House Standing Committee on Water & Land

Hey. Good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Water, Land. My name is Mark Hashem, and to my left is the Vice Chair, Dee Morikawa. Today is Tuesday, March 17th, 2026, 9:00 a.m. We're in Conference Room 411 at the State Capitol. Before we start today, there's some ground rules that I have to read. I wanna remind everybody that we have session at 12:00, so we are pressed for time. If we don't finish the agenda, everything on the agenda today dies, so please be aware that we have time constraints.

With that, we're gonna set a time limit of two minutes. It's not a hard-- it's not a hard two-minute cutoff. If you reach-- if you go beyond two minutes, we'll ask you to please sum up your testimony. And contrary to popular belief, we do know how to read, so we have read your testimony.

So please don't stand up and read your testimony. Just sum it up. I know not all of us seem like we do know how to read, but we do. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your camera off while you're waiting and staff will tell you or we will call you when to testify.

People on Zoom, the chat function will chat only with the technical staff. We, here on the committee, cannot see, so be aware of that. If you're on Zoom and you're disconnected, we will attempt to get you rejoined, but if we can't, it is not-- it's not the responsibility of the House for bad Internet connections. In the case of network failure on our end, we will reschedule the hearing as needed and post the new schedule.

Please avoid using any trademark or copyrighted images while you are using the Zoom background and please refrain from using uncivil behavior or profanities. And if you do, we will ask you-- I guess we will cut you off. So with that, first up, we have HB 2799 SD 1, relating to the Kalaupapa Settlement. First, we have DLNR, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Ryan Kanaka'ole, on behalf of DLNR. We stand on our testimony in support, and here for any questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have DHHL, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. DHHL. Available for questions.

Okay. Next, we have Department of Health with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Diana Felton, Department of Health. We stand on our written testimony and also appreciate the scheduling of SB 1432 for Thursday. Here to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have-- do we have anybody else? We have one person on Zoom, individual. Is that Vanderbilt? DeGray Vanderbilt on Zoom. We have OHA here?

Chair? Chair, can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Yes. Aloha, Chair Hashem and Vice Chair Morikawa. My name is DeGray Vanderbilt, and I'm providing some comments as an individual. I sent in some written testimony, but I do have a couple of points to make. At the last hearing, Department of Health said in 2015, Department of Health and NPS set up an interagency working group consisting of the following government agencies: DOH, NPS, DHHL, DLNR, Department of Transportation, County of Maui, and the Federal Department of the Interior.

DHHL is on record that during those meetings held since 2015, there were no minutes, no recording, no records of these meetings kept. And although they talked about community engagement, DHHL said on the record that the interagency group government people never could agree on when would be the right time to include non-government community stakeholders in the transition discussions.

So over the years, there has been no community engagement with major stakeholders, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, despite being a large area of ceded lands at Kalaupapa and the fact that OHA works to improve the well-being of Native Hawaiians through advocacy, research, community engagement, land management, and funding, without including Ka'Ohana O Kalaupapa, an organization conceived and fostered by Kalaupapa patient residents, 90% who are Native Hawaiian, and is operating at Kalaupapa just as National Park Services by federal statute, Public Law 111, signed into law by President Obama in 2009, or without including the Topside Molokai island community, consisting of a majority of Hawaiians, many of whom are descendants of those sent to Kalaupapa.

Lack of meaningful communication is part of the transition discussions; needs to be addressed. It's been pushed aside for too long, and the Legislature can make things right by including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Ka'Ohana O Kalaupapa, and an involved organization from Topside Molokai Community as part of the team making decisions about the future of Kalaupapa.

So, anyway-- and there is one comment that I just wanted to make you aware of, that in the public law that established Kalaupapa for National Parks, says that, when there's no longer a patient community, the Secretary of the Interior shall reevaluate the policies, governing management administration, and public use of the park in order to identify changes deemed to be made.

So, here we are talking transition, and then down the line, when there's no longer a patient community, the law establishing Kalaupapa says the Secretary of the Interior can reevaluate things and change all the policies. So it seems like the federal government has a blank check in the future, which doesn't seem to be appropriate.

And I just wanted to introduce my friends behind me, Gloria Marks on the left, Pauline Chow in the middle, and Boogie Kahilihiwa, who have all recently passed away, and they were the last three members of the Ka' Ohana Board of Directors, and they've been sorely missed. And I very much appreciate you, Chair Hashem, allowing me to go over my two minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I stand on my written testimony also. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. 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?

Chair?

Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I guess DLNR. Thank you for being here. My question would be, without this bill, what happens?

The work continues with our partners in the state, federal side, and the community. The eventuality is that we're going to have to convert over Kalawao County, and the ownership issues have to be lined up. The maintenance issues have to be lined up. We have to be in coordination with the county. So the work continues. I believe this legislation calls for a plan. That's articulated by the departments, but that planning work has already been under-- you know, we're going through that and we have been for years now.

Can I ask a follow-up, Chair?

Go ahead.

You know, in testimony from DHHL, they state that the Department of Transportation Airports Division should be included in management decisions as a land owner in the area, and just from the gentleman's testimony we just heard, he mentioned the federal authority. Can you clarify that for me?

So, for DOT airports, a lot of the land is owned by either-- it's owned by the state, but it's broken up into DLNR, DHHL primarily. But the airstrip itself is under DOT airport's jurisdiction, so I can appreciate that piece of DHHL's testimony. And so far as the federal government is concerned, National Park Service is basically the boots on the ground managing that area, and the Department of Land and Natural Resources, as well as Department of Health, has some agreements with NPS for ongoing management.

So the federal does not own the land, then?

They don't own the land. They're under agreement with the state.

Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful.

Chair, question? For DLNR.

Thank you, Chair. For DLNR. OHA's testimony basically asks-- I think is asking this committee to amend the bill to formally insert OHA into this transitional planning process. Do you see the reason to object to that?

Iwamoto. Go ahead.

I don't.

Okay.

Okay. Alright. Any other any other questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up, we have SB 3247 relating to Hawaiian affairs. First up, we have the AG, attorney general.

Good morning, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General, Alyssa Kaul, on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. The Department provides comments on this bill. So, we note that some of the concerns were raised in WEM committee discussions and they remain in the current draft. So, we just wanted to highlight that for the committee. So, there's four major concerns that we have with respect to this bill.

First is that the bill places a working group within DLNR, but yet says that the commission is independent of DLNR. And so, because DLNR is part of the executive, we just wanted to clarify the working group's placement and accountability in that structure. And I believe that we have offered some amendments to help to clarify that. Second, the bill also requires contested case hearings for people that are directly and substantially affected, but it doesn't describe what that term is. And so, what that could do is it could give standing to a large group of individuals.

And in the context of Mauna Loa, additional clarity would help to just lay the groundwork as to who can request a hearing and what kind of decisions the commission would be making. And in order for these decisions to be properly appealed to the court, there needs to be a final decision in order, pursuant to Chapter 91. And so we would request some clarity on how those parameters would be met. I believe we've also offered some suggested amendments with respect to that. Third is that the bill requires written findings with respect to traditional customary practices.

And in 2000, the Hawaii Supreme Court, issued its decision in Ka Pa‘akai versus Land Use Commission, which already requires agencies to analyze what is the impact, or analyze what, native Hawaiian traditional or customary practice could be impacted. And the agency would then have to identify any sort of mitigation measures. And so because existing law already covers this practice, we believe that this additional requirement in the bill could create some difficulties with that. And finally, to wrap up my testimony, the bill also says that the legislature shall appropriate funds, but as a constitutional matter of funding is subject to legislative appropriation and you can't bind future legislatures for appropriation. So we've offered some amendments to clear that up as well.

I'm available if you have any further questions, thanks, Mark.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Here, on standing. Okay.

Aloha kakou. Leialoha Makuanai on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We'll largely stand on our written comments and just highlight that we're respectfully requesting inclusion as a member of the Royal Mausoleum Working Group. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have DLNR.

DLNR stands on its within comments.

Thank you. Next, we have Royal House of Kawananakoa.

Yeah. You know, I understand we're pressed for time, so I'm just gonna start to summarize about five major points that I tried to testify.

You all get a chance to read the testimony. But my name is first Quentin Kawānanakoa. And I'm here on behalf of familial ties I have in Mauna 'Ala. That's one point for me is that my great grandfather, Prince David Kawānanakoa, and his wife, Princess Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa are buried there in the Kalakaua Crypt along with Prince Kūhiō and his brother Edward Keliʻiahonui. So, I wanted to mention that because it is a familial tie, but my major concern is what's happening with Mauna 'Ala and some of the we've had there over the past couple of years and how we move forward.

Because I believe that it's more important to the native Hawaiian people that this is the piko of our understanding. This is where we come from. This is our past, our today, our present, and our future, and understanding our maraes and our understandings of our ike that all of our past leaders have exemplified and have shared with us over time, over millennia, and have honed into a fine working order of a world view for native Hawaiian people. So, it's a basis for us to continue that understanding. And what's so beautiful about the bill is that we are going to take some time so we can have it get it right, because it was a bit of a rush to give to the legislature, but we did want to start the conversation.

And that conversation includes bringing in all different walks of life, bringing in all the different practitioners, the current stakeholders, OHA, and others who may not have been mentioned and who want to participate. It's going to be an open-door process, I believe. I can't speak for the working committee, but, working group, but I believe it is going to be trying to attain as much information as possible. So with that, I understand that, you know, the Hawaii state model and the Hawaiian world view is pretty much similar. And then it's "ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono."

And so, the life of the land, I think, can be and will be and has been perpetuated in righteousness. And we continue to strive for that, not only as native Hawaiians, but I believe as the people of Hawaii, as the citizens of Hawaii, and all those living here, that we need to honor that desire, continued effort. So, if you have any questions, I'm glad to clarify. If not, thank you for hearing all of our testimonies today.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have Fathers and Sons of Hawaiian Warriors in person.

Aloha kakou everyone. Mahalo for having us here today. I am the Kaha Nanui of the Daughters and Sons of the Hawaiian Warriors, Māmakakaua, and we stand in opposition to Senate bill 3247 Senate draft one to establish a Royal Mausoleum working committee under DLNR with 17 members and a complex apparatus of reporting to the State of Hawaii without addressing a very important problem within this amendment bill coming forward.

You know, one of the things is that the controversy over the hire of the curator of Mauna'ala is the actual center for the establishment of this bill. But before any new legislation should be introduced or amendments made to the existing Hawaii revised statutes concerning Mauna'ala, the honored and sanctified position of the kahu needs to be restored. More importantly, the constitution of the working group establishes a new state-heavy process that is unnecessary and not needed. The kahu of the past were knowledgeable, accountable, and committed to the sanctity of Mauna'ala and its traditional protocols. The real problem is that in 2024, the DLNR selection committee did not follow the traditional and proven process used when they were finding a replacement for Kai Maioho who vacated the position.

We are here today in a very distressing predicament, and we ask Ke Akua to keep his rainbow over Mauna'ala and help us to disperse the storm clouds that are gathering. Mahalo nui from the Daughters and Sons of the Hawaiian Warriors, Mama Kekawa. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have The Royal Order of Kamehameha I.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Royal Order of Kahi stands..

Thank you. Next, we have Kia'i Iwi Alaka'i. Sorry if I-

It's Kia'i Iwi Alaka'i. But my name is James Maioho. And with that, I'm also speaking as a Ho'olulu descendant and representative of our line and our family who were the convoys at Mount Aluk. It was my cousin. I had a statement prepared, but I appreciate what auntie Coline said.

But there was always some sort of hui, and there was a consultation with the stakeholders and the societies and people from the clubs. And I think it's good to establish that and let these people who use Mauna'ala or, you know, like Quentin and myself that have Ohana and Kupuna buried there to have a voice and be able to culturally design this process going forward. And I think it takes some of these more problematic sticky questions kind of off the plate of Ryan or of the DLNR and could really be a help to everybody. It's good that we talk this process through. And we can concurrently maybe address some of auntie's concerns as well. But going forward, I think it's the right thing here.

You know, there there's weight and truth to what she's saying. But I also am in strong support of doing this even with those issues not resolved yet because it's important that we put the voices of these people together at a table. It was always done informally in the in the past. You know, through the process of hiring, there's letters of recommendation and things that have gone in.

So, Mahalo for your time.

Thank you. Next up we have Nāwāhineokalaʻi Lanzilotti.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Nāwāhineokalaʻi Lanzilotti, and I'm here on behalf of the Ahui Kaiulani. We are a Hawaiian organization, and I stand on our written testimony in opposition to SB 3247, Senate Draft 1. Our Ahui honors Princess Kaiolani, the only child born to the Kalakaua dynasty and the heir apparent at the time of the overthrow. And we are not a Royal Society, but we have every year participated at Mauna Ola for the fifty years of our organization.

And I'm compelled to testify today, because of clear legislative overreach that I see in the bills put forward in front of the legislature over the past year regarding the future stewardship of Mauna Ala.

And we all are coming from a place of deep aloha for this place. And so I want to acknowledge all of the testimony that's been shared today. But we also know that, it's important that when moving forward in dealing with our Hawaiian wahi pana, our sacred places, and these cultural practices that have persisted over many, many years, that we also look at what is pono, not only what includes a broad net of people who may or may not have historical stewardship and responsibility to this place. And so, our written testimony highlights our three main concerns. First, about this historical and cultural legislative overreach.

Second, that it ignores the central role that the Kuhina Nui of Mama Kekawa brought up, which is DLNR's vetting process of the Kahu of Mauna'ala. That's been raised consistently since February 2024. And third, that it actually lacks many processes that are really necessary to implement the work that it proposes, and it creates more trouble in that sense than it would solutions, including a lack of process for how the report, the submitted report, would be actually implemented and moved forward, or how certain descendants of the Kalakau and Kamehameha dynasties would actually be selected. How, as was mentioned before, how disputes would actually be resolved, for the authority given to the working group and so forth.

So with that said, in conclusion, just want to thank you for this opportunity to testify, and we ask that the committee vote against advancing this bill that provides legislative overreach and also a substantial burden to native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have an individual on Zoom. No? Nobody on Zoom? Okay. That is all the people that we have that wished to testify. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Oh, person on Zoom?

How are you guys? Good morning. I'll keep it nice and sweet for all of you. I tried to deny and oppose this bill. I ran it through. I do not trust DLNR whatsoever. They suck when it comes to management, the palates, and everything.

But I have to agree with what Kaku says. The AI actually agrees to support this bill. I sent mine in late because they can't manage it by themselves, but we need to put our own proper people who are Pono, that know all the iwi kupunas, all the laws, all the burial councils, what they're supposed to do. And you're actually protecting the last royal place of our kings and queens with the ancestors' bones. So hopefully, they speak ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi so they know how to count it because people going to come and try to steal those bones because there weren't a lot of value, especially talking about Kamehameha and the royal bloodlines from Paki and stuff.

So, it must have a strong kuleana, and obviously, you're going to need protection. Right now, we're doing okay, but you should do it properly and you should have the right people in charge, so they don't do screwy stuff. Thank you, guys. Appreciate you. Aloha.

K. 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?

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for OHA. I think OHA testified on Zoom. So, as OHA's coming on, did the Board of Trustees, For OHA deliberate on supporting this measure formally? Did they hear from the community, from their beneficiaries, about what position OHA should take on this bill?

Yes. The board of trustees did discuss it and received some testimony from beneficiaries, asking for OHA to support this measure.

So, none of those who are in this room testifying today went to the meeting and provided testimony in opposition?

Not that I'm aware of. No.

Okay. You heard the opposition. You read the opposition testimony. Do you have any response to any of what they're bringing up since it seems maybe new to you or to OHA? Does it change your position at all?

I mean, I think that would have to go before the board if we were to have a change of position, but I understand the concerns that are being brought up. And we do encourage beneficiaries to come to OHA for the meetings and such to voice certain concerns because, yeah, sometimes we don't necessarily hear about them until we're in a hearing like this in various positions that beneficiaries do have. So, it is always nice to hear from them at the table during the board meetings so that the board has more input from beneficiaries to work with and hear all of those concerns. But at this point, the board had voted on a support position for this measure based on a general support that we were hearing from our beneficiaries. Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Your testimony offers comments with suggested amendments. If the amendments are incorporated, would you support the bill, or it would still just kind of be in neutral comments?

I would prefer the Department remain neutral. We are the current stewards now. I just do want to make a general statement though, that we're open to being better stewards. If the outcome of the working group is better stewardship for the area, then we'll be supportive of that.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Maybe for Nava Hine. I was just curious if you had suggestion oh, maybe if you come up to the podium. Thank you.

Go ahead.

I hear the concerns, and I was just curious if you had suggestions as to a path forward to building better stewardship could occur?

There are, points in the written testimony, that you can review that point to the concerns in the actual bill itself. I, it, I'm not in the position, to, or, or I guess what I'm, we're not, I'm not interested in, or I'm not in the position to propose amendments. And it's, those are two or two different paths forward, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. One is amending this bill entirely, which still, which still is functioning within the system that doesn't fully serve the stewardship of Mauna Ola. And the other is honoring the customary stewardship that has happened for over a hundred years at Mauna Ola.

So we're really, as mentioned actually by Kahina Nui of Mauna Pekawa, what we're what's caused these bills to come about is, an issue of stewardship that's just come out in a very short amount of time in recent history. This isn't a long standing issue that has been hundreds of years in the making. So it's really about identifying the root cause of this issue rather than creating solutions that don't actually address a problem. So that's what, that's our position today is that the, we ask that the committee, not advance this bill and instead address the issue at hand, which is the vetting process for the kahu. Because other than that, the stewardship of Mauna Allah is intact and it is just this past, process of vetting the kahu that has created

these issues. If the working group if this were to go through and the working group were created, do you think that, you know, a discussion about an appropriate process for selecting the kahu could be, a topic that the working group take up and discuss and make recommendations for? I would defer to

in a part historically of the stewardship of Mauna Allah for that question.

Would someone like excuse me. Sorry. Is that okay, chair?

Oh, yes. Go ahead. Continue. Please stay.

Yes. Okay. The question was thank you. If, this working group were created and I hear the issues about, you know, the selection of the kahu and I was aware of the issues, you know, several years ago. If perhaps that would be a topic that the working group could take up and make recommendations for, if this were to be created.

You know, I think that before you decide to do anything like building a Hawaiian house, you have to be sure that the foundation with all the pai pai and all the iiliili are in place. And right now, there is great, you know, things happening in Mauna'ala. And the main thing is that the main boulder is not there. So the state, I'm trying to give you an image of trying to build a Hawaiian Hale and the main boulder is missing. The main boulder is the restitution of the kahu.

The kahu has always acted for over a hundred years to be that bridge between the state, DLNR, and all the Hawaiian organizations that go there. Their information, again, they are very knowledgeable. They know all the genealogies. We can all come forward and say that we are the descendants of Kamehameha. He had 18 wives, and out of the 18 wives, 14 had children.

So that means every single one of those families have the right to claim lineal connection to the burials up at the Memorial Mausoleum. So when you open that up, there are hundreds and hundreds of families that have every right to claim lineal connection to Mauna'ala. So when you have 17 members, even cooking for Hawaiian luau, in the kitchen, there's only one cook, but there are people that chop up and make the things. And people keep saying there are no established or known, protocols in selecting the kahu, and that is not true. Whether Hawaiians wrote them down explicitly or not, when you look at the kahu, everyone remained until their death.

That is one of the conditions that if you're going to accept this Kuleana, then it is still your death. Now the only one that moved out was Iovani Luahine, who came in because there were no my relatives and descendants knowledgeable enough to assume the rule of Kahu. In Hawaiian, we don't want to be everything. We want to be sure that whatever Kuleana is given to a family remains with them. But should there be no one, no one in the family who is knowledgeable or able to accept the Kuleana, then it comes out of that family.

But it is always returned when there is somebody knowledgeable, who has commitment and accountability. We we are not a people that always want to invent rules and regulations. That is not who Hawaiians are. We believe aloke alo. We are here to speak.

I have given you my word and my heart on what I believe. I don't need to go through eight sessions of to know how I feel and how you feel. What we're saying is that storm clouds are gathering. Every time there is a committee hearing that we have to attend, that is a storm cloud forming with more and more electricity. What we are saying is that let us stop this.

Don't move it forward. Let the Hawaiian community among ourselves talk. Let's not be mandated by the state. We know how to talk and we talk until it's resolved. We don't talk for two years and then someone else comes in and takes over the talking.

We commit to that. And so our written testimony, yes, is four pages, and we tried to be as concise as we could. But there is so much to the sanctity of Mauna Allah. Imagine, it was Luna Lilos Kahu who was the first one there. He took care of Alexander Liho Liho and hit and when the area was selected so that it would be a chapel, a quiet resting place for his son who had just died at the age of four, and there was no more room in Pohokaina.

And so this place was built as a chapel to find peace and resting. And because Pohokaina was full, then the chapel became and was understood as a mausoleum to receive the dead. And then when you come down, every single Kahu served until their death. Every single Kahu had a genealogical and a noble tie to Alexander Liholejo. I'm I I know I'm taking up time and I'm very sorry, but, you know, there are few opportunities where we Hawaiians can share the information without trying to prove who we are.

We are Hawaii. Every group tries to market the Hawaiian ness of these islands, but we are that and we understand how to look at the history and spirituality of Mauna'allah without desecrating it. All these amendments are like a barrage against the history and the sanctity of Mauna Allah. It, you can only equate it to grandmother's home that is slowly deteriorating, but keeps the family memory on the land. But a new developer sees that that land could really be, managed by other families in the neighborhood and mandating that particular family.

What I'm saying is that we Hawaiians, we, we are, we understand what must be done and we will accept the Kuleana and it's outside of the legislature and the state. So please, do read our testimony. It is four pages long. We tried to make it in large print with space in between so it wouldn't be in urban, because I myself, you know, have to read. But I ask you to please consider not letting this bill move forward.

Let us let us talk amongst each other. And whatever happens in the family happens in the family and stays in the family. And if there is no other recourse, when the family is completely splintered and there is no other recourse, then let's go to the attorney and file for the divorce papers. But in Hawaiian thinking, everything has a simple image, and the image is the rules of protocol are in the history and functioning of Mauna'ala for over 100 and twenty years. And of the 10 kahu who have served at Mauna'ala, only two of them were not vetted by the daughters and sons of the Hawaiian warriors, Mamakakawa, only two.

And those are the last two. When Kai Mark Kai Maioho vacated the position and now this current curator, who is there. So what we are saying is that with all the responsibilities you have to care for us, the citizens of the state, allow the family, the Hawaiian family, to resolve this family issue and let us do it. And as I said, if we are all fractured and splintered and we can't talk together, then maybe it would be up to you. But I know I took up too much time.

I'm very and I'm sorry to everybody. I really am sorry. Thank you.

Oh, thank you very much. I appreciate everything.

Sure. Can I ask a question?

Sure. Go ahead. Representative Sherry. Yes.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. It was very, far forward. And excuse me for not being aware of all of the history and the context of this very, significant issue. So I have a very simple question and forgive me again for my, ignorance of this, but as has been stated, the importance of the Kahu. What is the current situation of Takahu?

The current situations is that the initial job description

I think you need to go by the Oh,

I'm sorry.

Podium or else the mic. The mic can pick you up.

I'm sorry. The initial job description that came out looking for a replacement for Kaimai Ojo asked for someone who was culturally aware, understanding, and had background with Mauna 'Ala and the community and had a deep knowledge of of Hawaiian culture. When that person was selected, they did not qualify and come under any of those things. Now she, the the woman was appointed and it was announced in May. And then in June with so much, backlash, the governor came forward on a deal and our, notice and said that he would try to, do another position.

He would leave her as the caretaker and he would set up a new position for someone who is more culturally sensitive and aware. Well, that never happened since 2024. And then now with this bill, if you will look, I think it's in

Section K or L, it actually states three positions, caretaker, curator, and company. From one person who was knowledgeable and capable, It's come out to three people, a caretaker, a kahu, and a curator. So the cost of that, I'm sure will be discussed in the next committee, but why why go there when we all know what it is? So sections j to l, and I I I couldn't even reread it another 20 times. It's such an overreach and such a process to make us continually write down every aspect of our thought, every aspect of our history, to put into a record that anybody around the world can use as research for their PhD to equate them as the most knowledgeable of the actions from Alma Alla.

And and, again, I'm sorry that I'm I'm sorry. I'm

Don't apologize.

I just want to be sure that when we come here and we bear our hearts and our spirit as Hawaiians, we are not devalued and relegated to words on a paper. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next up, we have HB SB 2001 SD1, relating to Banyan Drive Community Development District. First up, we have DLNR, in support.

DLNR stands on its testimony and support.

Okay. Next, we have HCDA.

Good morning, everyone. HCDA stands on its written testimony in support.

Next, we have OHA on Zoom. Anybody else in this room wishing to testify in person? Seeing none. Next, we have OHA on Zoom.

Aloha, kakou, chair and vice chairs and members of the committee; Leialoha Makuanani on behalf of Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We'll stand on our written testimony, but I also wanna highlight some key key points since our testimony was pretty dense. First, we noted that the district name changed to Waiakea, which encompasses a much larger area than the proposed district, to more appropriately acknowledge the area's cultural and historic importance were more narrowed to the 'ili of Makaokū. In alignment with the field title, we're recommending that we amend the name to Banyan Drive Makaokū Community Development District.

And then going along with that, a two week driven process should involve the appropriate representation by those people that live in that area with specific knowledge and connection to Makaokū. So, we're reiterating our support for the inclusion of a lineal and cultural descendant, but rather than that be through the broad scope of Waiakea, it should be for Makaokū. And we support that inclusion as a voting member rather than just an advisory council member. And then lastly, we reiterate that much of this district consists of ceded lands and OHA has a constitutional mandate to ensure that the state upholds its fiduciary duties related to public land trusts. So, in carrying that out, OHA has often sought to ensure the state does not alienate ceded lands and maintains this lands.

For those reasons, we're also requesting to be included as a member of the Banyan Drive Redevelopment Agency. We, and then we appreciate the inclusion of OHA consultation for the selection of millennial and cultural descendant, but we're also additionally requesting consultation for the cultural specialist that is also listed. And we just respectfully ask that you include our suggestions, if you choose to move this bill forward; mahalo, and I'll be available for questions.

Okay. Next up, Banyan Drive Hawaii Redevelopment Agency for comment.

Thank you, Chair Hashim and Vice Chair Morikawa. I would like to comment. I'll stand on our testimony as written, but I'd like to comment on the nature of the advisory committee. Under Chapter 206-E, these are a structure, or agendized, ongoing inquiry. It's not just ad hoc or one time testimony.

HCDA combines planning and development authority, so it's a critical balance that the advisory committee provide. It improves the decisions, reduces delays, it reduces risks. It creates a defensible record for the redevelopment actions. So, it's how, an advisory committee would be how HCDA gets smarter decisions faster and really reduces the risk. So, I'd like people to understand that the advisory committee is not just window dressing.

Members of that advisory committee will be involved in the voting at the state, state level. And, and this is the nature of HCDA. There has to be that, that separation at the state level from, from the, from the local district to provide consistency statewide. These are state funds. So, I'd just like to provide those comments.

And I would like to also say that the other divide between SB 2001 and HB 2616 aligns with the funding of these two different approaches to the HCDA district. So, I'd like the legislature to try to harmonize those and to give the district as much control of, as it can, of its own revenue. But of course, you know, the authority has to rely, to remain with the state; these are all state funds on state land. So, thank you, Chair. Available for questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have Waikea Ahupua'a Crownland Heirs, in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha. Terri Napeahi. I am in opposition to SB 2001 as written, but would recommend amendments to add lineal descendants, as written on HB 2616 HD 2. That passed through House of Finance previously.

The ask to have a lineal descendant as a voting member is reasonable and can be justified. I am a lineal descendant of the Waiakea Ahupua'a and have already been an integral component to many projects, project actions that require a lineal descendant, descendants' mana'a, mana'o. I really appreciate OHA for saying what they have. I have, my heart is so 'eha listening to our lineal descendants fighting to have a say about their iwi kupuna. This is exactly the reason we ask for a voting voice, and that is to give our people an opportunity to share the ancient ties to the land and also their kuliana that they have to steward the land and the area, but to also, also respect what we have anciently in that area and place.

It is really 'eha for me to hear. Lineal descendants having to fight the state to have a voice. I understand James McCully asking for an advisory council. That'd be great, but we still want one lineal descendant on the voting member of the HCDA authority. Mahalo, and I hope that you can do the amendments and align it with HB 6, 2616 H do, D 2. And that was previously passed through the House Finance. Mahalo nui for this time.

Okay. Thank you. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We received roughly 20 pieces of testimony. Support or our opposition. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom. Anybody in the room? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. For HCDA? Executive Director Nakamoto. So when people have asked me, "well, what is a city done for, you know, your community?" But you know, like because you're asked to take over the development of, this portion of Hilo. And so for the record, I guess, you know when people say, "oh, there's flooding in Kaka'ako. Some of the buildings are so close together." There's still so much controversy between Kaka'ako Makai and and then those who are on Kaka'ako Mauka.

So, you know, they name all of these things that seem unresolved, and yet we keep, the state keeps giving you more responsibilities. So, you know, when people bring that, voice that, what is the response? What is the value added that HCDA has brought that it could have that Kaka'ako could have gone so much worse, I guess?

Thank you, Representative Iwamoto, for the question. You know, I, I understand the question. I especially understand the questions when they originate from, people who live and work in Hilo. I I think it comes from a perspective, quite honestly that HCDA is very Oahu centric. We're, you know, we're not based in Hilo.

And when people look at what we've done, the most significant thing they see is Kaka'ako with the housing. But Kaka'ako was, as I think you know, was established by the legislature in 1976 to do exactly what we set out to do in '76, '82 and, and on in, in the succeeding years. Yes, there's always things that could have been done differently in a district, you know, but there's also a lot of good things that have been done in Kaka'ako. You know, we, the neighborhood went from basically having a very low census tract to, a, a place where there's a lot of people living, working and playing. And I know it has its detractors too, but it does.

And we built, you know, state has invested a lot of money in infrastructure to incentivize that development. So there's a lot of good things. When we did that work in '76, when we got it in '76, things weren't just developed there in a, in a vacuum. I believe we went through a lot of community engagement that then to come up with a plan. And in 1976, the plan that we came up with is very different from what we came up with in succeeding years.

Namely that there were podiums, there were walkways in the air connecting the podiums. That's how we thought the neighborhood would be in '76. So planners don't always get it right. And as I'm fond of saying, there's no definites in planning. So we did our best to plan it.

Yet there could be a lot more things. There's a bill that's being considered right now that suggests different, you know, things to improve districts. But I think, when we can work together with DLNR, actually the landowner there, and we can do things in, you know, in Banyan Drive in Hilo. I really think that of all the state agencies, that I think we are the best equipped state agency to do the work. But I will say this, Representative Iwamoto, we're here, we're here doing it because of Representative Nakashima's, you know, appropriation to do master plan. We're here doing this work because I think it's an outgrowth of Representative Nakashima's funding.

And, of course, the ultimate decision on whether to even do anything with Banyan Drive rests with this legislator, legislature. And if the legislature feels that we're not the appropriate party to do Banyan Drive, then that I, I, I, I, I'm fine with that. But I still think and I don't like to, you know, sort of say that, you know, we're the best agency, but I think combined with DLNR, I think we are the best agency to, try to plan and maybe actually do better than what we did in Kaka'ako. I can only say we can try to do better. Right?

I can't, you know, I can't change time, but, you know, I can say that I, I'll try to do better in in Hilo on, on Waiakea Peninsula. I've been working with DLNR stakeholders, Terri Napeahi, and others. I think we can, I think we can do a good job? But it's up to the legislature. If the legislature feels that we're not the right agency for it, then so be it. And I think I'm willing to live with that.

Sorry for the long answer, Rep.

Thank you.

It was a broad question, so I apologize. In the House Bill version that we had this conversation before, you mentioned you wanted to keep your, your, your decision making bodies uniform for all the different locations that you manage. And perhaps if you know, and I think you objected to having a voting member with a lineal descendant voting member. And I'm wondering, perhaps maybe if you want them uniform, would you be open to having a lineal descendant for every one of your projects?

I, I think, you know, let me, let me give more context to that. But that was my concern that I stated, so I'm not gonna deny that. But, let me just give you more context. You know, the heavy lift in Banyan Drive is actually occurring right now. Right now meaning we have engaged with a planning firm and their consultants, a cultural consultant to do the planning.

That's gonna determine various land uses and things that we do in Banyan Drive. This is really the heavy lift time. And so for that, we're gonna, the planning consultant in conjunction with us is gonna create a kind of a, a community advisory committee to help us, you know, shape the future of Banyan Drive to further engage with stakeholders. And then, you know, once you go out to visioning, which is visioning, which is the next step to the, to the larger community with the input from this community advisory council, hopefully we set land uses for the area. And the ultimate plan is to create a master plan and rules for the district.

Those master, the master plan and rules really established a framework for development and in when permits are submitted for development. And at that point there's criteria for approving a permit and all those. And I'm not saying that it's, you know, it's rubber stamp, cause I don't wanna say that, it's, but it's ministerial. So I think the real lift comes now in, you know, sort of planning and setting forth land use. Like this is where we want a cultural center.

This is where we might want a hotel. This is where we might want something else. And it all really hinges on, DLNR, you know, getting the golf course property back. That's really the linchpin of, of, I can't emphasize that enough that that's really the linchpin of it. But, that's where the heavy lift comes in, Representative.

You know, I'm not downplaying their request for a voting number, but I, I will say that that's where the heavy lift comes in right now to settle this land is to then have a, you know, a regular board decide, you know, permit for, a, a retail store or some kind of establishment or hotel. That's when it gets pretty, you know, here's a complete application. Here's the requirements to meet, you know, to meet, to get a permit. It's fairly ministerial. It's not rubber stamp, but it's ministerial at that point, which

Thank you.

Representative Shimizu?

Question for Terri, if she's still on?

Yes. I'm still here.

Terri, thank you for your test, testimony. I didn't catch your your last part of your testimony when you referenced a preferred, House draft bill. What, what was the the reference on that?

House, House bill, HB 2616 HD 2 that was previously passed through Finance Committee.

Okay. And and you prefer that bill because of what?

Because it was the original. I am coauthor for that bill, bill with our legislators that had created this bill to include lin, lineal descendants and to also have some verbiage about Banyan Drive slash Makaoku. But this is, basically what we, we stated from the beginning was to have it in its original state.

One follow-up question, Chair, please.

Okay. Go ahead.

To HCDA?

Good morning, Rep.

How are you with HB 2616?

I, I think as, I think as Rep Iwamoto stated as it was going through the process, I stated my concerns, but that is the bill that emerged out of the House.

So obviously, you prefer this Senate, Senate bill then?

I, I think it has it has some advantages and, this is the bill we have in front of us right now.

Okay. Thanks. Thank you, chair.

Any other questions? I have a question for Terri.

Yes. Terri's here.

You want to be as a voting member on this, on the, you wanna be a voting member or not you, I should say. A lineal descendant should be a voting member on the development board. That's correct?

Yes.

So if we put a voting member on this bill, if we amend the bill to have a lineal descendant as a voting member, are you okay with the bill?

I'm okay for them to align their language of the bill for HB 2616 as written in its original state. So if SB 2001 will allow it to be in its original state as requested from the beginning, we will continue to, you know, support it. From the beginning, we had an opportunity from HCDA to draft the bill prior to the draft being presented. We attended meetings. We were given an opportunity to give a presentation.

So, going back to my question is, I'm asking if this this bill so it's basically the original bill or nothing? Because I'm asking if we, if we amend this bill to put a lineal descendant on the bill, on, on, as a voting member, as many people has asked, would that be a problem or would that be okay with it?

I would oppose it because it does not have the language for HB 2616.

K. Specifically, which language?

Language of the lineal descendants.

Oh, that--

Language.

That's what we're putting back. That's what I'm trying to say.

Oh, you are?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay. Do you, you, I'm making the assumption that the lineal descendants doesn't have to be a voting member on the overall HCDA board. Is that correct? For issues that happen on Oahu. Is that a?

I, I, you know, if you're gonna ask me if a lineal descendant should be in every portion of the HCDA projects, I would say yes.

No. What I'm saying is--

Right now--

The--

Yes.

The Banyan Drive lineal descendants. Are you advocating for the, for the people, I guess the people in Hilo to be on the board or have?

Yes. You're correct.

On Oahu?

We would like to be a voting member on an HCDA for the Banyon Drive slash Maka'oku. If you would add and amend it to add other lineal descendants in other projects of HCDA, I would support that.

Okay. Alright. I don't that's not quite my question. So, Craig, I mean, HCDA. So my, my question is, so the the lineal descendant for Banyan Drive will be specific for Banyan Drive. Right? And that should, I, should they be a voting, because doesn't your board get pushed up to the bigger board and they end up involved in, like the stadium authority. Right? Which is completely different from this.

So so, chair, you know, our board structure is complex. There's right now there's five boards. And one of them is a 17 member General Authority Board that has certain responsibilities. The community, every community member on, let's say the Kaka'ako, Kalaeloa, He'eia, Pulehunui board sits on this General Authority Board.

When the General Authority Board is convened, that General Authority Board, addresses, or is a governance, a couple of different projects. One, it, it has governance and oversight over the 99 year leasehold project of Senator Chang's in Kaka'ako. It also has responsibility for some of the TOD projects that, you know, we're we're doing.

Hey, I'm try, and I'm trying to cut this short in favor of time. We have a whole agenda. So in other words--

I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll tell you the short answer.

Your board will grow to become even bigger. Right?

So...

Yeah.

But I think my--

I think having a 50 member board is not--

It, it's not.

Realistic. Right?

It's not. And, and what I would, what I would suggest is this. I think Ms. Napeahi's request is because she's a lineal descendant of that area that where it is part of this, gonna be part of this Community Development District. She's, has ties to that area.

She does not or that lineal descendant, I shouldn't say her, a lineal descendant of that area does not have ties to like the Stadium Development District, does not have ties to, the 99 year leasehold project that we're doing or some other TOD projects. So I would argue that they shouldn't--not argue--I would suggest they not be put on the General Authority Board. They'd just serve, that person just serves on the Banyan Drive bill. Banyan Drive Committee.

Yeah. That's kind of what I was trying to get at.

Oh, okay. That, that answered your question.

I'm not trying to expand your overall board.

Please don't.

So, we can make it a 50 member board. We can call it the legislature if you want. Okay.

All joking aside, do you need the advisory council if they're on the, if they are on the, as a voting member now?

I, if they're, if they're, if a lineal descendant is gonna be on, on the voting board, then I don't think they need to be on the advisory council. The advisory council, including lineal and cultural descendants, was, I think, a suggestion in lieu of, you know, them being on the voting board. If they're gonna be on the voting board, then I, I think they don't need to be on the advisory council. And then we can also we can but we can also create the advisory council to include other stakeholders. That's, that's my thinking.

Can you, should we take the advisory council out of the bill and you just do it, or do you should we keep it in?

Why don't why don't we take it out, Chair? Why don't we take it out? I'll find a way, I'll do some research and then see if we can just create it as a kind of a board, like a kind of like a board committee or a board, you know, subcommittee or something. But I, I think we can take it out for now, for now.

Terri, did you hear the discussion? Are you okay with that? Since the voting, the lineal descendants, and the area representative will be a voting member now. Well, I'm proposing that they'll be a voting member. Do you are, you okay with doing away with the advisory council within the bill? You do we still need that?

On this particular bill, SB 2001 advisory is, you know, placed there. HB 2616 is not. I would, I would agree.

Okay. That we don't need the advisory council.

Well, I,

Because you're--

You know--

Now you're a voting member is what I'm saying. Because the--

Yes.

Lineal right? Now that the lineal descendant and the area represented is is a voting member, I would argue that the advisory council is not really needed, which goes back to your, closer to your original bill.

Yes.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. That's my question, which I wanted to clarify. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you. For all that everybody else that's not confused, do you have any questions or Okay. Okay. Thank you, members, for bearing with me. We are moving on. Next up, we have s p 2041 s p one relating to real property. Let me catch myself up. First up, we have judiciary in person.

My name is Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, top of your half member of the court services manager for the first circuit. Representing the judiciary, we stand on our written testimony, offering comment on this measure and the verbal comment section from the Chair.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have DLNR.

Do you know how to answer your question? Okay.

Next, we have Hawaii Realtors. Are our Realtors right here? No? Nobody on Zoom? Anybody else wishing to testify? We only have, what, five testimony in support or comments? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none? Okay. Let's move on. Next up, we have SB 2,599 SD two relating to the development. Development. First up, we have DBED, Loa Stadium Authority in support.

Just real quick, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you so much for for hearing the bill. My name is Mike Hidal. I'm the executive director of the Stadium Authority. You you have a written testimony in support of this piece of legislation. What I wanted to add is that we currently feel that we have everything in place needed to both build both demolition build and then also start to plan and to work out the rest of the development within the district.

We have county support. We have private financing. We have contracts that are wrapping up. What we do need is access to the $49,500,000 in preconstruction planning in that special fund so that we can ensure that our private sector development partner has the full $3.50 that was initially appropriated by the legislature. And to that end, we fully support, HCDA involvement and the formalization of our relationship with them. Thank you, sir.

K. Thank you. Next up, we have HCDA in support.

Morning again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We're in support of this bill. As you know, this bill combines the contents of 2,599, Senate bill 2,599, Senate bill 2,604 and Senate bill 3,327. Parts one and two relate to the stadium. And I wanna reiterate that we support that those bills and we're gonna be working with stadium authority, especially on 2604 to help unlock that, spending ceiling limit or increase the spending ceiling limit.

My comments mostly relate to part three of the bill, which, aims to include in the planning for community development districts, certain, features or ideas to create more complete communities. And when it was, part of 3327 we provided comments. My suggestions are just to move those, list of ideas like more parks, more, art museums from a part of the statutory framework in our, two chapter 206 E from 206 E six, which is actually a required district wide improvements to another section that is more like guidelines and aspirational items. Sometimes when we're developing communities, I mean, to have hard and fast kind of set requirements might prove kind of cumbersome. So to have it aspirational, we can take those into account as we plan for districts.

And I think that's the better way to handle it. So to put it in a new section, that's more guidelines instead of hard and fast requirements. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the people that we have, registered to testify. We had three testimonies in support of this. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none members. Are there any questions? Representative Vivo Moto. Thank you for the stadium authority. So

you said everything's kind of set. Free. So does this bill just represent the money that you mentioned was missing?

Well, HCDA has a lot of statutory authority in terms of transit oriented development, TOD zones. They can certainly play a role in helping with infrastructure bonding, particularly with phase one of the build out. A large part of our support is about unlocking and removing the ceiling on that 495 for preconstruction planning. Gotcha. But we don't begrudge HCD involvement in the slightest, particularly when helping with ensuring that kind of infrastructure bonding and phase one development. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Question. Representative, Shinizhu.

Thank you, chair. Mr. Nakamura. Morning, Mr. I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. So, the unlocking of the 49,500,000.0, is that something that is accomplished with this bill?

It is. It's it is in part, part two of the bill. So part two of the bill starts on page page 37. So that's what used to be Senate bill 2,604. So it conditions unlocking or, increasing the speed, spending limit on the 2495 on the satisfaction of certain items that require both HCDA and stadium authority to work on collaboratively.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you chair.

Questions? Yes. Representative Shimizu, I mean, you are mortal. Sorry.

Thank you. No. I guess maybe for the city of authority again. I'm sorry to call you back. So in other there are other municipalities and I guess other jurisdictions that fund stadiums through 100% through private funding. Right? And then maybe some do private public partnerships. But there are models where it's a 100%, private.

There there certainly are a couple off the top of my head that are the majority are three p projects. You're right in that this is slightly unusual in that we're we're working with this a state land development. A lot of the municipalities that you're referring to that either do with private or three p's are dealing with county. So for instance, the county of Buffalo just recently built Buffalo Bill Stadium for about $1.81900000000.0 dollars. Then when you're dealing with college stadiums like in San Diego State or you're dealing in Colorado State, you're dealing with university systems that don't necessarily pull on state resources in the same manner in which the stadium authority does.

So we're structured slightly differently. Therefore, we went with the 3P model.

So what would you say to so I've been getting feedback from some constituents who are like the cost the taxpayer dollars that are gonna be used to fund the stadium build. And then once the stadium's there and we attract these headliner stars concerts that the average citizen won't be able to afford to go and enjoy some of these concerts and some of the events that are taking place there. So there's this kind of disconnect. So it feels, for some of them, rather bougie, kind of, like, we're creating this VIP experience where the average citizen can afford to go.

May I provide a comment?

So it, it, it, it does hurt me as a former member of the board and executive director that your constituents that even one of your constituents feels that way. We're working incredibly hard with our private sector development partner in Aloha Halawa District Partners of Stanford Car Development to ensure that pricing is affordable, to ensure particularly when we're talking about University of Hawaii, Department of Education football games, and graduations, the stadium is accessible. I would counter those claims with with with the assurance that members on the board represent the community at large and everything that we are doing within the stadium authority is to make the stadium and then the rest of the district accessible to everyone within the state. And while things will look nice or bougie as you described them, The intent is also to make them accessible for every citizen so that we can genuinely display the excellence of the people here. Any

Other questions? Thank you very much for that question, representative coming from another person that can't afford to go out to the to the to the concerts that will be there. See no other questions. We are moving on. Next up, we have SB 3048 relating to the state building code council. First up, we have office of planning in support. Next, we have Hawaii Chamber of Commerce in support. Mister vice chair. I'm speaking to name Jio on behalf

I have a question.

Representative Shimizu?

Is there anyone for the state building code?

Okay. Moving on. Next up, we have SB 2002 relating to water. First up, we have the Attorney General opposition.

Good morning, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, and Members of the Committee. Alyssa Kau on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. We oppose this bill, and with particular, we have concerns about section two of the measure, which would allow SeaWorld to hire its own counsel independent of the department. Under Article five, section six of the Hawaii state constitution and sections 28 dash one and 28 dash four, The attorney general serves as the state's chief legal officer. The broad legal authority of our office was also affirmed in state v Clotenhoff, a two thou a 1990 voice report case.

The centralized model helps with a couple different things. It ensures that all the legal departments have a consistent legal position and it provides agencies with access to a broad range of subject matter expertise. So our deputies are, regularly advised on complex, regulatory procurement, open meetings and public records laws. And in particular, our water deputies also advise on other issues like public trust where these two or where these, complex topics go together. And these are areas that are unique to government practice and they're not easily replicated in private practice.

If however, an agency, believes that there's a specific need for outside counsel, there is a mechanism that's currently in Section 28 dash 8.3 of the Hawaii revised statutes. It's a two tiered model that does one thing. So the the agency can submit a request to the department of the attorney general who reviews these on a case by case basis, and makes determinations on a case by case basis. And then if the attorney general agrees with the request, then it goes to the governor for his concurrence, which allows and ensures an additional layer of review. And because we believe that this process, is already in statute and it works, relatively well.

With our agencies, we would, we would respectfully request that the committee either defer the bill or reconsider, section two of which allows CBORM to get its independent counsel. I'm available if you guys have any questions. Thank you. K.

Thank you very much. Next, we have DHHL in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Community, Oriana Leao, the Department of Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The department stands on its written testimony in support with the noted amendment to include the chairperson of the Hawaiian Homes Commission or the chair's as a voting member of Seawarm. As we are aware, DHHL's unique water rights are outlined in the state water code. However, statutory framework without voice through, voting rights or authority on the board leaves our beneficiary silence. I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have DLNR. Comments?

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Director Kira Kahane on department on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. I understand that you've received our written testimony. I wanted to highlight a few points. First, clarifying that, we do support the provisions of this bill that relate to increased penalties and water shortage enforcement powers. Regarding the sections of the bill that were few that we commented on, we do have significant concerns about those provisions that we believe would greatly benefit from further discussion with stakeholders, including the commissioners themselves as well as our staff.

So to highlight a few points, I absolutely agree that there are long standing issues with our agency, and like many of the people who testified here today, we always want to do better. The structural changes in this bill will not address what I believe to be the main operational challenges that face my agency. Most of the concerns raised about the commission, about the speed at which we process things, about how we meet our public trust obligations relate to staffing, workload, and administrative capacity rather than our governance structure. We have 33 budgeted positions and roughly a $5,000,000 operating budget for all of the freshwater resources in the state of Hawaii. We don't have dedicated procurement contracts or fiscal staff to meet these obligations and so I would ask that if this committee considers this bill that it also consider addressing some of these long standing operational constraints that have inhibited us in meeting our obligations under the public trust doctrine.

Second, I'd like to highlight that administrative attachment is not merely symbolic. It determines how an agency in the executive branch actually functions. It controls hiring, budget planning and execution, IT systems, and the implementation of our programs. And separating leadership from those systems could create operational friction rather than the independence of an agency. The proposed leadership model, changing the deputy director to an executive director raises certain concerns.

Under Sunshine Law, the performance evaluations contemplated in this bill would have to be done in public. And that structure in and of itself may make it difficult to recruit and retain experienced executive leadership for a position that already has very substantial operational responsibility. Finally, regarding reliance on a volunteer chair for executive leadership, while we value and appreciate, our members who serve in a volunteer capacity, this is a big job. It requires someone who is available, who is close. When situations come up, be they water shortages or storm events like the ones that we had over this weekend, we need someone who is who is close and who has the the capacity and the resources available to them to address these issues as they come up.

So as if this bill were to advance, we would request that this committee consider compensation and even a physical space, in Downtown Honolulu so that they can always be available, so they don't have to, to balance responsibility for being the chairperson of the commission with their day job. Mahalo nui, and I'm available if you

have any questions. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Water Supply.

Thank you, Chair. Ernie Lau, manager for the Honolulu Board of Water Supply. Aloha, everybody. We are in strong support of this bill. We support all the sections. We do have concerns about section number section eight related to the violations and the penalties, taking it up to $60,000 per violation. I'd just like to say this model has worked for the Board of Water Supply since 1929. Our chairs of the board are the volunteer community members that are paid this much.

They they serve as volunteers, unpaid, yet they have done a great job for nearly a hundred years. In 2029, we'll celebrate our hundredth year anniversary. I think having served on the commission, I can understand what the deputy director talked about in terms of lack of resources. When I served on the in in the water commission in 2003, we were faced with the very same issues. And here we are today, and the commission lacks the resources.

But I think the governance and leadership of the commission needs to be as independent as possible, especially on critical issues related to our freshwater resources that we all depend upon that our public trust resources under our constitution for the benefit of the people of Hawaii. I've always thought, even when I served as a commit deputy for the water commission that there's this inherent conflict. Not to say that the current chair and acting chair are have act in, ID with a conflict in mind, but just this, this perception of a potential conflict of being, an issuer and user of freshwater resources and also a regulator of those resources. So I would strongly support this bill, with concerns on Section eight. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Justice Henzik. He here.

Morning. Mahalo chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Isaac Moriwake on Earthjustice, standing on our testimony in strong support of this bill. And mahalo for hearing this bill, chair Hashem, and mahalo for the Senate, including senator Inouye for bringing this over and recognizing this is a real priority. So this bill implements some basic administrative improvements to help the water commission better do its job, whether it's promoting affordable housing, local sustainable agriculture, protecting our water supplies, and respecting Hawaiian rights.

This bill helps all of that. Okay? It helps the commission be more independent, professional, and focus on its mission to serve all of the people including future generations. So as the preamble explains, it's really long overdue amendments. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommended these amendments, and it's really time to just help bring this agency up to par with other agencies that oversee critical resources and none so vital as our by our our water resources.

As Ernie Lau of Board of Water Supply pointed out, you know, we we have the model there for an independent water agency. It's the Board of Water Supply. They took care of this business a hundred years ago. I just want to respond very quickly to some of the concerns. I I I really don't understand the attorney general's opposition to this bill really because it doesn't preclude their representation of this agency.

It just gives the water commission options. Okay? It it allows the water agents the the the water commission, like the Public Utilities Commission, like that whole list of agencies you see there in the statute, the option of retaining their own in house counsel and and what better agency to have that service because this is such a specialized and such a vital, Kuleana. Right? And I just don't understand the the attorney general wanting to block that because they will still be represent this agency, but the water commission would also be, equipped with that in house expertise, the legal expertise as well.

You know? And, you know, hearing deputy director Kahane's concerns absolutely support greater staff's capacity. Let's do both and and take care of this cleanup as well. I mean, I I hear that change is uncomfortable. Don't clean up the house because it may be hard or messy, and that just leaves us with a perpetually messy house.

Let's start the cleanup and start the better virtuous cycle toward a better place rather than the place where we're stuck in right now. I can go one by one to send these concerns in terms of, oh, the volunteer chair is so hard. Look. The LUC does that already. Right?

And we know all all these other agencies that handle that just fine. And so there's models out there, there's examples out there, and it's really time to bring this water commission up to par. I'm available for any questions and mahalo for this opportunity to testify.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have Senator Klub, are you gonna go? Shane? Yeah.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Wayne Tanaka the Sierra Club of Hawai'i. We're in strong support of this measure. Isaac kinda took all my talking points. I guess I'll just, add one thing.

You can say ditto.

Oh, ditto too, but

what uncle you said. And then, but, yeah, I just wanted to, you know, reflect, like, if the Board of Water Supply and if Ernie Lau weren't given the independence that were given a hundred years ago, I highly doubt he, you know, Ernie would have been able to lead the charge on Red Hill and and to really, you know, take on the the Navy for years, and that really set us up to respond to the catastrophe when it happened. And so, you know, for that reason, for for many others, I can answer any questions, but I very strongly request your support of this measure. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have Leialoha on Zoom.

Aloha, chairs, chairs, members of the committees. Leialoha Makuanani on behalf of Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs is in strong support of this bill. We stand on our written comments and emphasize "Ola i ka wai", water is life. And this precious resource has some of the greatest public trust and constitutional protections in Hawaii and deserves careful consideration to ensure that why is not only available for us, but for future generations.

So from our comments, I'll just highlight that the initial intent when the water code was established was to have an independent department to manage water separate from land and that subsequent subsequent water code reviews have reiterated that need for an autonomous water authority. And I think that, Isaac phrased it well, why why that's needed. Okay?

And then lastly, we're support we support the addition of OHA, to nominate on the nomination committee for the water commission. We have experience with recruitment and nomination for the island burial councils, and we believe it's essential that the nominating committee also has a member that is qualified enough to determine whether an applicant has the qualifications necessary.

So in particular, the expertise in traditional Hawaiian water resource management, we do believe there should be someone on the nominating committee that can determine whether they have that expertise, and we believe that we can fulfill that. I'm available for questions and we'll follow.

Is there anybody else, like, in the room wishing to testify? Go ahead.

Ted Bohlen for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. You have my written testimony, and I'll stand on that. I just wanna say I was a deputy attorney general for fifteen years doing enforcement cases on water, and I really think that it'll be good to have the independence for Seawarm that's called for in this bill, all the aspects of it, because it's a it's a special issue that needs some independence and and the kind of model that we've got with Ernie Lau's group as an example. So I would support this bill strongly. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify? So no. James? James on Zoom.

Hello, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Kimo Langa, deputy water supply. We submitted our comments testimony and would like to emphasize 0.3 on that testimony. So West Maui is at a critical infra in critical juncture right now. We're trying to develop several more water resources to support the rebuild process.

We believe the team and deputy and staff have done an excellent work on the surface and groundwater management area permits process. It's very complicated issue and any setbacks will delay the completion of the critical infrastructure projects moving forward. The department still believes that a more comprehensive collaboration on the changes would further enhance the bill. I stand by for any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Next up, we have Jamie Devera on Zoom.

Hi, good morning. Aloha Chair Hashim, Vice Chair Morikawa and members of the committee. My name is Jamie Devera and I strongly support SB 2002 Senate draft two because it improves how Hawaii's commission on water resource management operates and ensures the water code is applied fairly and consistently. This bill also helps protect water as a shared public resource that supports communities, the environment, and the economy. It strengthens the commission's independence, transparency, and authority, allowing it to make decisions in the best interest of the public, but also rather than private interests.

In reference to my written testimony, I'd like to also really emphasize that this measure supports our ethical responsibility by improving how water is managed over time and by strengthening enforcement of water loss. In regards to ethical responsibility, it's really important to have a moral duty to take care of Hawaii's water in a fair and a sustainable way, not just for the people today, but also for future generations.

It's about making the right choices to prevent harm such as overusing or wasting water. Most importantly, having stronger rules and clear authority to manage water shows that we need to take action now to protect these resources for future generations. For these reasons, I urge the legislature to pass this important measure.

Thank you for the opportunity to support this SB 2002.

Okay. Next up, we have Shelby Billionaire. Zoom?

Aloha, guys. Picture Shelby Billinger representing Aloha, Hawaiian Kingdom and the Ohana Union Party. So I'll be straight. I wanna support this bill because we're one of the most important water reforms this session.

It gives the commission on water resource by the SeaWarm. I didn't know what the hell you guys were talking about. I thought it was like a Leviathan. So it's gonna be independent cultural grounding enforcement teeth that's been needed for decades. The SeaWarm has been a puppet for the deal in our politics, and now it's adding real traditional Hawaiian experience.

And, you know, the penalties, the earnings I mentioned, 60k per day. So the key purpose, the why you should pass it, you know, there should be some amendments because the AG is complaining because the independent legal counsel with this bill passing is gonna be forced to the attorney general's monopoly over their control.

Also, the commission elected chairperson is also gonna change things with DLNR and the health. The executive director appointed by accountable to SeaWarm, not the governor or DLNR. The administrative attachment to DLNR to support is only so you can have free separation.

The nominating committees, I can go on and on about this stuff. But the reason why it should pass this is breaks the clear political choke hold on water decisions because Ernie Lau likes it should be independent. They should have their own legal counsel. And then finally, Senator on native Hawaiian knowledge, it gives the SeaWarm real enforcement power instead of just paper tigers, prepares the climate crisis like the storm you just saw, the drainage dips in Nanakuli, Waialua, everything. We're gonna need more support, and that's why I urge you to support and pass this bill.

Thank you very much. Aloha.

Okay. We have numerous testimony and support and opposition on this bill. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Representative Shimizu.

You know, we have, a lot of testimony in support and some very apparently valid reasons to support this bill. As the person that's directly affected. I don't like to force somebody to do something they don't want to do, because you're the, you're the most affected and I I'd like to be, amenable to that. So with with with these changes, how will you implement these changes if this bill is passed as it looks like it is gonna move forward?

As far as the agency itself, I'm it'll be a big period of of transition. I haven't I don't fully understand, what the transition plan is myself, to be honest with you. On July 1st, what would happen to my position when the executive director would be created, things of that nature. We'll keep doing the work as best as we can and try to get things in place so that, you know, whoever comes on afterward is is in a good position to, to start as ED.

So then I mean, I I don't understand, you know, the the current structure. So right now, are you the person that's in charge? Or

I'm the I'm the deputy director. So, it it's my position that would be repealed by the bill and replaced with an executive director. Currently, Ryan Kanaka'ole serves as the acting chair of the Commission on Water Resource Management. So if this bill were to pass in its current form, he would not be eligible to serve as the chair of the commission anymore. It would be one of the five volunteer members that we presently have on the commission.

And so I imagine, you know, any election would have to take place. We would probably have to get rules in place, change our administrative rules in order to, you know, contemplate elections, things of that nature. That's currently not addressed in the bill. Those are some of the operational things that we would actually have to think through were this to advance.

Alright. Thank you for your service. Thank thank you, chair.

Thank thank you. Representative Iwamoto.

We have a question from the attorney general's office. So there were a couple testimonies that that really pushed back against the attorney general's past practices regarding, some of the exciting cases, specifically Supreme Court cases that basically found the attorney general's office not, in the best light.

And we heard testimony that this would just be plan b in case the attorney general chooses not to step in and and represent, the water stewards and advocates and community. So this just offers another additional kind of support mechanism that, yeah. Can you respond at all to some of the various, specific points that were raised in the testimonies?

Sure. So I'll answer your question in in three parts. The first is I'll address, what our position is on the cases. And then second, I'll address or sorry, did you say three? I'll, I'll talk about two parts. One is the cases and, and what our position is with respect to that. And two, I'll speak with, some of the testimony with respect to this is just an alternate. So why do you care? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be that flippant.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's kind

of what I, I assume. Okay. So with the cases, you know, I can't speak to, any of the past decision making that was done by any of our prior deputies. Decision making that was done by any of our prior deputies. And we acknowledge that there are cases that have expressed concerns, regarding our position in water related decisions and litigation.

So I just want to be upfront about that. From the department's perspective, our role is to provide objective legal advice based on the law. So our role is not to advance the interests of any particular party. And I know that that, was raised in, in, either particular testimony or particular case. And I think the question before this committee today is how best to structure legal representation going forward.

And we, we stand by our position that the current framework, in keeping, in having the attorney general represent CWRM provides the agency with both accountability and flexibility while maintaining consistency in our advice across state government. And we, we just want to say that we take these court rulings seriously and we incorporate them into our legal advice.

So when the courts have said, this is how you're going to consider, or this is another factor to consider in our water making decisions. We do, take that into account. And we I don't think that the cases stand for broad restructuring of how legal government or or how the legal services are supposed to work for the agency.

To the second point, Rep Iwamoto, you spoke about, you know, what is my response to this is just an alternate. And I think that I would go back to our constitutional authority or our responsibilities under Article five, Section six, and sections 21 and 24. The default, it's not just the alternate, but the default is that the attorney general represents state agencies, And that we do have a waiver process. So if SeaWorld at any time believe that our representation was not adequate or there's a potential conflict, we do have that mechanism in 28 dash 8.3 that says,

you know, that that where we can evaluate and decide whether those con you know, there's a conflict there and whether independent, counsel is appropriate. I also heard concerns, that, you know, in the testimony that some of the testifiers have said, look, that there's specialized agencies that employ independent counsel.

However, from our perspective, the current framework that we have and how we set up our councils, it's designed to ensure both the independent decision making and consistency in the state's legal positions. So while we understand that they have concerns about access to counsel, we believe that the existing laws provide a mechanism to see for SeaWarm to seek that outside of council, outside counsel when appropriate. So I think I answered your questions, but just want to make sure. Thank you. Thank you.

Representative Poepoe.

For what you just described for the SeaWarm, they have an avenue to seek outside counsel, but the attorney general would be the one to evaluate whether or not they can.

So that would be yes. In part. So it's a two part, evaluation is one, the or so I'll just describe the process. So an agency would submit their request and they would say, for these reasons, we're asking for outside counsel, or special counsel. The AG's office, yes, would make the the request, but there's a second layer of review. And that would be that the governor's the governor would have to provide his concurrence and make and and review that request himself as well. Thank you.

Yeah. I think that's, what the bill is trying to alleviate in the process is that layered approach and to give the SeaWarm more flexibility in being able to have that counsel selected directly or that option to seek outside counsel directly. And part of the issue well, during after the Maui fires, we saw the attorney general's representative continue to say that there was not enough water to fight the fires and the council the County legal representation say that that is not true. And, I think for me, that was a moment of realization that, we do need to look at how legal representation for, the SeaWarm specifically can be better met. So thank you.

There's another question.

Oh, I'm sorry. For SeaWarm. We've we've this line of questioning regarding the AG. What are your thoughts on your the SeaWarm's relationship with AG and and ability to give you the option of private I'm sorry. I don't wanna wanna put you on the spot, but we're speculating how it affects you, and I figured I'd ask you.

Not at all. And I'm sorry to be frank in my answer, but we need to pay our independent counsel too. So some of the things that I talked about with our capacity and our budget also need to be addressed for us to even exercise the ability to retain independent counsel. Now me, I don't we didn't take a position on the ability to retain independent legal counsel in our testimony. I think a lot of folks may be assuming that we always listen

to our attorneys.

As my as my lawyers probably can tell you, I don't always listen to their legal advice. They they say that lawyers make the worst clients, and I I think that might be true. So, you know, I I I would like to have I don't have a problem with having the option, but in order to be able to exercise the option, I think we really do need to address some of the the capacity issues that I mentioned earlier.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Let me go to chair. Yeah.

Sorry. K. Any other. We're moving on. Next up, we have SB 2363 relating to colonies. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs on Zoom.

Aloha Leialoha Makuanani on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian affairs. We don't have a position on this bill, but we're providing comments in the implementation if this bill were to pass. We're just asking that, it consider in the in in the event of a closure by the county that Native Hawaiian organizations are consulted during that process to consider the protected rights of Native Hawaiians and access and resource use. I am available for questions. Mahalo.

Next up, we have, while we have testimony from DLNR, do you wanna stand? Is anybody here to answer for that?

We'll stand on our written testimony, thank you.

Next, we have City and County of Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in person on behalf of the City and County of Honolulu. My name is Eugene Albano, director and chief engineer of the department of facility maintenance.

And we are in strong support of SB 2363 to restrict or close public lands under county's jurisdiction when necessary to protect public health, ensure public safety, and preserve natural and cultural resources. This was pretty evident this past weekend in which if this bill passes, the counties have the ability to provide some measures to mitigate some of the disaster response that occurred.

And so, we strongly support on, we strongly support this bill moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the people that we have registered to testify. We only have about five testimony in support. One in opposition. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, I got a simple question. Hey, represent East Honolulu Kalanianaole Highway When the tsunami threat came, you guys literally shut down the highway with the police. Don't you already have this power?

The state does. The city does not have. So this would be in line with state authority. That that is the difference. So Kalanianaole is under state jurisdiction.

Okay. Thank you very much. I did not know that. Good. Appreciate it. Any other questions? Seeing none. We're moving on. Next up, we have SB 2674. Relating to counties. First up, we have Office of Planning, in support.

Yes, we stand on written testimony.

side. Okay. Next, we have, enterprise technology services. Enterprise technology services stands on his side. Okay. Next, we have Kautia of Maui. Are you on? Nobody on Zoom. We have five testimony, four testimonies with comments or support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members are there any questions? Seeing none, we're moving on. Next up, we have SB 2972 2972 SD One relating to Oahu Kao Reef restoration. First up, we have DLNR, DAR, Department of Aquatic Resources. Go ahead.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brian Nielsen on behalf of DLNR. We stand on our written testimony, providing comments and appreciating the intent of the bill. Next.

Hawaii reef ocean coalition. Ted, I know you're k. Go ahead.

Thank you, chair. Ted Bohlen for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Strong support for this bill.

The, reefs in Oahu need their herbivores, which are currently depleted down to, I understand, 5% of their capacity. These herbivores are essential for cleaning the reef, and we need to have this temporary this bill is a temporary ban on night spearfishing of two species of herbivores, which are critical. They sleep at night, you come through with a spear, and you can, you know, clean off the reef pretty quick. And that's what's been happening, and it's really hurting the reefs. So Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition feels very strongly this bill is essential for protecting the reefs, on which our life in Hawaii really depends.

And, this bill is just a temporary ban while the DLNR completes its whole process, but they're not gonna be able to get to that in Oahu who've excuse me. They're not even gonna get to that for a couple years in Oahu. So it's gonna be at least four years before they finish that process, and we need some kind of stopgap here to protect the, resource while they go through that process, which I support process. It's just we need something to act to act as a stop gap now. So that's why we're strongly supporting this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Portion Legislative Task Force.

Yep. Aloha, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, and Members of the Committee. My name is Hannah Lisiak, and I'm testifying in strong support on behalf of the Ocean Legislative Task Force. This measure is essential for maintaining the populations of Uhu and Kala in state waters around the island of Oahu until DARS Holamua Marine Initiative is completed and they have adopted applicable regulations. These two fish populations play a crucial role within our coral reef ecosystems, and we must ensure that their numbers are maintained especially in the face of climate stressors.

Larger uhu also consume dead coral, and excrete fine sand contributing to the formation and replenishment of Hawaii's beaches. We have to protect our marine ecosystems now in order for them to thrive in the future. And I also wanna echo Ted Our task force represents over 160 individuals across over 20 organizations, and we wanna thank you for hearing this measure.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have Randall Kosaki.

Aloha, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Randy Kosaki. I'm a marine scientist. I've been doing research on our coral reefs here in Hawaii for over forty years. I just retired from NOAA.

I've submitted more detailed written testimony. I largely stand on that. I just wanna use my few seconds here to underscore the time sensitivity of passing this bill and that our level of herbivores, as Ted Golden noted, is down to 5% of what it should be. So we are that close to losing our coral reefs. So I thank you in advance for your support of this bill. Okay. Thank you.

Mark Hixon on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Hashem, Vice Chair Morikawa, and Committee Members. The previous people pretty much summarize what I wanted to say, but I wanted to make it very clear that that my written testimony as a professor of marine biology, speaking as an individual today, summarizes data that were gathered by many scientists documenting very clearly that herbivorous fishes that clean our reefs so the corals can flourish are severely depleted around the island of Oahu. These data were presented to the DAR Herbivore Working Group that was convened last year, yet no action was taken and no action is planned for years. This very much upset many of the scientists who were on that working group because in our experience, such data would stimulate immediate remedial action elsewhere in the world. Truly, as Doctor Kosaki said, the survival of our coral reefs is at stake.

So all I could add is that night spearfishing is nearly is neither traditional nor pono. And my colleagues and I urge you to pass SB 2972. Mahalo. I'm happy to answer any questions. 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, any questions? Representative Morikawa.

For DARS, how how will you notify people about this new regulation if this passes?

If it passes, how would we notify, I guess we would put out announcements on our web page, get the word out through our our networks.

And I I didn't read everything, but what is the penalty? What would the penalty be if someone was caught doing this? But then again, it says knowingly. Knowingly. So if you're unknowingly doing it.

Yeah. For criminal penalties, I believe it's two up to a $150 fine, but up to a thousand, but then we can also pursue civil penalties as well.

I'm just worried because I'm not thinking back long ago where kids used to go diving and they do this at night. How will they know that this is not allowed now?

So we just enacted a similar, regulation for our Mauna Loa Bay, banning night spearfishing. It was a fisher led, proposal. And so we've tried to do outreach with the community. There is a whole series of community meetings that we held, and then we're also working on putting up signage at access points as well. So that's kind of typically how we get the word out.

Okay. That's just the whole thing. Thank you.

Okay. Members, any other questions? No questions? No. I have a question. A lot of times we talk we hear about poaching. Because even if we put this ban on, this poaching will not stop, will it? How can we better address this issue?

Yeah. For addressing poaching, so legislature has provided tremendous support to DOCARE. We've seen, I think, almost a doubling of the number of officers in the last few years. So so that's huge. And then getting, officers out at night when, you know, more violations occur.

The other, tool is McKay watch. That's another program that, the legislature has, has supported. We're seeing a green fee, request into support McKay watch. So that's, you know, bringing communities together to help enforcement through outreach and education and then also being able to notify DOCARE officers. So I think those are two tools. Another is just simple regulations that are easy to explain and comprehend by the the common fisher, as well as kind of another tool that we use. So outreach and education.

Do you need more resources? Absolutely, yes. Here, what I'm trying to get at is, personally, I don't like when the legislature overrides the department. Because you have a process in place and I don't think we should override your process. Because, like, you went through the whole process at Moanalua Bay.

Moanalua Bay. And so thank you very much for that. And I would and always we always hear that when people when we put legislation in like this, people it doesn't prevent the bad actors. And what I'm trying to get at is, how can we be more effective in stopping the bad actors? Or how can we help you do your job better rather than so you can go through your process. Yeah. So Rather than putting a blanket ban and overrunning your process.

That that's true. And, you know, fortunately, this bill does sunset after the Holomua process, so we're not gonna have a rule in in perpetuity and and statute. So that that is one good thing. But in addition to the enforcement resources that I described, just good management, good science, also just people on the ground working with the fishing community so they understand the regulations and understand the science and what the population status and understand the problems. The land based issues too, those are also a major structure on these these populations.

How the increasing fines, would that work?

I don't know if that's we we do have pretty good ability through our civil process to, you know, up to a thousand dollars per violation. So I don't know if that's the best deterrent, but I think, you know, more more officers on the ground, more McKay watch, more outreach. I think those are what are are gonna help.

Okay. Representative Pointway.

Thank you. For DLNR. So what are the current regulations for Ubud and Kama?

Yeah. So the the division developed a sustainable herbivore plan in 2022 because we're also concerned about herbivore populations, reef resilience, but also sustainable fisheries. Out of that plan, we developed statewide rules for Uhu and Kala and a couple of other herbivore species, Munini and Kole. So, we set a statewide bag limit of four Kala per person per day and two Oahu per person per day. We also set annual catch limits for Oahu and Kala60,000 pounds per year for Oohoo statewide and 15,000 pounds a year for Kala and that's for commercial, fisheries.

We also require a special permit for a commercial harvest of Oohoo and Kala as well and a special permit to sell those species. So those were kind of the statewide rules. Yeah.

And for this bill, it's, specifically for the taking by spearing, but what about the taking by netting?

Yeah. So this this wouldn't this wouldn't touch netting, but night spearing is, you know, one of those activities that DOCARE officers has told us, you know, it's hard to enforce at night. They think there's, you know, lots of illegal activity happening at night in in certain areas. So it is, one of those kind of fisheries of concern or activities of concern. Okay.

Thank you. I have one, you can step in. I have one more question. Anybody else have questions? No? Last question. When you were presented with the data or Dar was presenting with the data that the other people testify, Why wasn't there any action put in place or what action did you take?

Yeah. So we have taken a number of actions on herbivore management, as I just mentioned. The statewide rules, those were just passed, I think, two years ago or three years ago, there was no catch limits for Uhuru and Kala before that. No commercial limits either. We also just, as you know, for your district, we just passed the, no night spearfishing for Mauna Loa Bay.

So to say that we're not taking action is, you know, I I don't agree with that. We're also trying to step up the scientific side. We hired a stock assessment scientist to conduct stock assessments on, Kala and Uhu, so we are taking action. We're watching the science, but I don't think we move as fast as what academia would like us to. I think that's an age old issue between academia and and management.

They want us to move like that, and we wanna bring the fishers with us in those actions. But I do agree this is an important issue. It's just kind of weighing, like, what's the right tool and can we bring people along with us in in supporting it.

An issue came up before. Are you allowed to just put not a ban, but regulation only on Oahu? Because this bill Special legislation. No, not special legislation, but this bill specifically addresses Oahu. Yeah.

Right? You did a statewide catch in. Is there can you do, like, a stricter limitation just for Oahu?

Yes. Yeah. We we have the ability to do that. And Oahu has got many other issues that some of the other islands don't. And so, I think that's why the focus is on Oahu for this bill.

Will you be doing? How long would that take?

So and and I think mister Boland's, you know, testimony is is pretty close. We would be looking at doing a community planning process probably starting in 2028. But by the time we see rules through that, it could be 2030. So it it would take some time. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Do you have to go through rules?

And then we'd have to yeah. That's part of the rule making process. So the community planning could take a year plus and the rule making process is another Just for Oahu. Just for Oahu.

Yeah. Okay. I don't have any more questions. You guys made me feel guilty enough for going night diving. So and eating spirit food. Any any anything else? No? We're moving on. Sorry for holding up the hearing. K. Next up, we have s p 2372 relating to trees. Give me a minute here. First up, we have DOTAX.

Okay. Next, we have DLNR.

Okay. Is Outdoor Circle here?

We stand on written testimony in support.

Aloha, committee members. I'm Winston Welch, executive director of the Outdoor Circle, and we stand on our written, testimony that was submitted. But in case you haven't had a chance to read it just briefly, this is a widely supported noncontroversial bill, because it addresses what's happened in the last five decades.

We've had a lot of urban forestry science and exceptional tree program information in those intervening years. So this, update simply positions us as one of the the the best in the world.

So it's it's a model for for others, and, it just updates some selection criteria, as well as, you know, getting us to best practices. A couple of important things is it creates a secondary tier of significant trees which don't rise to the threshold of an exceptional tree program.

It also creates a state arborist advisory committee that will help promote consistency, reduce fragmentation, and, you know, ensure some strategic long term canopy planning without creating any additional regulatory obligations, tax impacts, or changes to county authority. So we do feel and ask that you support this thoughtful and necessary evolution to Hawaii's exceptional tree program to protect our trees for future generations, and we urge you to pass this measure. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. That means all the people that we have registered to testify. We have about 10 or 15 individuals all in support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Question, oh, Representative Shimizu.

Question for DLNR, is it DLNR? Will there be a cost for this, new advisory committee?

Not for the committee. As a comment, we suggested it would be useful to have someone on staff to manage that committee and provide support through our urban and community forestry program.

So right now it would be like a voluntary committee?

As it stands now, every County has an arborist advisory committee. And for example, I serve on the committee for Honolulu and it's a volunteer position, appointed by the mayor.

Sure. Can I ask a follow-up? So I, I guess my thought is instead of establishing this state committee, since we and I forgive me if I'm, I'm not understanding the the total situation, but there is county business. Correct? So would it be an option instead of forming this state committee to just have one state person that's leader to be with these counties to accomplish this, this bill is, is requesting? In a way less is more, you know what I mean?

Yeah. I mean, I, as, you know, we are open to working out different ways to, to achieve this. The goal really, I mean, the point I want to make is that exceptional trees might be beautiful, but these are not beautification. You know, they're not nice to do. Our large trees provide all of the important services that we rely on for our survival.

You know, small trees are better than no trees, but it's these really large trees, these exceptional trees that are, are so critical. So the idea is to provide more support to the counties sometimes. We have seen that, you know, the embrace of the program and the support from the volunteer members can vary as, as, across counties.

And so this would be providing additional support, and really bringing the program, you know, up to modern times, it's been in existence for fifty years. So there are some things we've learned over that time.

Right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we are moving on. Next up, we have HCR 14 authorizing or not. HC, yeah. It's Concurrent Resolution. HCR 14, authorizing the issuance of a preferred potential non exclusive easement. First up, we have DLNR in support.

Stands by our written testimony. I'm here for questions, if you have.

Do you have an, take a visual. That's all the people that we have. I just took the test, testify. Mark McGuffie and so forth. That's all the registered testimonies that we got. We got three testimonies. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Nobody on Zoom? Members, are there any questions? Representative Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. For DLNR. So I think you pointed out that this easement is actually three separate easements within the. So, do you need this? Does it need to be modified? Does it need to be invented in order accurately reflect what's happening?

The area is covered. It should be okay. I believe if you guys wanted to make amendments, though, I think it would be good. I was thinking this all here. I think I think it would be it would be good to reflect it if if you can. But otherwise, I think because the entire area is covered, it should be also okay.

Okay. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we will recess to get off.

Hey. We are reconvening our committee on water and land. First up, we have SB 2799. Chair's recommendation is to defer this bill because we're gonna after I put this on the agenda, I got feedback that people prefer SB 1432. So we put that on the agenda for Thursday.

So we'll be using SB 1432 as the vehicle since that's the preferred bill. So this one, SB 2799 is the third. Next up, we have SB 3247 SD1 relating to Hawaiian affairs. The chair's recommendation is to pass no. Defer this time served into the end of the agenda on Thursday through March 18 or March 19.

Sorry. Thank you for the correction. So end of the agenda for Thursday, March 19. I need a little bit more time to work this through. So that's deferred for now.

Next up, we have SB 2001 SD1 relating to Daniel Drive. The chair's recommendation is to add a lineal descendant or what's the language? Put a lineal descendant as a voting member. Also, so this is referring to the two community members, the two representatives of Waiakea Community Development District. One member shall be a lineal descendant, and the other member shall be a non or a lineal descendant that resides in the district.

Yes. They're a voting member. And a nonprofit or a business in the in the district not district. In the Agupua'a. Chris is the not district, but in the Ahupua'a. So it's a nonprofit or a business in the Ahupua'a. And so and also take out the voting. Take out so for the the community members, they will not be a voting member in the larger HCDA. Right? It doesn't make sense.

They didn't right? It doesn't make sense for the people in Hilo to be voting on the stadium authority. It's not really relevant. OHA gets to pick the lineal descendants and the cultural specialist, and we'll take out the advisory board. And this is all that came out today in the screen. Yeah. Is there any comments or concerns? Yes.

I was just inquiring, are you changing the name to the, the new name or not?

I don't Yes. I'll put it in the committee hearing because I think we might have a title issue if we do that. So we'll put it in the committee hearing. I mean, yeah, the Committee Committee Report to look into the title issue of the new name.

Okay? Thank you. I appreciate you, inserting a lineal descendent with voting rights. Thank you.

So you'll be voting yes?

Yes.

Okay. Very good. Oh, we lost a member. I think your question drove him away. Okay. Vice chair for the vote. Oh, okay.

We're voting on SB 2001 SD1 recommendation to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Rep. Polari, excused. Rep. Ichiyama?

Aye.

Rep. Iwamoto?

Aye.

Rep. Poepoe?

Rep. Witsen is excused. And Rep. Shimizu?

Aye.

Aye.

Rep. Souza?

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is amounted.

Oh, thank you very much. We have all aye votes and no reservations. Thank you. Okay. Next up, we have SB 2041 SD1 relating to real property.

Chair's recommendation is to eliminate, bear with me on this. So we're gonna eliminate on page three or we're gonna eliminate all of Section five, and then we're gonna eliminate all of Section six. Okay? So what I'm gonna do is, basically, on page three, where it says no later than 01/01/2029. I'm gonna make it no later than 01/01/2030 to give them a little bit more time.

And on page three, line twelve, section that line twelve, number two, I'm gonna eliminate all of that. So line twelve and thirteen, that will be eliminated. So, basically, what it does is as of 1/01/2030, there will be no new applications for Landcorp. Whatever they have in the hopper, well, they can continue to work on. So it doesn't there's not a drop dead date that there's not a drop dead date that we can continue to work on this.

So, basically, they're gonna just stop taking new applications as of that day. So it keeps the working group intact so they can figure out what they're gonna do with the with all the appropriations, records, equipment, and also the staff. So the working group will be intact. And on page five, line thirteen, the working group shall submit a report to the legislature. As in line thirteen, it says, for the regular session of 2029, I mean, 2028, we're gonna change that to 2029.

So we're gonna give them an additional year. Any comments or concerns?

Can I just ask, were these recommendations made by the Judiciary or DLNR? Because I know they submitted some

Yes. They came in and they said because their staff doesn't just work on land court issues. They work on other stuff. So that's why rather than moving the staff to or is that, Bureau of Conveyances, the staff will stay there. So the issue of their staff will, right?

The issue that the judiciary brought up about their staff goes away. Their equipment, their issues about their, the equipment and everything else goes away. And I'm hoping that the working group will address what to do with the staff. Okay. Right?

Okay. So, Chair, I'll be voting with reservations only because I wanna look at this a little bit more closely, but I do wanna support it moving on.

All right. Any other comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. We're voting on SB 2041 SD1, recommendation's to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Rep. Belatti and Woodson, any other reservations besides Rep Iwamoto? Any no votes? Recommendation's adopted.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have SB 2599 SD2 relating to development. Chair's recommendation is we pass this out with an HD1. Oh, I forgot to. All the bills that are on the docket, we will be doing tech technical amendments and defect date to 07/01/3000. So with that, we're moving on to SB 2599 SD2.

Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD one, and we're just gonna take ACDA's amendments to make the aspirational guidelines. Any comments or concerns?

Chair, I'm gonna be voting no on this bill, given some of my constituents, expressions not supporting, a 100% publicly funded, stadium, where other jurisdictions are having stadiums built with private money. And my concern that I raised that was addressed regarding high ticket prices that become very exclusionary, for an average taxpayer. Even though there was an acknowledgment that they're gonna try not to make it so expensive, unless it's codified in some way. So for those two reasons, and also just to finally say, I am serving my district to get a broader perspective on this, and if my district does respond that they support public moneys being used for the stadium, then I will change my vote with the board. Thank you.

No problem. Any other comments or concerns? Seeing none vice chair for the vote.

Okay. We're voting on SB 2599 SD2 recommendation to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Eladi and Wilson and the no vote of Iwamoto. Any other no's, any reservations?

You have no reservations on that.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up, we have SB 3048 SD1 relating to the state building code council. Chair's recommendation is just to pass this out with an HD1 detecting the date to 07/01/3000. That's basically it. Any comments or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Okay. We're voting on SB 2048 SD1, recommendation to pass with amendments. Voting is excuse absence of the Belatti and Woodson. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

K. Next up next up is SB 2002 SB2 relating to water. Chair's recommendation. What we're gonna do is defer this to Thursday. Thursday end of session 3/19. I need a little bit more time to go through this.

Being such a serious issue about water and the big changes that are in place, I need a little bit more time to work through this bill. So with that, it's it's for decision making on Thursday, March 19. Next up, we have SB 2363. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1 and defer to 7/1/3000. That's it.

Comments or concerns? Thank you, chair. Are you what about the amendments that OHA's recommended adding language?

Oh, to put them on to I don't know if that's a really good idea. In an emergency situation, I thought about that. But, like, a good example would be the tsunami warning. I don't think they have time to go back to ask OHA if what alright. The concerns that they have. When in an emergency situation, they may have to ask. And that might they might that might make it difficult. Mhmm. So I thought about that. Good comment.

But I so I'm with reservations whether you include that or not. Okay. Thank you.

Any com any other comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair from the vote.

Okay. We're voting on SB 2363. Recommendation to pass with an eminence. Holding excuse absence of Bilotti and Woodson. Reservations of. Any other reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

K. Next up, we have SB 2673 relating to counties. Chair's recommendation is to pass this out with an HD1. We're just gonna take OPSD's amendments. And that's a defect date to 07/01/3000. I don't think we need PAC amendments, but PAC amendments if needed. Any comments or concerns? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Okay. We are voting on SB 2673 SD1. Recommendation pass with amendments. Noting excuse absence of the Belatti and Woodson. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much, members. Next up. SB 2972, 2972 SD1 relating to coral reef restoration. Okay.

I'm gonna defer this to Time Circum, Thursday, March 19. What I what came out what came out on the hearing is that I don't DLNR needs a process so that way they can put emergency rules in place. So when they're presented with the situation like the the scientists did, that they don't have to go through their regular rule making process. So I'm gonna work with DLNR to try and put something in place. So I'll be back.

We'll put this on the agenda for decision making on for Thursday, 3/19. Next up, SP 2372 relating to trees. Chair's recommendation is to cast this off with an HD1, detecting the date and text amendments. Unless anybody has issues with spectacular trees. Seeing none.

My concern was what I had asked the question is instead of creating more bureaucracy, if we could just streamline it into, one state coordinator coordinating with, with the existing counties. Okay. So, so I will

Can we put that in the committee report?

Sure. I would appreciate that.

Will you vote yes then? I I You might? Yes.

Yeah. Sure. Okay.

Great. We got a yes vote. So we'll put that in the committee report. How's that? Great. Thank you for your yes vote. Okay. Vice chair for the vote.

Okay. We're voting on s p 2372 s t two. Recommendation to pass with amendments. Noting excuse the body and Woodson. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation without.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your restful. Next up, we have HCR 14. Chair's recommendation is to pass this off as is.

Any comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. We are voting on HCR 14. Recommendations to pass unamended. Noting excused absence of the body and what's that. Any reservations? Any noes?

Yeah. We are