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.

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.

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.

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