House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Okay. Good morning, everybody. I've gotta get used to not having a microphone. This is the Committee on Water and Land. It is Thursday, 02/12/2026.

It's 9 AM. We're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. To my—I am the chair of the committee. My name is Mark Hasham. To my left is Dee Morikawa, the vice chair.

Before we start, I have to go over some broad rules. Like I've said before, we know how to read, so please don't read your testimony. Please sum it up. We have a long agenda, and we need to get to the floor session by twelve. So, if we don't make it to the floor session, all the bills on the agenda die.

So, please, when you testify, please sum up your testimony and try to say it in your own word. We will have a two-minute time limit. It's not a hard two-minute time limit, but after about two minutes or so, I'll ask you to please sum it up and that and for those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and video off until you are called on. If—on Zoom, if you have the chat function, goes to our tech support.

It doesn't come to any of us, so we are not able to see it.

As you can see, I don't have a computer in front of me, so I won't be able to see the chat. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, we will try to reconnect you if possible. And the House is not responsible for any bad internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making later on. In that case, we'll post a notice—another notice.

Please avoid using any trademark or copyright materials while you're on Zoom and in the background. Please refrain from using any profanity or uncivil behavior. And with that said, we are moving on to—first up, we have HB 1846 relating to Shoreline Mitigation District. First testifier we have is DLNR in opposition.

Good morning, chair, committee members. Michael Kane on behalf of DLNR. Our concerns with this legislation, proposed legislation, are twofold. One is that it reverses the roles of the Office of Planning and DLNR, turning DLNR and your agency that reviews permits, but lacks regulatory authority, and turns the Office of Planning into a regulatory agency, despite not having rules that allow them to regulate land uses. And I'm, I'm not being hostile with OPSD. We have talked this over, and I believe our testimonies are in sync.

Second one is that DLNR's mission is to primarily protect public trust resources, and this reverses that dynamic and makes a priority in protecting private land interests, which are important, but our mission is to watch out for our natural and historic resources. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have—is Office of Planning here?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, chair. Office of Planning stands on the testimony with comments, and I want to reiterate that we are in sync with DLNR's testimony as well.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have Hawaii Realtors, in support. So, next, we have Shoreline Preservation Coalition, in support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify on this in person? Oh.

Good morning.

It's not on here. Go ahead.

Did, did you not get our testimony?

No, we got your testimony. You're just not...

Just not on the list. Okay.

...Going up to testify. Sorry.

Okay. It's okay.

Our bad. It's alright.

No problem. Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Mihoko Ito, on behalf of the Kahana Bay Steering Committee, I am working with them to try to work through their severe erosion issues in their region. They are a region comprised of nine condominium associations and a Kuleana parcel. They have had dire erosion issues since 2007 and have been at this for many, many years.

They've engaged as both individual properties and collectively since 2017, and what this bill does is it tries to recognize that planning on a regional level is what is required to help these properties. And, and the regional planning is what needs to happen to be able to move forward. In their case, where they're stuck is, you know, in this limbo, and have been. So, we're trying to help them resolve it.

We think that better coordination between state and county agencies will help, as well as a planning overlay, from the state. We do recognize that the agencies have concerns. We met with them this week....

What?

And have have been engaged in discussions with them to try to fine tune the bill language.

I believe that, like, from a big picture perspective, we agree, in concept, that regional planning is a good idea, and we've submitted language to them, which we gave them to them last night, which we admittedly, you know, know that they haven't had a chance to review yet.

But we're hoping that that language that we submitted to them both addresses their framework concerns and also helps these properties, not just Kahana Bay, but other properties, you know, around the state, who are also facing similar issues in their communities, with a, a way to move forward and get better coordination, between county and state. Thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Sorry. We had you down as Zoom.

That's okay. And if I, if I can also note that, Ken Chung from OceanNet is here. If anybody has any technical questions, happy to include him as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Spencer, individual on Zoom.

Yeah. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Alright. Aloha, chair Hashem, vice chair Morikawa, and members of the committee. My name is Spencer Schmerling. I'm an owner and full-time resident in Kahana, in Maui. And I have submitted written testimony, so I'm gonna be real brief.

Erosion is already threatening our community. We're losing beach. The shoreline is moving closer to buildings. Safety risks are increasing, and recent sand loss and seawall damage shows just how serious this has become.

This is not a single property issue; it's a regional crisis, and the current slow fragmented process is really failing our communities. We need a coordinated, long-term solution now, not repeated every emergency—every time there's an emergency. So, HB 1846 provides that path forward.

I respectfully urge you to support it. Mahalo.

Okay. Thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. For the realtors.

They're not here. Yeah.

Oh...? No, I'm sorry. Who was? Oh, so sorry.

Bernie Bays. Sorry, I was muted.

Sorry. I'm, I'm sorry. I thought...was with the realtors, but actually, do you mind if I...?

What? Is he testifying on this one?

The Shoreline Preservation.

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Please state your name.

My name is Bernie Bays. I'm an attorney representing the Shoreline Preservation Coalition. SPC is an organization of individuals and community organizations that are concerned with preserving our beaches and shorelines. We, we strongly support this bill, and we agree with the previous speakers that we need and must have regional planning to address these shoreline issues. And in doing that, we need all the tools that are available because every area is different.

Every area requires different solutions, so, we need to have all the tools available. We need to base our response to sea level rise on science, not on mindless mantras that may or may not be appropriate in given areas. So, this regional planning is the key to the entire thing and obviously, the State Department of Planning is responsible for planning and should be able, like they do with Waikiki, to approve shoreline plans and allow them to be implemented.

If we've got multiple layers of regulatory overlay, that creates a lot of problems, as it does in many areas, and this is also one of those areas and we need to get rolling on this.

So, we strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bays. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody else on Zoom? Seeing none.

Representative Iwamoto for your question. Go ahead.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair.

You're welcome.

Given that you represent some private stakeholders who would be impacted if nothing is done—so, as you can imagine, we sit here, we're trying to enforce this concept that all the beachfront land, the shorelines, are public—for the public—and then, when we allow your—when a coastal—the coast—starts, the sands start eroding, and then the private property, the buildings in your case, is there, and there is, ideally, right, everyone moves back their property, moves back their residents, retreats to preserve the public access, so that the public has access to these coastal waters.

So, when we—I just feel like there's something that we're getting very microscopic, and not seeing the bigger picture, which is we've all known, for a long time, that the shoreline is for the public. So, if we keep building seawalls, where then the public can't access the ocean, is it—but this is about question.

Yeah, sorry. This is—so, when do we stop? It will—could you imagine though the answer being that every single private property is hardened eventually, and then, there's—the public loses all access to the shore?

Yeah. Sure. I'm happy to comment on that. I, first of all, I, I, I don't think we disagree about the, the beach being for public use. And in the region that I represent, there was a whole lot of beach there, and, and it was being used by the public.

And now, what's there is sandbags that are deteriorating and crumbling and falling into the ocean. Right? And there are certain parts of that coastline where sand does come back, and then it comes back the other way when, you know, the, the seasons change. But I think we're not asking for a solution necessarily that is just—we just harden all the coastlines.

What we're saying is that there is this spectrum of things that can be done to help with erosion mitigation, and yes, maybe at, at the end of the day, you know, however many years out the answer is okay, we can no longer do anything, but, you know, because what we want this built—what we think this bill does is recognize that there's a spectrum of things that can be done and the answer is neither to harden nor to retreat necessarily, right, that each coastline is unique, needs to be studied, needs to be—there needs to be science-based solutions that say, okay, well based on these, these, these—the specific region we're talking about—different solutions may be appropriate for different coastlines.

So, it's not—this bill isn't trying to do that. It's trying to recognize that there's a, a number of things that—intermediary things—that could be done.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question for DLNR, please. I wanna appreciate the chair's forward thinking and trying to address this problem because, the way I understand that there is an emergency, and something needs to be done. So, I, I, I agree with this idea of the concept of looking at a, a broader picture instead of a, a piecemeal approach.

Going to your testimony and OPESD's testimony, if we were to incorporate this bill, the idea of that concept of planning in our regional method and somehow switch, switch back DLNR and OPESD's proper roles.

I don't need to say proper, but the, the existing roles as it is to offset both of your negative testimony, but incorporating this idea of a, a regional planning, strategy, do you have any comment on that?

Yeah, I have a lot. I'll try to keep it to two minutes. So, we absolutely support regional approaches and regional planning and have been advocating for those. And we've participated in regional planning proposals in Waikiki, Kaanapali, Kaaname itself, and then, there's another Honokawa in West Maui. I do have to be careful because as a regulator, I need to be neutral.

I need to give any permanent fair hearing and present my recommendations at the end of the process. In terms of Kahuna Bay specifically, they are already doing regional planning. There's already been a draft EIS published that proposes building a groin field and doing sand nourishment in that area. When that EIS is finalized, they—there is a process. They will submit an application through our office.

We will hold public hearings. We will present it to our Board of Land and Natural Resources. So, our position is we already have the regulatory authority to do regional planning. West Maui politics are complex, and my fear is that this is an attempt to bypass those specific issues, and I, I don't know that this is the right approach. And I, as for, like...and sand nourishment, I don't wanna comment on the specifics because I, I need to remain neutral and I—for any size project.

So, I think we already have a process basically.

Chair, can I have a follow-up?

Sure. Go ahead.

So, so, what I'm hearing is you do have the infrastructure to achieve what is being proposed and the ability to address the emergency is possibly the counties giving pushback. Is that—I don't wanna put words in your mouth.

Yeah. And well, and I don't wanna put words in Kahane Bay's Steering Committee's mouth so they can pull me off stage at any moment. I believe the cons—the conflict is over who would own any new...that are built in West Maui. And I acknowledge that that's a real conflict and a real open question that needs to be resolved. I don't know that this bill will achieve that.

Okay. Thank, thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have h b I need to catch up. HB 2205 relating to emergency erosion mitigation. First up, we have DLNR in opposition.

Good morning, chair, committee members. Again, Michael Kane on behalf of DLNR. Our opposition to this bill is based on two factors. The first is in regards to emergency permits. DLNR already has the regulatory authority to issue emergency permits.

And to give a quick example of a recent one, there was a sidewalk that collapsed at Queen Surf Beach in Kapiolani Park on Oahu. We're aware of the collapse. The City allocated money, the planners contacted my office. We got the emergency permit out in two days.

Basically, I stayed up at night. I consulted with my Chair. I wrote it. We bypassed 343. We bypassed the public review process.

We responded to the emergency. So we do have the power to do that. It's a powerful tool, so I don't want to explain it. I'm worried about embedding these emergency permits into law as a five-year permit. I don't think we need that.

I think it we already have a lot of power. I don't need more power. Second, in regards to there's a single line that would replace the word prohibit with the word minimize shoreline hardening at sites with sandy beaches. And that, like a single word can make a lot of difference. That overturns Act 16, session law 2020, which is a landmark piece of legislation that really put Hawaii in the lead of protecting coastal resources in the nation.

And I'd hate to see that weakened. And I'm worried that that single word change opens the door to shoreline hardening. I'm available for questions with one caveat. A lot of the testimony comes from people that we are pursuing violations against or are in court. So I'll have to be very careful with any responses. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Office of Planning.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We stand.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii Realtors. I don't see them here.

You? You want that? Okay.

We have an individual, anybody here? Okay. Anybody else wishing to testify on this issue that are present? You wanna stand up and testify?

Yes, mister chair.

Wait. Just a minute. We're going with the people in the room first, and then we'll come to Zoom.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Mihoko Ito again on behalf of the Kahana Bay Steering Committee. This bill represents another aspect of erosion mitigation. The prior bill really talked about long term solutions, but we believe that, in addition to long-term solutions, there is a need to look at a limited regulated pathway for short-term solutions. What we're seeking to do with this bill is to equalize the standards between state and private, for with respect to emergency shoreline solutions.

And we're not asking for any more than the standard that already applies to the state, which is to minimize, shoreline hardening. We're asking for this to be regulated with oversight and timelines, and conditions that can be imposed by the state or county.

And again, like asking for this to be time-limited while long-term solutions are sought, but we believe that doing nothing at this point cannot be the state's answer and could potentially be catastrophic for not just the coastline I represent, but others as well. The permits for, the emergency permits, for the Kahana Bay region at the state and county level are expired, and there's no movement on those at either the state or county level.

And in the meantime, the emergency sandbags that they do have there are in disrepair. They're dangerous for the public and for residents. And, you know, our issue here is that there's inconsistent application of the law. It seems clear, you know, from testimony from the agencies that there are certain instances where emergencies are being granted, but not for these folks. And the law under Chapter 205a has been cited as one of the reasons that agencies are not willing to move forward.

So that's why, we believe that this bill will actually help provide a short term pathway for relief while long term solutions are being sought. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Bernie, mister Bays, on Zoom. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Bernie Bays. I'm an attorney. I represent the Shoreline Preservation Coalition, which as I said earlier, is a organization of community groups and individuals that support preservation of the shoreline. And a remark was made earlier that somehow plans would be approved that resulted in the loss of Beach.

I don't think a plan like that would be approved. Nobody favors a plan like that. But again, we have right now structures that are threatened, and while we move through a long-term planning process and pay for the engineers and the shoreline management experts to evaluate different shorelines, create appropriate plans for those. We need some measure to protect us from some kind of environmental catastrophe.

One of the areas I represent is the North Shore, which, arguably, is the second most important beach in the state for us.

And if we have a real environmental catastrophe there, that would be very damaging to the State. We need to preserve that beach. Nobody's interested in getting rid of the beach or not doing things that would preserve the beach. Nobody favors that. But in the meantime, we've got to have emergency permits to prevent houses from being on the beach, and we need to use all the tools in the toolbox in order to do that.

We all have the same objectives, I think, but we're not achieving them. And I would disagree that we're leading the country. I think we're lagging the whole world in our addressing shoreline issues. We should be leading the world. We should have be trying different creative solutions, determining which work, which don't, and things like that.

Instead, we're not doing anything. And that's not working, and it needs to be fixed. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Spencer, individual in support on Zoom.

Yeah. Aloha. Good morning again. My name is Spencer Schmerling. Once again, I'm an owner, full time resident in Kahana, and I've submitted my written testimony.

So I'll once again be very brief. I just wanna say I support the build because our community is already experiencing serious shoreline impacts. And, to the previous speaker's point, we're experiencing beach loss. We're not advocating for beach loss. We want to improve the beaches and decrease our risk to the buildings, safety concerns, and so on.

So the current system again is very slow. It's fragmented. And, you know, the communities deserve a way to at least get a fair shot at getting some kind of a resolution. And this bill helps us towards that direction. So I respectfully urge your support. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. That is all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Please come up and state your name.

Hi. My name is Joshua Greig. I submitted written testimony, and I stand by that. I just wanted to add that there's often this kind of adversarial framing of private homeowners versus the public beach. Like everyone else has said, very much we all want the same thing.

I'm a private beachfront homeowner. We've experienced a huge amount of erosion. We've been at this for ten years. Before we get any kind of long term solution, it could be another ten years. This has been a big problem.

We are feet away from losing our home. Even if we are successful, and this is by no means a high likelihood, we could be wiped out long before we get the necessary permits. The state does have a a goal or a a worthy endeavor of protecting the state, you know, access private or the state property and public access. But there is, I would say, an equal importance on the state protecting private property. That's one of the most important rights that we have.

It's right up there with freedom of speech. Without private property, we have nothing. And so we need a way to protect private property while we work out ways of protecting public property. And currently, with the exception of some small-scale things, like there's some working groups I know on the North Shore, the protection of the public beach has been almost entirely put on the back of private homeowners.

You know, when there's dune nourishment, except for when it benefits the state or the city directly, it's private homeowners that were applying for those permits that were paying for the work.

If there's drawings that are being built, I'm not very versed in the details of the Maui projects in Kahana Bay, but I fully believe that it's mostly private funds funding it. And they're working to preserve the state proper public access and state land at their own cost. And yet there's this very kind of framework of adversarial relationships that I really don't understand because they're doing an important job, and so is the private property owners.

To just say that, well, your houses have to go, you know, you lose everything that your family has ever worked for. And, too bad for you, It just doesn't seem right. But thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Representative Iwamoto?

Thank you. For the private homeowner and Mr Josh Greig, yeah, I feel I read your testimony and I do feel really badly for your family, and thank you for making it not an adversarial discussion. But normally, the laws, I mean, we should be looking at when the government is going to be taking. In this case, it's global warming. I mean, it's nature kind of creeping towards your private property.

Possibly. I would, I think I would refute that to a large degree. Whenever they say global warming is causing this, there's very little kind of description of what global warming means for how it's causing it. There may be, I don't doubt that the sea level's rising, that there's global warming, but the mechanisms I've read quite a few papers from Chip Fletcher and those people. I'm no mean by no means an expert, but I have read quite a bit about this stuff.

There does seem to be some discrepancy on what the mechanisms of why does the ocean rising six inches cause all this erosion? And if the ocean level was to go down, would there be the same level of accretion that there was erosion? You know, who really knows? In our case, we're not really experiencing natural erosion at all. There's a huge hardened coastline that was put in, I think, fifty years ago after a tsunami and a hurricane.

And then there's also a jetty upstream from us. So it stops all of the natural sand that would go from one side of the beach to the other, and now our beach has been starved. We're kind of at a tipping point. We think, I don't wanna get in too much detail with our specifics. But there is kind of man-made component, poorly planned man-made component, that is forcing that erosion onto us.

We did not harden our coastline. We've been there for thirty years. We're not just vacation-rental people. We've lived there. I trim my own trees.

Yeah. But I appreciate that.

Yeah. We're being pushed that. And so we have no solution currently. We will lose our home if there's no legal option for protecting it in the interim, and we absolutely want to do a long term solution. We're I plan on having my children live there.

Got it. But at what point do private land owners need to reframe their ownership of that land so that they think of it as a leasehold and not a fee simple interest?

Private property. I know that the previous attorney general, Doug Chin, had the opinion that there was an the state had an inchoate right, which means yet claimed but preexisting. And I think that that's the wrong way of looking at it. I know that case law is kind of mixed. There's direct takings from the states if they make laws that, say, change zoning on private property that make it effectively preservation land even though it's still in residential.

But if there's natural erosion and it happens over the course of decades, if not, you know, a hundred years, then it's not a taking. But I would say that it is the duty of private property to maintain their private property, and it's the duty of the state to maintain state property. And currently, the state has forced that maintenance onto the private property by allowing by forcing their land to erode. There are solutions that there could be no retreat.

We could do sand put or sorry, sand dredging. There's, jetties that minimize the lateral coastal effect. And those are million, you know, $20,000,000 projects. We hired an engineering firm a few years ago. This was before Act 16. So one of the suggestions was building a seawall and jetties, or jetties.

Both were in the 10 or $12,000,000 range. We can't afford that. We're just one homeowner in a a sea of a mile of coastline. How can we pay for that? And that's very much in the state's scale.

$12,000,000 is not much for a state project, but 12,000,000 for a homeowner is completely impossible. And that I would say that it's very much the state's responsibility to protect the state property, And that does not mean at the expense of the private homeowner. And giving this Giving us time with these emergency permits.

And it's not like it's just a blanket emergency permit that you can just have your sandbags or seawall or whatever that hardening means for a hundred years, you would have to actively be working on a solution. Thank you.

Thank you. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Can I this? You know, the way I see this is if we don't do anything, I mean, there's been concern that hardening removes, quote, beach and possibly public privileges. But I guess what I see is if we don't do anything, we're gonna lose everything, and it's gonna be gone, period. So, there needs to be something that's done. And again, I wanna congratulate chair for his assertive, creative thinking.

So if we go back to your earlier statement that you are concerned with the word prohibit to minimize and, you know, maybe referencing Act 16. I really believe that context is really important.

So when Act 16 was decided in 2020, I don't know what was the situation at that time, but as as we know life is dynamic and and I think that we need to, not go with the latest and greatest, but we need to adjust our our thinking and our laws to consider different options, maybe even new technology that that is always evolving and afforded us to to have the best solution.

So, you know, I hear your concern that prohibit is minimizes opening the door, but could we like maybe consider I think we need to consider options. So is there a better word than minimize that we could use to define options to at least consider something?

It doesn't have to be total hardening but I don't know if Ocean Ed is around, and if they could give some scenarios, but I have to believe that there are better options than doing nothing.

So I think that's a well, on respect, a false dichotomy. I I stand by the way prohibited. But Okay. That doesn't take other options off the table. So when we talk about shoreline hardening, we're identified we it's defined as artificially fixing the shoreline in one place.

And shorelines are naturally dynamic. We heard testimony about they don't wanna blame climate change for erosion. I'm so much sympathetic. Erosion is a natural process. Our islands are always eroding.

It's when we try to Harden the shoreline and say, no, it stops here, that we create problems down the road. Sand nourishment is not shoreline Hardening. Dune restoration is not shoreline Hardening. Building groins, which you've heard about, is not shoreline hardening. Groins will slow down processes, but it doesn't try to lock things in place.

So we do have engineered solutions while maintaining the prohibition on shoreline hardening. And that prohibition, is specific to sites with sandy beaches where hardening will impact shoreline processes. So we have a situation on Maui, where it's a sandy bank eroding. We probably have to consider hardening because that's it's gonna stop not a sandbank. I'm sorry.

Claybank eroding. Hardening there will actually protect our resources. So the the prohibition on hardening sandy beaches, we've lost too many. I I don't wanna lose that protection.

We're losing it anyway. Right?

We're fighting it. If we harden the North Shore, we lose the North Shore. I mean, that's like, Kahana. Sorry to always, like, keep talking about Kahana. The or let let's do Waikiki.

Waikiki was built too close to the ocean. It was built on the beach we need to breathe and survive. So now we're in a situation of Waikiki. If we wanna keep it, we need to continually invest money in nourishing that beach. Like, we, I won't be able to get the charade in to relocate.

I know that. So Waikiki is in a situation where it's hardened. We need to constantly maintain it. There are other beaches. Once we harden, we need to maintain it.

So I don't want to harden new beaches because then it will be our responsibility to maintain it or we will lose it.

Okay. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, chair. Yeah.

Going back to the previous representative's question. Because I'm looking at this this section where it says, "prohibit construction of private shoreline hardening". Doesn't the state already do that? I I mean, because we Harden shorelines all the time. Right?

Well, here, this is this is the problem I have with this statement. It seems kinda hypocritical because the state's doing it all over the place, but it says private and the private individual can't do.

Yeah. So

Right.

So if we're gonna make one requirement, like what they've been saying, it should be blanket. The state shouldn't the state should have to adhere to the same requirement as the private individual should. Right. Do you agree with that?

No, I don't. The state has an interest in a a wider interest than any individual parcel. We have recommended approval of applications for the Department of Transportation to place groins in Kaaba, and there's future ones on the Windward Side Of Oahu because we were at risk of losing the highway. I've had similar situations in Kauai and Molokai. Hardening, building those groins in Kaaba means that we are losing that beach in Kaaba. So we had to make a choice. And we were honest in presenting that to the board. Like, we lose the highway on the Windward Side in So

Wait. Wait. Wait. Question then.

Alright.

I'm playing dev. I to be honest, I don't agree with hardening.

Alright.

Right? I don't think I don't think that's the solution. But I why can't we just move the highway? I That's what you're saying to everybody else. Just move the highway. And we do it all the time.

I I would I would love to move the highway.

So why did we choose hardening over moving the highway? And how come you didn't take a hard stance on that and cite this statute at that time?

So we recognized the environmental damage that the highway was causing and felt in the public interest, in that particular case, was we needed to protect windward communities. And it wasn't an easy choice that we presented to the board. I I feel that's a different choice when we're talking about private development.

Yeah.

I I see it as the same.

I I'm sorry. I see it as the same. I it should be the same conversation.

Not that I agree that we should harden this. I it's, yeah, I see it as the same you cannot well, anyways, that's my opinion. Alright. Any other questions?

Thank you for, sorry

Representative Iwamoto. No. Representative, my bad.

Sorry. For DLNR. So your point, I think what I'm hearing you say is that when a private property owner is allowed to harden their one piece. And we heard earlier testimony saying that they believe their erosion was caused because some a private property owner down the beach, down the coast, Hardened their one private property, which then caused erosion. So basically, it creates a chain reaction where then everyone comes forward and says, why I need to harden my private property now.

And then the when you follow it all the way through, it means that all the private property is gonna be hardened, and there will be no public beaches. I mean, that is why I brought up this bigger kind of overview of the situation. Right? So I appreciate what you're saying.

The regional solution. Right? It's the the you gotta look at that as a whole, not just an individual.

Yes.

Right. So sorry we're not supposed to talk this way. Do you have a questions? Representative, do you have a question?

Oh, that was it. Was that was that no. My question was does that is that part of the reason why you are opposing private landowners having

Thank you for answering my question.

That that is part of the reason because we've heard, like, shoreline hardening has downstream effects. And once you harden one, you have you end up needing to harden the whole shoreline is what we saw in Lanikai.

Thank you.

Nope. We agree on that. I completely agree with you. Thank you. No. Any other question?

I'm I'm sorry. One one last question. As as you were saying that, if if we do go to the the regional, bigger picture and and use, you know, learn from our mistakes, like you mentioned Lanikai. I'm surmising that there is room to move off of where we're at right now to to think differently and to incorporate new new processes to reach a better solution?

Possibly. I I I don't want to engage in wishful thinking. Really, our our options are harden, move, or beach nourishment. Yeah. Like Yeah.

Like, there's there's a lot of magical thinking. Maybe there's some technology we haven't discovered yet. But erosion is erosion was an issue in Waikiki back in 1905. Like, we we have newspaper articles about Waikiki is disappearing. The beaches are destroying Waikiki.

Yeah. I'm sorry.

So I I know that's a distraction for you.

Chair, last question.

Okay.

So if we if we don't do anything right now, we don't do anything, well, what is DLNR's vision of what's gonna happen? We're we're not not doing anything. We're fighting to maintain the public resources and where we think we can save them. As regional plans come forward, we are processing them. We're very active in Waikiki, which is actually part of our kuleana, unlike other beaches that actually falls under GLNR's responsibility.

So we're we're not not doing anything.

Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to

No. Sorry. I'm just

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you very much. We need to move on. Next up, we have HB 182 relating to conservation banking. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Catherine Stanaway, DLNR, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. We support this bill and stand on our written testimony and are available for questions.

Okay. Thank you. We have Earthjustice on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. My name is David Henkin. I'm an attorney with Earthjustice. We submitted testimony in support, and we'll stand, generally stand on the testimony. I just wanna say a couple of things.

There have been proposals over the years for conservation banking. We have opposed them because they did not have the necessary guardrails in place, statutory guardrail guardrails to make sure that it's done correctly. This House draft 1 of House Bill 182 is very different in that regard, and, and we're happy to say that we can support it. So we're gonna bring the DLNR that this would give them a valuable tool to help promote the conservation of our endangered species.

I did note the testimony from a former federal biologist, Kaylee Peng.

I know him professionally. I respect him, and I think that his testimony is talking about the original draft of this bill, which we opposed for exactly the same reasons. The house draft one addresses all of our concerns, and I can't speak for mister Peng, but I would hope that it would address his as well. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Members, are there any questions? DLNR, which version of, we have several. Okay.

My, my question is very simple because we worked on this during the interim. There's several versions floating around. Which one do you guys prefer? Which one worked best for you?

I think we like this version. And in 2024, we worked with Earthjustice on this bill. So, we, we, we, came to a lot of agreements on the provisions that are in inside House, House Draft, 1. And so we do like this bill. We've been working for a long time to try to establish conservation banking authority.

And so we're, we've been trying different avenues on how to do that. So, I think this bill gets us there. We also, there are other bills that we've worked with other people on, too, that we also think would get us there. So, I know it's not exactly answer you're looking for.

Okay. No, that's fine.

Yeah.

Okay. Good.

Members, any questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HB 1571, relating to condominiums. First up, we have Hawaii Food and Policy. Anybody here to testify? Anybody on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, no questions, right? We have three people in support and nobody here to testify and nobody to ask questions to, so we're moving--

Oh. Somebody's on--

Oh, there's one person on Zoom? Okay. Racquel, on Zoom.

Yes. Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Mahalo very much, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. Very much appreciative for you hearing this today. This was initiated largely by myself and my community. We are very much overwhelmed with the CPR projects, specifically on agricultural lands. I have submitted written testimony, so I hope you're able to review that.

The nut of it is that we have a process. I have worked very diligently with both DPP and the DCCA who received the registrations and have tried to come up with different ways to address the pukas in this process, so we are respectfully trying to improve that process by instead of recreating more work or positions for county or state, placing some responsibility on the applicants.

And when they submit their registration packets to DCCA for review and registration, they should be-- we would like them to be able to submit with that packet a letter from any appropriate group that's in their community that they choose to take space in, meaning community association, neighborhood boards, whatever appropriate group is there, and that way, it prompts a notification for the community as well as giving the agencies appropriate and meaningful contributions to the decision.

What we have on the North Shore right now is we are overwhelmed. There are countless projects and about 6,000 agricultural lands being lost to misrepresented projects and huge developments that turn into gentleman farms, and farmers being displaced, ranchers being displaced because of it, and no resources to back up the project because they weren't provided that information at the beginning. So, you know, people wanting a piece of the pie and really desperate for it come into these projects, give all their monies, and there's no infrastructure plan.

So late in the game, we find out about the project and now approach DPP and DCCA to try to figure out how to better serve that space. They're impacting to our communities. It changes the footprint drastically and requires a lot of our infrastructure that we can't provide. So I hope you're able to give it consideration, and I really look forward to following this discussion. Mahalo.

Okay. Thank you very much. So that's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing-- or anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Representative Iwamoto?

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Rachel-- I'm sorry. Achiu?

Yes.

Is it Achiu? So are you on the Neighborhood Board currently?

Yes. I am.

Okay. So my-- because I've been on the Neighborhood Board, and I guess my concern with this is, it could-- this bill could have the effect of causing a lot of pro-development lobbyists to infiltrate your board. You know. And they could take-- I mean, because it's relatively-- there's no oversight for campaign spending with Neighborhood Board elections. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Is there a question?

Yeah. So is that a concern you may have, is that this bill may inadvertently create a site for developers to kind of infiltrate and then hold it up the resolution that the Neighborhood Board adopted because the majority aren't these lobbyists, that that would have a detrimental effect?

Right. I appreciate the question. We've had this discussion many times just amongst, not as a board officially but many of us who are active in this, you know, when the community reaches out to us. It is not a concern. We meet with developers consistently regarding their projects. I also sit on our Agricultural Committee and our Parts Committee, and we all-- in a nutshell, it's all connected, so we have a fairly active-- a very active board when it comes to addressing developers. So it has not been a concern--

Okay.

--and we have a fairly large board that keeps us very much balanced.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anybody else wishing to-- anybody else with questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up, we have HB 2047, relating to the Aha Moku Advisory Committee. First up, we have Leimana DaMate, State Aha Moku, opposition.

Thank you, Chair, and welcome. Thank you for the opportunity for the Aha Moku to speak on this matter. My name is Leimana DaMate. I'm the luna alaka'i or the executive director of the Hawaii State Aha Moku. We are in opposition to this measure, and as written, it specifically takes the autonomy of the Aha Moku process away from the Native Hawaiians' generational and traditional knowledge of their ahupua'a. The process that Aha Moku operates under is an ancient one that stems from the ninth century. It was translated by Kawaikapuokalani Hewitt as a sustainability process that ensured survival of the Native Hawaiian culture.

First, I'd like to say that we are advisory only, and we've only-- and we've been very successful as advisory to the Land Board, to the Board of Land and Natural Resources, and working with all the different divisions of DLNR as advisory. We particularly work with bringing the knowledge of the ahupua'a, people who live on the ahupua'a, lineal descendants with generational knowledge of their natural resources and cultural practices.

So, it's very important that we maintain that kind of relationship. We advise divisions and government and private developers as well who are looking for permits that deal with natural and cultural resources, and how we do that is that through the po'o of each island, the po'o connects with the moku people who connects with the ahupua'a people of a specific place and brings their voices forward and let them meet with the projects and development people.

And that way, they have a clear voice in decision-making. This measure, as it's written, takes that away. It was authored-- this testimony was authored by the eight islands, the main islands and the po'o of each island, and so-- who also reached out to their moku and their ahupua'a. Everyone is adamantly opposed to this measure, and we ask that it be deferred. I stand on our testimony that you received that we had sent in, and I'm able to answer any questions should you have any. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Pu'a Foundation, in opposition.

Develop over the years since the new legislature established it. It was a recommendation-- based on a recommendation by the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, which represents Hawaiians throughout the state of Hawaii and across the continent. Ko'olau Foundation is dedicated to the preservation of Hawaiian cultural practices and heritage, and we have seen that the Aha Moku serving as an advisor to the DLNR and state agencies are providing a service that is needed, an independent cultural guidance so that when they make decisions on state or private projects, they make it informed about what they might encounter.

Now, if there was an Aha Moku in existence before Mauna Kea started getting developed, maybe we would have had less mistakes at Mauna Kea with UH and the telescopes. So that's the kind of thing that I'm hoping this Aha Moku can do, and they haven't really been able to function as well as they should in recent years because of challenges from their administration of DLNR. So that's been the problem for the Aha Moku. I serve as a Kaneohe ahupua'a representative on Aha Moku and have agreed and supported pretty much all of their decisions to recommend. And they don't-- like I said, they're advisory.

They don't really-- they don't get paid. They're all cultural practitioners throughout the state. They're all trying to help the state make better decisions. So to change it and have a state agency be in control of this organization would be counterproductive to your original purpose. You really should remember why you organized it and why you established it in the first place. So that's my mana'o on that. I hope that we can convince-- I know most of you probably co-sponsored this bill. I'm hoping you would reconsider and defer it. Thank you very much. Mahalo.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Ko'olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club.

Aloha mai kakou, Chair Hashem, members of the committee. My name is Leialoha Rocky Kaluhiwa, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Ko'olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club, and I strongly oppose this measure because of the fact-- this actually-- Aha Moku was actually started by the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs.

Hawaiian Civic Clubs Association is consists of 67 clubs nationwide, over 3,000 members, and the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs actually adopted this resolution and established it on-- the establishment of the Aha Moku system to advise the state government on decisions that could affect Hawaiian people, places, and culture.

As one of the strongest advocates of the system, Ko'olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club urges you to not pass this bill, and it takes away the autonomy of the Ahu Moku Committee to choose its own executive director. And that is what I've got to say. If you have any questions, you're welcome to ask.

Okay. Thank you very much.

And I also serve in that committee.

Thank you. We have one person on Zoom, Keomailani, individual in support.

Aloha, aina kakou. Yes, I stand in-- I stand in support of this bill. I stand with my written testimony I submitted, and I wanted to make a quick reference. On the Island of Molokai, specifically--I cannot speak for any other island and I will not--but here on the Island of Molokai, the Aha Moku has become very confusing to a lot of us who sit in different roles, but especially to our kupu ainas and our grassroots people who hold the knowledge in the ike, and it's of our own ahupua'as, and we still live by no one can speak for us but ourselves. And it's becoming confusing, especially at government levels like you folks.

I have gone to testify at DLNR meetings in opposition and strong opposition from our island's community on different projects, and Aha Moku will submit testimony against what we say, which creates a confusion even for the chair of DLNR to question us, like, are you guys all not communicating?

And at the end of the day, I think it's very important to realize that on Molokai, we're not loyal to clubs and organizations. We're loyal to our aina kupuna, and if it's not good for our aina, it's not good for us, and that's very important to say. So I just wanted to say that, and I stand in strong support of this bill. Mahalo.

Okay. Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Members, any questions? Representative Poepoe.

For Ms. DaMate. Chair, I have a substantial amount of questions, so I'll try to get through them as quickly as possible. Thank you. Aloha. Thank you for your written testimony and for being here today. So there are the rules that the Aha Moku Advisory Committee are supposed to follow, the administrative rules. Do you view these rules as legally binding?

Aha Moku does not have administrative rules because they're advisory only.

So this final rules and practice of procedure of the Aha Moku Committee effective October 2016 is not applicable to the Aha Moku Advisory Committee?

No, it is not. And that's because it was based on having admin rules, and the po'o of the islands decided not to have those.

So you can just decide to not follow the Sunshine Law?

They do follow Sunshine.

Okay. So, according to the rules which you're choosing not to follow, the rules say that Aha Moku should have at least four quarterly meetings that are open regular meetings. So how is this occurring?

It is not occurring, and that is because of the funding that we have. There is not enough funding--

$286,000 is not enough funding to hold four quarterly meetings?

$286,000 is for the entire program, all eight islands.

So how, within the absence of meeting, in the absence of following their rules, how-- and if the council or committee is responsible for overseeing the one employee, the executive director, how does that oversight occur without meetings?

Meetings are held on each island.

No, the oversight of the council over their employee, how does that occur? How-- if there are no meetings of the council who are responsible with managing their one employee, how is that management happening if there are no meetings?

There is a very close relationship between the luna alaka'i and each po'o of each island. The reason we're not able to hold an--

But I'm not asking-- I'm asking-- yes. Why are you not able to hold a meeting?

Very honestly is that we are not in possession of a p-card. So to bring all the islands together would mean paying for travel.

You could have an online meeting, a Zoom meeting. When was the last time there was a regular open meeting of the council? According to the rules, you're also required to have the council approve your budget and to provide itemized expenditures, and that-- in the absence of meetings, how is that occurring?

To answer that, each island-- the Aha Moku Advisory Committee is autonomous to each island. So no island is going to give any kind of mana'o that would impact another island. So when we have AMAC meetings, and we used to.

When was the last regular meeting?

A couple of years ago.

Where was that agenda posted?

It was--

Where are the meeting minutes?

It was posted on the lieutenant governor's website, I think. And the meeting was in-- was on Oahu. None of the po'o were happy with it being on Oahu. So now, the policies that we are following, which we are updating, is that every island is going to have their own meeting. In the act, Act 288, which created the Aha Moku, there's nothing in that act about regular meetings. We left it up to the po'o on how they do it.

And I think that's the problem is that there's no accountability and oversight of the executive director in the absence of meetings. And in the HR-- I mean, I guess you are choosing to not follow the rules, and-- but in the HRS--I mean, in your testimony--it says that the, you know, the committee is supposed to be autonomous and that it shouldn't be under the chairperson, but in the actual statute, it is under the chairperson. It says, oversight of the Aha Moku Advisory Committee shall be by the chairperson of the board in the Land and Natural Resources. That is in the existing statute.

The oversight would mean that DLNR would be controlling the actions of the Aha Moku. The people will not accept that. That's not the reason it was created.

I don't believe that that is correct. You know, so all that the bill proposed today actually does is bring some things from the rules, which I believe are legally binding, into statute to give more accountability, because as it stands, it doesn't seem like there are any meetings happening that are being-- are required to happen and that there's really no oversight happening and there is kind of just like a black hole, and I don't know where any of the information is.

The oversight comes from the po'os themselves.

How did-- how is that communicated according to the rules that require open meetings for the public?

Those meetings on the islands are open to the public. All of those.

Those are different meetings. Those are different meetings. Four regular meetings of the committee, open Sunshine Law meetings. I have never seen an agenda for one of those meetings. I have never seen anything posted. I don't believe that there have been meetings in years. So this tries to give a little bit more-- this bill tries to give a little bit more consistency, because currently, it's not functioning the way that it was in-- I agree with the intention, but currently it's not functioning that way, and also according to the rules, the executive director shall only give testimony in public hearings before agencies related to specific findings, policies, recommendations that have been formally approved by the committee at its meetings.

And I was able to find your report from 2025. I did not find any reports for-- since probably 2017, maybe earlier, up until 2025, so there's a lot of missing reporting. And in this report, you list out maybe seven different instances of giving testimony at the DLNR last year. I'm not arguing the positions taking in it, but how were these positions formally adopted by the board to authenticate and authorize them to be delivered by the committee?

By the Aha Moku Advisory Committee?

Yes. If you're following the rules, your rules, then they should be formally adopted in an open meeting.

We're not following those rules. Those rules were done at an earlier meeting where we weren't really aware of the administrative rules. Our po'o at that meeting-- after that was drawn up by someone else, we never got a copy of it.

This is literally on the DLNR Aha Moku website. This is where I printed it from. It says that these are the rules you follow on the website.

We don't follow those rules because we do not have administrative rules. We're advisory only.

These are listed as your bylaws, whether or not advisory or decision-making.

We don't have those bylaws. So--

But at some point, decisions are being made to submit testimonies and positions.

By each island for when--

So how do you come upon those decisions? Do you ask the members individually for their position prior to submitting testimony?

No. It depends on what the issue is. If it's island-specific, we go to that po'o of that island--

So for your--

--not the whole AMAC votes on individual islands.

If you were following the rules, that would be what would be happening. But-- so just in reference to your testimony today, which I printed, it does say that the entire AMAC approved this testimony.

Yes.

You are saying that all of these people on this last page approved this testimony?

Yes.

I am aware of at least one who has not-- who has let me know that they did not approve this testimony.

Which one? Because I've talked to all of them.

Representative?

Yes.

Can we give other people a chance to--

Oh, yes. Other questions?

--object. Anybody else has questions? Seeing none, we defer back to you.

Thank you, Chair. I think-- you know, I've made most of my points and my concerns. As a Native Hawaiian, this is not an easy thing to do, but I know that this is a program that could be operating in-- at such a higher level than it is and service to our people. So I think it's an important conversation to have of ways that we can look to improve it and improve the service to our people. I guess I can leave it there--

--for now. Thank you.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your concern, and we have--

Members, any other questions? Yeah. Great. Yes, I have a question. Can you please come up and-- My question is--

Again-- for the record again, my name is Leialoha Rocky Kaluhiwa.

What do you wanna say?

I'm also the chair of Ahu Moku for the state. I don't get paid a penny, and there was administrative rules written for us to follow by so much from Molokai, and which we did. We decided not to follow those rules. Make it clear for you why we don't have meetings because we don't get p-cards.

We don't pay-- we pay out of our pocket. I remember one time when Uncle Tommy Hashimoto came and paid about $500 for him and his wife to come and spend a night here, and that meeting got canceled by some smart person that wanted to destroy Aha Moku and cancel the meeting. And I remember Uncle Tommy Hashimoto going back to the airport actually crying. I got-- I waited 17 months to get reimbursed to go to a meeting on Kauai.

And that's why we chose not to have any more public meetings. We gotta go into-- not attend with each island. Now we decided, let's go to each island and meet the mokus. And some of these rules-- and actually, this is actually supposed to be named Aha Kiole when we first started. We had to change the name from Aha Kiole to Aha Moku because at one of the meetings, we had Governor Abercrombie at that meeting.

He was the governor at the time. Walked down the aisle before a couple 100 people and got totally-- used profanity in his face from somebody from Molokai, and he vetoed the bill. He was first in support of it, but because of that, he vetoed the bill. So if you have any questions to add, we're coming out of our pockets, and Kawaikapuokalani Hewett is just one of the guys who interpreted that.

Actually, it came from John Ka'imikaua. Came from five different-- he's the only one left to come again, give you the translations. So unfortunately, he's in Japan right now. So, actually, I think this is a personal vendetta against the Aha Moku, and many as organizations want to see the Ahu Moku because we-- now with the Ka Pa'akai analysis going through, can you go out and reach-- you're only gonna reach the Island of Molokai. Not everybody really trusts the government.

You guys all know that. We gotta go and find the-- actually, the people from the genealogical lineage knowledge of the area. You think it's easy to find? No, it's not. First they ask, are you a part of the DLNR? I said, no, but we're attached to it. They don't trust anybody from the government anymore. Too many broken promises, and that's where we're at today.

So if answered that questions, we are intending to go. We've got-- actually, we're going to Kauai again, and I told them we're not going to Kauai again or any island to put the ticket in my hand. Waiting 17 months. I'm on a set budget. I'm a kupuna. I can't be paying out of my pocket. And we're doing this for our people. And if our own people is gonna come against us, shame.

Okay. Thank you very much.

I have a question for Auntie Rocky.

Go ahead. Representative Poepoe.

Thank you. Yeah. So as the Chair of the Aha Moku, how does the Aha Moku manage its employee?

We don't have any employees. The only one employed is the executive director. She has to sort of-- the footwork for every Aha Moku in the state of Hawaii, every ahapua'a, which none of you here I know can do. She doesn't get paid the whole thing. She does the leg work for everybody else.

We try to help her in every way we can, and it cost us money. In fact, when we first started, I asked-- DLNR asked her, can you give any gas cards to the neighbor island people? The gas prices on every island is expensive. I can catch the bus. I can get a carpool with somebody. I'm 82 years old. I can't be going to this for the rest of my life. Right now, we're actually training other people to take over our places. But to condemn us in trying our best to help our people, that's a shame.

Yeah. I think maybe the intention is misunderstood. You know, this is actually to strengthen and empower the Aha Moku to be of better and higher service. But--

We want to be.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You think it's easy? It's not easy.

I don't believe it's easy. I have a question from DaMate.

Okay.

Sorry, Chair. So, just hearing the concerns about, like, the cost, how is the $286,000 spent?

Most of it is spent on travel for the AMAC, if they could. We haven't used a lot of it. A small portion of it is for salary, which is only me, only one, and it's for office expenses. What I'm trying to do-- and it's not enough. What I'm trying to do right now is to get laptops and printers for each of the eight po'o because they're fishermen and farmers, and they don't have that. They need infrastructure.

So how is the budget developed and approved?

It's developed by all of the islands, approved by them, by the AMAC.

So where-- so in absence of following the rules, where are all the records of all of these decisions?

In the office. What kind of records are you looking for?

Well, budget, the itemized expenditures, perhaps all of the reports that don't seem to exist in English or in Olelo Hawaii, you know, just all of the missing information. So maybe I'll come to the office and find all of that information.

Yes. I can send you the budget as it was turned into DLNR.

And a record of it being approved, the itemized expenditures for the past several years, and perhaps all of the reports for the past 10 years would be great.

I will check with the AMAC and make sure that that--

Those are public-- should be publicly available documents. But thank you. That's my question.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Mr. Balama, do you wanna come up?

Aloha, kupuna, Chair Rocky, <Hawaiian> to our leaders. I'm gonna stand on the testimony that was submitted in a group-- part of our group. John Assaraf submitted some testimony to Governor Waihe'e during <unintelligible> submitting to you folks. We stand in opposition of the bill, not because Ala Moku isn't important. And I understand Representative Poepoe. Your comments are well taken. And I don't stand here-- and my comments are not meant to be disrespectful to either group as you start looking at it.

And I stood in opposition of the bill-- we stood in opposition of the bill because the kuleana stands with the konohiki that have existed for generations, and I think everybody agrees with that within the respective communities. I think there is a need, with all due respect, Aunties, that the process has to be more visible, more structured, and that's why a lot of the work that I've been doing my entire life has been to be a bridge, right?

So, the reason why we got involved is to submit testimony in support and to increase with a colleague of mine involved in it. We've used the ahupua'a concept where we just address a lot of the larger issues in Hawaii through the Hawaii Executive Collaborative. So it's something that's really built around the po'o that exists within the respective communities.

So what I would ask you folks to consider is, I'm not putting it in the hands of DLNR, but letting us possibly deferring the bill and letting us assist the folks and work with you as a group to-- and work with Auntie and them to get a structure in place that would be amenable to everybody in the community can see it as part of it, but it comes from the po'os up to the group. But I do agree that regular meetings are critical. I've heard the same comments from respective communities. So we stand in opposition of the bill for those reasons.

Okay. Thank you very much.

We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 2434 relating to water. First up, we have DLNR with comments.

Aloha. Ciara Kahahane, Department of Land and Natural Resources. So we had a few comments on this bill. I'll go a little bit out of order and start by saying, you know, while we do regulate the counties in some respects, we have a collaborative relationship with them for the most part. And I myself have pretty regular meetings with each of the county departments of water supply.

If there's ever a need for them to get water that emanates from state lands, the first choice is a set aside. And as soon as they ask, you know, we generally will give preference to them to get a set aside of lands, which is generally a faster alternative to pursuing a water license.

And so for that reason, referring back to the first paragraph of our written testimony, you know, the rebuttable presumptions and other analyses that are required by this bill would add a lot of extra work for our land division, might create bottlenecks in the process of getting a water license, both for counties and for others. And in general is not necessary given the existing relationship that we have with the counties and our preference that we give to them for set asides.

Unless, you know, there's a specific concern regarding our jurisdiction. So we're always trying to encourage responsible stewardship and investment in water infrastructure. So we had concerns that placing a five year cap on water licenses with the possibility for a five year extension would actually disincentivize the kind of long term planning and infrastructure investment that we would like to encourage in our state. And finally, the public trust lives in case by case and fact specific analysis.

So in general, a presumption based on the identity of the applicant, accepting, of course, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and not looking at the specific end use is something that we would have concerns about, given the existing law that really prioritizes a thorough fact specific case by case analysis for every time that we make a disposition. So with that, I'm available for any questions.

Mahalo nui.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have ABC in opposition. Is the Attorney General here?

Good morning, Chair, Madam Vice Chair Morikawa, members of the committee. Deputy Attorney General Alyssa Cowell on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. The Attorney General had four main concerns with the bill. The first one talks about vagueness. So there are some definitions here that talk about functional characteristics of ownership and layered control.

And so if the department has to base its criteria primarily on those types of criteria, that is very vague even as it's defined in the bill, and it may lead to selective enforcement. And these would lead to due process concerns primarily upon private applicants. The second major concern that we have is that there's conflicts with Chapter 171. So Chapter 171 governs our public lands. And as the deputy alluded to, Section 171-58 right talks about how the department issues water licenses. And that's done through a competitive process.

And so when you put a cap of the five year term on the license, you're limiting the license term and it would basically undermine the public auction framework issued by BLNR because it would disincentivize amortization and it would probably disincentivize those lessees who would be best qualified to go ahead and execute on those licenses.

Another issue that the deputy talked about that we also agree with is that the public trust doctrine was extensively discussed in the case Waiahole One, Waiahole Two, and a way, in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And those cases talk about the public trust. The case specifically says that public trust is looked at in a holistic perspective.

So while there are four articulated purposes in the bill, that would run contrary to the public trust doctrine and it risks narrowing the court's view of the public trust doctrine.

One of the important parts of Waiahole One is that it talked about CWRM's role and BLNR's role. And basically CWRM helps to regulate the uses of water in the stream and the quantity of the amount of water in the stream, and BLNR controls the water licensing. The way that this bill is structured, there could be some jurisdictional issues amongst the agencies. And finally, our last major concern, we have others, but the last one I'll highlight is, there is a rebuttable presumption here.

And when BLNR issues their licenses, they don't issue it with the presumption, or they cannot issue it with the presumption that one entity is bad or one entity, I wouldn't say bad, I'm sorry, one entity is not qualified. They have to look at it on a fair ground based on the facts before, on a case by case basis as the deputy had alluded to. So we would also highlight that the rebuttable presumption might also be problematic. I'm available if you have any further questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have John Healey on Zoom. Oh, I forgot.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Sorry. Very good. Thank you. I've submitted written testimony. I'm John Healey.

I'm a research scientist studying water all around the world in various places around the world. I'm a Maui resident and a member of the Board of Water Supply in Maui County, although I'm representing myself as a private citizen in this instance. I'm going to attempt to clarify some of the language in my written testimony based on some comments that I've had.

I'm going to start with the fact that Maui is kind of a poster child for the confusion that has derived from the proliferation of responsibilities and decentralization of responsibilities for water supply integrity regulation and authorization of water access to purveyors. So Maui, for example, has 197 different owners of groundwater wells, only one of which is the County of Maui.

And this is an example which is typical of the fact that a lot of people assume that the county is responsible for all of the water resources in Maui when in fact it's only really responsible for a small fraction. The chaos that's ensued in West Maui regarding Kapalua and other examples that I could go into but will not reflect this problem. And it's a structural problem.

This legislation will go a long way in fixing that by authorizing the county to act for all of the citizens and all of the water resources. The water that is extracted from Maui's aquifers is completely voluntary at the moment, and there's basically no enforcement to ensure that that reporting is accurate or complete. And it's broken between CWRM, who gets reports on water quantity, and the Health Department, which gets reports on water quality.

And this is an important distinction that I think this legislation should perhaps recognize. The splitting of the authorization of access to water and control of water, whatever way you wanna frame it, whether it's licenses, permits, or otherwise, is decentralized across the Department of Health, the Commission for Water Resource Management, and the Public Utilities Commission. The Public Utilities Commission is responsible for the private water purveyors, and neither the county nor the state, CWRM, has the authority to determine how they behave or to monitor their compliance. Aside from--

Can you sum up your testimony?

Yes. Just a couple more points on the amendments. County priority protection is language.

Can you sum up your testimony? We have your written testimony. Can you sum up your testimony?

Sure. I think the summation is that the amendments that are offered are attempts to clarify the legalese in favor of protecting the county, in favor of protecting the citizens and the public trust. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Shay Chan Hodges, individual in support.

Aloha. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. My name is Shay Chan Hodges. And while I consult for the Maui County Water Authority, I'm testifying today on my own behalf. I just wanna say I did submit written testimony.

I support HB 2434 focused on examining the functional characteristics of non county water license applicants. As we know, water is not just another resource, and our constitution recognizes it as a public trust held for the benefit of current and future generations. In today's economy in Hawaii, many large water operations are owned through complex layered structures where a local operator may be controlled by mainland or international entities.

In those cases, it can be difficult to know who actually decides on capital investments or water allocations and whether those decisions reflect local stewardship or remote profit goals. Financial structures also matter.

Some entities are financed by investors expecting specific returns within fixed timelines. Those models can pressure management to prioritize short term gains over long term reinvestment and maintenance, watershed protection, or climate resilience. HB 2434 allows the state to look at whether an applicant's investment or profit distribution frameworks leave little flexibility to upgrade or maintain infrastructure.

Because water systems depend on continuous investment, the state needs to ensure that license holders have durable, reliable funding mechanisms.

And finally, restricted disclosure can hide who truly owns or controls an operation. Without transparency, accountability becomes difficult, especially when managing a resource that belongs to all the people of Kauai, and we are currently experiencing that on Maui. HB 2434 does not exclude private or non county participation. Rather, it creates a rebuttable presumption based on structural risk factors while giving responsible applicants a clear path to demonstrate transparency, forcible reinvestment and genuine alignment with long term public trust obligations. Water licenses shape our watersheds for generations.

HB 2434 ensures that decision making structures governing Hawaii's water are transparent, accountable, and designed for stewardship, not short term extraction. Mahalo for your thoughtful consideration.

Okay. Thank you very much. That's all the people we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Farm Bureau?

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. My apologies, Chair. We did submit written testimony, but we clicked the wrong button.

Okay. We have your testimony.

Thank you. So you have our testimony with comments. We actually have concerns with this measure. As you heard the deputy say, non county applicants of water licenses are limited to a five year license term, and that limits financing.

There's no way that any farmer is gonna invest in their infrastructure. There's no way we're gonna meet our food production goals. There's no way that we're gonna be able to meet our farm to school and our farm to food bank goals. Five years with additional five years. We have farmers across the state that have water licenses.

If this bill passes, there's a potential that those farmers will only have a ten year window to farm and they no longer will have access to water. We said it over and over again. No water, no agriculture, no agriculture, no food. This could limit our desire to grow the sector. We're trying to grow agriculture and we need access to the water.

So those are our concerns. Again, small farmers have licenses across the state. We need this water. We need assurances, and we need certainty. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Representative Poepoe?

So the Public Utilities Commission does something similar sometimes where it does evaluate beneficial ownership and control structures when considering outside influences and decisions that they make. So I hear your concerns. Is there specific definitions or objective criteria that you would suggest that could cure any of the weakness that you bring up in your testimony?

So I think, if I can explain our licensing process, and I think the deputy and our land administrator of DLNR, Lauren Osaka, is here. So if I miss out on anything, I may defer to them. So part of when a water license is issued, the license goes to the board for its consideration. If somebody wants to contest that license, then they can go to the board and ask for a contested case hearing.

And at that time, what the board does is it's evaluating, at the contested case hearing portion, what the capacity of the applicant wants.

And it's basically like a mini trial. Right. So then the board will opine and say this is appropriate for a license, that your use is appropriate for a license or not. And so at that time, that's where everything gets fleshed out. And so I think that there are procedural safeguards to evaluate whether a license.

I think that the concern that we have with this bill and the framing of what it does is it creates this presumption that one, that the state is able to look at these corporations and evaluate them and is in a position to do so. And two, what it does is it's so vague that it almost puts private entity, or it almost says private entities are not eligible to do so. And that's not what, at least with our public auction process and the licenses, that's not what we're looking at. Right? We're not looking at, or we shouldn't be looking at that.

We should be looking at who is the most qualified operator, who is the most qualified bidder under the auction process, to service the water. So I don't know if the definition itself could be qualified, which is I think what you're asking. But I think that there are safeguards that are available before the board.

I hear the concerns about that part. There's also, I think, the first part of the bill, speaking to the intergovernmental agreements. Is that part more acceptable than, you know, the optional control part? Because there's two parts of the bill.

So I think that, so if the county, and maybe the deputy can speak to this more since she deals with the counties more, but if the counties, and let's use Maui as an example, because I think that's what this bill is mainly talking about. If the counties do want to set aside, then they would be able to speak with the board and try to entertain a proposal for a set aside. What's involved with the set aside is a couple of issues.

One is whether the board would look at a couple of issues. One is the county would have to show, right?

That one, they are in the process of, because these are not public infrastructure, right? So they'd have to prove that one, they're in the process of eminent domain so that they can take over the infrastructure of the system, which can be costly, but they would need to show proof of those proceedings, which are also complicated. And then two, that they also have the capacity to maintain the system.

And at the current time, I don't know if that has ever been proposed to the board yet, but those would be, you know, something that we would consider if the county wanted to do a set aside, which I think is in the form of the MOA that is referenced in the bill.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, can we move on?

Oh, because we have six more bills to go to before. Next one.

Obviously, farmers are hugely important to our society. So is there any language you would offer?

Thank you, Representative Shimizu. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. I think that's a policy decision on the legislature. If you wanna carve farms out and protect our water, we're all for that. We're here because we believe the bill may jeopardize our access to water and our ability to continue to farm.

Understood. But this bill is addressing a concern that's trying to address some concerns. So can we have both worlds where it's not either or, but it's an and, where we can adjust the concerns that the bill is proposing, but then again have some kind of language to protect farmers. That's what I'm asking. I don't know. I'm just asking you.

We would appreciate language addressing farmers, but we also, again, coming in from the angle of the five year license terms, but also, I think as testifiers had suggested, this is about Maui. And is the irrigation, or do the counties, not just Maui, but other counties have. It is private systems.

And again, we just look at this as a risk to farmers and ranchers access to water. So I don't know, Representative. Again, we are coming in from the angle that we are protecting what we believe the state wants, which is agriculture production and protecting our ability to do that by protecting our ability to access water.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 2426, relating to state parks. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members. Alan Carpenter, acting administrator for the Division of State Parks. I stand on our written testimony in support with comments. I would simply like to emphasize that we cannot take on new lands without fiscal and staffing resources to properly manage and care for them. Okay.

Thanks. I'm available for comments.

Thank you. Alright. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions Or for the Senator, Chameezeth?

Can you explain what what what is the the reason and purpose for for necessitating this this bill? Excuse me. Why why are we Why why do we

need this? So this is actually the brainchild of one of your colleagues, rep Kush. It it is envisioned to add open space and park lands adjacent to a fairly significant developed community within Hilo area. It's about 300 acres. It's largely to protect it from development, but also to protect resources.

It does have I have visited very, very briefly. It has it does have park values. It has the headwaters, spring Fed headwaters of a tributary tributary of White And Blue River, which is a really nice story to tell and protect as archeological and cultural site resources. It also has, potential benefits for the community for emergency access, recreation, walking trails, things like that. That's the vision.

It's very preliminary, but that that that's it in

Thank you, chair. So yeah. You can see up there. How many staff do you did you need?

We haven't evaluated yet. I mean, we still have a ton of due diligence to do. Okay. I literally have not even walked the land. I've only driven around and looked at it from the outside, all the the multiple parcels.

Alright. That's all? Several. Several. Can you do a community based

There are potential community based partners as well. Right? But I still think we need Staff to leverage them as well.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay. Next or moving on. Next up let me get a second here. Next up, we have HB 2361. First up, we have DLNR.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Brian Nielsen, administrator for Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand on our written testimony in support of this bill. I serve as the current chair of the County Bay Regional Council. I don't take it personal that there's been a repeated request to have a rotating chairperson.

And I think this would allow the community council members to take more of a leadership role, add diversity onto the council. We are still prepared to provide administrative support to the council as well. So, support. Thank you. I do not.

Which is maybe another reason why they wanna

Next up, we have Cola Foundation in support.

Aloha Mai Kakou. Mahalo for allowing us to testify before you. You've already gotten our testimony, but I wanted to tell you I have a long history of watching the regional council in his various lifetimes. I remember when Ken Ito was still a legislator and he was very involved in the council's operations. We always have had a problem with Kaneohe Bay between the traditional fishing practices and the over-gathering problems, including the aquarium fish problem.

We needed this council to continue to function. So there was a time when they almost sunsetted it and we fought against that and they kept it. And we have to commend Brian Nielsen, who really helped kind of revive its standing and its purpose and working well with the council members that come from all the different sectors of people who use the bay. But we've always wanted a rotating chairmanship and this administrative support will continue to maintain its stability.

And we're grateful to DLNR for the help so far, but I think there's some good members on the committee, on the council.

And I think whoever it's rotated to has to be accepted by that person. That person has to be willing to take on the leadership role. And I think it's an opportunity to teach more of these community representatives to be good leaders. And Brian will be a good role model for that. So thank you for allowing him, or allowing us, to testify on that.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Kaulaupoku Atiraki, in support. Do you live in Kaneohe?

Aloha, Micah. Kaul for the record again. But first, I would like to say, kala mai. I apologize to you, Chair, and the board, especially to you, Representative Poit Poit, for my outburst. Normally, I don't want to do that and air out dirty laundry anywhere in public, especially throwing another Hawaiian under the bus.

But that I apologize to. We have full support of what Brian has suggested. He has done a really, really good job. I'm not on the committee. I'm not on the board, but I go to all of the Neighborhood Board meetings.

I just recently get off the neighborhood board, get to pass the baton on, but also teach the other ones. But then when it was first written, this Kaneohe Bay Regional Council, it wasn't a rotation basis. Depending, like the neighborhood boards, if you wanted to accept the chair position, you take it. So I think it should go back that way. But I gotta commend the Department of Land and Natural Resources for their work, especially Brian.

He brought us together again. But I think they should continue with administrative support, like sending out agendas. You know, you need to do that kind of stuff and set up the virtual meetings and stuff. But I think we should pass this and we could all support each other, working together in the community. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Members, are there any, I mean, is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom? Members, are there any questions?

We're done. We're moving on. Next up, we have HB 1712 relating to the State Building Code Council. First up, we have BIA in support. Yes.

Can we skip on? Oh, yeah. We did, sorry. We're gonna go backwards. I skipped one.

You're gonna have something. H we're going sorry. Next up, we have HB2395. See, that's why I got three people next to me. Relating to taking a marine deposit.

Thank you. First up we have DLNR.

Chair, vice chair, members, Brian Nielsen, administrator division of aquatic resources. We stand on our written testimony in support. We believe when, the prohibition was passed for the taking of sand and mineral deposits and and dead coral, it was an oversight to not allow the taking of small amounts of, these materials for research purposes, and it's created an issue when we get permit requests to do studies on microplastics where they need to collect sand.

We're not legally allowed to issue a permit to collect small portions of of these materials. So we just wanna clarify in the law so that we can permit this this type of research from occurring.

So, mahalo.

Okay. Thank you. That's all the people we have registered to testify. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, we're moving back to

A question, chair.

Okay. It's

So, you know, when it's permitted, as far as the extraction, does the staff

see that? So currently we issue permits for the collection of biological organisms of fish or invertebrates, coral. So we have a whole permitting process set up for that. So it'd be the same permitting process for collecting of of, mineral deposits and sand.

So the question was, does does the staff, have to visibly observe that or is it up to them?

No. We have terms and conditions, but but we don't visible, we don't observe the the collection, but we do have terms that that they the permitee would need to follow. K.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we're going we're moving back to HB 1712 relating to the state building code council. So stuff we have now you can go BIA. Yeah.

Yeah. You better hurry up before we move to the next bill. Okay.

I'll run. Good morning, chair, vice chair, and committee. Thank you so much. I'm Roseanne Freitas with the Building Industry Association of Hawaii and we stand in strong support of this bill. And really just to reiterate, this is when we do building codes, we need the experts, right, who understand all that technical information.

Currently, GCA and BIA alternate their seats. GCA's of mission and most of their members represent the commercial sector. So that's your public works, your military, your larger infrastructure. Whereas the building industry association represents the residential builders. So those are the homes.

Both of those are valuable to Hawaii for our economic growth and and to live. So having both of those experts sit on a committee, together, really brings that added value with the experts. And thank you so much for

for this. Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Plumbers and Fitters, Local 675 .

Morning, chair, vice chair, members. Our test We submitted written testimony. We stand on our testimony in opposition. However, you know, we we we recognize the importance of having associate organizations like the GC and DIA as a part of the building code council. However, our concern is that as it currently sits, and we've been trying to work on this for years, we'd like to have a more balanced representation from all stakeholders across the industry.

Similar to the medical board that licenses practicing physicians, our organization licenses, practicing practitioners of plumbing systems, similar to IBEW who does does that for electricians. Our state law requires licensed electricians and plumbers, to install and perform work on all plumbing and electrical, systems because of the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. And, we we feel that currently, nothing no disrespect to the organizations that are currently on the state building code council.

We've been very active when the code council was, still active in doing, in in, administering Chapter one zero seven. But we not we never had a a formal voice, and we we asked for it.

This bill only makes what our concerns were previous actually worse because it actually bifurcates the two organizations and it creates, you know, similar to the AIA testimony, it creates a a a a in our opinion, a very unbalanced discussion. In contrast to some of the testimony in support of this, we don't believe it creates balance. It actually creates more of an imbalance from a cross section of the stakeholders.

So we're asking for consideration if this bill moves forward that we'd like to amend to include the, the, representation of the plumbers union as well as the electrical union to represent the actual licensed practitioners that that put in the work as far as it relates to the plumbing code and the and the electrical code. I did consult with the electricians and and although they're not here to testify, they are in agreement with our testimony.

And just to explain a little bit more of why the plumbing code, electrical code, and why this whole discussion, the code's actually interrelate. So it's referenced in the building code. It's referenced in the international residential code. It affects our industry and how our plumbing systems and our electrical systems are installed and and, the work is performed, which directly impacts public health, safety, and welfare. That's our primary objective.

It's in our mission. It's in the in the scope of of our of our plumbing code and electrical code. First and foremost, to protect public health, safety, and welfare. We're all about cost and and expedience, but not at the expense of public health, safety, and welfare. I think in AIA's testimony, they,

If I can use some of that.

Yes. I will, chair. I I appreciate. This is a very important issue for us. So I appreciate the opportunity to come and testify, and we we hope that you can consider our amendments and include our organizations as well.

That's all the people that we have registered to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Representative Yvonne Murillo. Thank you, chair, for,

Okay.

I think, BIA. Is that who testified earlier? So given what the plumbers and would it would you support that amendment?

Yes.

It makes sense. We want the experts at the table, and plumbing and electrical are part of that. So, we're all about safety and and homes, and I think most definitely

we can agree on that.

So having experts at the table makes the most sense because they can answer. I mean, building a home takes a lot. Anybody who's ever worked in that industry, there are so many layers and you need all of those eyes really to make that decision.

Thank you. Thank you. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Commerce. I I totally understand what you're saying. But short of that, by adding, GCA and BIA at the same time, do you do you feel that those organizations, properly communicate and advocate your concerns? Or or are you do you feel like they they shut you off?

No. I I don't I don't think I mean, I like I said in my in my testimony, I I totally support what they do. They service their membership well. And they have a and, maybe a a perspective that differs from ours in some in some areas, and we agree on a lot of things, but there's some areas where we might differ.

And I think it's important, you know, if we're gonna have a body that that, is gonna speak to the the code the building codes and the plumbing codes, electrical codes that really provide resiliency.

I mean, you know, we're we're we're coming off of some pretty major disasters. We're looking at creating resilient dwellings, resilient structures. And, we just wanna have that balanced discussion to be able to discuss our different differing perspectives when those when those issues come up and come to some kind of reasonable, you know, resolution if if it's possible. But we wanna be able to have that discussion in public, and and we we support all the work that they do.

It's just on some issues that, you know, we may have a difference of of opinions on some things.

We just wanna make sure our our voices are heard as well.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thanks.

Anybody else has questions? Representative Miyamoto for

the second time. Thank you, chair Farquhika. For instance, in my district, there's been a lot of buildings with, plumbing pipes that were maybe installed using the wrong glue for that certain piping material. Is that the kind of knowledge that you think the plumbers would bring into the conversation about the building code, making sure that there is a heightened awareness that the materials and supplies that are being used are are being used correctly with the right compounds. Is that the

kind of I I think, you know, materials are are an important discussion. You know, you know, technology, advanced technology, you have new methods, you have new technologies, you have new types of materials. We wanna make sure that we're using a minimum standard to ensure that these homes are are constructed with resilience in mind as well as cost effectiveness and expedience. We also we also promote as an industry ways to conserve water, ways to minimize fixture counts, ways to, you know, work.

We understand that cost is an issue, and we are more than happy to time those discussions as long as it does not impact the underlying protection of public health safety and welfare.

And a follow-up question if I can.

Sure. For the third time.

What? Okay. But for the in terms of, like, rating, plumbing, pipes, fixtures, joints, you know, because with the state authorized these ninety nine year lease leasehold buildings. I mean, are the plumbing fixtures supposed to last ninety nine years? Or is that and is that something that we need to be aware of as we're, you know, the the lifespan of certain kinds of materials?

Yeah. I'd I'd be I'd be stretching if I stood up here and tried to give you an exact number. But, I mean, we we work with other organizations within the plumbing industry, worldwide organizations. We we have, you know, discussions as far as development of the codes at a national and international level.

And we hope to bring those resources to bear in these kinds of discussions to find that, you know, if if material, the wherewithal of material is an issue, we hope to bring the the professionals, to the table to have that discussion and find what's best for Hawaii.

Understanding that we have various issues to deal with.

Sure. Last question.

Thank you.

Okay. For the second time. Go ahead.

PIA. I understand that you're okay with adding these specialty trades. If we were to do that and we we increase the the board from 12 to, you know, a a a larger number, do you have concerns with the size being too big or the functionality of that that board? No.

I don't. And and part of that reason is to really make a the best decision for the codes for how Hawaii moves forward, you have to have all the experts at the table. And and he he's most definitely right when we talked about plumbing and electrical. They are very they're they vary. And, of course, technology changes too, right, as we learn more things.

So I think you can never hurt to have the an in expert from each of those specialties at that table. Okay. Especially electrical and plumbing. They're huge.

Thank you, chair. K.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Going doing good on time. Next up, we have HB 20544.

First up, we have DLNR in support.

Hi. Good morning, chair, vice chair, member of the committees. We stand on our written testimony and stand in support. And I have any questions if you have.

Next up, we have HGA in opposition. That's Oh, okay.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members. Nui Sebast for HGA. We'll stand on our, written testimony in opposition. I do just wanna note that our opposition is limited to PACE six lines one and two, which, authorize the special fund to be used for qualified limited, contractors.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. That's all the people that we have registered to testify members.

Are there any questions?

Representative Iwamoto. Thank you, chair. I this is for, your of conveniences. So given, h g a's opposition to that specific section, can you elaborate a little bit more about, so

I guess their concerns involve using all my contractors if we don't have people available. So part of certification or working with the documents, we need assistant registrars. And we actually had six positions and two positions are filled. We had four people who actually retired or left the agency after many years of service. We got two existing assistant registrars who have many years of service, actually close to retirement.

So in the absence of finding these qualified people, we have to look outwards if needed. Now we do have people who actually are working, and we're trying to develop and and groom them to take that position. But, you know, work is so specialized that people don't come in and say I wanna be a system registrar to learn title work or actually abstracting work. So the challenge of finding people is very difficult, and I'm always willing to work with HGA.

We're trying to fill these positions, but it's just very difficult.

Question. Sure.

Do you know how much total annual revenue is expected from this?

Right. Representative Shimizu.