House Standing Committee on Finance

Aloha. We are convening the House Committee on finance for our 2pm agenda here in room 308. It is Monday, February 23, 2026 and we're going to get right into it with HB 1602 HD1 relating to agriculture.

First, we have the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and support.

Chair Todd, Vice Chair Takenouchi, Members of the Committee, Chair Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture. We stand in strong support of our submitted testimony and available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have the Hawaii Food Industry Association on Zoom and support. Not present. Local Food Coalition in support. Not present. Lulupano Initiative in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Micah Munakata here on behalf of Lulupona Initiative. We'll send our testimony and strong support.

Just a few couple comments here just to highlight the the strength of of having someone within the Department of Ag that's really dedicated to going after these grant funds and why it's important for the state even in these tough times. In these tough times and the uncertainties that exist within our Federal Government.

We've had someone within the Department of Ag that's been dedicated to finding resources even in this environment, and she secured almost $9 million in this past year, which is, you know, it's roughly 90 times the return on investment for state money to just Fund this position, you know.

And this particular grant writer within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity is also going after $54 million more in grants that are out there. So it's really important that we have someone that's dedicated to going after these funds because this historically has been money untapped.

So hopefully the burden will be a little bit less on you folks at the Legislature Fund a lot of these initiatives fully when we can kind of seek out some of these federal funds that are available for the state of Hawaii. Thank you very much.

Chair thank you. That's everybody who identified that they would be joining us in person today. We also have support from nine other organizations and five individuals. Is anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

Okay, Members, do you have any questions on HB 1602?

Thank you. Chair for Department of Thank you for your testimony. I did hear the testimony from the initiative as to some of the amounts that the state could benefit from. My question is more specific as to the number of grants. How many, to the best of your knowledge, how many grants are available and how many grants were.

Let me rephrase that. How many grants were available last fiscal year? And how many grants were applied for?

Okay, just roughly. Rough. Roughly. Okay. Last year, I would guess that maybe there were 40, of which I'm going to say about 30 were retracted, expired, denied, you know, even though we applied for that, they were terminated.

However, with the new farm Bill that was just posted, I think two days ago, May Friday, the word reauthorized appeared many, many times. And that's going to make your, you know, make. Make us all very happy that he's. The farm Bill, through the Senate Appropriations Ag Committee, they are reauthorizing a lot of the grants that were terminated.

So I'm going to guess that of course it's still going through the process, but maybe there's at least 10 that the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity were looking at that were taken off the board that are now the word reauthorized is appearing next to them. That's a really Good chance for 10 new.

Thank you. And I appreciate the work of grant writers. And so perhaps if those viewing and other people are here, if you could just give an estimate as to how much actual time is spent in completing your typical grant.

It's going to be maybe 100 hours per grant. The work of researching is important, but what our grant writer is doing right now is she's working with what we call shellfighters. She comes up with a project, she's doing the research, kind of putting the skeleton together and putting it on the shelf, working with other people.

And the need is for management. So when you get the grant, now you have to implement it. So what she does is she puts a lot of positioning into the grant. So for the grant that Ulupuna mentioned, the 8.89 million grant, she has two positions.

One is for the actual administrator of the grant to help her with the management and a part timer. So that's how we're trying to position our grants, that 100 hours worth of work to get it. And then once you get it, maybe a thousand hours of work.

No. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Members, any additional questions on this measure? Okay, seeing none. We're going to move on to HB 1832 relating to aquaculture,

Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and support.

Thank you. DAB stands in support of this measure here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Department of Land and Natural Resources and Support.

Chair Brian Nielsen, Administrator for Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand on our written testimony and support available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Farm Bureau.

In support, the Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its written testimony and support.

Thank you. That's everybody who identified that they will be joining us. Also testimony and support from Hawaii Sustainable Fisheries Prepper, Maya Foundation, Hawaii Aquaculture and Aquaponics association as well as two individuals in support and one individual opposed. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Members, any questions on this measure? Seeing none. Moving on to the next item on our agenda, HB 1707 HD1 relating to

Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and biosecurity in support.

Thank you. DAB stands on the trip in testimony offering support here for any questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on a strict testimony in support.

Thank you. Chamber of Commerce Hawaii in support.

Aloha. The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii stands on its written testimony in support. Mahalo.

Thank you. Hawaii Food Industry Association in support. On Zoom. Not present. Local Food Coalition in support. Not present. That's everybody who identified that they would be joining us today.

Also 11 other organizations in support as well as eight individuals in support and one with comments. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom.

Members, any questions on this measure?

Yes, please. Chair for Farm Bureau There was a comment about a definition for necessary necessary supplies. The definition being includes chemicals, feed, fertilizer, fuel, seeds, plants, supplies, equipment, parts and other inputs as determined by the definition Department of Agricultural, Agriculture and Biosecurity. This is all encompass encompassing Email.

Thank you Representative Brian Hawaii Farm Bureau yes, we, we did see the farmers union's testimony and it, it's pretty broad. It, it basically covers, I think previously we just used inputs and that seems to be what it's driving at. In the past some of these subsidy programs were just for the raw commodity.

So we appreciate the Legislature looking at other costs for our farmers and ranchers to help with their transportation costs, ultimately reduce their production cost which hopefully will reduce the cost of food. So yes we saw the testimony and it's pretty broad coverage. Essentially everything that we believe would be under the definition of inputs.

Great, thanks. Thanks Chair.

Members, anything else?

Seeing none. We're going to move on to the next item. HB2155HD1 relating to agricultural statistics.

Hawaii Department of Agriculture and biosecurity in support.

Thank you. DAB stands on district and testimony in support.

Thank you. Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

Thank you Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau is down on its written testimony in support and local

Food Coalition in support still not present. We also received as everyone who identified themselves as being present. Also University of Hawaii with comments five other organizations in support. Two individuals in Support and one providing comments if any of them are here who would like to please please just identify yourself for the record.

For the record, my name is Durazo Homa with Pay Tech Hawaii Executive Director, author of the Blueprint.

I do support the measure on the bill but I do have reservation as you know that about two about three weeks ago so that President Donald Trump passed an Executive order of aiding American farmers of $12 billion including fertilizer, new research and development, any matters that can I know there's a category which items that can be justified by getting those funding but I know that like most of the red states gonna most likely get the funding for that like in American heartlands like Midwest, Mid south but for us, California, Oregon and Washington, Hawaii, we're the blue states and we distribute so much agriculture.

I would say more than 60% of our domestic demand in agriculture food does come from the West Coast states. So in other words we should be entitled for those $12 billion. So I just want to make sure the statistics that the Agriculture Department is coming up with has that meets the requirements which category?

We should make sure we lobby Washington D.C. with the U.S. Ag Department of Congress to make sure that Hawaii should get piece of the pie and we should kind of work it down with the blue states and hopefully we can get something out of this and help our local farmers here for domestic demand purposes and they can have use that money for startups, you know, new entrepreneurial the existing farmers can use buy new equipment, new machinery, buy new fertilizer, help their agriculture infrastructure themselves.

So all of those so I think the statistics are data that we're going to clean, collect, should categorize accordingly. That's my suggestion. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay. Rep. Kusch, you have a question?

Yes, please. Is anybody from CTAHR? No. How about Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity?

Representative Sharon Hurd, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Thank you. Notice in CTAHR's testimony they talked about spooling up a statistical unit within CTAHR and that they had discussions with you and I just was wondering if you can eliminate is there any differentiation between these positions and what they are schooling up?

Our discussions are basically what they're doing versus what we're doing. We're pretty much collecting the data that is on the field, the farm and I believe they're collecting the data that's more scientific. Did it rain today? Is how much you know what did you apply the Field. What do they call it?

Applied field research versus ours is we're collecting the actual production data. That would be the difference. We're absolutely going to collect the import and export data. That's the kind of data that we're looking at for farmer decisions. That is not their proof.

Okay, so they are distinct from each other.

Yes, sir.

And maybe complementary.

And we'll work together to make sure that we collaborate and the data does rely on the other. And we can use and work together on it, but we won't duplicate.

Okay, thank you. That's all. It's here. All right. Members, anything else?

I do have a question. You can say that. Thank you. The bill proposes appropriations for the development of electronic data collection system. Can you share your thoughts?

Sure. Back in the day in 2008, we had three staff, two of which had clipboards. They would go to young brothers and to a low cargo and they would collect the incoming. The incoming data. We don't need to do that anymore. We now have a system called Kupuno. In the past it was in Victor.

Now we have Kupona, where Airlines have to. After 911. Actually, airlines have to. They call it the AMS, the Airport Manifest automated manifest system, where before the plane lands, they have to declare what's on board. And so with this electronic manifest system, we know what's on board beforehand, so we can actually do a risk assessment.

We know that strawberries is high risk. We know basically anything that touches the ground, the dirt is probably high risk. Fruits and vegetables, not so fruits, you know. But if you have strawberries and green onions and mushrooms, things that actually touch the ground, we can identify these and then go out and specify which ones are higher risk.

So yes, we do. We want to invest in a system that is tied into maybe another. So we don't have to reinvest the wheel, reinvent the wheel. But we do have a system that we can work off of. It's called the coupon of system by Salesforce. So does that answer your question?

Sort of, yeah. I was just wondering, like, I mean, ideally, if you had additional funding, what kind of system did you have in mind?

Okay, the. Enhancing the Kupono system to tie into the automated manifest system as much as we can because it's confidential. So that upgrade, we might even be able to tie in a GIS system that they have now.

We have a GIS program manager who is very familiar with the kinds of software out there and how we can use that technology to enhance what we do. So we don't have to go around and clipboard it, you know, and say, what did you bring in today?

And, and particularly representative, what we're interested in is inter island movement. Like if I'm growing cucumbers, how many cucumbers are we sending to where so that maybe I can grow the cucumbers on that island and I don't have to transport it.

So that's the kind of information the farmers are waiting for so that they can make planting decisions. And I think we can, with the right software, with AI that we have today, I think we can make the investment and really help our farmers with the data that they need. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. Members, anything else? Seeing nothing else, we're going to be moving on to HB 1831 HD1 relating to agricultural lands.

First Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and support.

Thank you. DAB stands on the scripting testimony here for any questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Farm Bureau in supporting testimony.

In support.

Thank you. That's everybody who identified they'd be joining us. Also Hawaii Cattlemen's Council in support and three individuals. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on zoom?

No.

Okay, Members of the Committee, any questions? Seeing nothing, we're going to move on to the next item. HB 1650 HD1 relating to environmental assessments.

We have Mary Alice Evans in support. Sorry about that. Thank you. And we have Greg Masakian in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Yeah, I'm in strong opposition to this bill and I would like to state that I am providing testimony as an individual, but I do currently serve as President of the Kokua Council, Vice President of the Hawaii Alliance for Retired Americans.

I am a former Waikiki neighborhood board member from January 2023 to, to June of 2025, and I am a Member of the Good Government Caucus. I was actually at the State Capitol earlier today. I came home to testify by zoom and this, this bill is not good government.

And what I wrote in my testimony, and I'll just paraphrase, is basically that the, the special district, the environmental laws that were put in place were done with careful consideration. And this is taking away the rights of the Hawaii residents over time that have provided input to put those laws into place.

So I would strongly oppose this bill. I would ask that the Committee vote against it.

Thank you. That's everybody who indicated they'd be joining us. Also we have three organizations in support, two in opposition and one with comments, as well as two additional individuals in opposition. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, Members, any questions? Okay. Before we move to the next item on our agenda, which is HB 1652, just as a quick heads up, we will not be doing decision making on this measure today. So we'll be hearing it today, but deferring decision making to it likely Wednesday afternoon. But I'll announce that during our decision making process.

We're on to HB 1652 HD1 relating to stormwater management systems.

We have the Hawaii Farm Bureau in support.

Hawaii Farmer Bureau stands on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. We have the American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii and support.

Good afternoon. I represent the American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii. I am the serving as the President. My name is Charles Jury. We submitted written testimony in support of this measure. I did want to, if we could have the opportunity just to clarify some of the things within our testimony.

The primary focus of ACCH on the proposed clarifications to Act 281 which is included in this Bill is in regards to what's being defined as low risk green stormwater infrastructure. The idea being that, you know, that that wasn't intended to be part of or defined as a detention pond or retention pond. That was our thought.

Green stormwater infrastructure consists of basically nature based ways of managing stormwater and it's essentially mimicking the natural process such as infiltration, evaporation and it also removes pollutants from our stormwater so it improves water quality. This is all done before it enters our storm drainage system and discharged into things like streams, oceans, etc.

These solutions include things that, that are being clarified, include rain gardens, bioswales, permeable pavements, things that are being used in the state, things that are being encouraged to be used. These are designed to temporarily store water, though it is in a shallow form and it's in a controlled environment. These are often placed throughout the development.

So essentially throughout the development we're intercepting stormwater at different areas as opposed to pushing it all down to say a large detention pond or retention pond. These will help to. These also help to reduce the peak flows that come down, helps to reduce the flooded areas within the development.

And so I mean really the reason why ACECH is seeking clarification that green stormwater infrastructure is not included in the definition of detention and retention ponds is because of the safety requirements that are enacted as part of Act 281. Things such as fully enclosed fencing. And that we think would discourage the use of green infrastructure.

Because these are things like, you know, usually it's an open space, it's. It's a rain garden, an open space. There's initiatives right now where individuals, homeowners are putting rain gardens in their front yard. And maybe the most common kind of, most visible use case would be in new parking lots, you know, that grass stripped between parking spots.

You know, so if, if those needed to be fenced off, it would really discourage the use of those. We would lose the environmental benefits of that and really kind of shifted back to the old way of just pushing all the water to a large retention detention anyways.

And so that was just some additional clarifications to the written testimony that we had will be available for questions if thank you, thank you.

We have Allison Schaefers in opposition.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong opposition to House Bill 1652. My name is Allison Schafers and Act 281, Sharkey's Law is named for my daughter.

Sharkey drowned in a so called low impact dry detention basin that became a hidden lake due to an 89% clogged pipe, something hut construction and the U.S. navy knew about and failed to fix. She saved her friend but couldn't climb out. Even the lifeguard who recovered her body needed help.

There was no fence, no signage, no ring buoy and no maintenance plan. Sharkey's Law added these basic protections In a state where drowning is the leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 15. The argument that fencing makes GSI too expensive simply isn't supported. Detention and retention ponds require large footprints that cut into profits.

A national review of 479 GSI projects found 75% were cheaper or cost neutral compared to gray infrastructure. Econo Northwest also found stormwater requirements, including Gsi, do not deter development because stormwater costs are minor compared to larger economic forces. Many companies even pursue more expensive LEED certification because it benefits the environment and their reputation.

Fencing is already standard for agricultural ponds where drownings make up 11% of injury related agricultural deaths. These ponds are especially dangerous for autistic children who face 160 times higher drowning risk. Farmers even receive USAID USDA cost share funding for fencing. What is expensive is drowning.

At a national Water Safety conference, an attorney beside me had just secured a $15.5 million settlement for a three year old who drowned in an unfenced detention pond. And the idea that not many children down in stormwater features is false. Between 2004 and 20, 265 children nationwide drowned in retention ponds and undercount because detention ponds weren't included.

In Hawaii, each drowning average is nearly 11 million in costs. According to CDC estimates. The 40 drownings in 2023 total $437 million and the human cost is immeasurable. If the Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii gets its way, developers will save a few thousand dollars on fencing and the public will shoulder multimillion dollar settlements.

Shifting the burden from developers to grieving families and to taxpayers and insurance companies is not fiscally responsible. If the state weakens Act 281 and a child dies, it will share in the HB1652's broad language, especially including but not limited to, creates loopholes. Developers could label anything GSI to avoid 281's protection.

Its 18 inch 48 hour ponding threshold is dangerous. A child can drown in less than 2 inches of water. According to the national drowning prevention alliance, 18 inches is a bathtub deep public hazard. And 88% of drownings happen in the presence of an adult. So supervision alone is not enough to protect against unfenced areas.

Fencing does not discourage gsi. It prevents funerals. For the safety of Hawaii families, I urge you to reject House Bill 1652. It's also the most financially prudent choice. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have Greg Gregory Masakian in opposition on zoom.

Aloha again. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Masakian and I strongly oppose this measure. I do understand the intent, but I also understand that lives are much more important than some nominal cost that a developer may have to do something with.

That said, I do understand that there may be some elements of certain things that may need to be looked at more carefully, but it's not within this bill. I think that's in the future. I don't think this bill, the way it's written addresses any of what the first person that testified was talking about.

But I, I would strongly urge you to oppose this and not. Not move it along. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's everyone who identified that they be with us today. We also have two other organizations.

I oppose the bill. zero. My name is Anthony Gallo. E Beach. I can't say much more than what Allison said, but the reason why I oppose the bill because it strips a previous bill that has been passed of the most important factor of that bill, which is safety by eliminating fences.

The other thing that I've noticed is the water catchment systems, particularly along Roosevelt Avenue in Capola. There's a big trench that goes along the development. You'd need to be a rock climber if you fell into that culvert to get out. She just mentioned that her daughter needed lifeguard to pull her body out of the water catchment.

So these things need to be protected by fencing. And the other situation is by stripping the previous bill, your liability issue goes quite up. If there is ever a tragedy of another drowning for the simple reason that you said we're going to put fencing and now you're rescinding on it. Okay.

She brought up the fact that In Florida a $15 million lawsuit was bought up. So you, you, you are in jeopardy if you don't do something regarding keeping the bill 281 intact and rejecting this this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Members. Also two other organizations and two individuals in support. Seven organizations and 22 individuals in opposition. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay. Members, do you have any questions on this measure? Seeing none. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Able to ask Hawaii Farm question. Thank you. So your testimony relies on design intent to classify instruction infrastructure as low risk. What evidence can you provide that these systems always function as designed, especially during storms clogging that might give them clogging or maintenance issues.

Thank you, Representative. Brian Miyamoto, Hawai'i Farm Bureau I'm not sure if that's what our testimony is truly saying. First of all, that was a tragedy. Anytime there's a loss of life is a tragedy. I think our testimony in support is essentially exempting agriculture infrastructure, ponds, reservoirs, even irrigation because they're not normally open to the public.

They add an extra level of regulation, the fencing, the signs, even for livestock watering. And so with the broad nature of what it's asking for, we're not sure if that was the original intent of Sharkey's Law because again, most of our agriculture infrastructure which changed original bill said agricultural ponds.

So that was changed in the previous commitment to agriculture infrastructure. I think to better describe the water infrastructure that we have for agriculture, which I think what the bill was trying to address to exclude from these requirements.

So the regulation part is going to deal with, I guess, money, the cost that's going to include. Can you describe how the act 281, the current regulations, how that's going to be a financial or operational burden. Can you give, can you give me some potential cost numbers on that?

So thank you, Representative. I don't know what the exact cost. We'd have to find out depending on what that water source is. Again, is it a reservoir? Is it why hold it running through? Why Hawaii ditch, running through your property? Now you have to fence that. So again, it ranges in agriculture you have different water systems.

You have some that are just smaller retention ponds. And again, our testimony is that they don't serve as a water treatment. Right. It's again, it's agricultural water on agriculture land that is for the most part either private or public lands that's not open to the public.

So fencing it just depends how much water that you, you actually have to fence, how much signs you're have to put and then the lock gates and all the other things. In a previous testimony we said we believe some of the farmers and ranchers are probably already doing this if they deem it as a risk.

But again, we don't have a grasp on exactly how much water every single agricultural producer has in the state of Hawaii.

But if this passed, they would be, we believe, required, regardless of the size of whatever water system it is, that they would have to put the four foot fence up, would have to put the gate and they would have to put the signage.

So that's where our testimony in support of not including, which we don't know if that was original intent of Sharkey's law to include agriculture, water infrastructure.

So in that case, since you're saying it's agriculture and it's not meant to have people on there, are you saying that the risk is zero that somebody will drone, kid or not adult or whoever, that anybody can drone in that, that pond or GSI or that water feature?

Absolutely not. We would never say that the risk is zero. There's always inherent risk. It's just that there aren't many instances where there are especially children unaccompanied on agricultural lands. There is, absolutely. There's no way we would say the risk is zero. The risk is not zero.

Okay.

Because the only reason why I was asking about the cost, you know, per water infrastructure feature was I wanted to compare that with the cost of one drown. Like how much? If I think in Ms. Schaefer's testimony, I think she said that the cost of one drowning was estimated by the Cdc.

So I have too many papers up here as like $10 million. How. What kind of fencing and signage would it take to cover $10 million just for one drowning? And so, you know, looking at that, and that's just the dollar amount, not the human cost. But yeah, I, I would guess I would have to ask somebody.

You wouldn't have the range, right? Even a small water infrastructure versus the big one? You have any like dollar amount range, how much that would cost?

The last fencing estimates that we did, I think we came about 21 to $30 a foot. And again, when we're talking about sizes of different water systems, I don't know, we would have to take a survey on, on everybody's water system. It's a tragic loss.

I wouldn't even make a comparison on, on, I wouldn't even put a dollar amount on there. Understand it. But again, when we're talking about agricultural water infrastructure, we believe that the risk is lower, that we don't have a lot of interaction with the general public on these agricultural lands Members.

Anything additional.

Brian, you can stay there. Because now you. After mentioning these little ditches that run through private property, you know, in Waimea, Hanapepe, right. There's a lot of ditches that run through private property because of the ditch system. Would that be covered under this?

Quite possibly. I believe in the. The new definition of agriculture infrastructure. It has irrigation as a comma. Irrigation comma, along with the other things. So I. It possibly could. I think that's where our testimony is pointed out.

Where even here on Oahu, as I mentioned, why hold a ditch runs through quite a bit, even runs the Mililani golf course. So again, those could be considered, I think, from the definition, possibly retention or detention ponds based on what the definition is. And so, you know, there's quite a bit of agricultural water, different sizes.

And again, Farm Bureau of emphasize. It is a tragic loss of life. We understand that. And so also we. Our properties aren't necessarily open to the public.

Right. I would think that this would be really bad for those homeowners that don't know that this is actually an effect. Thank you.

Anything else? Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Not to him. Okay. Sorry to Ms. Chaffers, if I can. Thank you. Since I couldn't get a dollar a mama, you know, estimated how much each water infrastructure could be.

Can you tell us, as probably the only one in this room who has a family Member and the one who's named after Act 281. Can you tell us the human cost of what happened to you?

It's been 20 years of hell. No amount of therapy will ever make me whole. But like a lot of people in the drowning prevention movement, I have found the strength to move forward so it doesn't happen for any other child. I volunteer extensively in the water safety community.

I just came back from the Drowning Prevention alliance national conference where I spoke on three panels and represented Hawaii. A lot of other parents there. I see parents that have just lost people, and I see parents that lost people 40 years ago. And it's the same for all of us.

It's a deep wound that you carry with you forever, but it's also the loss of productivity. After my daughter died, I couldn't work for two months. Luckily, I worked for a wonderful company that paid my salary. But not everybody's in that position. It cost me my marriage. I had to rebuild everything in my life.

There was a point where I couldn't even find two shoes to put on and walk out the door. I couldn't get up in the morning. My daughter died. I know. I'm here Today because I never want another child in Hawaii to experience that loss. I don't make any money for the drowning prevention work.

I do, and it is extensive. The Hawaii Water Safety Plan that I wrote for the state of Hawaii on behalf of the Water Coalition, it won a national award this year. We're trying to turn the needle. Hawaii, the national drowning rate is 1 in ages 1 to 4. Drowning in the nation is the leading cause of death.

But in Hawaii, it's deep shame. In a state surrounded by water, we're 1 to 15. Ages 1 to 15. And here's the thing. Every single one of those drownings is preventable. It's preventable. That's the deep shame and horror of all of this. How much is offense really compared to that?

So if I can ask you one more question. We're talking about looking at the intent of Act 281 right now. It's named after Charlotte, your daughter Sharkey. Being that the act is referenced as Sharkey's Law, what do you think is your idea what the intent of that law was supposed to be?

To protect children whenever there's risk, wherever there's water that can be held for long enough periods of time to manage that water. Thank you. Can I just say one more thing? We talk about the fact that farm ponds are far away, but that. And I referenced that statistic about autistic kids having 160% greater drowning risk.

I think if you'll think about it, we often see stories about the autistic kids gone missing and they have a. They're attracted to water. They're often found miles from home by these ponds and these kinds of things. It's an attractive nuisance. We also have lots of gentlemen farms in the state and agritourism options.

So I mean, I think this idea that because it's far away, we don't need to protect it is misguided at best. Thank you.

Anything else? Okay, I see nothing. We're going to move on to the next item on the agenda. HB2361HD1 relating to the Kaneohe Bay Regional Council.

First we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources in support.

Department stands on certain testimony and support.

Thank you. And we also had one individual providing comments. That's all the testimony we received. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Anybody on Zoom Members, anything on this measure, if not HB2218 relating to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, which could mean anything. Okay, go ahead.

Department of Land and Natural Resources and support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Division State Parks. That is a scary task for us. But in this case we stand on our written testimony instruct.

We have testimony and support from KUA on Zoom.

Aloha Chair Todd, Vice Chair Takinochi and Committee Members. Mahalo. Thank you so much for hearing his bill today. About CO management, Community Co Management.

I'm Olan Leimomi Fisher on behalf of KUA Inaulo Awamo or KUA and we've been planning and helping with the creation and support for this legislation over the past seven months with a working group including DLNR and under the leadership of the Huimaka Aina O Makana of Haena.

And we just stand on our testimony and strong support and ask you to please consider accepting our two friendly amendments. And I'm here for any questions as well. Mahalo Nui.

Thank you. We have Ocean Legislative Task Force in support, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee.

My name is Hannah Leziak and I'm testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force in strong support of HB2218.

This measure promotes the authorization of DLNR to enter into community co management agreements and it also emphasizes the the role that communities can play in the management of lands and waters through a structured partnership with the state.

We also appreciate that this measure recognizes the long standing Native Hawaiian and community stewardship traditions which have helped sustain cultural and natural resources for generations. Our Coalition represents over 150 individuals across over 20 organizations. And I'd also like to defer to my colleague online as well as her other coworkers in KUA and their recommendations on this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Hawaii Conservation alliance foundation in support. On zoom. Not present on Zoom. In support we have Hui Maka Aana O Makana in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Chipper Wickman here. I'm a founding Director of the Huimaka Ina no Makana back in the 90s and continue to participate in their governance. I currently serve as the Vice Chair. We we stand on our testimony that I put in.

But I just also wanted to add I put a lot of effort into trying to explain the requests from Water and Land about what happens when who competing nonprofits are seeking co management.

And so hopefully my my testimony was clear that we've asked for a lot of information in the management plan that will help the Board of Land and Natural Resources make that decision. But in addition to that, I just want to say that we also view the community co management agreements as kind of the end of a continuum.

There are numerous ways nonprofits and community groups can interact with the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Our Huimaka Inano Makana has participated in many different roles over the years including the volunteer curatorship agreement, the revocable permit that we had for five years and we are currently going to enter into concession agreement and ultimately we hope to get to a community co management agreement.

So we really think that it will be a rare situation where you have two really qualified organizations competing to, to help steward the same area. Anyway, I stand on that. If you have any questions on my testimony, I'm available to answer. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the Nature Conservancy and support on Zoom.

Yes, Aloha Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Scott Crawford and I'm here on behalf of the Nature Conservancy Hawaii and Palmara to offer testimony and Support of the HB 2218 with authorizes DLNR to enter into community management agreements with qualified community organizations. We submitted written testimony that will stand on.

So I don't want to repeat that but I just wanted to add a little bit of personal perspective and mainly to highlight the state through its various departments and agencies already has many as Mr. Wickman or you know alluded to, already has many existing co management relationships.

And we see this, this Bill as a natural next step to authorize the mechanism to formalize these relationships where appropriate to define roles and responsibilities and provide an institutional commitment and continuity.

And just as one example, I was involved with the development of the Kulu community based subsistence fishing area which was officially designated just, just almost two years ago. And so the, you know the community of Kipahulu and the Kulu Ohana have a, a co management relationship with DAR and Docare.

But what's missing is sort of like you know the, the formalization of that and, and an actual agreement that defines the roles and responsibilities. And there's many other examples of this. You know at Save Honolulua Coalition they're working on, they just received some funding from Legacy Lands to acquire some a parcel there by Honolulua Bay.

And they're very interested in working with state parks as well as DAR and do care through their Makai Watch program in Kaupulehu.

The DAR has been working with many years for the Kaupulehu community on the Triweight initiative and they're just about to go before the Board of Land and Natural Resources to request a public hearing on the rules package for that fisheries management plan.

So there's just a lot of, a lot of places where the state is already working actively with communities, where communities are active partners that are supporting, you know, collaborating with the state and working to manage and bring that the local knowledge and the commitment of place into their, the management of their local places.

And so we just really encourage you to support this, this Bill as a way to formalize those relationships and also just like to offer my observation that this Bill as well I mentioned was crafted very carefully through many months of work through the working group with input from many different stakeholders from the community and from the Department.

So it's a really well thought through, well crafted Bill. And on behalf of the Nature Conservancy, we hope that you support it.

Thank you. We have Kurt Cottrell in support on Zoom.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Curt Cottrell. And before I get going, I know what you're thinking, but yes, tea plants really do get this big up here in Kalihi uka.

Just, just to satisfy your curiosity, you have my written testimony and I just want to amplify what Chipper from the HUI said, which I think is very important.

Across the island chain on the Big island, we have two organizations that are primed at the pump and getting ready to replicate the great success which we're all proud of that the HUIA has done at H ena in Kiholo State Park Reserve Huialoha.

Kiholo, like the hui, has been on a curatorship agreement for quite a long time and they've been subsisting primarily on grants and there's a modest camping area at Kiholo and and among the other things that this legislation does in terms of clarifying relationship, I think it's very important to also enable our community co collaborators revenue sharing in places where in the case of state parks, a park can generate revenue but we don't have any staff assigned to that park.

So Hue Aloha Kiholo have been doing it just on their own, just love of Kiholo and they're ready to go, they're ready to migrate, I think off the curatorship and right around the corner from them at Kealakekua Bay State Historical Park.

Nui is rapidly trying to develop the same kind of capacity that the HUI has on Kauai and have been looking at that model and they once they kind of get more of their ducks in a row, they will also be one of the organizations that I think would benefit from greatly from this new paradigm of how we co manage.

So it's not just government doing it all by itself or nonprofits relying on grants or handouts, but they actually get a piece where it's appropriate and where it can happen of the income stream which puts lineal descendants and our neighbors right back in areas that were theirs to begin with.

And now they have a greater stake in helping the state managed. So this is just a great, great opportunity to really spread the wings of how we take better care of our our natural and cultural resources. Mahalo.

Thank you. As everyone who indicated they would be joining us. Also testimony and support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Mayor Kawakami from the county of Kauai, county of Kauai, Office of Economic Development. 11 organizations and 13 individuals all in support. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify?

Anybody on Zoom. Members, any questions?

Aloha.

Oh, going, going away.

Aloha. My name is Moana Ching. I'm calling in on behalf of the Hawaii Conservation Alliance Foundation. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members, Members of Committee for my tardiness and mahalo for letting me jump back in on on the Zoom. We stand on our written testimony and also support the recommended amendments, friendly amendments, as Holland said.

Clarifications and additional context provided by Kua' I Nauluamo in their submitted testimony and just additionally want to elevate, comparatively speaking, as I think Kurt was saying, saying this kind of model is one that comparatively speaking, across the state park system really works to provide that economic benefit in the local communities.

And again, relative to other state parks with minimal costs to the state, there's revenue generation that happens right there and it stays right there. And so compared to other state parks where this opportunity is maybe not in place, these are good things that happen with minimal cost to the state.

So we stand in strong support and mahalo for your consideration and for your time here today. Aloha.

Thank you. Anybody else on Zoom. Members?

Any questions? Seeing none. We're going to move to the final item on our agenda. HB 1964 HD1 relating to the State Building Code Council.

First we have the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and support. Thank you. We have plumbers and fidders UA Local 675 in support. Present we have Gregory Masakian in with comments on zoom.

Thank you. Aloha again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Greg Masakian again. And I did not support or not support this. I do support it, the intent of it, and I do support the training.

But what I would ask that you do if you could amend this bill to make it stronger my experience with DPP, which is quite extensive as I serve as a Director on my condo association board and I have for a number of years, is that I'm very concerned with what's going on.

I know that the Legislature is also because of the speed task force that was put into place, I participated in the speed task force opening day meeting where various islands joined in the planning and permitting departments. Representatives from various islands and in Oahu.

The concern I share with you today is that the Director of DPP for Honolulu for our city and county came into the room just to present and left the room. And I was there for about five hours plus for that session and I was representing myself as a member of the community and I gave testimony.

I gave written and oral testimony that day.

But the concern is that the Director and many members of the staff need extensive training and that no Director of DPP should ever be appointed until that Director has gone through extensive training, passed tests, whether it's online or through some kind of training that the Legislature puts into place and can support that that person is actually the most qualified for the position.

Because if you don't understand how building codes work, building codes themselves, the process of inspection, the process that's required, it all falls apart. And in my opinion, as I conclude my testimony, DPP has fallen apart extensively and the Legislature needs to fix it. It's. It's a completely broken system. So work Department, I should say.

So with that, I ask that you please, please make this bill more than it actually is right now and focus on the leadership. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's everybody who indicated that they would be joining us. Also testimony and support from two organizations and an individual as well as one other individual providing comments. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to testify? Anybody on Zoom?

Okay, Members, any questions on this measure?

Thanks for your comments. I wanted to focus back on how straf1 we blanked up the sum for training as far as states contribution, but we left in an aggregate match from the columns. Curious if that aggregate match helps or hurts. And I'm asking that because at some right at some point counties gotta have some buy in.

We heard some testimony about a particular county kind of having its challenges. And so I just, I'm trying to figure out for the Committee if it's worth it to blank out that aggregate total so that we can continue conversations or if keeping it at that total is going to be sufficient for the count.

So when I contacted DPP to ask about the appropriation amount, they said that 25,000 would be appropriate to Fund for the funding. So the 6k county match would actually help out.

Okay, and so just to clarify, 4 counties would contribute their 6250 ranging 25 and then whatever is slot in. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

Anything additional? Okay. See? Nothing. I think we'll roll straight into decision making since we have all Members present. We're going to open up with HB 1602 HD1 as this is a position. Well, the titles are leading to agriculture. As this is something that can be accomplished through the budget, that's where we will prioritize things.

So therefore we will be deferring this measure. Next bill is HB18 3. 2. The plan for this one is amending it with a few brief technical amendments, nothing super substantive and moving it Forward as an HD2. This is relating to aquaculture. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none, we can go to the vote.

Okay. Members voting on HB 1832 HD1 recommendations to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. The next item on Our agenda is HB 1707 HD1 relating to agriculture. Our plan is to move this forward as is unamended Members. Any questions? Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB 1707 HD1 recommendations to pass unamended, noting the presence of all Members for this measure and the rest of this agenda unless otherwise noted. Are there any reservations? Any no votes. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Next measure is HB2155 HD1 relating to agricultural 3 statistics. Plan is to move it forward as an HD2 making some small technical amendments. So moving it forward with amendments. Members, any questions on this measure? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB2155. HD1 recommendations to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes? Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Next item is HB 1831 HD1 relating to agricultural lands. Plan is to move this forward as is Members, any questions? Seeing none.

Voting on HB 1831. HD1 recommendations to pass unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes?

Recommendations adopted HB 1650 HD1 relating to environmental assessments. Our plan is to move this forward as it. Any questions? If not.

Okay. Voting on HB 1650. HD1 recommendations to pass. Unamended. Any reservations? [Roll Call]

I'm sorry. Just. Just for clarification, I was under the impression that this would be deferred until that's the next measure on the agenda.

This is 1650.

Okay.

Reservations.

The moment these guys retire.

Reservations for Representative Peruso and Representative Alos. Any other reservations? Any no votes? Recommendations adopted. Thank you.

And as stated earlier, since this has a little bit of complexity behind it, we're going to be deferring decision making on HB 1652 HD1. The plan would be Wednesday after our 2pm agenda. That would be February 25th. Next we have HB2361 HD1 relating to the Kaneohe Bay Regional Council. The plan is to move this forward as is.

That's the Chair's recommendation. Any questions or comments? Seeing none.

Voting on HB2361HD1 recommendations to pass. Unamended. Any reservations? Any no votes.

Recommendations adopted for HB2218 HD1 the plan would be to move this forward with some technical amendments, but also adding Kealakekua twice in the preamble. There are two sections where they just list a number of sites. This will just be adding Kealakeka Kua as a site which I think was initially an oversight. Any questions for the proposed HD2? Seeing none.

Voting on HB2218 HD1 recommendations to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes Recommendations adopted.

And lastly we have HB 1964 HD1 relating to the State Building Code Council. The plan would be to move this forward as an HD2, amending it with some clarifying and technical amendments. Any questions or comments on this measure? Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote following on HB 1964 HC1 recommendations to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes recommendations? Adopt.

Thank you. We are adjourned.