Senate Standing Committee on Hawaiian Affairs

Hello, everyone. This is the Committee on Hawaiian affairs sharing with Committee on Waterland and Culture. This is the Tuesday, February 10th at 1pm we are here in Conference Room 224. In the unlikely event we have to stop, we will reconvene at 105 on the 12th, two days from now on Thursday again in this room. 224 testifiers.

You'll have one minute to testify as it looks to be a pretty packed day. So with that, first bill for hearing is Senate Bill 1406 relating to historic preservation reviews.

Allows Department of Hawaiian Homes to assume historic preservation review of the effect of any proposed project for lands under its jurisdiction, except for projects affecting properties listed or nominated for inclusion in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places. First up for testifying is Director Collie Watson, colleague. Thank you, chair.

Moving on on Senate Bill 1406, Jessica Puff. Thank you. Moving on Senate Bill 1406, James Malho.

Good morning. I sent out my written testimony, but I just have a quick statement to add. On top of that, we have a. Minute. And I'm representing Kai Iwi Alakai, not the Royal Order. So we're clear on that. I stand in opposition to SB 1406.

When we discuss historic preservation or burial review process, we are not talking about paperwork. We're talking about our ancestors. Once Ibi Kapuna are disturbed, that harm cannot be reversed. Cultural context, burial integrity and spiritual balance are permanently affected. This is why any proposal that streamlines review, shortens consultation or reduces oversight raises deep concern with our community.

Lineal descendants are not always identified at the beginning of a project. Burial sites are not always visible on the surface. Assumptions of clearance are dangerous and have led to past desecrations. We are still trying to heal from today. We. We must also remember that many of these lands are held in public trust.

The state carries a fiduciary duty to protect Native Hawaiian burial sites with the highest standard of care, not administrative convenience. If 1406 advances, it must be amended to guarantee full shifty oversight, documented descendant consultation, Burial Council Authority and 0 assumed concurrence. Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else who wants to testify? Come on up. Identify yourself.

Thank you. Chairs Committee. My name is Robert Cortero, a lineal descendant of High Chief Hohulu. I'd like to share six salient points and my testimony is submitted. So I'd just like to add. I'd like to share six salient points to clarify a critical matter of law and practice with regard to SB3247 stewardship.

No, we're on SB 1406. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no problem. We'll call you back up later. Is there anybody else wants to testify in 1406? It is. Anybody on Zoom?

No one on Zoom? Chair.

Okay, thank you. Committee Members, any questions? Seeing none. Moving on to Senate Bill 5211.

Relating to access to water on Hawaiian Homelands requires the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to work with the appropriate county board or Department of Water Supply to provide access to potable and agricultural water on Hawaiian Homelands, provided that any agreement between DHHL and the County Board or Department of Water Supply is made available to the public first on the list to testify.

Director.

Good afternoon. Kali Watson with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. With respect to our testimony, we'll stand on it. But I did want to emphasize the fact that the Department is working with the different county organizations. But one of the problems with this particular Bill, it says shall. It's almost a mandate.

And with respect to our program, a certain amount of independence and discretion which is provided by in the law, I think should be preserved. We're not going to work with the counties. We are in fact working with them.

But it kind of undermines our sovereignty and independence regarding the Department of Hawaiian Homeland in that respect, would object to that. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair. That is all we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else in the room would like to testify? Seeing none. It Anybody on online?

Yes, we have one participant.

Chair, Go ahead. Please identify yourself and you'll have one minute.

Hello, guys. Pikachu. Shelby Billionaire here. Hello, guys. I support this bill. We'll keep it short and sweet. I know there will be amendments. Kali Watson's there for everything in there. So I pull. I support most of the bills on today's agenda to make things quick. And when I oppose the bill, you know which one.

So thanks very much. Aloha.

Thank you. Okay, Committee Members, any questions?

Go ahead. Dhhl colleague. Thank you. With regards to the ag lots that DHHL did have in a district that I served prior to the new change of my district going back to Hilo and, and that was the ag lands, which we were very happy to see, that was proposed for Honomu and without the water.

And so with that said, some of the. I think the lots were already allotted and the agreement, they understand that there is no water there. I was just wondering if, you know, what the impact would be if you're forced to. To then add the water for ag lots.

Yeah, that particular area has a lot of Rainfall. And that's why we're too concerned about.

That's correct. Yeah. I was there for the grand opening and they were really happy with, for the first time on Big island that we had egg lots of that size. And I think that's a model, I believe.

Sure.

And so, you know, the lessors already agreed that, you know, they accept that there is no private water system going into their lot. So. Okay. Yeah.

I was just wondering, you know, if you're forced to then mandate to make sure that they have the water system, then probably they won't be able to probably make use of the lands until the water system gets in.

And the infrastructure, well, that particular is a subsistence aglot and those are about an acre in size. And the reason why we did it that way, as you know, the subsistence is more designed for growing your own, what do you call it, as well as having livestock.

And because of the area that it's located in, with its sufficient rainfall where they could use a catchment approach, we did put in the backbone infrastructure for access as well as electricity. So the combo makes it usable.

And so that's why, you know, if we were to be mandated to work with the counties and possibly forced to move forward and trying to put in infrastructure and make it very difficult.

And so that's one of the situations where we rather use our discretion and in the water and the size and based on the location, it made a lot of sense.

Yeah. I was just going to add further to then your future for subsistence loss may be on a slower pace then.

If it's less, I guess. Yeah. Less rainfall, we make a bigger subsistence act.

And you would make a choice, right. Where you would locate these subsistence lost on any of the islands.

Yes. Like in Panieva, we did about 40 something. That's a better location, but that had water.

All right, thank you. Thank you, chairs.

Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to Senate Bill 3247 relating to Hawaiian affairs. Establishes a Royal Mausoleum Commission within the Department of Land and Natural Resources to develop and implement policy for the preservation, operation and outreach of Mauna Allah.

Allows Royal Mausoleum Commission to make rules as necessary employee staff and receive private or federal funds. Requires the Royal Mausoleum Commission to report annually to the Legislature. Requires the Legislature to appropriate sufficient funds to support the Royal Mausoleum Commission. First up, we have Acting Director Ryan Kanakaoli or Alan Carpenter.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members, Alan Carpenter, Acting Administrator for the Division of State Parks, on behalf of Chair Acting Chair Kanaka Ole. First, I have to offer my profound Apologies because we uploaded the incorrect testimony, which compels me to at least summarize our comments here.

For those in the room, on the bright side, it was a really good bill that we were supporting, but it's not the bill before us right now. So as it relates to Maunaala, we look forward to continued discussion with the measures introducers, the Ali' I Trust and other stakeholders.

And the comments that we offered up include, we value the long standing collaboration between State Parks and the Ali' I Trust, which has provided an important framework for shared state stewardship and preservation efforts at Mauna'.

Ala. Should a new commission structure be established, the Department believes it will be important to ensure clarity of roles and coordination with existing responsibilities and agreements currently in place.

And finally, the Department also notes that any new entity created to assume operational staffing or planning responsibilities would require sufficient resources and administrative support to carry out its duties effectively. Thanks. And we look forward to hearing from the others.

Thank you. Next up, we have Keith Ridley. Did I say that last name correct? Ridley.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the committees. My name is Keith Ridley. I'm the Kakolelo, the talking chief for MOKUO Hawaii Chapter 1 for Honolulu.

And I'm speaking on behalf of our Alii Nui Alika De Shah, as well as Sir Arthur Ayew of our Moku here in Honolulu, and speaking on behalf of the entire Royal Order of Kamehameha. The Royal Order stands in strong support of Senate Bill 3247.

The Royal Order was established by King Kamehameha V in 1865 to honor his grandfather, King Kamehameha I. Today, the organization continues to guard, maintain and preserve the rights, the rituals and the memory of the ruling chiefs of Hawaii.

When established, this commission would develop and implement policy for the preservation, operation and outreach of Mauna' Ala in consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations, including the Royal Order. So this would give us a process to be able to provide that input. This would go a long way in establishing proper protocols and for being pono.

In summary, this bill represents a thoughtful, culturally grounded approach to honoring and safeguarding one of Hawaii's most sacred cultural sites. For these reasons, the Royal Order of Commandment of the first respectfully urges the committees to pass Senate Bill 3247 as is. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next testifier we have register is Lynn Alale. Thank you. Next we have Quinton Kwanakoa.

Aloha, Quentin. Good afternoon. How are you?

Aloha.

Say yeah, my name is Quentin Kuhio. Kwana Nakoa. And I've been active with Maunaala over the past three months in attempting to create a better way for us to move forward, both as Native Hawaiians and the rest of the people of Hawaii.

My concern is that the Hawaiian people have a certain worldview that is a little different from other cultures that live here. And it's the host culture, and we need to propagate that and to share it. So this bill attempts to bring those concepts in. The concept of Ike, what is our learning? What's our history?

How is that passed down through the generations, through millennia, to what we have today, which is a beautiful understanding of environment, it's an understanding of relations, it's an understanding of way to conduct yourself. And even the way the words you say are important in our cosmology.

And so when we look at what is attempted, we hope to bring together the best of our minds in Hawaiian culture and understandings and share that with the Department of Land and Natural Resources so that they can carry forward and implement appropriate maintenance. Appropriate. I guess learning centers are appropriate. I would say.

I would say appropriate protocols so that we can share those ideas. And as it is, as you know, the state motto is, well, that's the same model for Native Hawaiian worldview. And I believe that we can perpetuate and please wrap up very well. I do believe that we can.

Umaukea Okaani Kapono does represent a viable option for Mauna' Ola to be the baston, or touchstone of bringing righteousness back to the land or continuing it.

Thank you. Next we have James Maioho.

Aloha. I'll stand on my written testimony again, but I just do want to add gratitude for the folks that worked on this piece of legislation. It's the best compromise that I've seen in the three years of trying to get this remedied.

The only concerns that I've heard, really, I'm voicing from my Ohana, is that it doesn't safeguard the Kuleana. And I just want to gently remind everybody of how we got here and why we are here dealing with this today. And without those safeguards, we potentially face that set of circumstances again.

And it would be nice if, either in a parallel piece or in this piece, that we can find some way to codify and safeguard that Kuleana so there's no misinterpretation in the future. Otherwise, we. We support this bill and appreciate the work being done.

Thank you. Next we have Robert Quatero. No, thank you.

Chair, Vice Chair it for me. Please excuse my eagerness earlier. No, no, no.

Always appreciate when the public wants to participate.

So I'm here as cousin to James Myoho. I'm a L descendant of Hai Fo. When my grandmother was born, she was raised on the property there in Haleho Olulu for most of her childhood. So our family has been there since appointed. My Tutu Mariah Kaya Beckley was appointed by her cousin, Queen Lilo Kalani.

So we've been there on the property ever since 1893. So I'd like to make six points. As I said earlier, that's critical to law and practice.

With regard to HSP3247, Kuleana stewardship cannot be rightfully bestowed upon an employee of the state of Hawaii or by state appointment in a way that replaces, extinguishes or supersedes Kuleana that flows through lineage and traditional practice. So the first point I'd like to make is that Kuleana rights are not created by appointment.

Our constitution recognizes traditional and customary rights as pre existing rights held by descendants and practitioners, with the state's duty being protection, not reassignment. Clarify. You only have one minute and you're almost out. So you've only got one port of six. Go through second hrs 1:1. Customary practice are preserved as a continuing legal practice principle.

Third, when government action affects customary practice, Kaapa Chi requires findings and feasible protections. Identify the practice, assess impairment and mitigate. Fourth, employment or appointment is revocable and conditional. A state employee or state appointment can be reassigned, disciplined, terminated.

Points, please. Otherwise, I'll have to cut you off.

Okay, Fifth and sixth. So the state employee has a duty with the state. My fifth point and my sixth point is that Kuleana refers to the historic land and rights framework. It reflects a legal interest grounded in law, evidence and lineage, not something equivalent to a job title.

So in addition to my written testimony and the amendments I submitted, I just like to make these points. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you.

And last person we have registered is Lahine Lanzi. La. Did I say that correct? Do not. Aloha. Please be seated.

You have to be near the MIC so people online can hear you.

How's that? Terrific. Aloha Co Chairs, Vice Chairs and presiding Committee Members. My name is Navahine Okola Ila Anzaladi and I stand on my written testimony on behalf of the Hawaiian organization Ahui Kaolani in opposition to SBP247 for the last 51 years. Ahahui Kaiolani has commit commemorated the birth of Princess Kaiolani at Mauna'.

Ala. And I'm here to underscore the importance of our Ali' I would have been queen. Today.

We are in opposition to SB3247 establishing a Royal Mausoleum Commission under DLNR for administrative purposes because we believe such action introduces confusion and further delays responsibility and resolution rather than directly addressing the concerns raised for the last two years about the vetting process itself. So mahalo for the opportunity to testify and mal.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to testify in this measure?

Aloha Richards and Chair Lee Committee Members. My name is Coline Aiu and I'm the Kuhina Nui of the daughters and sons of the Hawaiian warriors, Mama Koa. I'm here to oppose Senate Bill 3247.

You know, in Hawaii, commissions have a history of inefficiency and buretic entanglements and divided authority never works as well as depending on an unstable budget is failure before you even start. The Bill is really a reaction to the public outcry following D. Eleanor's appointment of a new curator up at Mauna'. Allah.

The central issue is not that it is the flawed process of selection. So for us, the Kahu curator must be restored before any legislation should be considered. It is an easy process. Revet the finalist using the traditional Hawaiian process that has worked for over 100 years. Please be respectful of Mana', Ala, the Kahu and the Hawaiian culture.

Mahalo for listening.

Is there anyone else in the room would like to testify? Seeing none it. Do we have anybody online?

Yes, we have one person online. Chair.

Okay, please connect. Identify yourself. You have one minute.

Hello, guys. Pikachu Shelby Billionaire. I oppose this bill. I just sent my testimony. I didn't know about this bill coming up Today we're looking at some. Oh, some bills. So a lot of Hawaiian people because I work with all of them a lot.

When we reserve the Iolani palace, you have to get permits for the Onipa Peace March. So we got two competing groups and they already reserved Mount Olive for next year.

If you tell them that DLNR Don Chang and some of these workers are going to be taking over Mana Allah, you're going to have fights, you're going to have arguments from the younger generation, Kamehameha schools and other things. Now, if you read my testimony that I submitted, you going to see the different points.

Now, I understand the intention of the bill for better and proper management, which I do agree with. However, if you're just going to put dinar in charge of it. I disagree because they can't even manage Makaha. They can't manage the aquarium fishing, which is the bill at the end of this. So I'm supporting what they do.

However, when you're going to say that DLR is going to take control of the queens and kings of ancient history, Queen Leo Kalani, King Kalakaua and their buried bones, unless they're going to be weed whacking every. Doing. Doing. Security. Security.

I oppose this bill and I say no as a representative of the Kingdom of Hawaiian Islands, because I'm the one who put it on the paperwork. Thank you very much. Aloha.

Oh, thank you. Anybody else? Committee Members, Any questions? Go ahead.

DLNR. Hi. Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm just catching up with your new testimony. I was confused by your original testimony. So if you wouldn't mind just summarizing for the sake of time. Time. I see that you folks have comments, but if you could just summarize that.

Yes, I did. I summarized those comments in my initial. Do you want me to summarize them again?

Sure. Because I'm trying to match it. So for the sake of time, if you could just let us know.

Sure. So, restating them. The Department values the long standing collaboration between State Parks and the ALII Trusts, which has provided an important framework for shared stewardship and preservation efforts at Mauna'.

Ala. Should a new commission structure be established, the Department believes it will be important to ensure clarity of roles and coordination with existing responsibilities and agreements currently in place, including our MOU with the Ali Trust.

We also note that any new entity created to assume operational staffing or planning responsibilities would require sufficient resources and administrative support to carry out its duties effectively. In other words, if you're going to administratively assign it to someone else, they need to be funded properly, just as we have.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Go ahead, Senator.

Yes, thank you. Now, my understanding in the collaboration between the ALI Trust has been something of importance because it has been carried out. Now, there's other corporations in with the ALI Trust for the record. Can you include them? Mention them and I think there was several or get several corporations and as well as the descendants.

Sure. So it's dlnr, Trustees of the Lunalilo Trust, Queen Liliuokalani Trust, the Queen's Health System, Bernice Pau' I Bishop Estate, Kamehameha Schools, Charles Reed Bishop Trust, Abigail Kawanakoa and Ali' I Trust, joint funding for.

The chapel and further discussions. Then I understand Some of them have been contributing to the care as well.

Yeah, it's been a mixed bag. OHA's contributed, the trusts have contributed, the Legislature has appropriated funds. So I think in the last few years, it's close to $2 million, but a shared responsibility of funding.

Okay. In our visits recently, you know, to Manaala, I was rather impressed with the work that parks had done with the renovation of the caretaker's home as well, and also the area of the gulch. You know, I understand there were homeless people at one time, and I understand that they have been kind of cleaned up and monitoring.

I think there's quite a bit of infrastructure that was added. I felt very comfortable, you know, there. Now, if a Committee, if a commission takes over, what happens to the residents and the contribution. Now, I know that our contribution from the General Fund to parks is not very much. I think. What if.

I remember less than 200,000 annually for. For their service to parks, to manage Mauna'. Ala. I don't know. Very minimum.

Yeah, it's relatively minimal, but I mean, we are pretty flush on our special Fund. Right. So we can reapportion monies for reinvestment in any state park properties, including.

Now, going back to my question about what happens then to the residents if a commission like this is appointed and what happens to the role of DLNRs managing with the appointee, managing the area and living there? That changes, I'm sure.

Well, that is all to be determined, and I think HGEA may have something to say about that. It is a state employee, but the residents, we've invested a lot in it. So if we were to no longer be the main managers, as if it goes to that. The resident stays. Right. It's part of the property now. And.

But we're, you know, we're not advocating either way. We're kind of listening to the voices, and I think we. We. I would characterize us as kind of reluctant. Konohikis. Right. This is an awesome responsibility to manage something of this importance, and we can always do better. And this is something critically important to the folks in this room.

All right, I see HDA has had sent testimony. Young chairs. Did they come to represent and speak on this measure?

No one else is registered to speak. No one else is registered to speak.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Senator just joined us. Okay. Seeing none. All right. We are transitioning over to water land. Senator, do I have one? zero, you're right. My apologies. Okay. Moving on to Senate Bill 1654, Relating to land transfer. Authorizes the transfer of certain lands under the jurisdiction of certain state agencies.

Department of Hawaiian Homes registered first testifier. Lauren. Hi. Osaka. Okay, thank you. Moving on. Director Watson. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else in the room would like to testify on 1654? Seeing none. IT. Do you have anybody online?

No one on. Actually, we have one person online. Chair.

Okay, please put them through.

Hello, guys. Pikachu Shelby, a billionaire. So I'll make it easy for all the Senators. I approve all the bills coming here through all the rest, so I stand on my written testimony. Thank you. Love you all. Chihu Hawaiian. Yeah. You. Aloha.

Thank you. Committee Members, any questions? Seeing none now, we are ready to transfer. Senator Lee.

All right, thank you very much. Moving over to the next measure, and I'll just say, first of all, thank you, everyone, for your patience as we go through this. I also understand that some of these issues have a lot of passionate testimony.

So I want to reiterate in the bills to come, we have a lot of people who have signed up to testify.

So as much as we want to be able to make sure everyone has a chance to say their piece, we're going to try and limit that window to make sure that there's a chance for everybody to have their. Their moment to share their thoughts. So I just appreciate everyone's cooperation with that.

That said, let's move on to Senate Bill 1112 relating to the Hawaii Community Development Authority, which amends the membership of the Hawaii Community Development Authority to include the chairperson of the Hawaiian Homes Commission or designee. And testifying first is the Attorney General. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Kevin Tongg, Deputy Attorney General. We have essentially housekeeping comments Section 206e3, subsection B. This bill amends that section, which was later amended by Act 252, Session Laws of Hawaii 2025. Therefore, the version of Section 206e3, subsection B, should be updated to the version as amended by Act 252 before this bill makes amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Signed up to testify. Next is HCDA.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committee. Craig Nakamoto, Executive Director of the Hawaii Community Development Authority. With respect to my testimony, I've submitted it, but allow me to make two points in the one minute that I have. First. Well, I respect Chair Watson's request.

I think, as you consider this bill, some greater deference should be given to the wishes of the agency, to which a board member will be added. So I want to be clear, I did not draft this bill. I did not invite the chair to be on this board. So I oppose it.

For the second point, I want to go to the last two paragraphs of DHHL's testimony. Kind of implies that by getting on the board, that will sort of help certain matters related to Makai and to our districts.

I would note that in the Kla' I Law, Development Development District, DHHL has exempted itself from our zoning, development, zoning and entitlement rules. I would expect if they acquired land in Maai, they would do the same. So I don't see the need for the chair to be on the Community Development Boards. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Up next is DHHL.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairs and Members of the Committee. With respect to the recent comments, I think when you look at the, I guess, decision making power and the use of these different areas, whether it's Kakaakumakai or Kalailoa, I guess the interests of the various landowners are real key.

And being active in the decision making which not only impacts those lands, but the surrounding lands, there's a certain amount of coordination and shared benefits that have to come into play.

I think with me being part of that process, it betters it in many, many ways in that we can collectively make good decisions that reflect the goals and objectives of all the different landowners. Now, when you look at the areas we have lands in Kaloa, we are now working with OHA regarding the Kakaako Makai.

So I think it's important that we are at the table when decisions are being made. Thank you.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on SB 1112. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Are there any questions?

Yeah. For Kali. The Kalai law. Did you elect to exempt yourself from the rules or was that part of the pre existing authority that you already have?

It's not really exempting.

It's recognizing the laws as they exist in all these lands as well as the lands in our existing inventory are, I guess, guided by the purposes and I guess the part of the promise that was made by the state in taking over and receiving statehood, that the state and we're incorporated in the state constitution will give preference and really take care of the beneficiaries under the Hawaiian Owens Commission act with respect to the ability to do that.

The use of the land shouldn't be encumbered or in any way depreciated with respect to the use of uses identified under the Hawaiian Homes Commission act, and that's in the law. So, you know, it's not a matter of exempting, it's a matter of requiring and acknowledging a promise.

Well, I guess the prior testifier sort of insinuated that you took some action, but that's not my understanding. No, no, I'm just. I might be confusing it. I think you already have. That's already written in the law.

It's written in the law. Right. So I'm just pointing out to the various parties that, you know, it's not where the. Including, you know, I personally think the Office of Hawaiian affairs is entitled to that same recognition. But that's, you know, for another case.

But with respect to dhhl, I think it's clear that we're not subject to the rezoning as well as the permitting and all these other things. Not that we want to, you know, not acknowledge and follow certain building codes and all of that. We will do that. Okay, thank you.

I have a follow up for acda. Yeah. You seem to insinuate that these were personal decisions made by the Department when they were existing statutory requirements in the law that the Legislature made.

So I think chairs Chair Watson's predecessor. I recall getting a letter from Chair Watson's predecessor saying that they've chosen for the reliance that they have in Kalai law to sort of not have that under HCD zoning and regulatory power. Building permit requirements are different from HCDAs. We don't regulate building permits.

It's a zoning entitlements that I think predecessor has chosen to sort of bring themselves out of.

Right. But did they choose to violate the law or did they.

I didn't, I didn't say it was to violate the law Center. It's to, to assert their rights under their federal authority.

Okay, so is the concern in this, you know, you, you use that as an example of concern that might occur in Kakaako. What is the problem with the Department choosing to assert authority that it already has?

Well, I think what, what, what I tried to say, and maybe I did it in artfully, Senator, is that it's one thing if DHL was going to put itself under our zoning and entitlement power, maybe I can see that being they can have a seat at the board, but they don't recognize our zoning and entitlement powers.

I think if they got a fee simple conveyance of land in Kakaako Makai, I suspect that the same thing would occur that they would not want to be under Arizona.

See, I think that there's some confusion here about who has authority over what. I think the challenge I'm having with what I'm hearing from you is your feeling that they need to recognize your authority when in actuality you need to recognize theirs.

If they come into the HCDA jurisdiction, they have pre existing authority that you have to recognize. And I think what the bill proposes is that they have a seat at the table so that there's appropriate communication and we don't get this kind of confusion on your part.

Yeah, I don't think there's any confusion on my part, Senator, Respectfully, I think just saying it in a different way, but the communication between myself.

Well, you're proposing in your testimony. What you seem to be insinuating in their testimony is that the Department is. Is choosing to take these actions when they already have the authority to do these under the law. These are not decisions that they are making. These are decisions that the Legislature and the Federal Government already set in statute.

They also could choose not to follow that and to recognize our authority as well. And I also think as far as communication goes, Chair and I know used to meet a lot regularly and, you know, we can still do that and communicate and have that open communication.

Wow.

Off. Off the board.

So you could choose to do that now as well.

I. I can. We, we. We. Chair and I have met. We kind of. Fortunately, the meetings kind of dropped off, but I'm happy to reinitiate those regular meetings and have that communication with Chair.

Okay. Because again, you let off your testimony by saying, you know, that you didn't ask for this bill and they didn't come and ask you permission to get on. You don't have the authority to make those decisions. The Legislature does.

Yeah, I didn't, I didn't say I didn't give them permission. I just said that I didn't initiate this Bill. I didn't invite the chair to be on the board. And so I opposed it. That's what I said.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you. Further questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you, everyone. Let's move on to Senate Bill 1301 relating to historic preservation, which establishes conditions under which archaeological inventory surveys and reconnaissance surveys are required, as well as which archaeological permits may be issued and revoked.

The practice of archaeology may be temporarily revoked and makes other modifications to the composition and operations of island burial count. Comments? Up next is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Mr. Mayoho. I'll stand on my written testimony in opposition any iop, And that is everyone who had signed up to testify on 1301.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Please come forward. You could identify yourself. Good afternoon.

Oh, no worries. We're having a little internal chat there. Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, I'm Kamakana Foreru, the compliance archaeologist with the Office of Foreign Affairs. We stand on our written testimony and very strong support of this bill.

We think this is a great Bill, but would like to highlight just a few suggested friendly amendments in regards to front loading the archaeological work. This is a push in the right direction, but I think to provide some safeguards, it might be good to allow SHPD to determine if previously completed surveys or literature reviews are acceptable.

In the event, like you have a project proponent bring a survey that's like 20 years old for a particular project, it can happen. And it would be helpful for SHP to have that authority. In regards to archaeological permits, we are in full support of that. That's something that should have been a long time coming.

If an archaeologist had substantive reports and commits a 60 violation, there's no means to revoke their permit. And so this would ensure there's consequences. And lastly, in regards to oha, we happily assume the Kuleana for appointing IBC candidates, but we do note that in some instances, beneficiaries do rather go through SHPD than dlnr. So thank you.

Will be available for any questions.

Thank you. Is there Anyone else on SB 1301?

Chair we actually have someone on Zoom that would like to testify.

1Oh, please proceed.

Hello, guys. Chair I support disability measures. Keeping it short and sweet, just like all of you. Chihu. Yeah, you. Aloha.

Thank you. Okay, anybody else online or in the room? Going once, going twice, seeing none. That being said, are there any questions on this one? And seeing none on 1301. Thank you, everybody. Let's move on to the next measure, SB 2443 relating to historic preservation.

This measure amends the definition of historic property to require that the property meets the criteria for inclusion in the Hawaii Register of Historic Places or has important value to Native Hawaiians or other ethnic groups. And Testifying first on SB2443 is Shipti. Once again, thank you with comments. Up next is Niop, once again, in opposition.

I apologize, Office of Hawaii Affairs. Didn't mean to take you out of order there. Sorry about that.

Chairs, Compliance Advocate for on behalf of Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

We'll mostly stand on our written comments, but I did want to elaborate on 1.0 in our comment about the nominally sensitive area language, which was drawn from another bill during last session, and why that creates more of an issue when it was inserted into this section here.

So that bill SB 79 or Act 311, was specific to state house, housing and county projects.

That was passed with other conditions with nominally sensitive language where Shipti would actually be determining whether a project was in a nominally sensitive area, as well as they were directed to do some rulemaking that would be able to implement the sensitive category. So when it is inserted into this one, it makes it very difficult to implement.

And I just wanted to elaborate where that bill came from. We're available for questions.

Thank you. That is everyone who had signed up to testify on SB2443. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in the room? Anyone online?

Yes, we have one person online.

Chair, please proceed. Hello, Guys. Pikachu, Shelby Billonaire. I support this bill because. Oh, how's in the building too. So Chihu. Yeah you of course SHPD should do this stuff. Make sure you put the onus on them because I know you guys are Nobody told you they love you today. Pikachu loves you. Yeah you Hello.

Okay. Anyone else seeing? None. Are there any questions? Just one for DLNR. Thanks. In your testimony, you had cited discrepancies that currently exist between HRS6E42 exemptions and the 6E43 responsibilities of residential property owners and project proponents. Can you just clarify that?

So section 6043 of Hawaii Revised Statutes lays out the parameters of the state burial sites program and the responsibilities that property owners have to care for or to consider impacts to EV Capuna. And this is also where preservation plans and the process for what to do if you encounter ev Capuna through an archaeological inventory survey and.

And going to the burial councils.

So with a blanket residential property exemption, there's been confusion over the last few months about whether or not projects that are on properties with known burials are exempted from further 6042 review and to ensure that or whether SHIP should have the opportunity to review those projects to ensure that certain preservation plans are enforced or are considered when the project is implemented.

So I think one of the considerations in this bill is to clarify which types of projects are exempted to take that into account and the property owner's responsibilities under 6043.

Thanks. And then just one follow up. In the existing language, historic places are. Excuse me, historic districts are cited. One of the proposed changes would be specifically citing local, state or nationally designated historical historic districts. Does that change anything?

I think that it adds clarity to what a district is and that it actually our recommended addition for the local, state or nationally designated refers back to the Hawaii or National Registers of Historic Places or the county's authority to identify their own local historic districts.

Instead of having some sort of potentially vague language that might assume anything could be designated as a historic district or identified as one without the formal design. I hope I'm not washing this up, but just to clarify that. That a district is a particular thing that a local, state or federal agency determines.

Okay, thank you very much.

Since she's here. Thank you, Chair. And with regards to the Chair's first question, and you elaborated with regards to the residential portion, what about the commercial and lands as well as state projects like the school. Like my elementary school right now is going under redevelopment and new buildings. And I've been there because we found some EVs there as well.

And I think with the contractor and the rules that we have has been pretty much covered. And I was pretty satisfied with the movements. What's the difference with what you itemized with regards to the statute?

So the difference with that in particular is that there aren't any exemptions for projects under Hawai' I Revised Statutes Chapter 68, which triggers a historic preservation review for projects that are kind of government sponsored, either using money, land or something else. So school projects fall into the 6042.2 exemptions. The only. Neither do commercial projects.

Those also do not fall under the 6042.2 exemptions. It's just for residential properties.

Okay, thank you. Thanks, Jessica.

Any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much. All right, let's move on to the last measure on our agenda this afternoon. Senate Bill 2996 relating to environmental protection, which prohibits the harvesting of aquatic life for commercial aquarium purposes. Testifying.

I'll just note we have a number of folks testifying, so we're going to take just a minute here to get through that. But testifying first is the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Vice Chairs. Members of the Committee will stand on.

Thank you. With comments. Up next is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Excuse me. Good afternoon.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. I'll mostly stand on my written comments for the interest of having more time for community. But I did want to flag two points. Oh, I had a very similar bill in our package.

So I invite any questions to the extent that we can help explain some of the basis of the bill after the rest of the testimony. And also that we're asking for a minor friendly Amendment to delete HRS 18831 which is existing section that most permits are issued under right now.

And this is to help clear up any confusion at the administrative level that the agency somehow must permit the industry because of that statutory provision which what has been seen in the past in the lawsuit and in other context that we cited in our comments public statements. So Those are my 2 comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, we have signed up to testify Cub ofoy in support OHANA Unity Party on Zoom.

Hello, guys. Pikachu. Shelby. I waited all day just to testify on this one bill because OHA actually came to our Y and I board with their six priorities and one of them was this. So I got to send the testimony advance.

So when you go through it, the commercial fishing, because if you go on Big Island compared to Molokai Molokai, they just shoot you. There's no questions asked. You go big island, you got all kind of stuff. Center original Kona, you got these people selling the aquarium fish. It's like fish trafficking with smuggling.

Because some of these yellow tanks fish stuff. I don't know the fish prices, but I know it's expensive. And you guys gotta have some kind of regulation control. So I agree with you guys. Passing this bill and putting that fine tuning amendments, working with dlnr, Department of Ag to control this stuff.

Because if we got to tackle fish smuggling, we're already dealing with human trafficking and Epstein files. So I approve you guys, you can support this, add some amendments, whatever you need. Chiku aloha for all of you guys.

Thank you very much and I apologize. Sierra Club was also on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom. Chair.

Okay, thank you. Signed up to testify. Next is Hawaii Sustainable Fisheries on Zoom. Good afternoon. Oh, you're. You're. There you go.

My name is Ron Tubbs and I'm in support of Senate Bill. The non passage of Senate Bill 3996. Sir, If you're able to.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you.

Could you. If you're driving, can you pull over and we can come back to you in about a minute once you get situated there? Okay. Okay. We'll return right back to you. Stay online.

You're right, that's a safer option.

Meanwhile, why don't we move to the next testifier Earthjusticeville there. Ron, we'll come right back to you. Just hold on for just a minute.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chair.

Aloha, Senators. Yeah. Wait for a place to pull over. So sorry.

Yeah, Ron, why don't we. We're going to hold you for a minute. If you can find a place to pull over, we'll come back to you in just a couple minutes.

Okay. So. Yes, my name is Ron Tubbs.

IT. Can we. Can we maybe in.

Yes, yes. Chair.

Yeah, thanks. Ron, if you can hear us, we'll come right back to you in a minute. Once you're situated, we'll go through a testifier in the room first. So hang tight.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs and Committee Members. Kylie Wager Cruz, Earth Justice. We submitted written testimony in strong support of this bill. With OHA's proposed amendments, the territorial Legislature passed laws enabling commercial aquarium collection. At a time when Hawaii's natural resources were viewed by those in power as dollar bills with no environmental or cultural value.

The Legislature thought it would be fine to enable collection based on its mistaken view that no One eats or uses these fish. Times have changed. Coral bleaching is threatening our reefs, food sources and ways of life in this budgetary, constrained environment.

DLNR estimates that managing the aquarium permit program will cost the agency 300,000 to 500,000 per year annually for Hawaii island alone. While a handful of collectors would pay just $100 each for an annual permit. DLNR is convinced that his hands are tied to. That it can't ban collection and that it must allow it instead.

Please empower DLNR to focus its limited resources where they're needed most rather than allowing this outdated and wasteful practice to continue. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony. I am available for questions, particularly in light of Earth Justice's long body of legal work on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Tubbs, are you. Are you parked there?

Yes.

Okay. Thanks for your.

I expected to reach my destination, so. Aloha, Senators. Regarding Senate Bill 2996. I'm in opposition to the shutdown of the aquarium fishery. First of all, it's sustainable. The future of Hawaiians and Hawaii is sustainability. There's no more renewable reproductive resource in Hawaii than marine fish.

Anti fishery propaganda and testimony based on this information should not carry any weight. Management, not shutdowns. Management science is the state's role in the fishery. It's not to shut down a sustainable fishery. It's very important to understand that 10% of Hawaiians were involved in this fishery. 10% of all fishers were Hawaiian ancestry.

I will ensure that once I leave the industry due to retirement and old age, that all my permit will go to a Hawaiian, a person of Hawaiian ancestry.

And I will continue as a Waimanalo resident with many friends and family of Hawaiian ancestry to ensure Hawaiians have a place in sustainable fisheries that make enough money where they can stay in Hawaii. Many Hawaiians that have worked for me are no longer living.

Mr. Tuft, your time is summarize.

Thank you so much, legislatures, for your consideration on this bill. Please do not pass Senate Bill 2996.

Thank you. Okay. And IT did. I see. That was Sierra Club that had just come on.

Yes, they are present online. Chair.

Okay, why don't we go back to them?

Good afternoon, Chairs. Vice Chairs. Members of the Committee. Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii. We're in strong support of this measure. I'll just add, you know, the vast majority of the public. The Board of Land Natural Resources itself indicated their desire to prohibit a commercial crime collection.

But their reasoning for not doing so was that the statute, in their belief, mandated that they allow some form of permitting for commercial crime collection.

So I think this is a good opportunity to make it very clear to the board that they do have the authority, or, you know, in this case, just to direct them to, you know, not stop wasting everyone's time on this already shuttered industry and focus on the very real and pressing management issues that we have in nature waters.

Happy, thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Up next is For The Fishes and a number of other organizations, I think on the same letterhead here. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairs. Inga Gibson For The Fishes and about 16 other organizations signed on and strong support. I just wanted to clarify. The trade has been shut down since 2018 and West Hawaii and 2021 on Oahu. So we're not putting anybody out of business.

The vast majority of polls show that this is something that the community wants, almost 90% of people. We've had neighborhood boards across the state. We've had county councils, most recently Hawaii County Council, emphasizing their support for ending this trade.

We have aquaculture, two of the top species that were taken by the millions from our reefs, Yellow Tang and Potter's angel, are now available for aquaculture right here in Hawaii and at commercial levels and have been for years through Biota and Oceanic Institute.

I also wanted to try not to repeat my colleagues, but point out the CGAPS testimony because obviously there's a concern with invasives, invasive species that have been introduced by the aquarium trade, but also that collectors could remove if they wanted to continue collecting only invasives. And we support OHA's friendly amendment.

Chair, thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Strong support.

Signed up to testify. Next is Moana Ohana. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chris. Good afternoon, Chair and fellow Senators, my name is Mike Nakachi. Good to see you. Senator Richards, I'm in strong support of this being coming to the Legislature probably over the last three decades on this particular subject, like other colleagues have spoke in strong support of this. We support it with the OHA amendments as well.

The key thing is for a lot of us in West Hawaii, we're ground zero and have been ground zero with things happening where Maui, at least Maui County, did some things to prohibit the aquarium trade there. And most of those people came to our Moku.

The big thing that we need to all be very considerate of is that our resources are not getting any better. Things are not getting any better with a lot of other things that are affecting our environment. This is one of the easiest things that we can do. And we have advocated before the blnr. Before our county council.

And we ask that this legislative body here do the CACO thing and at least push this Bill forward to continue on. And I appreciate your folks time and energy on this. Thank you. Thank you.

Sign to testify. Next on Zoom is Kathy Gogol.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Next is. Kabayo, Hawaii, Anakalea Kila. Hopefully I pronounced that right. Signed up in person. Klayton Kubo on Zoom. Good afternoon.

Clayton Kubo, Waime. Please oppose this bill. Please bury this bill, in fact, because you know, please, you guys gotta think about it from this perspective, okay? This is a fishery. What next could be another fishery on the chopping block and another one and another one after that and then eventually it's going to come down to recreational fishers.

I don't think this is a good idea. You know, it's like in the end that is what I see being dictated. So please consider deferring and burying this thing already.

Thank you. Up next is also on Zoom, Travis Leggette.

Not available on Zoom Chair.

Kaikeya Nakachi on Zoom.

How's it? Can you guys hear me? Yes, Please proceed. Thank you. I stand on my written testimony and strong support of this bill. Not going to reiterate what others have said, although I do support the added OHA amendments.

I'll just add that I'm a strong supporter of community led and people of place management efforts and strongly support those in West Hawaii that have been improving the resources for all.

And I'll note that when people claim sustainability, even the DAR's numbers of sustainability, where they estimate the population of Yellow Tang, they're looking at the entire coast, many of which the highest areas of population are due to restrictions that the communities have fought years for and that would not be allowed in that in their take, so strongly support banning this Bill and focusing more on the communities protecting their resources rather than the commercial interests.

So mahalo for your time.

Thank you. Let me See also Ms. Umberger, good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs and Committee Members. I'm Renee Umberger in strong support. State and federal monitoring data show that Yellow Tang, the most heavily taken species, did not recover after aquarium collecting stopped in 2017 and declined in some areas. That directly counters claims of sustainability.

It also conflicts with West Hawaii's experience 20 years ago when Yellow Tang recovered within four years of area closures. If aquarium collecting were truly sustainable, ending collection in 2017 would have led to a similar clear recovery. It did not. Allowing collection under these changed conditions is risky.

Just as important in 2022, Dar gutted the very monitoring program designed to measure the impacts of aquarium collecting. They now propose to reopen that activity without the data or the monitoring capacity to justify it. When a non essential trade causes harm and better options like farmed fish exist, allowing wild collection is unjustified. Please pass this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Up next, also on Zoom, Kim Coke.

Sarah, my bandwidth is low and I'm going to keep video off. I'll try to make this short because you've only given us a minute. Aquarium ban proposals are not new as this has been the norm for 20 years.

Could you turn your video on, please?

Yeah, I'm having. Hello, I'm ha. I can't. I can't do both. I. We don't have power or Internet right now and I'm going off a cell phone service which is very low. Can you bear with me, please?

Proceed.

The reason based aquarium ban proposals are not new as this has been the norm for 20 years. The reason based on cultural issues is new. You know the truth isn't your side when you continue to change your arguments every single year.

I could tell you all about the science and the process and the management, but the real story here is why Hawaii is dysfunctional. You have organizations dedicated to the betterment of Hawaiians and they propose to ban something that doesn't even exist.

This is political and quite frankly a slap in the face to the Hawaiian residents that are truly struggling. Drive down any town and you see homeless, on drugs, multi generational people crammed into tiny homes and people having to work three jobs to afford basic necessities. And it's all.

If you could summarize, your time is up.

I will summarize that it takes a special kind of person to go out of their way to totally ban someone's life. Think about your vote today and if you can keep a clear conscience, ending someone's life that has been proven sustainable and that's how they provide for their families. This is hypocritical. Don't discriminate. Don't be.

Thank you very much.

Okay, up next, also on Zoom, Kevin Chang.

Currently unavailable on Zoom, Chair. 0.

Please come forward. If you could turn your video on, that'd be good.

Aloha, community Members. My name is Kevin Chang here for Kuainaulu Awamo. We stand on our testimony and strong support.

I think the only thing I haven't really heard, at least from the way I've been hearing the conversations go on for the past, I don't know, decade or whatever, is we Keep talking about the markets and we don't talk about values.

And I think that the vote you guys are having over this bill really is about what are those values we have going forward around this kind of activity.

Thank you. Up next on Zoom, Kekoa Alib unavailable on Zoom Chair. Okay. Up next, also on Zoom, Mary Tubbs also unavailable on Zoom Chair. James Lovell on Zoom.

Thanks for your time. My name is Jim Lovell. I'm opposed to this bill.

Mr. Level, if you could turn your video on there.

Sorry, I clicked it back off. Just a moment. Sorry. Thank you. The premise of this bill is that the fishermen are destroying the resource. The bill states that the aquarium pet trade has removed species by upwards to 80% of the population. Despite removal of fishermen in 2017, the most heavily collected species, Yellow Tang, has failed to recover.

The actual science is on your scientists. The 2020 report to the Legislature shows that in the last 20 years that the industry was open from 1999 to 2017, change actually increased by 3.4 million fish over that 20 year time. That's over 100% increase. This is the actual count verified by your scientists at dar.

The fishermen are not depleting the resource. States that we've also substantially reduced species diversity, abundance, biomass. This statement's completely false as well the science.

By asking you to vote no or at the very least defer this place, you can take some time to look in, to review the science, to correct all the false and misleading statements and to make an informed decision. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Up next. Also online.

Kaimi Kiko, currently unavailable on Zoom Chair and also on Zoom. Kiki Lind, also unavailable on Zoom Chair.

I believe if I'm not mistaken, that's everyone who had signed up to testify. But to summarize, There are also 27 organizations in support, two with comments. One opposed. 162 individuals in support and 16 opposed. That said, is there anyone else who has not? Oh, please, please come forward. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. U'ilani Naipo, Miloli'i- Kapulilua. A marine advocate for place based governance and promoting traditional and customary practices. I'm in strong support of this measure and I stand firmly on my written testimony with the recommendation to to repeal 18831 in its entirety. Written comments and details are in my testimony available for questions.

One point I want to emphasize is the alternative to the 100,000 of yellow tang that is targeted to be taken off of our reefs and the more than 1,000 of the endemic species that is targeted also to take off of our Reefs has a viable option. The alternative is aquaculture. That was mentioned before.

It is up and running and has been proven. Proven. And it's available right now. The emphasis for this is for you, Vice Chair Inouye. I know you want to push hard for your constituents for aquaculture. And here you have it.

Extractive and exploitative practices of public trust resources such as commercial aquarium collection does not ethically have a justification that prioritizes private gain over the health and recovery of our reefs. Mahalo Nui.

Thank you very much. I'm told we also have one more person.

Hello. I've been on Zoom trying to get through. Hello. Hello.

Sir, if you could turn your video on.

I cannot turn them on, but we get power right now. We don't have Internet in Waianae because of the high winds, so I having to call in. Oh, please proceed. Can I testify? Hi, my name is Jerry Isham. I live Waianae. I live Waianae my whole life. I'm Korean fishermen my whole life. I just.

I'm strongly opposition to this bill. We was told by the opposition for the fishes, Renee Umberger herself, that in her very own testimony, she said, all he was asking is for us do an EIS. Here we are today we do an EISand now they like ban.

And they keep moving a goal post every time some of us will mortgage our house. They if this bill pass, you ruin our lives. Their feelings get hurt, but you ruin the fishermen's lives. I just like you guys know that and just put a comment earlier about.

They talking about what's point know Mr. Nakachi running around out there with 3300 horsepower motors turning up the water, killing all the baby fish just so he can run around like on Yahoo and get his jollies off. But he today testifying that he care about the environment. That's what you're dealing with. Okay?

But I'm upset because every time they move the goal post, I mortgage my house. I try to do everything that's right to do what I believe in. And here again, they trying to move them and move them and they lie and lie and lie and you guys keep giving these clowns the time of day.

My summarize is you guys need to do the right thing and not ruin people's lives and do the right thing and let the EIS play out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Parola.

Yes. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Arthur. My name is Arthur Parola and I'm an attorney here today on behalf of Pjak and Pan in the Fishermen we represent. There is scientific consensus that the Hawaiian aquarium fishery is one of the best managed near nearshore fisheries in the world.

No other fishery in Hawaii has as much data, research, scrutiny and regulation as this fishery. As for cultural impact, the fishery provides livelihoods both directly and indirectly to many people in Hawaii and far beyond. This includes for native Hawaiians who work as fishermen catching aquarium fish.

This bill would not only ban a sustainable fishery, it will also deprive Hawaiians of income and opportunity to provide food and other basic needs for their families. Therefore, we respectfully request that you oppose this bill. Thank you for your time, Senators.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure?

Yes. Yes, I would. I would. My name is Eric Koch. I'm an aquarium fisherman on the Big Island.

Sorry, hold on, hold on just one Sec. IT, how many people do we have online right now that have signaled they'd listen to? Quite a few.

There's about seven participants calling in from phone numbers.

Do we know who? Hold on a Sec. I'll just note. We have six or so minutes before the scheduled end of the hearing. How many other folks in the room do we have?

I'd like to. Can I give my testimony?

Sure. I'd like to give my testimony. We've had. We're having weather problems. We phoned in. We don't have video, so can I just give my testimony now?

It, can we. Can everybody online hear me right now?

Yes, yes, we can hear you, but if you only have six minutes.

Thank you. If you guys could hang on just one second. If we can ask everybody online to be sure that your written testimony is submitted for the record. First of all, we don't have that. Secondly, for the folks online. Have you guys had a chance to sign up to testify online?

No, we did this. We. We spoke. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Yeah, we had to. We had bad weather. Hellcrow cut the power because of the wind. The Legislature was shut down yesterday per the governor's orders. Our testimony.

Thank you. Hold on a Sec. Whatever the reason, why don't we very quickly take people one at a time, but we're going to ask you to state your name for the record. Turn your video on, which is our tradition and practice here.

We've made a couple exceptions for those who apparently are having Internet issues in order to try.

If we turn the video on, it's going to drop the call because we're having bad reception right now because of the weather. There's. There's high winds, hell coast shut power down. Understand? I'm sorry.

Our number of you. Is this true of everybody?

Yes. You could just. That's why we arrange this. That's why we're here like this. Usually we would Zoom in like normal, but we cannot. That's why we're. We're calling an audio only.

So for those folks, why don't we. IT, can you maybe unmute one person at a time as you become unmuted. If you could just state your name and take your minute to share your thoughts.

Okay. Let me go first though, because just so the rest of the guys know what Purdue. My name is Eric Koch. I'm an aquarium fisherman on the Big Island. I live down in Kahu. I'm in strong opposition to this ban bill.

It makes so many claims that are not supported by the fact all this talk about populations being down reefs overrun with limu is costing the state all this money. Where's the proof for these claims? What does DAR say? The science. DAR does not exist solely for aquarium purposes. It's for all commercial fisheries, all user groups.

And that that burden is shared by all fish populations are stable or increasing. And this has been the case for decades. The science is not in support of these points outlined in this bill.

Not sure why I have to point this out when DAR is here to say that themselves this fishery creates good, clean, sustainable jobs for local fishermen across the state. We currently have a rules package moving forward with DAR and DLNR for a conclusion for a long and lengthy EIS HIPAA process where we prove the facts.

The board passed this EIS and the state Supreme Court upheld the document. That's why we are here today. These activists behind this measure will not accept the findings, will not accept the science. They will not accept the truth. You know, we strongly support. Encourage you guys to oppose this bill. Let us keep our jobs. Thank you.

If you could summarize. Your time is up.

Thank you for the time. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Who's next?

Hey. Hello. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. You could state your name for the record.

Hey. So my name is Jai Cox. I am a fisherman. I live down Kau, South Point area. And I am strongly against this bill and I. I oppose bans on the fish fishery and I want to fish for my livelihood. Thank you very much. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

IT, is there someone?

Aloha. Yeah. You can hear me?

Yeah. Please proceed.

Aloha. Can you guys. Okay. The Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Association. We're in opposition of this bill. Plenty false information was being given. The EIS was done. The fishery is sustainable. A lot of the organizations that are in support of this are commercial passenger vessel businesses.

Tourism. Yeah. So they never need do an EIS. I think they need to do an EIS. And pretty much, as you guys can see, basically they're just trying to eliminate their competition. So fishing has always been part of our culture. We support all sustainable subsistence and commercial fishing. Mahalo.

Is there anyone else online?

Hello? Hello? Hello. This is Darrell Smith. I'm in strong opposition to this bill. I've been following this process since Rene Umberger first was interviewed on the Upside with Terry, an environmental radio program way back in, like 2009.

I believe the aquarium trade has done everything they've been asked, and yet the opposition, no matter what they ask them to do, they have done. And they are still basically running around telling the same half truths and misinformation they've been saying from day one. So I'm strongly opposed to this Bill. I appreciate everyone's time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. It. Is there anyone else left online? Can you hear me?

Hello? Hello?

Go ahead.

Hello, this is Nick.

Go. Go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Senators, I'm asking you. I'm here to say that I am not in support of the bill to ban the aquarium fishing. I live on the Big Island, and my family has lived on the Big Island for four generations.

I know that a lot of local people have worked in the aquarium fisheries trade and have lost their job. And having spoken with them, they've always explained to me how proud they were to be fishermen. And they took a lot of pride in doing a good job and taking care of the fish.

And it kind of breaks my heart to see all of them having to lose their job because of a few people who are trying to make money off of whatever it is they're trying to do here.

So I'm asking you to please be understanding towards people on the Big Island and around the state that this is our job and this is how we make our living.

Thank you. Your time is up. I see the gentleman who's online right here.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Please proceed.

My name's Todd Shiraki. I'm from Kona. I strongly oppose this bill. This is the only fishery with a past EIS. Really? And that should really stand just. Hello? Hello. Yep. I oppose this bill. At least oppose it or defer it. Thank you. Thank you.

IT, how many do we have left?

We have about three left. Chair.

Okay, the next person could please proceed.

Hello, can you hear me? Chair. Yes. My name is Kai Koch. I live in Kau. I'm still young. I'm only 22 years old. My family's been fishing my entire life, but I've had to work every single day since I was in high school because you guys took my jobs away, my family's job. The EIS has been proven.

The science backs us. Please open the fishery. And I oppose this. Fanboat. Thank you.

Thank you. Could the next. Next person please proceed? Is that everybody?

There's one more chair.

If they're not going now, why don't we. Why don't we move into. Well, let me just ask again. Is there anyone else in the room wishing to testify in this measure? All right. Seeing none. Are there any questions?

Senator Brian Nielsen, Administrator for Division of Aquatic Resources.

Thanks, Brian. If I recall, last year, I think when it was Senate Bill 22, there was. DLNR had done a fishery evaluation about being sustainable or not. Am I remembering that correctly? And what were the findings of that?

Yeah, I don't recall the bill that you mentioned, but the division did do an independent analysis. Of the West Hawaii fishery in terms of the sustainability of the populations of the species in the white list.

So those were the species that were identified in the preferred alternative of the environmental impact statement that the West Hawaii Aquarium fishers conducted. So we did an analysis of the population status and also the potential impact to those populations and the impact to the environment and published that on our website last year.

Okay. And definition of west side of Hawaii goes from Upolo Point down to palae. So the whole thing. Yes. Okay. And what are the findings of that, please?

The findings is we found that the populations were sustainable and also no impact to the environment or the ecosystems based on the catch limits and the different restrictions that we're proposing in our current rule package.

And. But that was specifically for Big island.

Did not imply anything for risk for West Hawaii. And you know, that includes all the closed areas as well that that are prohibit aquarium collecting prohibitions on what species you can take, the numbers of species you can take, the amount of fishers that can engage in the fishery.

All of those things were considered in terms of our analysis of whether we think that, you know, there's going to be an impact to the fishery.

And what was the year on that and is there an update?

We put that out, I think, in 2024, I want to say. So, yeah, we haven't updated it since.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair, Senator.

Thank you.

Thank you. So according to your findings was that the EIS study that private fishermen had paid for on their own.

So we. There was the EIS study that the fishermen funded and carried out on their own. But we did an independent analysis of our data that we collect and also data that NOAA collect and the catch data that we've been taking in since the fishery was open back to 1990s.

Thank you. So according to your findings, you're not necessarily identifying any real negative impacts as far as population?

Not under the proposed restrictions that we were proposing to manage the fishery.

So according to DLNR's Chapter 91, fishermen have been pretty much abiding by your safeguards, your rules, those kinds of things.

So currently the fishery is closed to commercial fishing and has been in West Hawaii going back to 2017, I believe. Yeah.

So I think the concern with a lot of constituents that have been contacting my office is there has been investments that have been made. Time, money, resources, data that's been collected.

So I think the trust in the DLNR Department is why put them through, and I'll use the term of my constituent, putting them through hell, when only A blanket piece of legislation would kind of dissolve all of those efforts.

And so I know of six families right now in my district that if this Bill passes, that's the end of their livelihood. And so I can see that this could be a future safeguard.

But then also, if people are abiding by the regulations and following the rules, this might be an extreme step to take, considering that this is a source of income for people. The information that I'm getting is right now currently 12 divers on Oahu all chipped in 15 to 20 thousand dollars each for this EIS study.

So if this Bill does pass, is the Department prepared at all to reimburse these people?

Yeah, I don't think we would have the funding to do that. The reason why the aquarium fishery was shut down was because of this environmental compliance. And the lawsuit did say it was up to the applicant to conduct the eis, not specifically the agency. So, you know, I understand the hardship you.

You're describing that, you know, it was shut down. You just need to do this eis and then you can get back to fishing and then to go through that EIS and the time and the funding that that requires to then have it shut down, I can understand the hardship. That that would be.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Chair, further questions real quick. One of the testifiers had alluded to the Board of Land and Natural Resources taking a vote earlier, at least a few years ago to end aquarium fishing.

Is that right? So it's complicated. So there was a petition submitted to the board to ban aquarium fishing. The board unanimously accepted that petition to ban aquarium fishing, but also directed the division to develop rules to regulate the fishery. So I understand that's kind of can be confusing.

So we've gone forward with developing rules to regulate the fishery, and the board did approve us to go to public hearing for that. So we're in that Chapter 91 process so far. I think that's what that reference was to.

Thanks. Separately. And it should probably one of would be Earth Justice maybe up here as well. Stepping back for a second. As I understand it, the broader situation here in your testimony outlines just General impact on reefs and species and so forth in the broader sense. DLNR's analysis.

Well, several of them also suggest that we're collectively as a state, losing the majority of our reefs in the next 30 years if things continue as they are. Is that right?

Correct. Yeah. Yes.

So I guess my question is how does this square with that?

I guess from my standpoint, there's much bigger issues that have much bigger impact on our reefs than this fishery, especially with the proposed regulations. I think we've heard the concerns with the fishery in terms of sustainability and we've tried to throw every tool we have at the toolbox at it.

From environmental compliance with Chapter 343 to wait list to catch limits required reporting, we toolbox at that. But when you look at global climate change, land based source pollution, sedimentation, sewage, all of those things, those are the big issues, issues that the, the department's prioritizing in terms of the longevity of our, of our wheat.

And the issues that Brian is speaking of do exist. But this is an easier way to get rid of the low hanging fruit. As far as non food fishing that's extractive, used for ornamental pets, Most of these fish die within a first year, the first year of being caught.

And so this is a needless activity that we don't need to authorize and anymore that keeps herbivores on the reefs to maintain their health for the long term.

And I know there's a lot of talk about the eiss earlier we did go through the process and we asked over and over again for the collectors to acknowledge that in the areas where collection is happening there's a significant impact. The populations of the fishes in those areas versus uncollected areas is dramatically different.

I do admit that yes, we ultimately lost at that issue to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said the EIS was adequate, but the Supreme Court said it was adequate because all the comments that we had submitted throughout the process, all the different science and all the different takes on what this industry was doing is all part of the package that the board can consider and that the Legislature can consider in deciding whether to continue authorizing this activity.

When we talk about sustainability, DAR has never defined what sustainability is Based on my review of all of the documents. Their definition is are we going to keep about the same number of fish on the reefs as we always have by allowing collectors to take around the same amount as they always have.

And that doesn't necessarily speak to Ina Momona or protecting against future further threats to our reefs like climate change, more coral bleaching. And so this is really our safe, this is really our safe deposit account, is our icebox that we need to preserve, take a precautionary approach with for future generations.

Senator Dakota, Brian, really quick, is your Department staffed up? Do you folks have adequate staff to impose these kinds of regulations? So I'm, I'm assuming we might need to. So go ahead. I'll just let you Answer.

Yeah, of course, I'm, I'm always going to answer. We need more staff, but we do. We issue about 3,000 commercial marine licenses a year. So we have a whole staff set up to issue those licenses and track catch and that type of thing so we can absorb the extra work that would be required with this fishery.

But of course, yeah, we could always use more staff.

So this could potentially cost the state an additional millions if we had to give you folks more positions to regulate these kinds of activities.

I wouldn't say millions. You know, I don't think we're going to have to add any additional staff to manage. Right now there's only seven fishers that have complied with the EIS. So for us, you know, we're already managing 3,000 commercial marine licenses to manage seven more. That's not a big dent.

But yeah, we could always use it for staff. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll note we have a hard stop. There's another Committee that has to come into this room in just a few minutes. But real quick for a lightning round. Are there any other questions from the Committee?

If not, I'll just close out by saying, first of all, thank you to everyone who took the time to testify today and especially those who waited patiently to the very end over the course of the last couple hours. I'm sure we'll have time to follow up.

What we're going to do because we're out of time on all the measures before us is defer these measures for decision making to a time appropriate. So let me turn it over real quick to Chair Richards to talk about that.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. And to echo our thanks from these committees, we appreciate everybody testifying, submitting testimony, being here in person, etc. But we are out of time. And so on behalf of the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, we'll be deferring these decision making until February 12th at 1:05pm here in room 224.

Thank you for the Committee on Water Land, for all the measures before us. We'll be deferring decision making to February 13th, which is this Friday at the end of our 1:00pm agenda here in this room, Conference Room 224.

Right, we're adjourned. Hello everyone.

This is the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, Gaveling. Gaveling in for decision making only on Senate Bill 2702. Because of our weather issues, we haven't still not heard back from the Attorney General's office. So we defer making decision on this till the 105 agenda on February 12th. Again in room 224. We are adjourned.