

How are you fighting CRB?

Perfect. So I'm a Korean natural farming practitioner. I sit on the CGN at Hawaii board. Eight years ago, I learned about this solution called Jadam sulfur. It's a homemade solution with sulfur that basically acts as a deterrent in the trees. What we've realized in the last two years is by simply feeding your trees On a regular basis.

A healthy tree resists things like the beetle better than a tree that's not fed. So part of it is not. There's, there's a strategy. There's not a single solution. The other part, and I just want to be straight with you guys, the number one solution to fight CRB is, is a fungus called Metarhizium anastopolia.

And if you go to the CRB response team website, the Department of Ag website, DLNR website, they all list this fungus as being highly effective. Yet it says unregistered in Hawaii. The chemicals that they're using are unregistered in Hawaii. They had to file for an exemption. What is the challenge with filing for an exemption?

To use a tool that you know is effective. Secondly, this fungus still allows for coconut trees to be edible. Now, Senator, I would invite you to come out and view the places that we are using, the natural deterrents.

And I can give you coconuts off trees that can be eaten right next to trees that are not maintained, that are completely consumed. Kahana is a perfect example. The trees at the beach park that have been poisoned are dead. The ones in my grandpa's yard that. Yes.

Every month I'm in the tree spraying them regularly are producing more fruit and are. I mean, some of them are bitten.

Yes. Okay. So I actually show up when you say come look. So if you could stop by my office and give me your contact information. 100%. Okay. So I appreciate that the chair will be going along as well. You probably heard too. Yeah. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for your insight.

Okay. The final measure on the 3 o' clock agenda is SB3323 relating to ecosystem rights. Recognizes watersheds and coral reef ecosystems as legal persons with inherent and enable rights to exist, flourish and naturally evolve. Establishes enforceable ecosystem rights grounded in public trust doctrine and Native Hawaiian customary stewardship.

Authorizes citizen enforcement, restorative and injunctive remedies, civil penalties and continuing duties of ecological repair, including for historic harms. Provides for open representation, community consultation, co governance and supremacy over conflicting laws. First up is DLNR Charlie Taylor.

Aloha Vice Chair is Charlie Taylor. On behalf of DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources, we stand on our written testimony appreciating the intent and providing comments. Just noting. I'm sure you guys hear that a lot. Appreciating the intent and providing comments.

Probably get sick of hearing that, but just wanted to really emphasize that the DLNR and the Division of Aquatic Resources. I don't think There are any other state employees more dedicated to protecting the Hawaii's ecosystem, such as watersheds and coral reefs. We're very passionate about this.

We're very dedicated about this and that's why we support the intent of this Bill. However, just the way this is drafted, I won't go through every line right now with you guys if you want have questions later, but we do find some problems just the way it's drafted.

There could be some reading of this that would restrict almost all commercial fishing activities in the state if read literally in this Bill. So and that kind of that causes concern for us, but we do really appreciate the intent and are very much supportive of protecting our watersheds. Available for any questions.

Thank you, Charlie. Next is the AG.

Good afternoon, Chair G. Members of the committees, Deputy AG Alyssa Cowell on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General, similarly to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, we appreciate the bill's intent and to strengthen environmental protections. However, we have submitted testimony opposition of the Bill. We have several significant legal concerns.

Those were all outlined in our Bill, but mainly they concern due process. It opens up liability to the state to claims and would allow people to put in for claims that go back to 1959 and that would open up the state to significant liability.

It would also pose due process concerns for those who have rectified their violations that may have occurred on an administrative level or at at another civil level. It's also not clear how or who could enforce these rights. So I'm available if you have any questions. Yeah, I'll be here. Thanks.

Thank you, Alyssa. Next is Ted Boland for Reef and Ocean Coalition, Climate Protectors Hawaii.

Thank you. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Ted Boland, in strong support of the intent of this Bill. We start with the notion that man is a part of nature, not above it. And a lot of our law is based on the assumption that we are superior to nature and nature is there to serve us.

That's not how it works in real life. This Bill is grounded in the public trust and the Native Hawaiian customary stewardship concepts there are. I would agree with the previous speaker.

There are some issues to be worked out in terms of the legal aspects of it, but I think it's very important to move something forward and recognize the way this Bill can help with watersheds and coral reefs. And that's really important. So thank you for your attention to this Bill. Available for questions. Thank you. Thank you, Ted.

Christopher Dean from Clean the Pacific on Zoom.

Hello Committee Members. Thank you so much for taking my testimony, I would encourage you to try to listen to my podcast that I gave at the Museum of Natural History in New York City. You may have to like cut and paste it into the browser window that I included with my testimony.

I would only also like to add that the coral reefs are the foundation for life in the ocean and the ocean is the foundation for all life on this planet. And we are losing our coral reefs at an exponential rate. There are many reefs in this world that have declined by 80%.

So if we take this Bill seriously and we do everything in our power to save the coral reefs, well, we could conceivably stop this mass extinction event. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Christopher. Next is Dave Mulanuks from Greenpeace, Hawaii on Zoom.

Aloha. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. This is very exciting. This is long overdue. You know, corporations have been long standing, have personhood, you know, and they have legal standing to sue and write contracts, etc. But their only responsibility or their only mandate is to make money and they have no responsibility at all.

They don't feel any to take care of anything else but that the fact that they have right personhood and our actual ecosystem, our living, breathing ecosystem provides us life sustaining energy does not have that right. And so it's long overdue. It takes a while for these things to come around.

I mean, women didn't get the right to vote until the 1920s. American Indians didn't get the right to vote until 1924. Women didn't have the right to have a credit card until 1974. So it takes a while for us to, you know, catch up and. But it's long overdue for our environment, our life giving, life sustaining environment. Thank you so much. That's it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, David. Thank you. Next is Lindsay Vierheilig from Animal Legal Defense Fund on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Gabbard, Chair Lee and Members of the committees. My name is Lindsay Vierheilig, testifying on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. And we will stand on our written testimony and strong support of this measure. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Lindsey. And next on Zoom is Ron Tubbs.

Ron Tubbs is not available on Zoom Chair.

Next is Kim Koch on Zoom.

These are all on Zoom Chair, both Chairs and Senators. Thanks for having me. I'll make this quick. I don't have an organization, just somebody trying to make Hawaii make sense.

And I feel that humans are humans, animals are animals, the coral reefs have protections, the fish have protections, ecosystems have protections, and I think it's sending human protections to them.

From just a lake citizen's point of view, you go out fishing and you know that fish teams up with Humane Society and they sue you for harassment or abuse or something like that. So make it make sense. I don't support this. And, yeah, vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Kim. Next is James Lavelle on Zoom.

I don't know if you can hear there. I got it on. We can hear you, Jim. Excellent. Yeah, I just kind of concur with what Kim Koch just said. I think that this is kind of a little bit of an overreach.

How can we possibly know what, you know, the fish and things, you know, what they're thinking and how. What they want to do? So we already have rights for them. And I. Human rights seems a little bit like an overreach. So I would hope that you oppose the measure and say. And vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, James. Jeff McKnight.

Aloha. Thank you for allowing me to testify. I've lived in Hawaii for many years and I care deeply about this place. Over time, I've watched watersheds diminish and coral reefs fade and die. And each loss is personal because it's not only coral or water that is disappearing, but the life these systems support.

The fish, the seabirds, the food they provide, and the balance that sustains communities across these islands. In Hawaii, we know that the health of the aina and the waters is inseparable from. From the health of the people. These ecosystems are living foundations of culture, nourishment and future generations.

This Bill strengthens Hawaii's constitutional responsibility to protect natural resources held in trust for present and future generations, while working alongside existing law to provide restoration and accountability when ongoing ecological harm continues and while preserving lawful cultural practices, substance uses and native Hawaiian rights. Protecting reefs and watershed is not about closing the open.

Jeff, please summarize. Jeff, your time is up.

Yeah. It's about making sure the ecosystems that feed our communities can recover, endure, and sustain future generations. The moment's urgent. What we choose to protect today will determine what remains tomorrow. I respectfully urge you to pass this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. And next is Britt Gandolfi.

Hi, my name is Britt Gandolfi. I'm an attorney and Rights of Nature advocate with Bioneers. And thank you for allowing me to testify. I want to demystify the notion of legal personhood ascribing human rights to animals.

The rights of nature movement can be seen clearly and practically implicated in The Endangered Species act, which the state of Hawaii has had some of the most incredible wins in enforcing the Endangered Species Act. This doesn't give human rights to ecosystems, makes ecosystems representable.

It gives citizens and the state the power and authority to litigate on behalf of an entity that doesn't have the capacity to represent itself just in the law, where we ascribed guardians. And we have a public trust doctrine where the state has a responsibility to care, these laws expand that representation scope to citizens.

And so I wouldn't fear this Bill. It's applying a policy that we've seen at the congressional level to an ecosystem in desperate need of your care and support. And thank you for your time.

Thank you, Britt.

Next is Travis Liggett, Chairs and Committee Members. My name is Travis Liggett, responsible for compiling this Bill and just wanted to speak briefly about what it does and how that relates to the existing public trust doctrine. So the public trust doctrine in Hawaii is something very unique, powerful and beautiful.

This Bill does not actually diminish that in any way. It simply does the following. It creates the following mechanism which allows citizens to engage enforcement with the public trust doctrine and not just the government agencies. In truth, this Bill strengthens the doctrine.

If our current enforcement system is a finely woven braid of agencies designed to provide an ecosystem collapse, the Nani act separates out one strand and places into the hands of the people, ensuring that the metaphorical golden thread of accountability and ecosystem health always remains connected, even if the primary rope frays or fails. This is the public trust doctrine placed metaphorically into. Thank you, Travis.

Please summarize. Travis, your time's up. Please summarize.

Yes. In short, this allows citizens, not just the government, to enforce the public trust doctrine. Thank you, Travis.

Thank you. Anyone else on this measure? Members, questions? Oh, please.

Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES. Wishing to comment. I'm neutral. And so I think this Committee has a very interesting priority to try to manage all of these things, especially with the Hawaiian community and their narrative of restoring the aina with their cultural practice and working with the molelo of the ancestors to perpetuate the land from Kaneohe to Makaha.

So the Constitution, I think, already does what this Bill is trying to do. And watersheds and ecosystems are protected constitutionally through a strong public trust doctrine. And it has explicit enforceable rights for maintaining a clean environment as outlined in Article 6 of the State constitution.

So I think what could be beneficial is to help facilitate a resolution or a task force with city and county offices, with Native Hawaiian practitioners to Facilitate focus initiatives and policies to restore the land with focusing on sustainable farming and other agriculturally restorative activities. Thank you. Thanks.

Okay, We'll take a brief recess before we go. zero, yes. Questions, questions.

I have a quick question for Ag. Hi. Do you see any problems at work recognizing watersheds and coral reef ecosystems as legal persons?

I can't give you the. I think that there would be an issue with how it's done in this Bill.

I think that we, the both the public trust doctrine and the regulations that, you know, concern watersheds and coral reefs do adequately protect or they are tools that can be used to adequately protect those streams and we do hold them as high regards as. As part of the public trust. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Chair, quick follow up. Made a comment about liability and opening that up. Could you just expand on that a little bit, please?

Sure. So, in short, the Bill opens up or it says that anybody can sue for. And oversimplifying a bit, but it says that anybody can sue for environmental harms going back to the date of statehood, even if a matter was settled or if it was already pretty much adjudicated.

And so what that means is that if you've had a harm in, let's say, 1960, somebody could come and bring a claim for that environmental harm and it would make it very difficult for the state to litigate that case. I mean, we could, you know, attempt to exert our defenses, but it would open it up to a lot more claims against the state.

Does this Bill equate a human being to the environment?

It's not clear from this Bill, and that's part of what our testimony is, is that it doesn't define. It says anybody can, can bring a claim for the environment, but we're not sure how that would actually play out.

Okay. Because I, I completely agree with the public trust doctrine, but equating human. And Ted, I don't agree with you on this because if we do that, it's the same reason I don't support animal rights. I support humane treatment and care and stewardship. But I am concerned about this. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Yeah, if I can chime in a question, since you're here, if you're going more specific to what Senator Richards is asking, and it can go all the way back to statehood. Let's say somebody sues, uh, for introducing Gorilla Oboe and Kaneohe Bay. What are we saying introducing for murder of the reefs? Well, that's.

Yeah. So that's also not clear in the Bill because it says that not only could any person, right. Like, bring a claim for introduction of the ogo, it would say that it. You could kind of make a. I mean, I hate to simplify it, but you can kind of make up your own claim.

So that's why we're saying, based on how this is structured, it's not clear how we would even enforce or defend against that.

Thank you. Okay, we're going to take a brief recess for decision-making. We'll be coming back on the one o'clock, the three o'clock agendas.

Good afternoon.

We're reconvening the joint committees on Waterland and Culture and Arts on our 1:00pm agenda. Thanks, everybody for your patience as we got through these agendas. We're returning for decision making. Okay. Chairs having conferred up first is Senate Bill 2606 relating to wildlife, which establishes the Freshwater State Recreational Area Wildlife Sanctuary Corporation.

We'll take actually the first two and SB 3253 relating to conservation, which is the other sanctuary bill. We are going to defer SB 2606 and move the second one.

So for SB 3253, the recommendation is going to be to pass with amendments, combining the previous measure, SB 2606, such that the measure establishes and recognizes a nonprofit to partner with the state on setting up conservation sanctuaries beginning on three: one around a recreational body of water, one in an area appropriate for a native bird sanctuary, and one appropriate as a larger rescued animal sanctuary.

And we'll defect the date and let that go on to Ways and Means for further discussion. Any questions? Comments on that?

Sure. Would you like me to take those for you?

Sure, if you can be so kind. Thanks. Okay. Any questions? Comments? Seeing none. Acting Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair's recommendation, SB 3253, is to pass with amendments.[Roll Call]. Recommendations adopted.

Thanks. Moving on to SB23 -

Same recommendation for AEN. Chair votes aye; any discussion? Vice Chair.

On SB 3253, passing with amendments. [Roll Call]. Chair, you have five in favor.

Thank you, members.

Thanks. Moving on to the next measure, SB 237, relating to adaptation pathways planning. Appreciate everyone's discussion. I'd like to move this forward for continued discussion, passing with amendments, blanking out the appropriation. We'll note that in the Committee Report and then adding a defective date as this goes on to the Ways and Means Committee.

Any comments? Discussion? Yes. Passing with amendments.

[Roll Call]

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

Mr. Chair.

Yeah, quick, I'll be voting with reservations just because some of the comments made, but I agree that this needs to go forward.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 3252 relating to climate planning. Similarly like to move this forward with amendments, blanking out the appropriation, and just noting the Committee Report that if we don't know what we don't know, then we'll end up paying quite a bit of money for things that we otherwise could avoid potentially.

So, as we move this on to the Ways and Means Committee, there are positions in this that could provide additional capacity to evaluate what those future costs could be and potential pathways for the state to reduce those costs to everybody and then, add in a defective date as well. Any discussion? Any comments on this?

If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

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

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Thank you. Moving on, SB 1178 relating to carbon sequestration incentives. Recommendation is to move with amendments with blanking out the appropriation and adding in a defective date. Any questions? Comments on this? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Same recommendation for AEN. Any comments or questions? Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thanks. Up next is SB 2322 relating to environmental assessments. Recommendation is to move this on as well.

This goes to the JVC Committee, but adopting amendments from DLNR and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that with language regarding "property having an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events, or oral accounts," these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity, and then, adding in a defective date.

Any questions or comments? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Same recommendation for AEN on SB 2322. Any discussion or comments? Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Thank you. Up next is SB 2019, relating to the transfer of non-agricultural parklands. Appreciate everybody's discussion on this one. Like to move it forward to keep the discussion going. We know there's differing opinions on, on some of this, but like to pass it with amendments just affecting the date. Any questions or comments? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

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

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members.

Thank you. Up next is SB 3043, relating to hunting. Like to recommend moving us forward, but with amendments. Appreciate the discussion being had. And, obviously, we have a lot of friends who are hunters across all the islands, so I want to be clear about what we're doing here. Also amend, excuse me, adopt DLNR's, excuse me, address DLNR's concerns raised in testimony clarifying that their purview and engagement is only for public lands as it relates to this bill adding in a defective date. So it's - and then, I'm mending the preamble.

So, it's very clear that the intention for this bill is only to address those bad actors who are intentionally and knowingly doing things that are torture and abuse and those sorts of things, not traditional and regular hunting practices. This would go on to OJDC and WAM for further discussion. Any questions or comments on that?

If not, Vice Chair.

For the Committee on Waterland, Culture and the Arts, Chair's recommendation to pass SB 3053 with amendments. 30 - sorry; Chair's recommendation to pass SB 3043 with amendments, and this is to the Water, Land and Culture and the Arts Committee. With five members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Okay. Vice Chair will vote with reservations. No vote for Senator DeCoite.

Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Same recommendation for AEN. Any discussion?

Chair. On Senate Bill 3043, I'll be voting with reservations. I appreciate what Chairs have done to work on this, and again, this is targeted at the bad actors, but I just want to express my concern because we have a lot of good hunters in our state.

Chair. Same request as well. You know, on the neighbor islands, we have a lot of hunters. While we do have some bad actors, you know, I can tell you, too, even with amending changes on the public lands, but we do also have those lands used for hunters as well, and some of that can be misconstrued with what is really happening as well. So, I will be voting reservations to have more discussion.

Chair votes aye.

On SB 3043, passing with amendments. [Roll Call]. Chair, you have five in favor.

Thank you. Up next is SB 3014 relating to wildlife. Recommend moving us along. Oh, all testimony was well in support. So, as is. There any discussion, comments? Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

And for AEN, same recommendation. Any discussion? Chair comments? I wanted to make one comment first. I was considering the death penalty for this one, but my staff reminded me that the death penalty is illegal in Hawaii. So, I will just.

Thank you, Chair. I expressed earlier during testimony that, in some instances, you might have a bad actor that has, you know, shot a turtle or is trying to rescue that turtle, which is in serious condition.

As we've dealt with, with many animals, help to help, whether euthanize and put them down humanely, might not be readily available. In this case, if you do see an animal suffering, I would not like to see the animal suffer. For that reason, I have concerns and I will be voting with reservations.

All right. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

To clarify, this is passing unamended, correct?

Yes. Okay.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, members.

Thank you. Next is SB 2972, relating to Oahu coral reef restoration. Appreciate everybody's comments. We're gonna amend this one a bit. I think we want to, similarly to the last one, make clear that while DLNR is taking its time to address, I think, the community outreach here on Oahu.

Oahu is that island with the reefs that are most in jeopardy. So, we want to be clear about the intent, which is not to change or make any permanent changes to governance or fishing regulations or anything like that, but rather create a temporary measure that persists only until DLNR can get its Holomua program, engaging all the different stakeholders in the various communities here in Oahu.

In progress, and secondly, some of the testimony from some of our friends was on concerns about prohibition on sale of specific species. So we want to remove that prohibition on sale, commercial sale, from the bill.

And to some of the discussion that had been brought up during the testimony, add a sunset into the measure, which we'll leave blank for now, but to make sure that it's clear that this is a temporary measure until DLNR can take action and then add in a defective date as this goes on for further consideration.

Any comments or questions on this one?

Okay, Chair's recommendation of the Committee on Committee on Waterland Culture and the Arts is to pass SB 2972 with amendments. With five members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Hearing none, measure is s adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Okay, same recommendation for AEN; any discussion cheerful.

It's back and forth. As somebody who catches this kind of fish, we don't do it at night. And so I expected the testimony here to come in and say, "Hey, we want to catch the bad actors." I expected that.

But what I heard, aside from DLNR, who seemed open to both sides, what I heard was more of, "Hey, this is bad because we don't have these fish. We don't have the reefs." There's so many other factors.

So, for now, I'm gonna vote no because I don't like the intent behind it, at least from what I heard. If this is about catching the people and busting the nine people that took 150 Uhu, Kala at Waimea Bay a couple years ago, I'm all for that, but not taking away from Hawaiians and sustenance. Mahalo.

Thank you.

Chair. You know, I have concerns. You know, I was engaged when they did 30 by 30, which is why we went back to Holomua again to many of my constituents are subsistence fish fishermen. But part of it is that they should also engage those local fishermen as being part of the solution.

So, I will vote with reservations. And the reason why I am not voting no is that I want to be engaged with this if it moves into conference. Thank you.

Okay, so the...

Yeah, I'll just, I'll just note: I appreciate that and I think part of the intent here, because this is an Oahu only bill, is to compel DLNR to start that outreach here in Oahu to various stakeholders and whatnot.

Yes, he's received here.

Oh, appreciate that.

Okay, so the Chair votes aye on this. Vice Chair?

Yeah. And just I'm echoing Senator Decoite's concerns. I'll be voting reservations. So on SB 2972, passing with amendments. [Roll Call]. Chair, you have four in favor.

Thank you, Members. Thank you. Only a couple more to go. SB 1190 relating to the Hawaii Invasive Species Council. Recommendation is to move forward with amendments, blanking out the appropriation, and adding a defective date. Questions? Comments? If not.

[Roll Call]

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

[Roll Call]

Thank you. For the last measure, SB 2488, relating to Hawaii Invasive Species Council. Recommendation is to move this forward, just adding in a defective date. Reservations, comments? Seeing none.

Vice Chair.

For the Committee on Waterland Culture and the Arts, Chair's recommendation to pass SB 2488 with amendments. Is that correct? With amendments, okay. With five members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Hearing none. Seeing none. Measures adopted. Mr. Chair.

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

On Senate Bill 2488, passing with amendments of the five members present. Any voting with reservations? No votes. Chair, you have five in favor.

Thank you. Members.

We got a technically - so, we're going to adjourn our 1pm agenda and turn it back over to Chair Gabbard to go into decision making on our 3pm.

Okay. Reconvening the 3 o'clock joint AEN/WLA decision making. First up is SB 2489. Chair's recommendation is we want to continue the conversation on this this measure, so, recommendation is to pass as is. Any discussion or comments? Chair votes aye. Vice chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, members. Thank you. Committee on Water and Land, same recommendation.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Okay, moving on to SB 2310 having to do with the overgrown vegetation from the Kainohola Stream. Chair's recommendation on this one would be to pass with technical amendments, including deferring the date to July 1st, 2050. Also, we'll blank the appropriation now and insert it into the committee report for consideration. Any discussion? Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

On Senate Bill 2310, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. [roll call]. Chair, you have five in favor.

Thank you, members. Waterline Committee, same recommendation.

Okay. Chair's recommendation to pass SB 2310 with amendments with 5 members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Moving on to SB 2372 relating to trees. The Chair's recommendation on this one will be to pass with DoTax's suggested amendment, as well as technical amendments, revising page 8, line 13, to increase the minimum number of Arborist Advisory Committee members 4 to 5 and deferring the effective date to July 1st, 2050. Any discussion?

Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Water and Land Committee, same recommendation.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much.

Okay, moving on to SB 2426, relating to environmental protection having to do with sunscreen dispensers. The Chair's recommendation will be to pass with an amendment to the defect the date of July 1st, 2050. Also, we'll blank the appropriation amount and insert into the Committee report for consideration. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

Chair.

On 2426, I'll be voting with reservations based upon testimony about making all legal sunscreens available.

Okay.

And then, Chair, same, with reservations. Trying to get a better understanding because there's no scientifically meaningful definition for the term "reef safe sunscreen." So, for that reason, I'll be voting reservations.

Okay. So, Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you, members.

Committee on Water and Land, same recommendation.

[Roll Call]

Okay, moving on to SB 2334 on ag land conservation. The Chair's recommendation is to defer this indefinitely. This build's not ready for prime time currently and so we're- we're not going to be moving it forward. Moving on to the next one.

SB 2925 on coconut trees. The Chair's recommendation will be to pass an amendment to defect the date to July 1st, 2050. Any discussion, comments? Chair votes aye. Vice chair.

On Senate Bill 2925 passing with amendments of the five members. Is anybody voting with reservations? Any no votes? Chair you have five in favor.

Thank you, members. Thank you. Waterline Committee, same recommendation.

Chair's recommendation to pass SB 2925 with amendments with five members present. Any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 3323 relating to ecosystem rights. Controversy on this one. Good conversation though. And I want to continue the conversation on this bill, so I like to just pass it out with technical amendments. Any discussion? Chair votes aye.

Chair votes aye.

Chair, on Senate Bill 3323, for the concerns I have stated, I'll be voting no on this. I completely support the public trust, but I don't think this is the right way to do it. So, I'll be voting against it.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you.

So, Committee on Water and Land will defer this measure.

Okay, I think that's it. All right. So, we'll adjourn the joint decision making. And AEN, if you'll stick around, we have some polos.

Reconvening.

Well, actually not reconvening. We're convening the 4 o' clock decision making that was deferred from last week. So beginning with SB 2332, reestablishing the AG Development and Food Security Special Fund, establishing the Carbon Emissions Tax and Dividend Special Fund.

And on this one, members, the Chair's recommendation will be to pass with an amendment to establish a refundable high mileage driving tax credit. Under Chapter 235 applicable to individual taxpayers who are not dependents. Beginning with taxable years after December 31st, 2025.

The credit provides $150 to licensed drivers who drive at least 500 miles in a seven day period with an additional $6 for every 20 miles driven above 500 miles.

The amendment requires documentation, directs the Department of Taxation to implement and administer the credit, makes the credit refundable and allocates any unissued credits to the Med Quest division and will defer the effective date to July 1st, 2050 as well as blanking the appropriation amount, inserting it into the committee report for consideration. Okay, any discussion?

Yes.

Chair?

On Senate Bill 2332. I really appreciate the work that's been done to try and figure out how the high mileage drivers can be recognized and compensated.

But when I've worked on this and I worked it on the escalation of the barrel tax over time, it substantially increases it, the- the cost of the oil, while it doesn't even really cover the costs of my long distance travelers.

So for that reason, though I know the intent and I do support the direction, I cannot support the bill the way it is. So I will be voting no on this.

Okay.

Chair, same. I have the same situation. I have distance drivers in Hana and I did the matchup for it as well. Even on the- the cost reimbursement of it. I'm gonna get a hard time supporting this. A lot of the businesses. It'll also impact them as well. I will have to.

I am voting no on this measure as well.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

On Senate Bill 2332, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes no. [roll call]. Chair, you have three no votes. It does not pass.

Okay, thank you, members. Moving on to SB 2100 on pesticides reporting. The recommendation on this one will be to pass with the Department of Health suggested amendment to exempt the Department of Health from reporting requirements and deferring the date to July 1st, 2050. And also noted in the committee report of DAB's additional funding request for consideration. Any discussion?

Chair votes aye.

On Senate Bill 2100, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair will vote with reservation. No. I will vote aye on this one. [roll call]. Chair, you have four in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you, members. And moving on to SB 2103 having to do with buffer zone and pesticides. The- The recommendation will be to pass with the Department of Health suggested amendments to exempt the Department of Health from reporting requirements and licensed pest control applicators operating under existing regulatory frameworks. Any discussion?

I'll be voting with reservations on this. I am concerned about added paperwork.

Chair.

Yes.

Okay.

Just clarification on the amendments. Who's asking for exemption?

DOH.

So, okay. Yeah. And so- so Chair, I got a problem with this bill, I think if we're looking on safety that nobody should be exempt. Irregardless, what is DOH or DLNR? I don't, but I'm gonna be voting with reservation.

Okay, Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

On Senate Bill 2103, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes reservations. [roll call]. Chair, you have five in favor. Motion adopted.

Thank you very much. And on SB 2713 related to the buffer zones. Chair's recommendation will be the pass with the Department of Health's amendments to provide an exemption from the buffer zone requirement as well as exempting wood preservative pesticides from the buffer zone and make technical amendments. Any discussion?

Again, I have some concerns way this is being some of the exemptions I will support in the conversation, but I'll be voting with reservations.

Okay, Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

On Senate Bill 2713, passing with amendments, Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes reservations. [roll call]. Chair, you have five in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you, members. And then the final bill is SB 2333. Having to do with neonics or neonicotinoids. The recommendation will be to pass with an amendment to section two of the bill.

That's page five, line five to add quote, the sale, distribution, possession or use of seeds treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide, unquote, are exempted in the bill, as well as deferring the date to July 1st, 2050. Any discussion?

Yeah. Chair.

I appreciate the direction and intent. However, the unintended consequences of this, because this is such a broad spectrum of uses for the neonicotinoids, spills over into the veterinary world, which is something I'm quite familiar with. Because of that and removing tools out of the toolkit.

Yes.

I'm fully supportive once we have something that we can do that will help us. But until that time, we have to vote no on this.

Okay, Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

On this one Chair, we are passing with amendments, correct?

Yes.

On Senate Bill 2333, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes no. [roll call].

Real- Real quick, can I comment before this one? Sorry? Because we've done this twice before and it's come down to this, and I've killed it with you guys before because of- because of some of the things that Senator Richards mentioned, especially for Aldean, my district in Punlu, the playa farmers, they need this or they cannot.

There's nothing else. But the difference between those sessions and this past session has been our use city and state injecting trees with this, our coconut trees. I do not agree with that. I know this doesn't stop that, but I hope that it goes farther and it does stop that. So this area. I'll be quoting this.

Yes. Okay.

Okay.

Chair, you have three in favor. Motion is adopted.

All right, Members, thank you very much. And that adjourns the 4 o' clock agenda.

Good afternoon. We're convening the Joint Committees on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts, and Agriculture and the Environment on our 1:00 p.m. agenda here in State Capitol Conference Room 224. We have a number of measures up on this agenda, so we'll ask folks to make sure your written testimony is submitted.

And as we have a number of testifiers, we're going to limit folks to one minute for their testimony to make sure that we're going to have an opportunity for everyone to weigh in. Committee after that, we'll-- the committees will have an opportunity to ask questions.

And for folks online, we're going to ask those who signed up to testify on specific bills at the appropriate time to weigh in. Otherwise, we'll be limiting time for everybody to make sure that we can get through this.

So that being said, up first is Senate Bill 2606 relating to wildlife, which establishes the Freshwater State Recreation Area Wildlife Sanctuary Corporation. Testifying first is the ERS on Zoom.

Vice chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is James Grubel, testifying on behalf of Executive Director Calvert Young. We submitted written testimony providing comments with some concerns on the eligibility of these employees of the corporation. And we'll stand on our written testimony and be here for any questions. Thank you.

Up next is the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Hello, Humpy. Jeff Thompsik, on behalf of the chair.

Thank you. That's everyone who signed up to testify in this measure. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on SB2606 in the audience? All right, Seeing none. Are there questions? Seeing none. Thank you, everybody. Let's move on. zero, I'm sorry, Vice Chair, can we ask.

Yes, a DLNR or representative. This is not an Administration Bill, but can you just share with us the conflicts, if there is any, or the comments with regards to the ask of this measure?

Thank you. Senator, at this time, the Department is not prepared to make any statements because we have not looked into the ramifications of those things that you ask. I will bring that back to the administrator and the chair and let them know you did have questions and we will follow up with you and the Committee after.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks a lot.

Any further questions? Seeing none. All right, thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 3253, relating to conservation, which establishes the Hawaii Conservation Sanctuary as a nonprofit group to work with DLNR on similar things. Testifying first, signed up is DLNR. Good afternoon.

Aloha. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jason Omick. I'm with the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. I'm here on behalf of DLNR, and we support this measure and are available for questions if you guys have any.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB 3253? Seeing none. Are there any questions?

Yes. Yeah, please.

Go ahead.

For DLNR. So where are you guys looking at establishing these conservation sanctuaries and how much will one cost?

Well, one, I don't think this is a department bill. I'd have to look at that. How much would something like this cost? We've never done anything like this in Hawaii. I have been to New Zealand where they had a similar sanctuary, as indicated in the bill. It's called Zealandia.

They basically predator-proofed this giant valley and brought in endangered species and they thrived, and mostly because there's no predators and-- but it's an amazing place to bring in the community, cultural groups, all kinds of stuff to have, like, learning centers and things like that in there.

So something that we really haven't done as a department before. Of course, we work with a lot of other nonprofits doing other types of work, but not maybe-- and in, like, sanctuary management, maybe in watershed protection type of programs, but not like developing an actual sanctuary ran by a nonprofit where we kind of work together with them on the things they do in there.

A place like in New Zealand, in Wellington, I don't know how many acres that is. I would say it would probably be millions of dollars to develop something like that, a predator-proof fence that was probably eight miles long or something like that. So this is something that if a nonprofit wanted to do something like this, we'd be happy to work with them as a department to, you know, have that, you know, put together.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Yes. Yes. I think you're familiar-- you're with the actual agency with this that has to do with the questions. Hakalau on the Big Island has a private-- I mean, the wildlife sanctuary, sort of, and I was reading this and I thought, maybe this could kind of fit with what's happening with Hakalau, and the preservation, and all the work that's been going there. They've come a long way, many years, and the protection of our native birds, I think, has flourished. So you're familiar with the Hakalau Reservation?

Vice Chair.

Yes, that's a federal wildlife sanctuary.

Right. And I was just wondering if this would fit into this measure.

I think it would. You know, building something like this, where you're wanting to see benefits from the top of the mountain down to the ocean, we would have to look for a place that the state owns land in a direction like that, you know, from mauka to makai. And there are places on the east side of this island that we do own areas like that that could be a sanctuary like this. Kahana Valley, you know.

Yeah, but you're saying, like, as an example for Hakalau, isn't that within our own agency's land? No, that's private, yeah.

Yes, that's--

The nonprofit.

Hakalau is a federal-- for federal lands. Yeah. So they took a big chunk of the forest there where there are a lot of forest birds that are highly endangered, and they're doing a lot of protection there. So working with a nonprofit or trying to develop something like that, again, somewhere else, you know, you'd want to find that pristine place to do that, so-- or find another place that you can bring back, you know, and make pristine again.

So what we're saying that this measure pretty much is a state function bill with statements. Is that correct?

I think it really depends. It's just talking about a nonprofit managing and, you know, developing a sanctuary like this. It could be on private lands, it could be anywhere. I think you'd have to search for that place that you have room to do work like this. But we do have many different wildlife sanctuaries here and we do have nonprofits that work with us in these areas and stuff, but this is, like, kind of talking about a nonprofit, you know, doing most of that work and collaborating with the department.

I see. Okay, thanks so much.

No problem.

Chair, any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, SB237 relating to adaptation pathways planning, which expands the authority of the state and counties to develop adaptation pathways to modify, relocate infrastructure away from critically threatened, critically threatened areas to locations outside sea level rise and coastal flooding exposure areas.

Thank you, Chair.

Testifying first on 237 is DLNR. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chairs, vice chairs, Committee Members. Good afternoon. Michael Kane. On behalf of dlnr, we stand on our testimony and support and we have read the public testimony also. So I would just add that there are a number of bills that focus on regional planning that are currently alive.

We have a soft spot for this one because it prioritizes our public transportation trust resources over economic development of private property. And that is our mission at dlnr, to protect the public trust resources. So with that I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. Testifying next. Signed up to testify next on SB237 is Kahana based steering Committee.

Good Afternoon chairs, Vice chairs, Members of the committees. Mihoko Ito, on behalf of the Kahana Bay Steering Committee. We are respectfully opposed to this measure.

While we do believe that it's important to do regional planning, the difference between this Bill and some of the other measures that the Waterland Committee has heard is that this Bill, you know, really presumes that the end goal is managed retreat with respect to properties.

And we would just like to see more balance in the measure that considers that there's a whole spectrum of things that could be done with respect to erosion mitigation, including intermediary solutions. So for those reasons, we think that there's language that could be included that would bring more balance to the Bill and its objectives.

And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. That is everyone who had signed up to testify on SB237. Is there anyone else? zero, apologize. zero, yeah. Yes. Sorry. Please come forward. OPSD chairs.

Mariella Sevens for the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We appreciate the intent of this measure, and we are working with dlnr. We prefer a broader definition of regional shoreline management planning that includes adaptive pathways, but also may include some sand stabilization or sand nourishment in early years. So we would like to see a little broader language.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else on this measure, please come forward.

Senator Gabbard, Senator Lee, Senator Inouye, and Senator Richards and Members of the Committee. My name is Bernie Bays. I'm an attorney representing the Shoreline Preservation Coalition. As some of you know, SPC is a coalition of individuals and community groups concerned with perversion, preserving our beaches and shorelines. We respectfully oppose this Bill.

Also, we think these planning functions that are proposed by this Bill are better performed by the Planning Department because that's their job is to prepare plans. And we think the other Senate Bill 2401 is better suited to address this.

SBC totally supports regional planning, and that's what's been missing from our arsenal of tools to deal with sea level rise. We need a lot more science and a lot less mantras to deal with shoreline encroachment.

You can sunrise. Your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else on SB237 seeing? None. Are there any questions?

Senator Rhodes, followed by Senator Nice for. Mihoko ito and Mr. Bays. If you don't mind, please come up again. Questions? I'm a little baffled as to what. I mean, really. The only two options are planned retreat or unplanned retreat. I mean, what's the third option that you guys are seeing that.

That I'm not seeing and that most of the. That the environmental community's not seeing?

Well, Senator Rhodes, I don't disagree with you. We've got some projected sea level rise, and there are many tools to deal with that. That's what I'm. That's what I'm asking about.

What are those tools?

Zero, there's beach groins. There is sand pushing. As sand migrates down the beach, it can either stop that migration or push the sand back in some places. And again, each region is different. Like the North Shore of Oahu is very unusual in that there's 100ft of beach there now, and there will be for 85% of the year.

There's only a brief time when the beach becomes narrow and the homes are threatened. So that's totally different than any other beach. So the plans to deal with shoreline encroachment there are completely different than they would be for other beaches.

But how is it different? Because if you're. If you're threatened 15% of the year and your house gets swept away in that 15% of the year, then you have to do the same armoring things to keep it from happening. You'd have to do something that's. Right now, we don't know.

Sand pushing has been very effective in some beaches. There's also A beach on the North Shore that has a 60 foot rock revetment that goes all the way down to the reef. That's the only beach on the North Shore that's growing.

And we don't know quite why that is, because the mantra is that rock revetments cause beach loss. But in that case, I'm pretty sure. The science says that that's exactly what they do, is they cause beach loss. That's what they say. But then when you look at that, that's the only beach that's growing.

And, and if I were going to explain the science, what seems to happen is the sand that comes in with the waves kind of gets embroiled in the rocks, takes the energy out of them, and the sand drops back on the beach. But I don't pretend to understand the science.

If I can just add that we are working with coastal engineers who feel the same way that not a one size fits all of retreating is not the solution in all cases, and that each coastline is different because of the wave energy, because of the topography under the ocean.

And so I think having all the tools in the toolbox, similar to what Office of Planning said, is we just want to see that all the tools are in the toolbox to be used and that we're not presuming that it's one solution.

The macro picture is that the islands are, I mean, even if it weren't for global warming, the islands are getting smaller. That's why you have, you know, the ones on the north end are down to tiny atolls. We're going to retreat. It's just, what's it going to look like? So I don't know.

I'm very skeptical of this notion that there's something we can do other than retreat one way or the other.

We. Senator Rhodes, and I don't mean to belabor this, but we've developed a plan for the North Shore. We believe that that is the second most important beach in Hawaii. And if you look at the numbers more tourists visit that it's only exceeded by Waikiki.

And if we were to lose those surfing beaches, that would be incredibly damaging to Hawaii. So we've developed a plan there that would involve a gradual retreat. And we have recommended the state acquisition of the first three lots along that beach from Sunset Beach Park.

And we have asked that those be purchased and added to Sunset Beach Park. And the plan would be that in the interim we provide soft protections for the houses that are there.

And if eventually it just becomes not possible to hold the line for Example, Representative Quinlan wants to hold the line after the acquisition of those three parcels for as long as we can, in part because it costs money. So that's our plan there is to just see what we can do.

And the plan there is that one of those property owners has agreed to Fund a dune restoration program there on those three lots so that we can see how that actually works. In summary, we believe in trying a lot of things. We believe that Hawaii should be leading the world on the ways to deal with.

There's not enough money.

There's not enough money in Fort Knox for the state to buy all the outer ring of this island or any other island. So I won't belabor my point, but I think the science is overwhelmingly clear that we're going to retreat one way or the other.

Whether we treat in some sort of planned, not chaotic way, or we just. Things just get overwhelmed as time goes on, that's really the only choice we have.

Thanks, Chairs Mihoko. And please, you know, we've worked on Kahana Valley for many years and we're still working on it. And so with having, you know, heard opsd, it seems like you're all similarly in nature in your comments. So. And it seems like Kahana is different from North Shore. Yes. I mean, am I right? Yes, totally different.

It is very different. And see where we are and if there's any conflicts or share something.

Yes. And I think that's what we're trying to do with some of the solutions that we've proposed is to come up with something that's flexible. Right. That can approach the different shorelines in. In the ways that are appropriate for those shorelines. Right. And have the science for those shorelines bear itself out. Right.

In some cases, like in Kahana Bay, there's. There's erosion that's. That's really imminent, that it's already under. Undermining the road on the other side of the buildings. So, you know, there's issues that need to be dealt with there. You know, you've seen in other regions like Iroquois Point that groins have worked. T groins have worked.

And that's sort of. The proposed plan for Kahana Bay is a groin project. So I think in the case of North Shore, it's different. Right. They've got like a proposed plan to do some retreat, some soft protections and that sort of thing. So I think that's our point is that.

And I do think we're aligned in the sense that regional planning is needed. Right. And rather than parcel by parcel and I Think that's what this Bill is trying to get at, but we think it tilts the scales too far. We agree with that.

Any further questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, SB 3252, which amends the powers and duties of the Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission and establishes position appropriate funds. Testifying first on 3252 is the climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. Good afternoon.

Hello Chairs. Vice Chairs Leah Laramie with the Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. I'm the Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Coordinator and I drafted this to testimony in support of this Bill and available for any questions.

Thank you. Up next is OPSD.