Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Good afternoon, everybody. We're reconvening today, Thursday, February 12, 2026 at 3pm for decision making on measures previously heard on February 3rd, the 5th, and the 10th. We are convened in Conference Room 225. Meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event that we have to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding decision making at 3:45pm, Tuesday, February 17, 2026 in Room 225, and a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

Are we okay? Okay. First up we have is Senate Bill 2064, relating to the Office of the State Architect. There is another measure moving forward that encapsulates the interest of the proponents of this measure.

So we're gonna work on that one, and we're gonna defer this one indefinitely. Next up is twenty eight sixty two relating to gubernatorial appointments. There are some issues that we want to continue to discuss. So with indulgence of the committee time, certain Tuesday, February 17 at 3PM. Next up, 2343 relating to the legislature.

Per the request of LRB in their testimony, what we're going to do is take the product of the working group, which is in Senate Bill 3216, and insert that language into this measure. We're also gonna make some tech non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency and add a defective date of 2525. Members, questions, comments?

Seeing none, 2343 senate draft one. I vote yes.

Okay. Chair's recommendation on SB 2343 is a pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Measure's adopted.

Thank you very much. 2075, members, we've had to make a a lot of amendments to this bill because the attorney general's testimony was on point noting the various constitutional concerns for the measures drafted. Also, the concerns of SPO. So with that, we're going to go ahead and move this forward for further discussion as a Senate draft one, seeking to address these issues.

We're gonna require an entity must be in business in the state for two years before applying for the preference, and not less than 51% of direct labor hours to be formed within the state.

And that qualification must be maintained through contract performance. We'll be addressing the concerns of SBO and the attorney general's office through the amended version of the bill. Also, a preference percentage cap of 500,000 and requiring a submission of a Hawaii bidder preference affidavit executed under penalty and clarifying that the preference shall not apply where prohibited by federal law or a condition of federal funds.

We're gonna amend the preamble to note the changes that were done to the measure, as well as make technical non substantive amendments for purposes of clarity and consistency. And given that it is a work in progress, we're gonna add an effective date of 2525.

Members, questions, comments? If not, Vice Chair, 2075 senate draft one. I vote yes.

[Roll Call]

Measure is adopted.

Okay. Next one, 2781 with the committee's indulgent relating delay. We'd like to go ahead and work on a few more issues that we discovered this morning. So what we'd like to do is defer time certain to Tuesday, February 17 at 3PM. Next up, 2927 relating to procurement.

On this measure here, we're gonna do is we wanna keep this conversation going with the Senate draft one. We're going to go ahead and to clarify debriefing requirements as noted in the noted in the concern of some testifiers. We're gonna move lines 8 through 11 on page one in the preamble to page two, line 15, to read prompt debriefing. Procurement officers may also identify significant weaknesses or deficiencies. And the request is proposed measured against the solicitation criteria, but shall not.

And then technical non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency, a defective date of 2525. And that's all we have. Members, questions? Comments? If not, Vice Chair, 2927 senate draft one. I vote yes.

With the members present, any no votes or reservations? Measures adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. Oh, oh, also for the measures that were previously announced, this time certain we will be reconvening in Room 225. Just so everybody's aware of that. Next up, the 3068 relating to procurement.

We're gonna defer this one indefinitely as we are moving SB 2927 instead. Next up, Senate Bill 3015 relating to personal information. Members, with your indulgence, we'd like to go ahead and move this one last time to time certain Room 225, Tuesday, February 17 at 3PM so we can work on some language to hopefully make the the measure stronger. Okay. Next up, 2929 relating to public notice.

There were some concerns about this measure. However, this measure, which was requested by the county of Maui, seems to be further ahead in the issues that they're trying to resolve that don't apply to other counties. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna amend this measure to make it a pilot project for counties with a population between a 100 and a 175,000.

We're gonna require to report to the legislature at the end of the year on the effectiveness of it and technical non substantive amendments for purposes of clarity and consistency and a defective date of 2525. Members, are there any questions?

Seeing none, 2929 senate draft one. I vote yes.

With all members present, are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Okay. 2938 relating to search and rescue. As you heard in the testimony, there's concerns with placing this in the office of the governor. I talked to our counterpart, Public Safety Military Affairs, about placing this within HIEMA and DOD, given the testimony of the county guys. They have concurred.

So with that, we're going to establish this position in HIEMA, not the governor's office. We will be making technical non substantive amendments for purposes of clarity and consistency, and a defective date of 2525 to ensure that this is the proper fit. Members questions, comments? If not, vice chair, 2938 senate draft one.

With all members present, are there any no votes or reservations? Measure's adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. The next one we have is Senate Bill 3230 relating to procurement. What we're going to do, members, is we just need a little time to work on this and finish it up. So we're going to defer this.

Time certain, Tuesday, February 17 at 3PM, we will be moving the measure. Okay. Next up is Senate Bill 3249 relating to procurement protests. Members on this one, there were some testimony, from concerned groups. And so wanting to continue this discussion and also recognize their concerns, we're gonna do is we're gonna remove frivolous from 103D-709.

We're going to note the concerns in the committee report from the testifiers that the forfeiture amount may be high. So we're going to require forfeiture of half the bond amount not full as written on page two line 16 to hopefully address their concerns. And technical non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency and a defective date of 2525 to note that there are issues to still be resolved.

Any questions, comments? If not, Vice Chair, 3249 senate draft one. I vote yes.

Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure's adopted.

Okay. Senate Bill 3332 relating to state funded travel. While we definitely appreciate the goals, there are some concerns that were issued. So in order to keep this moving and work on them, we're going to move this as a senate draft one. We're gonna remove line one and two on page three.

Page five, subsection seven, we're gonna report the travel by position number, which will protect the confidentiality of the individuals by yet still allowing this important data to be received by the legislature. Page five, we're gonna remove subsection g and then technical non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency. And given the changes in ongoing conversation, we will be adding a defective date of 2525 to the measure. Members, questions or comments on triple three two?

If not, Vice Chair, 3332 senate draft one. I vote yes.

Are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none, the measure is adopted.

Okay. As we said earlier, SB3216, we are putting the contents of that in another measure. So this 1 is deferred indefinitely. And I believe that takes us to the end of the decision making agenda. So with that, we'll take a short recess before beginning our joint with our good friends from agriculture and environment committee at 03:05.

Okay. Good afternoon. I'm a hall for joining today's ANGVO hearing. It's Thursday, February 12, and we're convened in Room 225 and video conferencing. Which includes the audio and video of remote participants that's being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event that this hearing is cut short, the committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Friday, February 13 at 03:05PM during AEN's time slot, and a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

And because of our 90 minute time limit for hearings, there'll be a 2 minute time limit for all testifiers, and we'll have a virtual countdown timer on the Zoom screen. First up is SB2094, requiring the state agencies that monitor environmental toxins and pollutants to establish environmental action levels or EALs to ensure the preservation of a safe environment or if it's modifications to EALs unless certain procedural requirements are met.

First up is SB2094 requiring the state agencies that monitor toxins and pollutants to establish environmental action levels with EALS to ensure the preservation of a safe environment prohibits modification the EALS. Certain procedure requirements are met.Establishes a process to allow any resident to petition for modifications. Then establish the first up is department of health.

Chair Gabbard, Chair Michael Bee, Vice Chairs, and other committee members. My name is Dr. John Jacob, Hawaii State toxicologist from the Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office within the Department of Health. So our office have established EALS with primary focus to for the remediation to make the levels of contaminants to such a low level that it no longer pose a risk to the environment and or the human health.

And these values are derived using toxicological, hydrogeological, and geological concepts, models, and theories that are widely accepted and used by other agencies, including the EPA. And the scientific rationale, justification, and all the thought that went into setting these numbers are provided in the appendix 9 of our EL guidance document with the interest of public and scientific transparency.

And our office always welcomed public comments, suggestions, inquiries of any aspect for that matter, not just Yale's, whatever our office does, and not just from Hawaii, from other states, as well as other countries. And we hold our guidance standards to such a high stat high standard that other countries are partially are either on the way or partially have already adopted some of the elements of our guidance into theirs.

And some of the examples I can give is Australia, Germany, Canada, China, and, South Korea. And our department has given additional, written testimony for the committee's consideration, and I'll be on standby if there are any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Let's see. Next up on Zoom is Melody Adduha with the environmental caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. Melody?

Yes. Thank you very much. My name is Melody Adduha, and I'm offering testimony on behalf of the environmental caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii in strong support of SB2094. And I do wanna mahalo Senator Gabbard for introducing this measure and scheduling this hearing. In Hawaii, we speak of Kuleana, our responsibility to protect the aina, the wai, and the people who depend on them.

That Kuleana becomes painfully real when standards fail and communities are harmed. During the Red Hill disaster, families were sick. Children were afraid to bathe. Kupuna were left wondering whether the water that's coming from their tap was safe. And at the same time, the public learned that environmental action levels, the very thresholds meant to warn us when contamination is dangerous, has been changed quietly without notice and without clear scientific justification that broke trust.

Current sign shows that several of our EALs simply do not reflect the risks our communities face. Benzene, a group 1 carcinogen, has no safe level of exposure, yet Hawaii's EALs remain higher than the health based levels recommended by federal agencies for long term exposures. Nephthalene and PAHs can cause neurological harm and increase cancer risk at concentrations below some of our existing thresholds.

Soil vapor intrusion, petroleum vapors migrating into our homes is underestimated in certain tables even though we know vapors can enter indoor air at levels far lower than our current standards assume. And our EALs do not explicitly account for infants, pregnant people, or immunocompromised residents, even though toxicology clearly shows that they are more vulnerable.

When standards fail to reflect science, it is our communities who bear the harm. And when these standards can be changed behind closed doors, it is our communities who lose trust. SB2094 restores that trust. It requires transparency. It requires scientific justification.

Melody, thank you, your time's up, If you could summarize?

Yes. I believe the important part of this Bill, Chairs, is that it would give the community an opportunity to petition when those EALs do not match the amount of harm that the community suffers. And therefore, please pass this Bill. It's very vital to our health and to our environment. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify? You're either in person or online on this measure. We have, 5 in support, 0 opposed, and 1 comment. Members, any questions?

Question here? Yes. Department of Health. When you heard the testifier, they're saying that our standards aren't is, I guess, benchmark setting and that the public doesn't have a way to come and petition for EAL changes and that all of that came to a head on Red Hill. What would be your response or counter to that? I mean, given what your testimony to the department health was.

So, the Red Hill is not isolated instead of there's no TPH, Total Petroleum, is like, exempt from CERCLA. So there's no real standards. Now now EPA has toxicological standards. So when the incident happened, there was there was none. So we had to develop our own.

So in the process of developing, we were in constant contact with other state agencies, other international agencies to make to come up with the best scientifically justifiable and rational number. And there was some new number developed, there were some issues here and there. And I believe that's what the testifier was referring to. But if they have a petition, they're welcome to do it.

And we have and I personally have responded to some of the similar comments that came to our office, and we've, explained it.

We simplified it. We explained it. And if they still don't understand or they still have other inquiries, we would have a video conference with those individuals to explain and justify the scientific rationale. So there's there's no agenda here. We are trying to be as transparent as possible, and all this information, the scientific justification, like I mentioned before, it's already in the appendix 9.

So we want full public and scientific transparency.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Chair, I have a question while you're there. Thank you, everyone.

Doctor Jacobs. So looking at the Bill, are you, have comments but are you supporting the Bill in terms of the procedures that are in this Bill, or are you saying that you need something? You say flexibility in your testimony. Are you saying that this is not flexible enough?

So we think the current way how it's done, it works, and the department is in favor of how it is right now. And if we can give the the same flexibility, that would be great.

So how is this restricting you, the Bill, if you're saying that this is not allowing you to be flexible?

So if there's an emergency that happened, right we need to have that 30 day period that is referred in the Bill. So time is of the essence at that point. So we would have to have the public hearing to get that information out. And on so it's taking away precious time that where contaminants can spread during that time, and remediation process becomes more difficult at that point. So the other side is EPA is changing their own toxicological considerations and modeling for various toxins.

For for example, they last year, they changed lead. This year, they're somewhat looking into arsenic levels. So if we have to go through this process every time, EPA made the change, but we will be a month or 2 months for that matter behind what the national standards are.

I think that's why the Bill was introduced, was about the concern of the weakening of national standards by the EPA. I mean Yeah.

No. Yeah. That's that's thing. Right? Absolutely.

No. That's just an example I'm giving. Because if we always you know, we are not blindly following, yeah, any anyone's guidance. We do our own evaluation, make it adaptable and, relevant to Hawaii. Right?

That's why EALs are slightly, different from the RSLs or environmental, the EPA's other levels. So we do we don't blindly follow it. So we have that we need to have that flexibility. So sometimes EPA comes up with very conservative that is not raw. We don't need that.

We don't have scenarios like that in Hawaii. So we don't have to you know, we need to have that flexibility because it's time, technology, and we don't have labs in Hawaii. That's a major issue because everything has to be shipped out. So the more restriction we have, it's more time that's been taken away from us for any emergency or remedial process.

So currently, you don't have a public hearing process because I think that's what's inserted in this Bill so that there is transparency that people know what you're doing.

So what we do right now sorry, Sanne. I'm sorry to interrupt. So what we do right now, we send out any modification that is significant, a change in number or a change in a concept. If it's grammatical or syntax, we usually just correct it inside internally. We send out to our 300 experts that's across the globe for their peer review.

And we accept their peer review before it actually goes into effect. So if public wants to be part of that mailing list, we can have a subscription sort of arrangement. I can have that arranged so that this any update that's coming up or that we have can be informed to the public as required if they want to sign up.

I guess 1 of the things that you mentioned is, say you have an emergency, that your normal procedure could be this, letting the public know because you're making changes to the EO, but you have sort of a good cause exception when there are emergencies, would that be a way that you could still do your flexibility for emergencies, but allow for the public to know what you're doing with EALs?

Sure. We're open to so the I think the problem here is public is not knowing any changes that we are making. Right? So I think since we're anyway having this newsletters and, information among the scientists, we can have that we can send the same information to the public. We don't have a problem with that.

So if we can have something like a portal, you put your email, and we can send it along with the other scientists, and public can comment. As always, they've been doing that. We will entertain that.

So if this measure were to move forward and we would make this official, would you be needing some extra financial FTE support to make this an actual official portal where the public can come in and have an actual way to the senator's point of interfacing and a process and procedure set up?

Senator, I'm from top of my head, I'm not very sure I can get back to you on that. We have to talk to our IT personnel how that would work.

Appreciate your honesty. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Anyone else? Moving on to the next measure, SB 3233, relating to ag workforce housing. Requires state agencies including DAB and ADC that administer agricultural leases, licenses, development programs, or procurement involving ag products to award points or preferences to ag projects incorporating ag workforce housing. First up is Wendy Gady from ADC.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. I'm Wendy Gady, and we stand in strong support.

Thank you, Wendy. Next is Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Chair, if you would allow me a little bit of flexibility, I just wanna take a few seconds to acknowledge the Ag Leadership Foundation of Hawaii's Ag Leadership Program class number 19, who's been here all day today learning the ins and outs of the great work that you folks do here at the legislature for all of the Hawaii residents. You have our written testimony in support.

We are... This is an innovative way to address ag workforce housing, which we all know what we need. To encourage more agriculture workers, housing's a great incentive. We don't necessarily have a concern, but we just wanted to point out that we do want some flexibility because we think some of our smaller farmers and diversified farms may not be able to meet that 20% threshold. We're not sure if it's in stone, but again, offering some flexibility.

I think Section 3... Oh, actually, Section 2B2 may allow some flexibility, but we wanna make sure that it doesn't exclude any of our small farmers into an incentive program to encourage active workforce housing. And also in Section 3, which requires DAB to submit a report, we're unsure if it's just a report on their findings or if ADC's findings also or ADC does a report themselves.

It's not extremely clear, but if you read the bill, it does reference both DAB and ADC as potential entities that can offer these preferences for ag workforce housing. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you, Brian. Next is Sherry Menor with the Chamber of Commerce Hawaii. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Please.

Thank you, Chair, Chairs, Vice Chairs, who are also Chair, Committee Members, Hunter Heaivilin here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. We submitted some written comments and echo some of the sentiments that the Farm Bureau shared. We're concerned about the slant of this bill to preference well capitalized operations to receive preferential access to state lands as a form of subsidy.

Our concern is especially highlighted as it seems that there are a variety of state land and processing and production focused programs that are increasingly oriented towards a certain scale of agricultural operation, that being the large scale.

And while we support, you know, producers of various sizes, our concern is that if we are increasingly orienting land, processing, market access, and state procurement towards that scale, we are isolating from the myriad benefits that can come from public resources, from the majority of agricultural operations in the state, which is to say smallholders.

And so while we know ADC and DAB have done, you know, work to ensure that there are some opportunities for small and family farm operations to gain a foothold, I believe if we are to achieve the goals that we have set for ourselves for increasing local food production, we should be doing utmost that we can to support the majority of food producers, not just those who happen to produce some of the majority of our food. So with that, we're happy to answer any questions.

We did offer some amendments that I think might work towards this. It's there is a floor, as was mentioned prior, of a certain percentage of workforce must be housed. And we propose a ceiling that the workforce housing that's developed not serve over a certain percentage of one single operation. So with that, again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

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

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Member of the Committee. Bonnie Kahakui, State Administrator, State Procurement Office. I thought we had submitted testimony. But in brief that we just wanted to reiterate that the additional points or preferences were called out, but it doesn't specify what that would look like. So we want clarification on that and also to restrict the procurements to only request for bids or request for proposals. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Members, any questions? So I got a question for ADC. So, Wendy, this bill gives incentives, not mandates. So do you feel that's strong enough to actually move the needle, or do you think that most farmers are just going to ignore it?

Thank you, Chair, for the question, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I think it will be looked at very favorably. And I do not think that it's gonna be overlooked because, like Farm Bureau Brian said earlier, this is such a desperate need to really scale up our food production in the state.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Alright. Let's see. Okay. Alright. We're ready. Okay. Let's see. Yeah. Yeah. I'm good there. Okay. So do some decision making now on the two measures. On SB 2094, the Chairs having conferred, we need some more time on this one, so we're gonna roll the decision making on till Tuesday, February 17 at 3pm here in Room 225. And then on the second measure, SB 3233, 3233. Excuse me.

We're gonna pass this out. The recommendation is with all of the State Procurement Office's suggested amendments to clarify procurement applicability, and we'll also pass with the Hawaii Farmers Union suggested amendment to ensure that workforce housing incentives benefit multiple farmers and aren't just concentrating state resources in a single operation. And we'll also be defecting the date to July 1, 2050 to continue the conversation. Any discussion? For AEN, Chair votes aye. Vice Chair.

On Senate Bill 3233, pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, you have four in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you. Committee on Government Operations, same recommendation. Senate Draft 1, I vote yes.

[Roll Call] Thank you. And the measure is adopted. Thank you very much. And that adjourns the joint hearing.